Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Who Are Asians Anyway?

Who Are “Asians” Anyway—And Why Are We Giving Them Affirmative Action
Benefits?

By Steve Sailer

"I’ve shown recently that simple arithmetic proves the “Sailer Strategy”—by which the Republican Party would worry less about “outreach” to hostile minorities and more about “inreach” to mobilize its natural white base—will be viable for a surprisingly long time, despite current immigration policy.


But it will obviously help if some minorities can be persuaded to be
less enthusiastic about the Democrats. In devising any long-term
strategy for preventing one-party Democrat rule in America, the Asian
vote, which went for Obama 62-35 over McCain, must be analyzed
especially closely.

A generation from now, Hispanics will have an abundance of votes, but
Asians will have plenty of money and brainpower. Hispanics will
naturally continue to gravitate toward the tax-and-spend party, but
Asians are more unpredictable. With their higher earning power,
Asians, in theory, might not prove hostile to a party advocating
limited government. On the other hand, if Asians continue their
current shift to the left, their talents will magnify the impact of
their numbers.

I’ll discuss the Asian vote in detail in an upcoming column, but
today’s essay will merely explore the political implications of one
basic question:

* Who are “Asians” anyway?

Asia is an awfully big place. It has four billion people inhabitants.
Is everybody from Asia an “Asian” according to U.S. government
regulations?

For instance, everybody would agree that, say, Daniel Inouye, the
Democratic Senator from Hawaii for the last 46 years, is Asian because
his parents were Japanese.

But what about Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a
potential 2012 Presidential candidate? Is the blue-eyed Daniels an
Asian? After all, he is of Syrian Christian descent, and Syria is in
Asia.

Well, of course not! Everybody knows that West Asians aren’t whom we
are talking about when we talk about “Asians”.

Then, how about Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana? He
is of Asian Indian descent. Does that make him an “Asian” Asian?

Funny you should ask. See, Jindal was officially Caucasian for the
first decade of his life. But then the Reagan Administration changed
him to an Asian. So now he’s an Asian.

To begin at the beginning: originally, the concoction of the overall
“Asian” category was another folly of the Nixon Administration. Rather
than simply continuing to tabulate separately each of the mutually
antagonistic East Asian nationalities, with their lurid histories of
aggression and atrocity against each other, Nixon’s Office of
Management and Budget lumped them together into the single racial
category of “Oriental Americans”, making them a legally-protected
class able to sue for disparate impact.

Nixon’s creation of an “Oriental” category (later changed to “Asian”
to entrap unfashionable people who fail to keep up with the latest PC
nomenclature shifts) inevitably called into existence a pan-East Asian
class of activists to protect and extend their racial privileges.

As I argued when reviewing Sandra Day O’Connor’s disastrous, Bush-
backed, majority opinion in the Grutter quota case, if the government
announced that people born on Wednesdays were now a legally preferred
class, there would soon spring up pressure groups with names like The
Children of Woe to lobby for more Wednesdaytarian power. PBS would run
Wednesday Pride documentaries during Wednesday History Month about
esteem-building people born on Wednesdays, such as Jimmy Carter, Bruce
Lee, and Rosie O’Donnell.

Of course, the (relatively) good news about “Asians” is that since
they tend toward competence, they benefit from fewer quotas than
blacks and Hispanics. Thus the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s notorious Four-Fifths Rule for detecting disparate impact
results in de facto quotas for Asians much less often than for Non-
Asian Minorities (NAMs).

Still, those Asian activists are in action. Thus, back in the 1970s
when Gov. Jindal was a child, Indian and Pakistani immigrants and
their offspring were legally considered racially Caucasian, in
accordance with the general findings of physical and genetic
anthropology. But then, Indian immigrant businessmen clamored for the
Small Business Administration’s low-interest minority business
development loans. So, in 1982, the Reagan Administration lumped
immigrants from the Indian subcontinent in with East Asians, declaring
them all to be “socially or economically disadvantaged” Asians.

This is the result: Imagine you are a Taliban terrorist from the
mountainous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. You immigrate
to America. If you are from the Pakistan side of the Khyber Pass, you
are now officially “Asian”, and you qualify for taxpayer-subsidized
low-interest loans. But if you are from the Afghanistan side, you are
officially white and are out of luck at getting a government loan.

Got it?

Lumping together East Asians and South Asians is transparently bogus.
Pyong Gap Min, a professor at Queens College in New York City, pointed
out:

"[Asian] is a political term used by Asian-American activists and
enhanced by governmental treatment. In terms of culture, physical
characteristics, and pre-migrant historical experiences, I have
argued, South and East Asians do not have commonalities and as a
result, they do not maintain close ties in terms of friendship,
intermarriage or sharing neighborhoods."

The Reagan Administration’s attempt to bribe a talented pressure
group, the Indians, by declaring them legally nonwhite is another
example of the shallow short-term thinking about race that has left
the Republican Party with its future in doubt.

It’s absolutely nuts for Republicans to expand a system under which
immigrants can win money and prizes by declaring themselves victims of
whites.

You don’t make friends that way, you make enemies. It’s basic human
nature.

Unfortunately, almost everybody thinks about diversity in only the
most abstract terms: e.g., If we give Group X the special benefits
their leaders demand, they will vote for us more. I mean, their
politicians wouldn’t have ulterior motives, now would they?

But, in reality, to understand the effects of diversity, you have to
think about how individuals actually act, about how they feel when
they act. You have to put yourself in their shoes.

Consider this example. In 2005, the Office of the Inspector General
sent a report to the SBA: Criteria for Overcoming the Presumption of
Social Disadvantage is [sic] Needed. A whistle-blowing citizen had
filed a complaint about an Asian businessman in his mid-20s who had
qualified for the SBA’s 8(a) minority business development programs.
The whistle-blower argued that the entrepreneur was not really
disadvantaged.

See, in theory you don’t qualify for taxpayer-subsidized loans just by
being “Asian”. No, you have to be a socially or economically
disadvantaged Asian. And how do you demonstrate you are disadvantaged?
You fill out a form about how you’ve suffered under the lash of white
bigotry.

Thus this Asian entrepreneur related a tale of woe on his application,
including:

“I then watched as young, less experienced white men got the
promotions and salary increases that I had been promised.”

The Inspector General’s office discovered, however, that in the
company where the victim toiled, his father was a senior officer and
shareholder. In fact, this young martyr to social and economic
disadvantage:

1. came from a wealthy family; e.g., according to a newspaper article,
since 1996, three companies his parents founded and were affiliated
with were sold for approximately $3 billion;

2. was raised in his parents’ home, which had an assessed value of
$5.2 million as of January 1, 2005; …

5. was gainfully employed by the United States Senate, Goldman Sachs
International … among others.

As the title of the 2005 report points out, after decades of handing
out loans to each and every Asian who submitted a form claiming to be
“socially or economically disadvantaged”, the federal government still
hadn’t gotten around to developing criteria for “overcoming the
presumption of social disadvantage”.

In other words, if you are Asian, the government just takes your word
for it.

Consider the psychological effect of the government prodding you to
lie about white persecution. Sure, this Asian applicant no doubt knew
he was fibbing the first time the government asked him to complain
about being discriminated against by whites in order to qualify for
quotas. Yet, as the years go by, and he keeps having to fill out these
forms to get more advantages over whites, and keeps donating to ethnic
lobbies to preserve his privileges, it will only be natural for him to
start believing his cover story about how he’s the real victim and
thus he deserves his loot.

If you pay people to exploit you, they will come to believe you
deserve it.

In fact, maybe you do.

The policy implications are twofold.

* First, the next time the Republicans get any power, they need to
abolish all programs that treat “Asians” as victims deserving special
treatment.

If Asians are put on a basis of legal equality with whites, they will
get along well enough with them—and cease to identify with the people,
and the party, benefitting from quotas

Sure, there will be a short-term political price to pay. But if you
don’t do it now, when will you do it? When Asian voters are more
numerous?

* Second, South Asians must be reclassified back to Caucasian, and
the “Asian” category renamed “East Asian” (if not Oriental).

It was particularly shortsighted of the Reagan Administration to
declare South Asians officially nonwhite. South Asians tend
(especially compared to East Asians) to be extraverted, loquacious in
English, interested in politics and argument, and intellectually
venturesome. There are already far more South Asian than East Asian
pundits in America. Policies that incline these Indians to the left
could turn out to be disastrous.

There are some grounds for hope. One of the main reasons for anti-
white feelings among East Asian men is that white men are much more
likely to marry East Asian women than East Asian men are to marry
white women, leaving a lot of cranky East Asian bachelors left over.
This is less of a problem for South Asian men, who keep their
womenfolk on tighter leashes. Arranged marriages are still common
among South Asians in America.

Because the GOP is inevitably destined to be considered the white
party, it would be best to have the Indians, as Lyndon Johnson
vulgarly but memorably said of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, “inside
the tent p-----g out than outside p-----g in”.

And it’s not at all too late to rectify the Asian definition to detach
Indians. The current categories are hardly set in stone. For example,
in 1997, the OMB broke apart the silly “Asian or Pacific Islander”
group into “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander”.

Note, however, why this was done. Right now, only minority activists
pay attention to the federal definitions of race and ethnicity. Thus
the “Asian or Pacific Islander” group was split not because it was
plainly stupid to lump massive Samoans in with wiry Vietnamese—and
certainly not because it was good for America. Instead, it happened
because Native Hawaiian groups felt that being aggregated with Asians
was slowing their endless campaign to badger Congress into treating
them like American Indians (for instance, let them have casinos to
cater to gambling-crazed Chinese tourists).

Asians are richer than Pacific Islanders. So lumping them together
statistically diminished the Polynesians’ claims of victimization.

Bottom line: American whites have long subcontracted out to minority
pressure groups the question of how Washington develops the racial
categories used to award legal privileges and perquisites.

When whites made up an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population,
as they did during the Nixon Administration, that heedlessness may
have seemed trivial.

But as whites lose their numeric dominance because Washington’s
immigration policy, they will have to learn to play these grubby
games, too."



http://vdare.com/sailer/091011_asians.htm
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default Who Are Asians Anyway?

On Oct 12, 2:06*am, Bret L wrote:
Who Are “Asians” Anyway


They are people smarter than you are, Bratzi, and they have bigger
dicks.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Who Are Asians Anyway?

On Oct 12, 2:11*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:06*am, Bret L wrote:

Who Are “Asians” Anyway


They are people smarter than you are, Bratzi, and they have bigger
dicks.


What a germane and interesting, useful and relevant post.

****ter, they should give YOU a Nobel Prize.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default Who Are Asians Anyway?

On Oct 12, 2:19*am, Bret L wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:11*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:06*am, Bret L wrote:


Who Are “Asians” Anyway


They are people smarter than you are, Bratzi, and they have bigger
dicks.


*What a germane and interesting, useful and relevant post.

*****ter, they should give YOU a Nobel Prize.


You're not big on irony, are you?

Why didn't revilo get a Nobel? LMAO!
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"