華人受歧視個案

[nkcwong]

以下是我剛剛收到的電郵﹕

TWO KINDS OF TEARS

Author: Amy Wong Mok, 80-20 Board Member; Founder &
CEO of the Asian American Cultural Center in Austin, Texas. A few days ago, one of my staff, Mr. Chan (not his real name) went to a car dealer intending to buy a car for his wife. My staff is an Asian immigrant and is not fluent in English. The salesman persuaded him to put down $2,500 as the down payment for the car and asked him to sign the papers for the transaction. Mr. Chan looked at the bottom of the paper and saw 16.95% interest rate when he signed the paper.

The salesman asked him to come back the next day to pick up the car after the loan was processed. He came back to the office and talked to me about the interest rate. Like others, we at the Asian American Cultural Center have received advertisements in the past from different banks and credit unions regarding their loans at different interest rates. I have never heard of a 16.95% interest rate for a car loan and I was very skeptical, and so I advised Mr. Chan to withdraw his loan application and to look
somewhere else for a car. My intuition told me that this just did not feel like an honest deal. On behalf of Mr. Chan, I called the salesman and questioned him about the high interest rate, and I informed him that Mr. Chan was on his way to pick up his down payment check. The salesman did not protest.


Mr. Chan came back from picking up his check with such a grave look On his face. I asked him if they had given him back his check. What he was about to tell me has shocked me to the core of my entire being. Mr. Chan said that when he asked for his check back, the salesman looked at him, crumbled something and threw it on the floor. Mr. Chan thought that what the salesman had thrown on the floor was trash and did not pick it up. The salesman waited a while, picked up the crumbled check and handed it over to Mr. Chan. It was only until Mr. Chan opened up the crumbled piece of paper when he realized that it was his check that was crumbled and thrown to the ground. The humiliation was so overwhelming that Mr. Chan was choked up with tears and he had to run out of the salesman's office. I could only imagine the indignation that he felt at that moment. I was choked up and filled with anger, and so were all my staff at the Center. We all understood. Mr. Chan was targeted for such gross mistreatment simply because he looked and spoke like an immigrant from Asia.

I called up the car dealer and asked to speak to their general manager, a Mr. Smith (not his real name). I told Mr. Smith about the incident. He sounded shocked. I continued to ask for his company policy in regard to mistreatment of customer. He told me he would talk to that particular salesman. I asked him if he had made his expectations clear to his sales staff in regard to customer service and I asked him how he trained his sales staff.

What he told me was, I must say, equally unexpected. To his credit, Mr. Smith said, "It is my responsibility and have failed my staff. I did not train them well. I will talk to them. Please apologize to Mr. Chan for me". It was my turn to be choked up. I was touched by the integrity of this gentleman. His straightforward answer had me choked up with tears. He took the responsibility and he took the blame. I trusted that he would correct the wrong that was done to Mr. Chan.

I share this story with you because I truly believe that when we do not speak up and question any mistreatment, we give permission for injustice to continue and it could happen to someone we love. To bring to the attention of the policy makers mistreatment and inequity is our way to right a wrong and to fulfill our responsibility to create a better world or our future generation, our children. To take action is
to make a difference. Please speak up for those who could not speak for themselves.


A Noteworthy Comment from Y.C. Larry Ho,
Harvard Chaired Professor; one of the six 80-20 Founders "Great article, Amy. Almost half century ago, I had a similar
experience at work. I consulted a mentor and he advised me to speak up. The result was also a happy outcome from a responsible boss. It was a great lesson I learned early on."


坊間有所謂「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」的言論，根本是痴人說夢，如果沒有政治壓力及法律約束，少數族裔的處境堪虞。作為美國少數族裔，很難想像「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」這種說法。

（利益申報﹕我和我太太都是80-20的會員，http://www.80-20initiative.net/ 。80-20 是為美國亞裔人士爭取平等機會及抗衡歧視的組織。這個組織由不少的知識份子組成，創辦人是前Delaware的副州長吳仙標----一位香港移民---成立的。）

[wonggk]

這種被人以有色眼鏡來看待的經驗，相信是大部分在美國生活的華人都有的。對這問題，我現在的反應就如那文章中所建議的，hit back hard。

不過，如果美國的華人不學識尊重自己，而只識做順民，則這些事是不會停止的。

[sbchan]

以下是我剛剛收到的電郵﹕

TWO KINDS OF TEARS

Author: Amy Wong Mok, 80-20 Board Member; Founder &
CEO of the Asian American Cultural Center in Austin, Texas. A few days ago, one of my staff, Mr. Chan (not his real name) went to a car dealer intending to buy a car for his wife. My staff is an Asian immigrant and is not fluent in English. The salesman persuaded him to put down $2,500 as the down payment for the car and asked him to sign the papers for the transaction. Mr. Chan looked at the bottom of the paper and saw 16.95% interest rate when he signed the paper.

The salesman asked him to come back the next day to pick up the car after the loan was processed. He came back to the office and talked to me about the interest rate. Like others, we at the Asian American Cultural Center have received advertisements in the past from different banks and credit unions regarding their loans at different interest rates. I have never heard of a 16.95% interest rate for a car loan and I was very skeptical, and so I advised Mr. Chan to withdraw his loan application and to look
somewhere else for a car. My intuition told me that this just did not feel like an honest deal. On behalf of Mr. Chan, I called the salesman and questioned him about the high interest rate, and I informed him that Mr. Chan was on his way to pick up his down payment check. The salesman did not protest.


Mr. Chan came back from picking up his check with such a grave look On his face. I asked him if they had given him back his check. What he was about to tell me has shocked me to the core of my entire being. Mr. Chan said that when he asked for his check back, the salesman looked at him, crumbled something and threw it on the floor. Mr. Chan thought that what the salesman had thrown on the floor was trash and did not pick it up. The salesman waited a while, picked up the crumbled check and handed it over to Mr. Chan. It was only until Mr. Chan opened up the crumbled piece of paper when he realized that it was his check that was crumbled and thrown to the ground. The humiliation was so overwhelming that Mr. Chan was choked up with tears and he had to run out of the salesman's office. I could only imagine the indignation that he felt at that moment. I was choked up and filled with anger, and so were all my staff at the Center. We all understood. Mr. Chan was targeted for such gross mistreatment simply because he looked and spoke like an immigrant from Asia.

I called up the car dealer and asked to speak to their general manager, a Mr. Smith (not his real name). I told Mr. Smith about the incident. He sounded shocked. I continued to ask for his company policy in regard to mistreatment of customer. He told me he would talk to that particular salesman. I asked him if he had made his expectations clear to his sales staff in regard to customer service and I asked him how he trained his sales staff.

What he told me was, I must say, equally unexpected. To his credit, Mr. Smith said, "It is my responsibility and have failed my staff. I did not train them well. I will talk to them. Please apologize to Mr. Chan for me". It was my turn to be choked up. I was touched by the integrity of this gentleman. His straightforward answer had me choked up with tears. He took the responsibility and he took the blame. I trusted that he would correct the wrong that was done to Mr. Chan.

I share this story with you because I truly believe that when we do not speak up and question any mistreatment, we give permission for injustice to continue and it could happen to someone we love. To bring to the attention of the policy makers mistreatment and inequity is our way to right a wrong and to fulfill our responsibility to create a better world or our future generation, our children. To take action is
to make a difference. Please speak up for those who could not speak for themselves.


A Noteworthy Comment from Y.C. Larry Ho,
Harvard Chaired Professor; one of the six 80-20 Founders "Great article, Amy. Almost half century ago, I had a similar
experience at work. I consulted a mentor and he advised me to speak up. The result was also a happy outcome from a responsible boss. It was a great lesson I learned early on."


坊間有所謂「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」的言論，根本是痴人說夢，如果沒有政治壓力及法律約束，少數族裔的處境堪虞。作為美國少數族裔，很難想像「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」這種說法。

（利益申報﹕我和我太太都是80-20的會員，http://www.80-20initiative.net/ 。80-20 是為美國亞裔人士爭取平等機會及抗衡歧視的組織。這個組織由不少的知識份子組成，創辦人是前Delaware的副州長吳仙標----一位香港移民---成立的。）


有一點想說的是：確實，在美國最學懂的就是要爭取自己的權益。不爭取，人家就會欺負自己。不過，美國的一個較可貴之處是，這個(自由)社會容許每個人或每群人去爭取自己的權益。

相比起來，試想想中國大陸的白石村居民....

[筆是大遲]

以下是我剛剛收到的電郵﹕

TWO KINDS OF TEARS

坊間有所謂「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」的言論，根本是痴人說夢，如果沒有政治壓力及法律約束，少數族裔的處境堪虞。作為美國少數族裔，很難想像「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」這種說法。


這故事真很感人，那位上司處理得很好。不知那位辱人的售貨員最後有沒有道歉呢？

這事裡，還不知那種羞辱是出於種族歧視呢？是因為語言不清而歧視呢？是因為做不成生意而發矛呢？似乎不容易辨別。或者，針對這問題，不必用甚麼歧視條例，而是一般的羞辱冒犯等。:confused: 若他做得成生意，可能還會盼望更多像這位陳先生的顧客來呢，可能不單止不會歧視，還無任歡迎。:haha:

你說的「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」，若是指性文化學會那篇文章，那麼我覺得你可能對那主張不公平。他們的意思似乎不是你所理解的這一種。你說想寫多一些第三道路，希望日後可見閣下大作。我對這問題也很關心。

[wonggk]

這故事真很感人，那位上司處理得很好。不知那位辱人的售貨員最後有沒有道歉呢？

這事裡，還不知那種羞辱是出於種族歧視呢？是因為語言不清而歧視呢？是因為做不成生意而發矛呢？似乎不容易辨別。或者，針對這問題，不必用甚麼歧視條例，而是一般的羞辱冒犯等。:confused: 若他做得成生意，可能還會盼望更多像這位陳先生的顧客來呢，可能不單止不會歧視，還無任歡迎。:haha:


In this case, the salesman's attitude is secondary. The primary issue is that he tried to sell the Chinese customer a car with a 16.95% interest rate BECAUSE the customer did not know how to read the document. Nowaday, all the salesman needed to do is to run a credit report on the customer, then he could find out what was the customer's credit score and offer a loan accordingly.

The only reason he did not do that was because of the customer's race and language ability. Going back to the definition of discrimination: receiving different treatment due to irrelevant backgaround, this is naked discrimination against race and language ability.

Also, applying this definition, would the salesman treat a white customer like that? If the answer is no, then that is discrimination.

[nkcwong]

你說的「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」，若是指性文化學會那篇文章，那麼我覺得你可能對那主張不公平。他們的意思似乎不是你所理解的這一種。你說想寫多一些第三道路，希望日後可見閣下大作。我對這問題也很關心。

市場重個人自由，而過分注重個人自由的後果，就是犧牲平等（也是歧視問題的來源--當然性傾向歧視會比種族歧視複雜點），這是很難會有爭議的事實，也不是我這個寂寂無名的哲學人提出的，有很多人已經討論過了。

羅爾斯在《正義論》分開liberty and equal worth of liberty。言論自由雖為人權，但是有錢人的言論自由與窮人的言論自由是不一樣的。有錢人可以在明報買篇幅或電視台買時間推廣他們的意見，但窮人的意見往往就因此被忽略。同理，處於主流社會的人，享有比少數人士更大的自由。那個car salesman 可以不做華人生意，因為華人市場很小，但是他不能不做白人生意。所以我為什麼說「讓自由市場處理歧視問題」是痴人說夢，根本不理解做少數人士的處境。


關於市場的其他有關討論，可參考﹕
Allen Buchanan, Ethics, Efficiency, and the Market (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1988), 特別是第二章。
主要有兩個大問題﹕
一、自由市場有壟斷的傾向；
二、自由市場不能提供public goods，因為free rider problem。

[筆是大遲]

Also, applying this definition, would the salesman treat a white customer like that? If the answer is no, then that is discrimination.

這個but if test不一成得出no的答案。因為那售貨員向那位華人sell那架高利率的車的原因，可能不是因為他的種族，而是因為他估計他會看不明白，而事實後來他真的看不明白。若一位白人(老人，年輕人，入世未深的)出現，若在言談間讓那售貨員員覺得他對這方面的認識不足，他也許同樣嘗試向他們「埋手」。或者可能是「無知」歧視，因為這些人可能不知道利率跟他們的賬戶記錄有關。(我這個香港人都不知道。) 一位語言能力不高，但知道這個資料的人就不會上當了。我認為那售貨員的手法很差，態度也很惡劣，但要說這次的羞辱是出於歧視華人，則也許需要更多的支持。(我不是說一定不是，但從文章提出的資料，我就判斷不出來。)

有時我去電腦商場買東西，有些售貨員會講大話，他們可能因為以為我不懂，所以向我售那些又貴又熱又無用武之地的高價貨(例如X1800, 1900, duel core cpu, etc.)，我明白這些貨的利潤高，他們的回報也高。所以後來我也會扮無知問一下售貨員，看看他老實不老實，才決定是否會跟他買東西。

[wonggk]

這個but if test不一成得出no的答案。因為那售貨員向那位華人sell那架高利率的車的原因，可能不是因為他的種族，而是因為他估計他會看不明白，而事實後來他真的看不明白。若一位白人(老人，年輕人，入世未深的)出現，若在言談間讓那售貨員員覺得他對這方面的認識不足，他也許同樣嘗試向他們「埋手」。或者可能是「無知」歧視，因為這些人可能不知道利率跟他們的賬戶記錄有關。(我這個香港人都不知道。) 一位語言能力不高，但知道這個資料的人就不會上當了。我認為那售貨員的手法很差，態度也很惡劣，但要說這次的羞辱是出於歧視華人，則也許需要更多的支持。(我不是說一定不是，但從文章提出的資料，我就判斷不出來。)



如果你有機會在美國生活（不是旅遊）一段短日子，你就不會說判斷不出來。

讓我告訴你一個剛剛（上星期）發生在我太太身上相似的個案吧∶我們正考慮申請一個銀行貸款，於是她到美國銀行（Bank of America），約見一個職員。我們本來是美國銀行的 preferred customer，有一個 personal banker。但是她已經轉到另一間分行，於是我太太見另一個職員，她也同時 call 我 conference in。

談不到 10 min，我們已經知道這職員當我們是「老襯」。他 quote 給我們的 rate 和費用，比銀行自己印出的資料，給普通顧客的，高了很多（和我們的 preferred customer status 比就更高了）。這個職員根本連收集我們的基本資料（工作，收入，資產等）也未做，就當我們是 high-risk customer，他也沒有 look up 我們的記錄。而這間分行是在一個非常好的地區內的，通常出入的都是中產以上的專業人士，絕少 high risk customer 的。我在電話中，也聽出他的語氣是當我們是什麼也不懂的新移民，做餐館之類的，他可能奇怪為什麼她會去這分行。（我太太的英文不是 perfect，有 accent，但是絕不差，她做 manager 管白人黑人已經十多年了。）

於是我叫太太走人，這是我不會容忍的。她後來告訴我，她走前將我們的資料給那職員看，結果他的態度馬上不同了。

不要告訴我這不是種族歧視。在那分行，如果入去的是白人，這是絕對不會發生的。（可以想像一個菲律賓女性，走入港島半山區的銀行，被人當菲傭無禮對待的情景，我不信半山區銀行的職員敢無禮對待行入去的白人或者華人，但是如果他們對面生的菲律賓女性無禮就不出奇了，即使這女士是個富商）。

如果畢兄未在美國住過，請不要 deny 或者懷疑我們不斷要面對的挑戰。

不過，話分兩頭，我們也必須肯定美國對少數民族在法律上的保障，和提供給我們的機會。在讀書，工作上等，我必須承認我要感謝她給我的機會。但是，就如 Norris Wong 強調的，這些保障是通過法律而來的，而不是通過自由經濟而來的。

[筆是大遲]

如果畢兄未在美國住過，請不要 deny 或者懷疑我們不斷要面對的挑戰。


我一直都沒有deny或懷懷你們面對的挑戰，我只是從那份文章看不出你對該事件下的結論。而且你事後補充的判斷，也正顯出了你事前是已加上了你們作為華人移民的許多親身經歷，所以也不是完全由那篇文章所產生的。你的經驗可以是普遍的，我並無意邊緣化你的經驗，但對於沒有你的經驗的人，看同一篇文章，就自然不會加上這些內容去作判斷。我只是說從文章所提的資料，我看不出一定是種族歧視。

你似乎都幾敏感下喎，唔洗咁戰鬥格啫。

[nkcwong]

我一直都沒有deny或懷懷你們面對的挑戰，我只是從那份文章看不出你對該事件下的結論。而且你事後補充的判斷，也正顯出了你事前是已加上了你們作為華人移民的許多親身經歷，所以也不是完全由那篇文章所產生的。你的經驗可以是普遍的，我並無意邊緣化你的經驗，但對於沒有你的經驗的人，看同一篇文章，就自然不會加上這些內容去作判斷。我只是說從文章所提的資料，我看不出一定是種族歧視。

你似乎都幾敏感下喎，唔洗咁戰鬥格啫。

如果你不認為以上的例子不是歧視，那麼以下這個又怎樣。我曾經寫過一個email到Verizon Communications--一間Fortune 500 公司--抗議。是因為Verizon sponsor 一個New Jersey 的電台節目，而主持人說了以下的一些話--請看我在去年五月十九日所寫的email。


-----Original Message-----

Dear Mr. Strigl,
I am appalled by the fact that as a leading Fortune 500 company, Verizon Communications would sponsor radio programs such as “Jersey Guys on 101.5FM” that propagates blatant racism. By associating itself with parties that incite racial animosity and racist sentiments, Verizon Communications is undermining its goodwill in the eyes of the public as a responsible corporate citizen. I hope that this is only an isolated incident and does not reflect the practice or policy of Verizon Communications with its diverse workforce. However, like many of us in the Asian American community, I will not use or will stop using the products and services offered by Verizon Communications until Verizon Communications withdraws sponsorship from Jersey Guys on 101.5FM.

Sincerely,

Kai C. Wong, PhD
Department of Philosophy
Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri


P.S. The following is just an excerpt from the radio show aired on April 25th:
===================================================

Voice A: "Would you really vote for someone named Jun Choi?...
No ...foreign group should ever dictate the outcome of an American
election... I don't care if the Chinese (Choi happened to be a
Korean Am.) population in Edison has quadrupled, ...Chinese
should never dictate an election, Americans should."
Voice B: "Americans should, exactly."
…………………………………………………….
Voice A talking to a caller: "You got it baby. ...the quote was Damn
Orientals & Indians. "
===================================================


這類例子實在多不勝數。所以我再三說「用自由市場處理歧視」的說法是nonsense。

[nkcwong]

畢君，如果你要看整個radio program 的transcript，可download以下的attachment，就知道這些是什麼人對亞裔人說什麼話了。

[Ming Yuen Yee]

如果你有機會在美國生活（不是旅遊）一段短日子，你就不會說判斷不出來。

如果畢兄未在美國住過，請不要 deny 或者懷疑我們不斷要面對的挑戰。

我在美國生活的短短三年，也有不少算是難忘的經驗。那是個中部城市，也算是比較多種族共融的地方，但在巴士上黑人跟白人竟然常常是自自然然分開前後排坐的！學生和黃種人如我就兩邊有位都會坐。1995-1998仍然有這種事發生，是否難以置信？不知其他的美國城市如何？

我和香港來的朋友也有過在街上被警察無端截查的經驗，是當我們通緝犯，成架警車「剷」上行人路截你那種！那次都幾驚，怕被搜身，甚至被人打。同學都說在美國「好仔唔當差」，只有中學裡的問題少年才會做警察。

在美國，連我教書有英國（加中國）accent，也被學生和系裡的秘書「投訴」！

坦白說我在英國的五年卻沒有任何這些經驗，警察叔叔尤其友善。

[筆是大遲]

畢君，如果你要看整個radio program 的transcript，可download以下的attachment，就知道這些是什麼人對亞裔人說什麼話了。

看完了，真的很離譜。

[wonggk]

我一直都沒有deny或懷懷你們面對的挑戰，我只是從那份文章看不出你對該事件下的結論。而且你事後補充的判斷，也正顯出了你事前是已加上了你們作為華人移民的許多親身經歷，所以也不是完全由那篇文章所產生的。你的經驗可以是普遍的，我並無意邊緣化你的經驗，但對於沒有你的經驗的人，看同一篇文章，就自然不會加上這些內容去作判斷。我只是說從文章所提的資料，我看不出一定是種族歧視。

你似乎都幾敏感下喎，唔洗咁戰鬥格啫。
這也算戰鬥格？？:) 你要見下我「炳」人的樣了。

不過，我承認我對歧視問題是敏感（或高警惕性）的。敏感和過敏是不同的。在美國 midwest 住了十多年，見到太多例子了，對歧視不敏感是慢性自殺。美國社會是不 stand up for your rights 就當你不存在的。

回到你說的「從文章所提的資料，我看不出一定是種族歧視」，這背後其實有很值得討論的地方，就是用什麼 burden of proof 的 standard？

你可以有三個立場∶
1。假設歧視存在，the salesman to prove otherwise
2。假設沒有歧視，the buyer to prove that he was discriminated against
3。不預設任何解釋，但是試圖找出 most likely explanation for the salesman's behavior。

如果用的標準是 1 那麼歧視存在是個合理的結論。除非你用的標準是 2，才可以說達不到歧視的結論。即使用3，種族歧視還是一個非常合理的結論，at least as likely as any other explanation。

但是，given the history of discrimination and what we know about racial relationship in general，「1」 就已經是最合理的標準來評估這個案。

這和法律上的 burden of proof 不同，我同意在這例子中，法律上未必夠證據將這salesman 定罪。但是，立法的其中一個目的是 shift the curve。如果沒有美國法律的保護，這個買車的顧客會受到差十倍的對待了。

[筆是大遲]

敏感和過敏是不同的。在美國 midwest 住了十多年，見到太多例子了，對歧視不敏感是慢性自殺。美國社會是不 stand up for your rights 就當你不存在的。



我說「戰鬥格」又是過了火，我原想講的是你太抗辯性，反應太敏感。

明婉儀在英國五年都沒有遇見她在美國三年所遇見的事，我有一些朋友在英國讀書，也說英國的校園沒有明顯的種族歧視，黑人和亞裔人都一樣，與英國人相處良好。你說在中西部住了十多年，是否不同的地理區域有不同的情況？(我對美國並不認識) 黃繼忠是否同樣住在中西部？有沒有在東部和北部的情況？

我還以為美國會較文明一點呢。我的女傭曾被警察問話，因她忘了帶身份證，被懷疑過期居留或從事黑工，要我去警署帶同她的證件去「贖」回她。她怕得要死，哭過半死。但她說警察們一直很和善，警察也跟我解釋不明白為何她會哭得這麼利害。或者，香港的種族歧視情況還不及美國嚴重呢。

[wonggk]

我在美國生活的短短三年，也有不少算是難忘的經驗。那是個中部城市，也算是比較多種族共融的地方，但在巴士上黑人跟白人竟然常常是自自然然分開前後排坐的！學生和黃種人如我就兩邊有位都會坐。1995-1998仍然有這種事發生，是否難以置信？不知其他的美國城市如何？

我和香港來的朋友也有過在街上被警察無端截查的經驗，是當我們通緝犯，成架警車「剷」上行人路截你那種！那次都幾驚，怕被搜身，甚至被人打。同學都說在美國「好仔唔當差」，只有中學裡的問題少年才會做警察。

在美國，連我教書有英國（加中國）accent，也被學生和系裡的秘書「投訴」！

坦白說我在英國的五年卻沒有任何這些經驗，警察叔叔尤其友善。
我現在住的 St Louis 是美國最 segregate 的城市，黑白分明的。

不過，在我和警察的接觸中，還未有任何問題（so far 都只是被抄牌而矣），我教書的經驗也不錯（已經說過，我以前教 MIS，database，近年教 healthcare informatics，這些學系外國出生的教授比美國出生的還多，有accent 學生會視為品質保證呢 :)）

我最大的挑戰是在日常生活接觸中所遇到的事情，例如我上面說去銀行的例子。

[wonggk]

我說「戰鬥格」又是過了火，我原想講的是你太抗辯性，反應太敏感。

明婉儀在英國五年都沒有遇見她在美國三年所遇見的事，我有一些朋友在英國讀書，也說英國的校園沒有明顯的種族歧視，黑人和亞裔人都一樣，與英國人相處良好。你說在中西部住了十多年，是否不同的地理區域有不同的情況？(我對美國並不認識) 黃繼忠是否同樣住在中西部？有沒有在東部和北部的情況？

我還以為美國會較文明一點呢。我的女傭曾被警察問話，因她忘了帶身份證，被懷疑過期居留或從事黑工，要我去警署帶同她的證件去「贖」回她。她怕得要死，哭過半死。但她說警察們一直很和善，警察也跟我解釋不明白為何她會哭得這麼利害。或者，香港的種族歧視情況還不及美國嚴重呢。
美國現在的 Blue states （親共和黨的州）和 Red states（親民主黨的州）是很不同的。加州和 midwest 的差別就很大。黃繼忠和我是在同一州。

基本上，愈「宗教化」（我不想用屬靈這個字）的州，歧視的情況州愈嚴重。一個主要的原因，是「福音派基督教」反對「多元文化」，結果就為種族歧視提供了理論上的支持。當主流群體強調只接受一種文化的時候，打擊其他的文化和種族就變為「替天行道」了。

我常常覺得美國的華人教會很忘本，因為現在美國華人的權益很大程度是自由派人士（黑人民權運動者、同性戀者、婦解等）在爭取權益時 spill over 「益」華人的，但是現在美國的華人教會卻成為保守派的看門狗，在掘自己的墳墓。

[筆是大遲]

我常常覺得美國的華人教會很忘本，因為現在美國華人的權益很大程度是自由派人士（黑人民權運動者、同性戀者、婦解等）在爭取權益時 spill over 「益」華人的，但是現在美國的華人教會卻成為保守派的看門狗，在掘自己的墳墓。

最近有人介紹我看一本叫Blinded by Might的書，是美國右派裡的一些反省，批評自己過去(80-90's)的行動。不知有沒有人讀過？我還未打算是否讀，不知是否值得讀。

[DANIEL]

好奇，想問問 wonggk，美國歧視的情況是否真的很嚴重？
我在加拿大差不多三年，東西部都住過 (老實說，之前和現在所住的都是大城巿，中部和較偏遠的地方沒有去過和住過，所以經驗一定會有偏差)，暫時為止都未有遇過任何歧視的情況。可能中國人在這邊較為有錢吧 =]

不過，我想唯一比較明顯的是不同種族的通婚。真的很少見有任何白種人和黃種人/ 中國人和黑人的通婚。不知美國是否一樣？

[nkcwong]

好奇，想問問 wonggk，美國歧視的情況是否真的很嚴重？
我在加拿大差不多三年，東西部都住過 (老實說，之前和現在所住的都是大城巿，中部和較偏遠的地方沒有去過和住過，所以經驗一定會有偏差)，暫時為止都未有遇過任何歧視的情況。可能中國人在這邊較為有錢吧 =]

加拿大咁大，只有三千多萬人口，市場這麼小，已經有兩百六十萬是亞裔，而且他們有錢，如果要歧視，根本是要倒自己的米。加拿大也較重平等，在憲法上寫明了。但美國較重自由，特別是言論自由，所以那些New Jersey電台節目主持人可以順口開河，侮辱亞裔，很難相信加拿大會有這類事情發生。

[wonggk]

好奇，想問問 wonggk，美國歧視的情況是否真的很嚴重？
我在加拿大差不多三年，東西部都住過 (老實說，之前和現在所住的都是大城巿，中部和較偏遠的地方沒有去過和住過，所以經驗一定會有偏差)，暫時為止都未有遇過任何歧視的情況。可能中國人在這邊較為有錢吧 =]

不過，我想唯一比較明顯的是不同種族的通婚。真的很少見有任何白種人和黃種人/ 中國人和黑人的通婚。不知美國是否一樣？
「歧視是否嚴重」是個程度的問題，不容易簡單回答的。就是上面所說，不同的州也很不同。

公開的系統性歧視當然沒有（例如商店說明不準華人入內之類），但是按照我們常用的定義∶「因為不相關的原因（種族）而得到次等的對待」，就是常見的了。令我最不可以接受的，是白人那種「你們」來到「我們」地方的態度。美國和歐洲很不同，如果在歐洲被這樣看待，我可以理解。但是北美並不是白人原來的地方，原居民印地安人或者有道德上的資格用這樣的態度來對其他的種族，但是白人就絕對沒有這資格。

我也常到加拿大（每年一至兩次），也覺得加拿大對不同文化的認同比美國高得多。一個重要的原因可能是教會的勢力沒有美國那麼強。美國現在的「政教商」關系是超級嚴重的，加拿大好得多。

另外，就如黃繼忠說的，加拿大人中華人的比率已經很高，有足夠的政治和經濟能力來對付歧視。這現象在美國的加州和其他幾個州也見到。加州的多元文化和加拿大有點相似，難怪華人都要搬來那裏了。（我也計劃在兩年後搬回加州。）

[wonggk]

最近有人介紹我看一本叫Blinded by Might的書，是美國右派裡的一些反省，批評自己過去(80-90's)的行動。不知有沒有人讀過？我還未打算是否讀，不知是否值得讀。
我沒有讀過這本書，但是 I do see some light at the end of the tunnel。我沒有數據來證明我的觀察，但是我似乎覺得現在教會已經不是一面倒的支持布殊政府。

另外，在這一兩個禮拜的反反移民法抗議中，天主教和自由派的教會是完全支持移民的，保守派的基督教教會卻沒有什麼行動。當然也可能是錢作怪，沒有非法移民大公司就沒有超廉價勞工了。

[wonggk]

最近有人介紹我看一本叫Blinded by Might的書，是美國右派裡的一些反省，批評自己過去(80-90's)的行動。不知有沒有人讀過？我還未打算是否讀，不知是否值得讀。
我 look up 了這本書的一些資料。它其中的一個作者 Cal Thomas 是美國基督教保守派圈子中非常有名的專柵作家。Thomas 在 90 年代的言論是典形保守派，但是他從約 2000 開始就轉變了立場。現在他對保守派企圖通過政教合一來推行基督教的道德價值大力反對。

更重要的，是 James Dobson 親自出名（不知是不是他親自寫）來反對和批評這本書。這可見保守派對它的重視，但是這也展視出保守派的「唯我獨專」心態，Thomas 本來是他們的同路人，這本書也似乎只是個「內部策略上的矛盾」而不是「敵我矛盾」，但是一有不同的意見，就匆忙畫清界線，將他定為「反革命分子」了。

(只要 Google "Blined by Might"， 這些批判就出來了）

[筆是大遲]

更重要的，是 James Dobson 親自出名（不知是不是他親自寫）來反對和批評這本書。這可見保守派對它的重視，但是這也展視出保守派的「唯我獨專」心態，Thomas 本來是他們的同路人，這本書也似乎只是個「內部策略上的矛盾」而不是「敵我矛盾」，但是一有不同的意見，就匆忙畫清界線，將他定為「反革命分子」了。

(只要 Google "Blined by Might"， 這些批判就出來了）

這顯示這書值得一讀了。我看過James Dobson的批評，不覺得他offensive，他否定孤立基督教，否定教會不過問世事，認為Blinded by Might一書即有此建議。若James的閱讀並沒有歪曲了原著，那James的意見我是同意的。梁家麟近來幾篇文章，說教會不必(不是不可以)議政，不必(不是不可以)派維他命C。可能與Blined by Might的作者的想法相近。我不熟美國保守派過去的作風，但James的那兩批評是合理的，至於具體地為過去右派的做法和策略辯護是否持平，就是另一個問題了。似乎Blinded by Might一書不只是批評過去右派參政的做法，而是說它背後的意識形態是一種Might的形態，James否定此說。總之要看一看這書了。

謝謝你的資料。

[wonggk]

這顯示這書值得一讀了。我看過James Dobson的批評，不覺得他offensive

Dobson 的評論說∶

In conclusion, let me refer to the implications of the title Blinded By Might. That phrase impugns the motives of every Christian who has worked tirelessly and thanklessly to influence our government. It implies that the sacrifices made to defend righteousness in the culture have been products of egotism and naive. That is a low blow. ...

I hope the book slides quickly into the night before it can do any more damage to the nation and to the church of Jesus Christ.

在美國，特別是對基督教圈內的「弟兄」，這些是很 offensive 的語氣。

我也有興趣找這本書來看看了。

[筆是大遲]

Dobson 的評論說∶

In conclusion, let me refer to the implications of the title Blinded By Might. That phrase impugns the motives of every Christian who has worked tirelessly and thanklessly to influence our government. It implies that the sacrifices made to defend righteousness in the culture have been products of egotism and naive. That is a low blow. ...

I hope the book slides quickly into the night before it can do any more damage to the nation and to the church of Jesus Christ.

在美國，特別是對基督教圈內的「弟兄」，這些是很 offensive 的語氣。

我也有興趣找這本書來看看了。

嘩！咁就算offensive了嗎？看來「美國基督教圈內的弟兄」倒真很敏感。若評閱者不同意對方批評自己為egotism and naive，而說是low blow，再而希望它快些過去，免得對教會帶來傷害，我覺得語氣是可接受的，無疑雙方立場的確迴異。

不知在「美國基督教圈」外，這些說話是否都認為offensive呢？

[維記wei_kei]

Dobson 的評論說∶

In conclusion, let me refer to the implications of the title Blinded By Might. That phrase impugns the motives of every Christian who has worked tirelessly and thanklessly to influence our government. It implies that the sacrifices made to defend righteousness in the culture have been products of egotism and naive. That is a low blow. ...

I hope the book slides quickly into the night before it can do any more damage to the nation and to the church of Jesus Christ.

在美國，特別是對基督教圈內的「弟兄」，這些是很 offensive 的語氣。

我也有興趣找這本書來看看了。
或許我有點敏感，但我即時想起近日的「斷背」論爭......

[wonggk]

嘩！咁就算offensive了嗎？看來「美國基督教圈內的弟兄」倒真很敏感。若評閱者不同意對方批評自己為egotism and naive，而說是low blow，再而希望它快些過去，免得對教會帶來傷害，我覺得語氣是可接受的，無疑雙方立場的確迴異。

不知在「美國基督教圈」外，這些說話是否都認為offensive呢？
Dobson 不是要求讀者認同他的觀點，而是直接要這本書「消失」。這是否定了這本書作為 constructive criticism 的價值。

另外，不同意人家的觀點不是問題， 但是，low blow 是指人家「暗箭傷人」或者「打茅波」。就算 Thomas 等直接指保守派 egotism and naive，他可以開門見山的反駁，但是 low blow 是個攻擊對方人格和道德的指控，指對方是小人。Dobson 只是說這書 「imply」 保守派是 egotism and naive，也就是說 Thomas 等沒有用過這些字，就算有，egotism and naive 也不是強烈的人格和道德指控（這兩個字用來形容性格遠遠多過形容人格）。

重要的，是 Dobson 絕對不承認在基督教圈子中可以有不同的意見。這和香港一些（注意∶我不是說所有）反 SODO 和反同性戀人士的態度是相似的。

我未找到這書，所以不是要支持 Thomas 等。但是，我可以聲明我對 James Dobson 和他的組織是十分反對的。我相信我讀過 Dobson 的言論夠多，不是受他人影響而得出的結論。有機會會公開的批判他的謬誤。

[筆是大遲]

Dobson 不是要求讀者認同他的觀點，而是直接要這本書「消失」。這是否定了這本書作為 constructive criticism 的價值。

另外，不同意人家的觀點不是問題， 但是，low blow 是指人家「暗箭傷人」或者「打茅波」。就算 Thomas 等直接指保守派 egotism and naive，他可以開門見山的反駁，但是 low blow 是個攻擊對方人格和道德的指控，指對方是小人。Dobson 只是說這書 「imply」 保守派是 egotism and naive，也就是說 Thomas 等沒有用過這些字，就算有，egotism and naive 也不是強烈的人格和道德指控（這兩個字用來形容性格遠遠多過形容人格）。

重要的，是 Dobson 絕對不承認在基督教圈子中可以有不同的意見。這和香港一些（注意∶我不是說所有）反 SODO 和反同性戀人士的態度是相似的。

我未找到這書，所以不是要支持 Thomas 等。但是，我可以聲明我對 James Dobson 和他的組織是十分反對的。我相信我讀過 Dobson 的言論夠多，不是受他人影響而得出的結論。有機會會公開的批判他的謬誤。

我覺得low blow(源自拳擊的矛招，我覺得還未去到攻擊人格的地步)和cheap shot都是惹人反感的字，但卻常見。我自己還可以接受，但我不會這樣批別人。這類字眼介乎不客氣與強烈指責之間，可免則免。
我不認識Dobson的政治言論，但他的教仔書我倒看過兩本。我覺教仔方面他講得不錯。我知他的教仔方式一定是反潮流的，但有一定道理，與中國文化有不少地方很似。

[Garlic]

我不認識Dobson的政治言論，但他的教仔書我倒看過兩本。我覺教仔方面他講得不錯。我知他的教仔方式一定是反潮流的，但有一定道理，與中國文化有不少地方很似。

中國式教仔有優點啊，中西古今結合的教仔方法最好！現在香港的方法我有時不欲觀之，教出個自我中心的小皇帝來！

[wonggk]

我不認識Dobson的政治言論，但他的教仔書我倒看過兩本。我覺教仔方面他講得不錯。我知他的教仔方式一定是反潮流的，但有一定道理，與中國文化有不少地方很似。
我對他關教於紀律孩子方面的理論也OK，但是他的危險正是他打著Child Psychology PhD；前 USC 醫學院教授的招牌來提供一些 plain wrong 的意見。

以下的個案是台灣的 Focus in the Family 在美國星島日報的廣告中用過的（這是我改寫的，但是相信沒有改變原來的意思，我會分開我自己的批評）∶

有家長問 Dobson∶我的女兒覺得自己肥，我應該怎麼辦？

Dobson 的回答∶現在我們的社會太注重身體的形像，那些減肥廣告和模特兒的照片帶來極大的壓力，讓我們覺得一定要有美好的身裁。其實這是錯的。我們需要教導孩子不要理會這些宣傳，接受自己的形像。。。（大意）

打開報紙和中文電視，看到無數的減肥廣告，我也認同 Dobson 上面的言論。我以前教會也有一女士和她的醫生丈夫（不知是否基督徒）在加州開美容院，並在電視大賣廣告（美國醫生可以賣廣告的），幸好她沒有叫這做「福音美容院」:D

但是，一半對一半錯的論點才是最危險的。Dobson 上面的回應，莫視了一個極重要的事實∶美國現在有 50% 的兒童是 overweight（Body Mass Index > 25），25% 是肥胖（obese， Body Mass Index > 27）。二形糖尿病 （Type II Diabetes）在十多歲的年輕人身上出現已經是常見。他不知道（或者沒有說出）這個女兒的 Body Mass Index （BMI），怎知她的「肥胖」是只是自我形像問題，還是真的是 clinically obese？

如果這女兒的 BMI 是 24-25，那麼 Dobson 的意見是對的。但是，如果是25 以上，這就不是自我形像的問題了。如果這家長和女兒「照單完收」，不改變生活習慣，只改變對自己自己形像的接受程度，結果百病叢生，難度告Dobson malpractice 嗎？又如果這女孩的 BMI 是 18 以下，但是她還是覺得自己肥，她可能有另外的精神問題（例如 eating disorder，obessive disorder）是要處理的。Dobson 自稱兒童心理專家、前醫學院教授，不可能不知道這些。

他要批評文化中對身體形像的不健康期望，這是我也完全同意的。但是，在報紙中為了宣傳一種意式形態，而犧牲讀者的健康，因為他的背景和自稱的專家身分，這是草菅人命！這些公開發放的傳單式資料是最要小心的，因為不知道讀者的背景。若果有讀者有個 clinically obese 的孩子，但是讀了這廣告後，因為信 Dobson 的專家身分，以為完全接受他的自我形像就是了，結果孩子出事了，要誰負責呢？

這例子和政治沒有直接關係，以後有機會再分析他在這方面的錯誤。

(BMI Calculator:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/english_bmi_calculator/bmi_calculator.htm)

[nkcwong]

進一步的數據顯示亞裔面對玻璃天花版。80-20宣稱「不能推翻」有點虛張聲勢，因為可能有其他解釋原因，但是數據也應該有相當的說服力。

以下是80-20最新的email。（http://www.80-20initiative.net/ 。80-20 是為美國亞裔人士爭取平等機會及抗衡歧視的組織。這個組織由不少的知識份子組成，創辦人是前Delawar e的副州長吳仙標----一位香港移民---成立的。）

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Irrefutable evidence," said 80-20 of the chart below. Is it true?
Yes. EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in a
series of meetings and communications with 80-20 EF between
12/13/05 and 4/12/06 has just verified its validity. This chart can
now be presented as evidence before Congressional hearings and in
court proceedings, by 80-20 or by any AsAm individual filing a
discrimination suit.

Getting that verification is a giant step forward in winning equal
opportunity at work for AsAms. Hence, GREAT NEWS! EEOC
reports directly to the President.


The chart shows that AsAms face the WORST glass ceiling to enter
the managerial class in "private industries," "universities " and "Federal
government," where 2.1 million of us work !

In that sense, it is also such SAD NEWS ! What has caused it?
Is it because some of us are timid, or are uncaring about our
children's future or have a "slave mentality" that we sat back
and did nothing?

NO! It's only because we didn't have hard facts to act upon.
Now that 80-20 has gotten such powerful facts verified, let's unite and
ACT TO WIN our equal opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[筆是大遲]

進一步的數據顯示亞裔面對玻璃天花版。80-20宣稱「不能推翻」有點虛張聲勢，因為可能有其他解釋原因，但是數據也應該有相當的說服力。



看不明白為何有些數字會高過100%。可否以加解釋？我對數字有些遲鈍。

[nkcwong]

看不明白為何有些數字會高過100%。可否以加解釋？我對數字有些遲鈍。

100%應該是median。如果是120%，那麼你是比其他人多出五分之一的晉升機會。

詳細要問Gordon Wong，或其他懂統計的會員。

[wonggk]

100%應該是median。如果是120%，那麼你是比其他人多出五分之一的晉升機會。

詳細要問Gordon Wong，或其他懂統計的會員。
You are right. Notice that the blue dotted line (national average) is 100%.

The chart means that for Blacks, if they work in the private industry, they have only a 65% chance of getting into a management position when compared to the average.. But they have ~130% chance to reach management position if they work for the federal government or a university.

For Asians, when we work for private industry, we have only 50% chance of becoming management compared to the average. Even worse when we work for a university or the government.

We need to look beyond the data and ask why. The overall lower rates for Asian is a major concern, but the individual rates themselves are worth analyzing.

The chart tells us one thing very important: Asians do better (relatively only) in the private industry, while Blacks, Hispanics, and Women do better in government and university. Why?

I think the explanation is this: government and universities have strong affirmative action program to help Blacks, Hispanics, and Women. But Asians are excluded from affirmative action prorgam because the sterotype is that Asians are already better off. Meanwhile, in the private industry, competition is more on ability (i.e. free market force).

So, in an environment that free market and profit don't matter (university, government etc.), without administrative intervention, Asians do worst.

What this chart does not show, is whether groups have similar backgrounds, and hence may explain part of the difference. For example, this chart makes more sense if only professionals and college educated are included (these are people who have potential to reach management level).

But if not, then the problem is much worse. We already know that Asians have the highest college graduation and graduate degree rates, so should already have higher chance to reach management level.

I mentioned cultural and social skills (e.g. drinking red wine, playing golf) limitation in some previous posts. But that could not explain a 50% or more difference compared to the average.

[Daniel_Cheung]

看不明白為何有些數字會高過100%。可否以加解釋？我對數字有些遲鈍。

我也看不明白。高過100%，粗略來說，是因為某個種族的人在某類行業可以比其他人優勝，這問題不大。但是 "% Chance as Compared to National Average" 裡的national average是甚麼？表面看來，它的意思是：例如，全國平均有n%的人在大學裡晉升至管理層，華裔人士有m%，而m/n會是40%？又或者是，全國有x數量的人在大學裡晉升至管理層，華裔人士有y數量，而y/x會是40%？但稱後者為「平均」，好像 doesn't make sense，那麼，會是前者，但仍有一個問題：究竟是n% out of what？m% out of what？

如果是n% 或m% out of qualified candidates in that profession，例如，全國有九千名教授可以晉身管理層，其中有n%晉身了，但那九千人中，有一千名華裔教授可以晉身管理層，其中卻只有m%晉身了。由於m遠比n小，所以可以令人懷疑是有不公平現象。但是，n 和 m 的計算方法卻很成疑問，例如private industry裡，如何界定一個人有資格獲晉升？例如，不論甚麼界別，有些職位名稱上是經理但實際上沒有實權，如何？

因此，作為一個沒有進一步資料的讀者，我會覺得，除非百分別上的有很多的差別，否則不宜make too many inference。

[wonggk]

我也看不明白。高過100%，粗略來說，是因為某個種族的人在某類行業可以比其他人優勝，這問題不大。但是 "% Chance as Compared to National Average" 裡的national average是甚麼？表面看來，它的意思是：例如，全國平均有n%的人在大學裡晉升至管理層，華裔人士有m%，而m/n會是40%？又或者是，全國有x數量的人在大學裡晉升至管理層，華裔人士有y數量，而y/x會是40%？但稱後者為「平均」，好像 doesn't make sense，那麼，會是前者，但仍有一個問題：究竟是n% out of what？m% out of what？



這些 relative risk （或者應該說 relative opportunity）的計法是這樣的∶首先計出整個人口達到管理層的比率，例如有 20% 的就業人士會最終成為管理人員。將這定為 100%。然後，計算每一個 subgroup 的比率，再和整體人口比較。假設女性就業人士中，最終成為管理層的是 15%。這樣，和平均比較，女性的機會就是 75%（15%/20%）。如果有 25% 的黑人能夠成為管理層，他們的機會就是 125%

這種present數據的方法在醫學報告上最常見，例我們常常聽到∶吃XX會增加生癌的機會 500%之類。



如果是n% 或m% out of qualified candidates in that profession，例如，全國有九千名教授可以晉身管理層，其中有n%晉身了，但那九千人中，有一千名華裔教授可以晉身管理層，其中卻只有m%晉身了。由於m遠比n小，所以可以令人懷疑是有不公平現象。但是，n 和 m 的計算方法卻很成疑問，例如private industry裡，如何界定一個人有資格獲晉升？例如，不論甚麼界別，有些職位名稱上是經理但實際上沒有實權，如何？

因此，作為一個沒有進一步資料的讀者，我會覺得，除非百分別上的有很多的差別，否則不宜make too many inference。

這就是我在上面說的，需要知道這些人士背景的原因。But the high rate of college graduates and advanced degree holders among Asians is highly relevant. We already start at a better position, but end up much worse than Blacks and Hispanics. This is highly suggestive of some "glass ceiling".

[wonggk]

這些 relative risk （或者應該說 relative opportunity）的計法是這樣的∶首先計出整個人口達到管理層的比率，例如有 20% 的就業人士會最終成為管理人員。將這定為 100%。然後，計算每一個 subgroup 的比率，再和整體人口比較。假設女性就業人士中，最終成為管理層的是 15%。這樣，和平均比較，女性的機會就是 75%（15%/20%）。如果有 25% 的黑人能夠成為管理層，他們的機會就是 125%

這種present數據的方法在醫學報告上最常見，例我們常常聽到∶吃XX會增加生癌的機會 500%之類。

這就是我在上面說的，需要知道這些人士背景的原因。But the high rate of college graduates and advanced degree holders among Asians is highly relevant. We already start at a better position, but end up much worse than Blacks and Hispanics. This is highly suggestive of some "glass ceiling".

80-20 的網站有關於亞裔教育背景的圖表
http://www.80-20initiative.net/chartfaq.html

可以見到，亞裔的教育背景比其他的種族高很多，但是收入卻和教育水準不成正比。

這也正是去年我在 SODO 的討論中，反駁「同性戀者的平均收入比社會高，所以不存在歧視」的相同論據。

[nkcwong]

以下的圖表是出自去年十二月一日印刷版的The Economist，並列了一些歐美國家對移民的態度，其中以加拿大為最移民friendly。

[Ming Yuen Yee]

以下的圖表是出自去年十二月一日印刷版的The Economist，並列了一些歐美國家對移民的態度，其中以加拿大為最移民friendly。
美國比英國好？我想要視乎是來自那裡、甚麼膚色、甚麼經濟環境、學歷的移民。

[nkcwong]

I just got this from 80-20. 看完以下的笑話，令我想起柏楊所寫的《醜陋中國人》。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An Asian American whom I know emailed me this JOKE ON ASIAN
AMERICANS. Upon finishing reading it, I laughed and cried. It is so
funny only because it has such an element of truth to it. Hence I want to share with all of you.

Subject: Barber & Asian Americans

There is this good ol' barber in some city in US.
One day a Caucasian florist goes to him for a haircut. After the
cut, he goes to pay the barber and the barber replies: "I am Sorry,
I cannot accept money from you; I am doing a community
service." The florist is happy and leaves the shop. The next
morning when the barber goes to open his shop, there is a
"Thank you" card and a dozen roses waiting at his door. An
African American cop goes for a haircut and he also goes to pay
the barber and the barber replies: "I am Sorry, I cannot accept
money from you; I am doing a community service." The cop is
happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber
goes to open his shop, there is a "Thank you" card and a dozen
donuts waiting at his door. An Asian Software Engineer goes for a
haircut and he also goes to pay the barber and barber replies; "I
am Sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I am doing a
community service." The next morning when the barber goes to
open his shop, guess what he finds there - A dozen Asians
waiting for a free Haircut.


Those of us who don't belong to that group can laugh and cry with
me. Others of us may want to use this joke as a mirror.

We can't think that the more freebies we can get from others, the
better we will be. For example, our past tendency to let others fight
for our battles has resulted in NO ONE FIGHTING FOR US AT ALL,
not us ourselves and not even some of the AsAm politicians.


Laughing and crying at the same time,

S. B. Woo（吳仙標）
President,
80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[wonggk]

我對他關教於紀律孩子方面的理論也OK，但是他的危險正是他打著Child Psychology PhD；前 USC 醫學院教授的招牌來提供一些 plain wrong 的意見。

以下的個案是台灣的 Focus in the Family 在美國星島日報的廣告中用過的（這是我改寫的，但是相信沒有改變原來的意思，我會分開我自己的批評）∶

有家長問 Dobson∶我的女兒覺得自己肥，我應該怎麼辦？

Dobson 的回答∶現在我們的社會太注重身體的形像，那些減肥廣告和模特兒的照片帶來極大的壓力，讓我們覺得一定要有美好的身裁。其實這是錯的。我們需要教導孩子不要理會這些宣傳，接受自己的形像。。。（大意）

打開報紙和中文電視，看到無數的減肥廣告，我也認同 Dobson 上面的言論。我以前教會也有一女士和她的醫生丈夫（不知是否基督徒）在加州開美容院，並在電視大賣廣告（美國醫生可以賣廣告的），幸好她沒有叫這做「福音美容院」:D

但是，一半對一半錯的論點才是最危險的。Dobson 上面的回應，莫視了一個極重要的事實∶美國現在有 50% 的兒童是 overweight（Body Mass Index > 25），25% 是肥胖（obese， Body Mass Index > 27）。二形糖尿病 （Type II Diabetes）在十多歲的年輕人身上出現已經是常見。他不知道（或者沒有說出）這個女兒的 Body Mass Index （BMI），怎知她的「肥胖」是只是自我形像問題，還是真的是 clinically obese？

如果這女兒的 BMI 是 24-25，那麼 Dobson 的意見是對的。但是，如果是25 以上，這就不是自我形像的問題了。如果這家長和女兒「照單完收」，不改變生活習慣，只改變對自己自己形像的接受程度，結果百病叢生，難度告Dobson malpractice 嗎？又如果這女孩的 BMI 是 18 以下，但是她還是覺得自己肥，她可能有另外的精神問題（例如 eating disorder，obessive disorder）是要處理的。Dobson 自稱兒童心理專家、前醫學院教授，不可能不知道這些。

他要批評文化中對身體形像的不健康期望，這是我也完全同意的。但是，在報紙中為了宣傳一種意式形態，而犧牲讀者的健康，因為他的背景和自稱的專家身分，這是草菅人命！這些公開發放的傳單式資料是最要小心的，因為不知道讀者的背景。若果有讀者有個 clinically obese 的孩子，但是讀了這廣告後，因為信 Dobson 的專家身分，以為完全接受他的自我形像就是了，結果孩子出事了，要誰負責呢？

這例子和政治沒有直接關係，以後有機會再分析他在這方面的錯誤。

(BMI Calculator:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/english_bmi_calculator/bmi_calculator.htm)

Dobson 最近的一個 nonsense
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/kathleenparker/story/5C51938B84CD021F8625716A001CE785?OpenDocument

[nkcwong]

星期六獨個兒去了80-20（一個為美國亞裔人士爭取公平待遇的組織）在本城的一個press conference，出席的人大部份是本地華人報業的代表及大學教授，人數雖然很少，但感受良多。在美國這麼久的日子，現在才慢慢感受到being an American是一個過程，不是拿著護照就行，乃是積極參與社會，而政治參與尤其重要，因為會有一份empowerment感，且在爭取平權當中，肯定自己華人身份在公共空間的地位。這些相關的政治學理念已經讀過不少，但是親身體會又是另一番滋味。

[nkcwong]

Subject: From Lobsters to the Declaration of Independence
By Amy Wong Mok, Board Member, 80-20 Initiative

It happened a few weeks ago. My Dragon Boat Race coach and I were celebrating the success of our 8th Annual event in a Chinese restaurant in Austin, Texas. We are both Asian women (she is from Singapore and I am from Hong Kong) who love seafood and on that occasion we decided to have a lobster feast. We ordered two dishes, clams with black bean sauce and lobsters with ginger & scallion sauce. The dishes were quite big and filled up a table that was big enough for four.

We were enjoying the delicious flavor of the crustaceans while reflecting on the excitement of the event and the team spirit that brought out our Austin community and we were enthusiastically planning to organize an international competition next year. All of a sudden, a middle-age Anglo man walked past our table and made a remark that was too loud to be missed: "It is a lot of food." I truly believe that he had no ill intent but nevertheless, he took the liberty to express his observation to our face. At that moment, I had to think very quickly to respond and not to react. I replied simply with a smile, "Do we look like we cannot handle it?" He responded with embarrassment, "Oh, it is I who could not handle it." In response, I offered to explain, "There is not only meat but a lot of shells in these dishes." He nodded and walked away.

A few days later, I sat down with my sister/confidante, an Anglo American from whom I have learnt a lot about activism in the woman's movement. I told her the incident at the Chinese restaurant and I asked her, "I felt a sense of intrusion when that man came to our space and made that uninvited comment to us. Did I overreact?" She gave me a pensive smile and asked me, "Amy, would you go up to two white men, in a French restaurant and tell them your observation about their unusual culinary habit to their face even though it is an honest observation?"

Her answer was a reassurance to me. My Anglo sister affirmed my awareness of condescending mistreatment, no matter how subtle. She taught me that it is the insidiousness of racism and class that fosters an environment where abuse and mistreatment are taken to be normal, even if unthinkingly by the offender. She validated my feelings, taught me to trust it and defend it. It is my grounding to fight for and protect equality and justice for all, including us Asian Americans.

There have been a lot of wrongs done to Asian Americans, as far back as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the internment of the Japanese American during the Second World War and as recent as the gross mistreatment of Wen-Ho Lee, the Los Alamos scientist who received an apology for his mistreatment from a conservative judge and James Yee, a Chinese American Muslim Chaplain at Guantanamo Bay who was accused of treason but got his charges dropped when the government could not substantiate the case......

[wonggk]

Subject: From Lobsters to the Declaration of Independence
By Amy Wong Mok, Board Member, 80-20 Initiative
...

我也有收到這電郵，但是，這次我卻不同意作者的觀點。

電郵所描述的情況未必是和顧客的種族有關，而是和餐廳的種類有關。華人不會在法國餐廳問人吃什麼，但是卻會在中菜酒樓問鄰臺吃的是什麼、或者什麼好吃。我不肯定白人會不會在高級的法國餐廳這樣做（因為去得不多），但是除了中國餐廳外，他們在美國的家庭式餐廳是隨時會這樣做的。

所以問題似乎是法國餐廳一早已經給人一種高檔、formal 的型像，有一些行為是被視為不適當的。但是在其他的餐廳卻沒有相似的規舉。

坦白說，在外國，中菜還是被視為低檔的，未離開雜碎館的型像。

[wonggk]

我也有收到這電郵，但是，這次我卻不同意作者的觀點。

電郵所描述的情況未必是和顧客的種族有關，而是和餐廳的種類有關。華人不會在法國餐廳問人吃什麼，但是卻會在中菜酒樓問鄰臺吃的是什麼、或者什麼好吃。我不肯定白人會不會在高級的法國餐廳這樣做（因為去得不多），但是除了中國餐廳外，他們在美國的家庭式餐廳是隨時會這樣做的。

所以問題似乎是法國餐廳一早已經給人一種高檔、formal 的型像，有一些行為是被視為不適當的。但是在其他的餐廳卻沒有相似的規舉。

坦白說，在外國，中菜還是被視為低檔的，未離開雜碎館的型像。
真是「說有就有」，今晚在一中國餐廳吃晚飯，就有講普通話的華人過來問我們正在吃的一碟是什麼（港式豉椒牛河）:D

[Daniel_Cheung]

剛在電郵收到這個呼籲，叫那些支持共和黨的人請求共和黨與 80-20 的代表人見面，表示願意關注他們的需要，否則在國會選舉裡轉投民主黨。

CALL TO ACTION

It all depends on our Republican supporters now. You alone can
get the Republican leadership to pay attention to Asian Am interests
and in return get our support in the 2006 election.

Background:

(1) This year's election is crucial. The leadership of both the House and
the Senate are at stake. 80-20 wants both parties to compete to serve
our rightful interests in order to get our votes. So 80-20 contacted
both parties.

(2) DNC (Dem. Nat'l Comm.) responded. 80-20 wants the Dem. party to
help us win equal opportunity, whie DNC wants us to vote for then in
return. Fair enough. But no deal is made yet.

(3) RNC didn't. 80-20 president S. B. Woo couldn't get a appointment to
see RNC leadership after repeated tries. 80-20 sent almost identical
letters to DNC and RNC on the same day, and made identical calls.

What you can do, if you are a Republican:

E-mail or fax (more effective):
1) Chiar of RNC, Ken Mehlman: Chairman@gop.com; 202 863-8820 -f
2) Nat'l Rep. Congress Comm.: website@nrcc.org; 202 863-0693 - f
3) Nat'l Rep. Senate Comm: webmaster@gopsenators.com; 202 675-4730

Use your own words but express the following sentiment: "I am a
Republican voter. Why aren't you meeting with S. B. Woo, President of
80-20 Initiative, to create a win-win situation for both GOP and Asian
Americans? If we lose the leadership of one or both branches of the
Congress, I'll hold you responsible. I will vote for all Democrats, and ask
all my friends and relatives to do so, if you ignore my request." Print
your name, address and title (optional).

Do it NOW. You have the right to demand the service from your
Party. Exercise it. If you don't fight for yourself, no one will. Election
time is the best time to get politicians to listen to us.

Enjoy the inner satisfaction of having done YOUR share! THANKS.

[Daniel_Cheung]

上帖所說的事件，現有餘波，共和黨想叫80-20的人收聲：


The following may EMPOWER you and our entire community. It
illustrates what America is all about -- not the partisan view of a
person with a fancy official title but what is right or wrong.
BACKGROUND:
80-20 called on the AsAm Republicans on its 700,000 e-mail list to
send a message to Republicans headquarters (RNC, NRCC and NRSC)
urging them to pay attention to the rightful interests of AsAms during
the 2006 election.
A huge number responded. They sent emails stating that "if
you don't meet with S. B. Woo, I will vote for all Democrats, and ask
all my friends and relatives to do so." They signed off with their
names and addresses.
Instead of responding positively to the request, a few Republican
AsAm operatives paniced. They decided to intimidate S. B. Woo
personally. One operative used his title (Executive Director, The White House
Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders) to boost his
complaint to the President and Provost of the University of Delaware,
where S. B. once worked & served as a Trustee. S. B. was copied in the
complaint.
THE INTIMIDATION:
"President Roselle and Provost Rich:
Our office received this email* from one of your faculty this past
weekend. I am forwarding this to your attention. I hope that his
views and his perspective is not representative of the university. I
imagine that your university shares our vision of working with all
communities and all parties in this country and we are here to
serve the people of this country.
Even if Professor Woo's emails do not represent your university and
the views of your leadership, the impression is out there (through
his use of the university email address) that your university is
supportive of his work and the thoughts portrayed through this
email.
Our office asks that you respond promptly and look into this
matter. Thank you.
Jimmy D. Lee
Executive Director
The White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders"
INTIMIDATION BACKFIRES:
From: "Roselle, David"
To: "Jimmy Lee"
"S. B. Woo is a retired member of the University of Delawares
faculty. As such, he is entitled to have limited access, including E-
mail, to the Universitys computing facilities. All users of these
facilities are governed by certain policies, none of which would seem
to have been violated if Professor Woo did, in fact, author and send
the memo* you attached to your note."
MORAL OF THIS STORY:
The above exchange of emails best illustrates what America is all
about. It is not about official titles, it is about right and wrong.
Dirty politicians, from both political parties, have used their titles to
intimidate AsAms for decades, particularly recent immigrants, for
financial contributions or for partisan political advantages.
Stand up for justice and your rights, fellow Asian Ams. Don't
let unethical politicians intimate you ever again.
80-20 hopes that this email has empowered you. Write 80-20,
if you are facing intimidation by an official. We'll look into it for you.
This incident is a big strike against the Republican Party. It also
shames "The White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders."
To join 80-10, visit
http://www.80-20initiative.net/membership.html (http://www.80-20initiative.net/membership.html)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* The following is the email referred to in the correspondence:
Dear Kam: Greetings. Thanks for copying me in your correspondence
with Jimmy Lee, whom I assume works for the GOP. His email to you
illustrates the great difference in our value systems.
His email: "Kam - hope that you're well - I think that you and also the
community reading this needs to realize that the RNC has contacted Mr.
Woo and that we said that we would have our political folks sit down
and meet with him but he said no thank you. My guess is that he wants
to go and tell people that he has met with the Chairman so he looks good
in front of his constituents. But if he is going around and saying that no
one responded to his request that is false and he needs to be honest
about what he is saying and telling people."
According to that person's value (Jimmy Lee), I wanted to see
Mehlman because I could publicize it and it'd make me look good. By
that logic, not been given a meeting with Mehlman should makes me look
bad. Why would I publicize this bad news then Jimmy Lee simply
doesn't understand a higher value system -- the desire to serve and the
will to fight the wrong. I and my colleagues in 80-20 fight for Asian
Americans' equal opportunity because we believe it will be good for Asian
Americans and America. I am beginning to think that the Republican
party has attracted a lot of selfish people without the right value. They
support GOP simply for their own selfish appetite. Therefore they
misjudge others' motives. They think all?people are like them -- vain
glorious and selfish to the core.
Both D and R responded to my first request for a meeting by sending
low ranking folks to meet with me. I rejected both offers, because such
people didn't have the authority to make the big deals -- 80-20 doesn't
sell Asian Am. votes?cheaply. To my second letter to both D and R.
Democrats adjusted. The Republicans didn't. You may forward this reply to Jimmy Lee if you like. It may cause
him?to re-examine his value. The poor soul refers to Mehlman as
Chairman only. He didn't even dare to use Mehlman's name. Doesn't he
realize that this is America, and a party chairman is no big deal. The
issue could settle easily. Mehlman could simply announce a date that is
convenient to both on which we'll meet. The climbers in GOP may think
Mehlman is a big deal. I only respect Mehlman's office, since I don't
know anything about him to decide whether to respect him as a person or
not. Thanks, Kam. I am glad ?that?our community has a leader
like you. Best, SB