Sunday Group Week 1: January 5, 1997, 6 p.m. EST Moderator and Editor: Andrew Chin 1. The Huang/Trie/Riady scandal 2. Clinton's Cabinet 3. Asian-American Person of the Year Present: Ramamoorthi Bhaskar, Andrew Chin, Peter Hong, Arthur Hu, Oliver Wang Join us next week for a discussion on Disney's China diplomacy. For more information, email me or read the Sunday Group Web page at http://pantheon.yale.edu/~caase/sunday.html Transcript ---------- Andrew: Welcome to the Sunday Group! Issue One: The Riady/Huang/Trie scandal. Question: If John Huang were here with us today, what would we want to ask him? What would we want to tell him? Bear in mind that John Huang very likely faces weeks of Congressional hearings...this may be the one chance we have to give him some insight and perspective. Bhaskar: John Huang, how is your lobbying effort different from that of other Americans? Do you feel that your efforts are especially corrupt because of your wish to influence government policy? How are you different from (say) the German-American Foundation which exercises such a corrupting influence on American news by supporting Morning Edition on NPR? I am concerned that there is a discussion at all. Why isn't Rupert Murdoch or Donald Trump in the dock before Congress, for God's sake! Andrew: Murdoch's media power is even more insidious because it's global and extends into the Third World. Peter: I agree. Media conglomerates have already grown to a point where they can sway national POVs and even create them. Peter: I'd like to know more about his background before he came under the spotlight with the fundraising probe. Andrew: Apparently he's a restauranteur who got his start in lobbying in Arkansas. Does that sound right? Peter: No, that's Trie. Ollie: I'd be curious to see him respond to Ling Chi Wang's conjecture that Huang has very little history with working with the APA community, and therefore, is suspect when he claims to "represent" that community in his interests. Andrew: So you would join the piling-on against John Huang? Ollie: I'm just asking the question...personally, my sentiments run with those who seek to find out why Huang is cast as a villain for doing something that I figured was part and parcel of American politics. That being said, I do want to know if his interests are supposed to run with the actually trying to increase APA presence/influence in Washington or if he's just looking out for himself. Ling Chi's point was not so much to lambast Huang, but to raise the question, "Why are we rushing to defend this guy if he's a bum?" Peter: Dare we suggest that the problem with the above-mentioned fund raisers is that they are not "American" enough? Arthur: Me, I haven't been paying too much attention, but if it hurts Clinton more than it hurts the Chinese, it doesn't bother me that much. Sounds like the guy made a major boo boo. Arthur: Anybody see the Slate latest issue, says that the charges are largely anti-Chinese, not bad for a white guy. Andrew: Yes Arthur, a link to the Slate article is now on the Sunday Group Web page (http://pantheon.yale.edu/~caase/sunday.html). Peter: Well, it is by law that foreign interests are not allowed to influence American politics. Arthur: This morning's Seattle Times: (NY Times article) "New Asian money machine stirring up old fears in US, says old fears about Japanese nationals is being transferred to overachieving Chinese Andrew: Next question: Is there some way we can actually use this as an opportunity? I've heard the term "Asian American" more in the news over the past two months than ever before in my life. At least we're getting on the map and at least one white columnist has acknowledged the racism in conflating Asians with Asian Americans...that is quite rare. Maybe this is how we can build awareness not specific to this affair, but to awareness of Asian Americans in general. Ollie: "At least we're getting on the map"...I'm not sure that's the kind of map I want to be on. Actually, I'm probably being overly cynical. Peter: Interesting that you mention that. It didn't hit me until just now that it's true. But, isn't it odd that most of it is due to negative publicity? And what do you exactly mean by awareness? Andrew: Awareness of the distinction between Asian Americans and Asian nationals. I think early coverage didn't make this distinction, but surely it will be made more and more, especially as politicians and the press on the left look for ways to defend the Democrats. It's very rare that you see whites even showing an interest in the distinction between Asian Americans and Asians, and to the extent that you need a white voice to raise white awareness with respect to the distinction, maybe this is really a watershed. Ollie: I do I do think that making some of our issues visible is good. However, the bulk of the attention in this case has been beyond the control of the community. In that sense, we're making headlines, but we're not choosing what they say. The NY Times article is a great example of that (which the SF Chronicle reprinted, with the same skewed headline). Contrast that with the controversy over Pena's appointment to Clinton's cabinet because Latino groups lobbied for it. Now, even though it's controversial, that's the type of attention I think is more positive. Ollie: Andrew has a good point about the difference between Asian and Asian American, but I would also say that the damage is done. In some ways, I think the Huang affair just serves to remind us that people still don't see APAs as Americans, and they may end up taking that knowledge away from the fiasco. Peter: Andrew, so what you're saying is that what is of interest to Asian Americans is not necessarily an issue of interest to asian nationals and vice versa? Andrew: I'm saying that exactly. Of course that might come from my perspective as a 4th-generation guy, but I think American-born Asian Americans and Asian immigrants, and especially Asian nationals, more often than not work at political cross-purposes. Peter: Then the political agenda of AAs and the political agenda of ANs cannot coincide in your view? Andrew: This is probably going to be a recurring question in our group: whether there can be a unified AA political agenda. Arthur and I probably have a positive correlation of views, but not very high in magnitude, but between Asian nationals and me it's often zero or negative. Peter: Andrew, I can concur on that one. We're like this group of birds who are separated from the main flock, and not really part of them, yet are we really part of the other flock, a.k.a. Americans, who we happen to share the territory with? Peter: Does it ultimately come down to a question of number of votes and the amount of influence generated by it? Ollie: Could you elaborate on what you're asking? Peter: I'm just wondering what the voter base of Latinos are in comparison to the voter base of AAs. After all, democracy is a form of "mob mentality." Ollie: I agree with you on that sentiment, but what I was saying is that Latino got their issues aired in the press on their terms, to an extent. Peter: I guess a comparison of Asian and Latino media presence might help here. I hear they have Latino talk shows which talk about political goings on in their community but I never hear of such things from Asian communities. Andrew: Welcome to the Asian-American political talk show! Arthur: In terms of voting rates, Asians are dead last, the Hispanics aren't very far ahead. It's a joke that people still talk about blacks when speaking of low minority voting rates, but they are only 10-20% behind, the Asians and Hispanics are off by a factor of 2 or 3 depending on where you look. Bhaskar: What do you people think about the role of socioeconomic status (SES) variations in the Latino v. the AA community as a variable in the development of political organization? Arthur: The problem with SES is that in the high SES you get leftist academics along with the conservative businessmen. The poor are generally nonexistent or comatose politically speaking. Andrew: The class structure of the AA community is an opportunity as well as an obstacle. It's an obstacle because it's hard to find common ground. It's an opportunity because we can potentially participate at all levels of the political process. Peter: Class structure of AA communities? Andrew: We're digressing, but by class structure I was referring to Bhaskar's implication that AAs have greater variance in SES. Arthur: What gets me is that with all this criticism over anit-Chinese bias over the Huang affair, the #1 anti-Chinese critic who has succeeded in kicking penniless elderly Chinese immigrants off of SSI and nearly succeeded in stopping immigration of skilled engineers hasn't gotten a word of criticism from the Asian American academic/media elite. Anybody want to guess who I'm talking about? No one has done as much damage to the Chinese since the Workingman's Party succeeded in the Chinese Exclusion Act at the turn of the century. Andrew: I have an idea who you're talking about, but I forget the guy's name. Arthur: I am speaking of Norman Matloff at UC Davis who gets published all over the place, the guy practically makes himself a spokeman for the Asian and Chinese community, but the difference between him and the likes of Pat Buchanan and David Duke is that they don't make statments that the Chinese are incapable of innovation, don't create jobs, and are a general menace to society. Ollie: Matloff does get a lot of flak...just not in the press though. Andrew: I think without the racial generalizations, though, the argument in the immigration debate that high-skilled immigration cannot be justified at its current levels given our glut of scientists and engineers is a legitimate one. Peter: It's quite a sad situation really for these scientists and engineers because either way they are between a rock and a hard place. Ollie: Not to get too theoretical here, but your supposition assumes that jobs exist for citizens. I don't see business following this rule when it outsources overseas. Anyway, your point raises the idea around the notion of economic and political borders that someone should designate a set of rights that apply to citizens. Peter: A friend of mine likes to joke that "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us," paraphrasing Malcolm X, of course. :) [And Cole Porter. -- Ed.] Arthur: It's amazing people pay any attention to Matloff, his case is a total crock when engineering pay in Silicon Valley is the highest, and he has to create a worldwhere people with no marketable skills are elevated to people that should be shihired, and the CEO of Intel and the leading companies are said to be of no importance. unemployment is less than 1% in electrical engineering. The guy is just a a racist that uses his inside information to knock down the Chinese, quite a feat for a Jew, that group is just about the only ethnic group wohyose accoomplishments can rival the Chinese. Ollie: Matloff gets attention for the same reason why people read "The Bell Curve": it feeds into what they want to hear. Arthur: I wonder if we'll ever see people panic over being taken over by Mexicans. Andrew: OK, we'd better do the exit question. Zero being unmitigated disaster, Ten being a watershed empowering event for the Asian American community, how will the Huang/Trie/Riady fundrasing scandal spin out? Peter: 5. I don't think it will have far reaching implications in the long run. Ollie: I concur with Peter. Andrew: The answer is 7. We're going to see heavyweight white people, especially on the left, making clear to the American public that Asian Americans are different from Asian nationals and that our political participation is legitimate. Ollie: I think you're being optimistic about that. Where has the "left" been all this time if that's the case? Andrew: Issue 2: Clinton's Cabinet. Pena and Cisneros left in disgrace, Brown, rest in peace, will go down in history as a somewhat shady wheeler-dealer. Shalala passes for white. Does it matter that Asian Americans didn't make it into Clinton's second Cabinet? Peter: Ok, does having an AA cabinet help the AA cause? For that matter, what is the AA cause? Andrew: Peter, that's the $100K question. Until we have enough of a political voice to say what we want to say in places that matter, isolated AA elevation to power serves AAs only in the aspect of visibility. And right now the meaning of that visibility is dictated by the politics of the Riady affair. Ollie: I'm not sure about that. I think if the scandal passes without a collective memory, then we've moved nowhere. But if the nomination of an APA person on Cabinet had kept the question of the distinction between APAs and ANs open, then it would have been a way to dig into it deeply. Ollie: I think it matters, insomuch that it offers further proof that Clinton is not the savior (not like too many thought he was). To address Peter's point...it's important for "the AA cause" insofar as it's a first step to better recognition. However, without the follow-up -- without real change and support -- it's just token representation. Peter: I don't think it matters as much. I think being represented in Congress has far more political implications than being appointed to be a frontman for the President's policies. Peter: or woman. :) Peter: I agree. Titles without substance are worse than no title at all. Andrew: The little campaign that emerged advocating an AA appointment to the Cabinet wanted to make two points: regardless of any Clinton bean-counting motive, qualified APAs were available; and that the Huang/Trie scandal must not be made to influence the choice. Do we think that these points were successfully made, on a scale of 0 = no impact at all on the collective mind of Washington, 10 = right in the center of the radar screen? Peter: If I was more conspiracy minded, I'd suggest that the scandal was a way to keep AAs out of American politics, but I don't watch "The X Files," so I won't. :P Ollie: No comment. Peter: I'd say a 1. Probably no effect whatsoever. Andrew: The answer, of course, is Zero. The Huang/Trie scandal was an insuperable obstacle to an APA nomination, regardless of merit. Andrew: OK: Issue 3. Man of the Year. Does it mean anything for Asian Americans that David Ho was chosen? Peter: I think it's going back to the visibility issue again. I must say it is refreshing to see and read an Asian being represented as a hero in such a global issue. Andrew: It does break a glass ceiling in actually allowing an Asian American face to serve as the face of leadership. Ollie: Emil Guillermo has an interesting criticism of Ho's selection. He felt that it just extends the life of the "model minority" myth, which I think was an unfortunate way to look at it. Granted, Ho fits the myth pretty well, but I'm not going to deny that it's a pretty big deal to see an Asian guy on the cover of TIME and it not be a criminal. Andrew: I think the "model minority" myth is really here to stay--we haven't done much to raise white consciousness in the past 10 years and, in the meantime, immigration patterns have only made its empirical basis stronger. Peter: I have to say that the model minority idea really is a myth. God knows I've met enough immigrants who are far from being model! Peter: I found it rather interesting that they mentioned his father being Christian, when Mr. Ho himself reportedly quotes frequently from the tao-te-ching. :) Ollie: Not to sound cynical though, but my curiosity has to do with why Ho? Not that I'm super-worldly. but I had never read/heard about the guy, not even in APA press like Asian Week or A Magazine. All the sudden, WHAM, he's Man of the Year? It just seemed odd to me. Andrew: I'd heard of Ho a few months ago when they were first talking about the AIDS cocktail. I had remembered him as being even younger though, and being a postdoc somewhere. Peter: From what I've read he's quite a voice in his own field. I think it's rather ironic that someone who is so far removed from his curtural media is able to excel in the mainstream. Andrew: Any other nominees? I was thinking of Gary Locke: he is a good model of Asian American political empowerment where you're not working from a big Chinatown base. Eventually all Asian Americans are going to have to solve the problem of working from 3%. Andrew: I think so, I guess I'd better check that. Just judging from appearance. Also, what kind of name is Locke? His grandfather was born in Taiwan, and kept moving back and forth to Washington. Ollie: Locke is Gary Locke, the new APA governor of Washington. Peter: Locke was born in Taiwan but he came here when he was 12 or 14. Ollie: I think Locke would be a decent shoo-in for another APA person of the year. I'm trying to think of pop culture people, and not too many candidates spring to mind. Peter: How about Jackie? :) I'm quite amazed that people in the theaters will cheer when one of his trailers appear. Andrew: Jackie Chan? maybe wait till next year...see how First Strike does :) Also, he helps perpetuate stereotypes about us being kung fu experts and Triad members...but maybe that'll change. Peter: It will do great. I've seen the film, on video, of course, and I can vouch for that. The ending sequence just has to be seen to be believed! :) [Peter will moderate next week.] Peter: I have an interesting opinions piece that appered in the LA times a few weeks back. I'll forward it to everyone.