Annoyances of Asian American Life | Asian American Poll

ANNOYANCES OF
ASIAN AMERICAN LIFE
(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:25:41 PM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

Which of the following is the most annoying occurrence to which Asian Americans are routinely subjected?
Being told you speak English well | 21%
Being asked where you're from, originally | 28%
Having (non-Asian) strangers address you with phrases in Asian languages | 23%
Being subjected to offensive media portrayals of Asians | 28%

Which of the following is the most common way in which racial hostility has been expressed toward you?
Hostile words spoken to your face | 9%
Hostile remarks to others within earshot | 41%
Slurs or taunts shouted from a distance | 17%
Spreading of malicious gossip about you | 6%
Pointedly excluding you from a conversation or event | 27%

In your experience what types of persons are most likely to show hostility toward Asians?
People with low educational levels | 24%
People from social backwaters | 17%
People insecure about their own places in society | 28%
People envious of Asian success | 11%
People with little contact with other ethnicities | 19%

This poll is closed to new input.
Comments posted during the past year remain available for browsing.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISING INFO

© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.

WHAT YOU SAY

[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]

to; HATRED IS NOT ONLY ANNOYING,

I was on jury duty before and the looks in these people's eyes is downright scary. They had the mob mentality and hatred in their racist jokes also. Don't forget that all these racists are voters too. I couldn't wait to be relieved of my jury duties and get as far away from these haters as possible.
JUROR Tuesday, August 13, 2002 at 11:39:31 (PDT)

Deng Ai,

Boy, are you ever so literal-minded, aren't you?

Look, which place in a post-Jim Crow America--which BTW, dates from 1880 to roughly 1965--is going to be colossally STUPID enough to write "Blacks and other minorities must have twice the accomplishments of whites?!" That is a case for discrimination: do you think companies are going to make it so easy for others to sue them? As it is, I believe Texaco and some other places were sued back in the 1990s for discrimination.

As for black vs. white candidates, you might know that in 1988 (unless you were born after 1980) that Jesse Jackson got accused of not knowing enough about foreign policy. The same was said about dubya in 2000, but that evidently didn't prevent him from being elected.

"Individual cases are meaningless statistically."

This is so erroneous I don't even know where to begin...Deng, that is like saying that because most cats have long tails, all cats have long tails (i.e., I'm thinking of the Manx and Japanese bobtails).

As for school, I won't go into them since they're already being discussed in the Whiting Wongs forum. All I'm saying is that you cannot apply a general assumption to everything. (See my immediately preceding paragraph.)

I've known blacks with SATs of 680 and 670 on the SATs (separate, not combined scores!)and a GPA of 3.7 who were unable to get into the Ivys. Granted, this person did get into Williams or Amherst... (The person was saying she was sick of being considered an "affirmative action baby" when there were whites who got into her school with lower grades and scores. Similar points have been raised at affirmative action panels.)

This is all I have time for. More later.
Asian Dominatrix Tuesday, August 13, 2002 at 09:11:23 (PDT)

"Oh… so are you making the case that blacks discriminate against whites? If you are accusing whites of racism because Bush isn’t the best public speaker, then… well you get the picture."

Ignorance by DC Residents does not excuse ignorance by whites in America, especially as you say that whites are more qualified than blacks in general.

"Of course we are talking in a general case. Individual cases are meaningless statistically."

America values individualism. So, your attempts and even several racial group's attempts to classify everyone by race is dumb, not too different from the sociologist nailing the southern whites by saying "Generally, nothing positive could be said about southern whites." If you classify people by race, the sociologist can compare whites from Louisiana and whites from Vermont and come to the same general conclusions not very different from the one you make about blacks and Hispanics. He is virtually your clone in every respect.

"Universities are desperately trying to recruit for blacks into their school to achieve "diversity" that they’d resort to admitted blacks with much lower test score. Now you are telling me they turn away qualified blacks for unqualified blacks? I supposed it is theoretically possible, but is it reality?"

As noted from the whiting wongs board, they also admit unqualified whites from West Virginia and Arkansas.

"Like what scores and GPAs?"

Same as perhaps the children of whites from Louisiana who supported David Duke?

"Many companies have associations for hispanics, blacks, women, but no such society for whites. So what is this FACT, you refer to?"

Most companies such as Enron committed business incest by only hiring white Texans for top jobs...that is why they went under. Read Cruver's book on the failure of Enron. He is white.

"I haven’t heard anything about Enron discriminating against blacks. Maybe you’d like to share."

Not too many Asian faces either in Enron except perhaps Wendy Lee Gramm. All they did was hire white women who were sexy to sleep around. Read Cruver's book.

"Maybe he has, but he talking about ALL whites from Texas and Louisiana. So he is wrong right off the bat."

Just like you are generalizing about all blacks and hispanics by saying "f course we are talking in a general case.Individual cases are meaningless statistically."

"Does that mean they all are?"

His attitude is not much different from yours when you say that "Of course we are talking in a general case. Individual cases are meaningless statistically." At least 60% of the white folks who voted are, and by not showing up at the polls to vote, the whites (and other folks of different racial groups who did not vote) are equally culpable.

How do you know? Did he tell you he was qualifying this claim from experience? Would you applaud someone for slamming all AFs by qualifying their bad experiences with AFs?

Just like your statement about blacks: "Of course we are talking in a general case. Individual cases are meaningless statistically."
Historian Monday, August 12, 2002 at 18:43:32 (PDT)

Deng Ai,

Not sure where my previous post went but here it is again:

Deng Ai,

(Editor: feel free to move this to the appropriate forum but can you please provide a link or mention to it in this forum?)

Ok I can't help but respond because maybe its just my nature. But I will explain my points once more. You seem to be confused (don't worry, not trying to imply that you are stupid). Perhaps its because I did not quote your counter points and am not explicit enough in explaining mines--I will try do that somewhat in this post. However if you still don't agree, I will just read your post (and hopefully learn something) but not reply. However I am glad we both agree that things like disease and stuff are bad.

ABM treaty:
Using your lease analogy:
To break your lease you either mutually agree with your landlord or have an impartial judge decide the agreement can be broken. Sure your lease may state you can pay 3-4 months rent penalty or if something catastrophic happens to the area you live in you may break it. For example many residents near the WTC tried but could not break their lease and a judge must decide what is catastrophic enough to warrant a breaking of the lease. And of course you are still breaking the lease, albeit legally.

Now in the case of the ABM -- it was not mutual and there was no judge. As I recall Russia was not happy that it was broken. And one of the reasons it was broken was so that we can build an anti missile defense shield which I think is folly (but thats another issue).

As for why I think its not a wise foreign policy move on Bush's part, think of it this way. A bank may not give you a loan if you have a bad credit history if it was with ANOTHER institution. The international community watches our actions and if I were a foreign power, I would be wary of making any agreements with the US. The US signature just holds less weight.
So I do think it affects international relations. Another problem I have with this is the timing. Many nations right now are not exactly pleased with the US. This just gives them more reason to continue.

Basically this gives a bad precedence. I don't consider it pleasing other countries. I just feel that the benfits of having more allies in the future outweighs a "Anti Missile Shield".

Kyoto Treaty:
you wrote:
"So you are willing to take on additional burden for something you admitted won't do much good? Sorry, but I choose substance over symbolism anyday. "

In diplomacy and many things, symbolism is very important. Which is why we built the Washington Monument, flew to the moon, give flowers, diamond rings, and other gifts to our spouses or romantic interests, paint, sing, etc. Symbolism can bring about substance (rings can be sold, monuments bring tourists, songs and art sell, and gestures of international cooperation may bring about future agreements and lessen the prospects of war, etc.)

Again I think its bad foreign policy on the part of Bush.

you wrote:
"Are you sure? A search of www.halliburton.com did not turn up anything about nuclear power plant construction. In fact the US hadn’t constructed a nuclear power plant in over two decades. I wonder how “Dick Cheney's Halliburton make most of their money by building nuclear power plants”.

I don’t see how you can make a serious case against Bush when your “facts” are so riddled with misinformation and errors."

and yes I did write:
"Backing out of the Kyoto treaty sends a strong message to the rest of the world that the US, the largest consumer of resources and largest polluter is not committed to cleaning up a mess it has had a large part in creating."

So let me explain this:
The Kyoto Treaty is about reducing the output of waste and pollutants in the FUTURE. The US outputs a lot of waste and pollution. The US did not sign the agreement. So in the eyes of the international committee, the US is not committed to forcing its industries to conform to the treaty's requirements so that we will stop polluting--or basically cleaning up. Cleaning up in this context does not literally mean we pick up a mop and start mopping up nuclear waste, puddles of chemicals, etc., but rather force or at least try to make industries and people output less waste and less pollutants.

Being wasteful:
"What's wrong with that? What's the point in having money if you can't spend it to your choosing? What does it have anything to do with people dying for freedom? I fail to understand your point."

Again with power comes responsibility. Just because you have power/money does not mean you can use/spend it irresponsibly. Which is why their are laws that prevent kids from buying machine guns, cigarettes, etc. even if they have enough money and earned it themselves. So along the same lines, must we buy SUV's we don't need so that we can guzzle oil that our kids can use and pollute lands our kids will eat and live off of?

As for my reference to:
"What if one of descendants goes hiking in the Yucca mountains one day?"

you wrote: "Huh?"

basically I am reiterating the same theme I wrote in the previous paragraph.
I was referring to the Bush proposal to store nuclear waste there. It lasts 10,000 years--and perhaps much more without the spin. So let's build more nuclear power plants so we can run our air conditioners on high longer and buy larger fridges to store our gallons of milk and jumbo-sized portions of ground beef just so that our descendants will have that much less land to enjoy. Wouldn't say a public ad campaign on energy conservation and more exploration into alternative forms of energy be a better option. I would prefer to leave nuclear power as a last resort. Again, you may think nobody has the right to tell us how to use our resources/money/power. I have to disagree on this point. I don't want 10,000 years worth of descendants to be pissed off just so we can have a few decades of energy wasting bliss.

You wrote:
"Nah, oil will not run out. For the simple economic reason that oil will become more and more expensive as it becomes more and more difficult to access. It will eventually get to a point, it will no longer be the most economical resource for consumers and we will move on to the next most economical alternative."

This is a difference in philosophy. You seem to believe in dealing with the problem when it arrives. I like adhere to the philosophy of preparation and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Which brings us to:

Government Agencies:
you wrote:
"Who's arguing the SEC should not exist?"

The SEC is a government agency and an example of why the government needs to watch over industry. I stated that to lead into why "big" government is necessary to protect the interests of the weak from those of the strong (big corporations these days). And I mean big as not in too big but bigger than what Bush wants it to be. Think about it without the EPA, FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. corporations would have field days fleecing us, our neighbors, and our kids.

So I guess the older Enron employees will have to live on Social Security. As for the younger employees, I doubt there will be much Social Security left when they retire at the rate we're going. Bad economic policy on the part of Bush. I just wish there was a way we could have PREVENTED this problem from happening...

You wrote:
"Is someone forcing you to invest in a company that doesn't report its profits?"

Ok let's say you and a friend bought a raffle ticket for $1 to win a car. Your friend loses and you win. But then the seller tells you the car does not exist and he made a boatload of money. But since you won, he gives you your dollar back. You then tell your friend what happened. I bet he'd be pissed.

Or just say you simply bought a used car that the used car salesman told you was fine. But then it broke down after 1000 miles.

Nobody forced you buy the raffle ticket and nobody forced you to buy the used car. Luckily there are lemon laws for used cars but right now no real effective raffle laws (which is similar to what Enron did--picture the raffle tickets as stock). So yes nobody forced you, but its still wrong/dishonest and a free market cannot exist with dishonesty. In the case of Enron, people lost their life savings on the dishonesty of greedy execs -- I expect you to feel a little empathy.

There are laws to protect corporations (we put thieves and folks who write bad checks in jail right) and laws to protect consumers (lemon laws, FDA approval, etc.) And of course these all need government agencies like the FDA, SEC, the "police" to do their job. I am sure you'd be pissed if you had bought Enron or World Com stock based on false information they provided. (Aside: Remember how Cheney went soft on Gays when he found out his own daughter was gay.)

We all know Bush is for smaller government and thus less regulation. I think this is bad economic, environmental, and foreign policy.

Halliburton:
Yes I did write:
"As recently as last winter, Bush met with Russian leader Putin to discuss the dumping of US nuclear waste into Russia. (Companies like Dick Cheney's Halliburton make most of their money by building nuclear power plants--so naturally Bush wants to build more nuclear power plants in the US--but where to store the waste? Certainly the Yucca mountains can only hold so much for so long.)"
And I will admit that I made a mistake. I meant to say Halliburton WILL MAKE (not MADE) most of their money from the building of power plants which is why Bush needs a place to store the future waste products. I apologize for the typo.

you wrote:
"Why not? If it's their business to build nuclear power plants, why wouldn't they advertise it? I mean is building nuclear power plants illegal, so they have to do it in the dark? And what does this have anything to do with saying nice things about Enron?"

Because a major customer and partner is the government. And the government is influenced by the people. And with recent terrorist threats on US nuclear power plants, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc., people aren't too fond of nuclear power plants.

And because of course Dick Cheney is in the government and use to be in Halliburton. It would be bad business and politics for Halliburton cozy up to Cheney especially when they want his cooperation to build more plants.

I referred to:
"Perhaps that is why the vice president is so fond of it. Corporations like Cheney's Halliburton Co. were deeply involved in slopping up the nuclear gravy through Halliburton's subsidiaries, Ebasco Service Inc. and Brown & Root Inc."
"http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2001/2001L-06-06-04.html"
you wrote:
"The article made vague and seemingly incriminating references it never bothered to elaborate. Maybe you can explain what the guy you quoted is talking about."

Yes the article is an opinion piece. But just because he bases on opinions on facts that are against your argument makes you doubt his validity? He is a PhD and in fact an expert:

"{John Berger is an energy and environmental consultant. He has worked for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, corporations such as Lockheed and Chevron, nonprofit groups, and governmental organizations, including the U.S. Congress. He is the author of "Charging Ahead - The Business of Renewable Energy and What it Means for America," and "Beating the Heat: Why and How We Must Combat Global Warming."} "
Seems well rounded, experienced and unbiased (non profit and corps like Chevron).
And he did base his claims of a faulty misleading Bush/Cheney energy policy by stating his main reference:

"The National Energy Policy is available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/"

All this stuff is at the end of the article.

By the way, have you read the Village Voice article link?

you wrote:
"If you want to learn more about nuclear power, the following is a good source without the taint of political hackery like in the link you provided.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html"

No political hackery huh? Yes its is salmon safe. Negligible contribution to global warming. No oil spills (duh). And even if we stopped Uranium mining, we would have 1000 years of power.

Ok all it takes is one Chernobyl to screw up habiatable lands for decades. What about the possibility of terrorist attacks. Didn't we say we can't stop all terrorist attacks. What about the waste produced? Sure we have 1000 years of power but in exchange for 10000 years of nuclear waste contamination. Sounds like a ripoff to me. What about the dangers of transportation of the waste? Thats being debated right now in NYC and NJ. What if a train with the stuff derails?
And what if Bush's plans to ship it overseas? Can not terrorists hijack these shipments? What if they spill (might be worst than oil spills)?
Just too many risks. Wind mills and saving energy may be a bitch, but I'll take that over possible risk of a radioactive death.

And the owner of the site "http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/" is a Roy Smith, a 28 yr old engineer in Seattle. Hardly an expert in my opinion. He also owns the "Nuclear Info Ring"--sounds kinda hokey and likely he has an agenda to me. Its common salesmanship. No one would buy cheeseburgers if mcdonalds said it tastes great and makes you fat.

So in summary, I am for preventing a nuclear disaster. The disadvantages just far outweigh the advantages in this case.

This reminds of me something I read in Fast Food Nation about how a Meat Packer wanted to build a plant in a town. Of course, the packer spun out ONLY the advantages of building such a plant such as more jobs and thus higher wages and living standards, health insurance, and more notoriety and more folks moving in. They even got some citizens so riled up about it that they began regurgitating the same propaganding at town meetings.

The result of course was the town meat packing plant made the town smell like feces and you can smell it 20 miles away. They imported cheap illegal immigrants so there were more jobs but pay actually rose and crime went up. And the promise of health insurance of course broken. So those who did not want to live a town that smelled like turd, and high crime moved out. So jobs actually left and population went down. And yes that town in Colorado did get notoriety but not the type that regular folks and tourists flock to.

Which brings us to:
The End:
You wrote:
"I'd be interested in seeing how big government benefit business. Maybe you should share your valuable "research" with us."

One is "Fast Food Nation". You can read about how the government has helped agribusiness. There is another book devoted entirely to this topic. Give me some time to find it. Its Friday and I gotta head out and enjoy myself. Typing is hard work.
Multiplication is better than Division Monday, August 12, 2002 at 18:42:59 (PDT)

"Does that mean they all are? Do you have a problem with people slamming all AFs using people like Amy Tan to represent all AFs? So why the double standard here?"

60% of the whites who voted for David Duke are racist. Which means as of 1991, the majority of whites in Louisiana were racist. Perhaps it has gone down by now. But, not by much.
Poltiics Monday, August 12, 2002 at 18:21:10 (PDT)

"something else WF,

true. Since most of the people in these forums are immigrants or descendants of immigrants it should be understood that questions like "from which nationality are you?" are basically annoying. Not only the mixed people would become nerved to enumerate their ancestors' different origins, also those who don't know because of their family's weird story of immigration (like myself) and those Asians who are adopted.
rare stuff Monday, August 12, 2002 at 17:05:42 (PDT)

| EARLIER COMMENTS