亚裔细分法的排华及种族主义实质

来源: (2017-07-18 07:33:10)  薛小飞  文学城

曾几何时,亚裔,特别是华裔被媒体称之为摸范少数民族。勤奋努力,尊法守纪是我们最大的标志。绝大多数第一代移民从事攴饮,按摩,搬运,零售,从最原始不起眼的行业入手,以家庭为核心,一分一厘积累财富,尊师重教,尽力送子女上好学区,好专业,培养下一代脱胎变骨成为医疗,科技,各种技术行业的佼佼者。

但是奥巴马,候塞因座上总统大位之后,不声不响地推出一项行政命令,推动改革美国行之有效的种族政策,将联邦政府多年行之有效的种族化分:白人,黑人,拉丁裔白人,亚洲及太平洋诸岛人中亚裔的有大陆中国人背景的中国人单独立项,要求在亚裔中具体标明中国人(中国大陆)台湾人,菲律宾人,印尼人或者填写其他地区亚裔人。

这项行政命令始于华裔比较集中的加州,是民主党人推出的所谓新政,美其名曰平衡教育资源,照顾其他来自亚洲的族裔。我们知道一百三十年前臭美招著的禁止中国人移民美国法律就始发于加州。

禁止中国人移民法最初出宠时是以禁止使用扁担开始的。亚裔细分法的鼓吹者及背后黑手,这次是公开指名道姓以中国人为目标来推广所谓亚裔细分。中国人占美国人口比例至今仍然远远底于一八八二年禁止中国人移民美国前。当时旧金山中囯人占整个城市百分之三十七!现在生活在旧金山的中国人甚至少于菲律宾人。

我们知道中国仍然是一个处于两相分割的国家,统治中国台彭金马太平岛的是依据一九四六年的中国宪法的中华民国。赵小兰前几次进入白宫任职时,简介时为 Chinese, 但是此次就任交通部长,简介时已经去掉此背景介绍。在美国相当一部分中国人(Chinese) 是从东南亚地区为逃避当地政府对华人的屠杀,比如一九九八年印尼血腥排华暴力而移民美国的。以法律的规定强迫大量身心受害的来自世界各地的 Chinese 再次面对两难抉择于心何忍?亚裔细分法不是反华法案是什么!

奥巴马.候赛因推荐加州的亚裔细分法时振振有辞地说,华人学生入学比例太高占用了公共资源。亚裔佃分种族有利公平公正使用教育资源。这纯粹是种族主义论调。众所周知,奥巴马.候塞因的同胞就读于大学的同龄人远远底于在监狱服刑的同龄人。在纽约市,关押一位犯罪分子一年政府支付六万四千美元。而一位在校学生一年政府资助不足两万美元。按照人口比例而言,十四亿中国人移民美国的人数是世界上最底的,甚至底于缅甸,索马里。在中国大陆为美国生产玩具的农民工都高达一百多万人。为什么要以种族为名人为将生活在美国的 Chinese 划分出来?我们知道希特勒上台时将犹太人从德国专为划分出来戴上六角星,几年之后发生的事众所周知,现在美国越来越多的州要求将 Chinese 统计划分出来,下一步是不是也要我们下一代生在美国,长在美国的 Chinese 戴上五角星?

同胞们,一定要认清亚裔细分法反华及种族主义的本质!

The Asian Registry is an American issue

source: 2018-01-22 Lin Yang CtViewPoints

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt of a day when Americans would “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Remembering his wise words on the day dedicated to his memory inspired me to address a current issue that most have never heard about: The Asian Registry.

Under names such as “All Students Count” or “Data Disaggregation,” a few states have passed a law requiring Asian American students to register their ancestral nation of origin or ethnic background. Advocates claim that this will expose the disparity among various Asian nationalities and break the myth of the “model minority.”

The Asian Registry is usually proposed by legislators with an Asian heritage and backed by advocacy groups meant to help Asian Americans. However, if you talk to these legislators and the organization leaders in a private setting, they explain that it is really all about money. Advocacy groups for the Asian-American community have a hard time getting government funding due to the perception that Asians are a well-off minority. By dissecting the small Asian population (about 5 percent nationwide) into finely defined groups, the stories of inequality become more credible.

Rep. Tackey Chan, who proposed the Massachusetts version of Asian Registry, actually wrote an Op-Ed in the most popular Chinese American Newspaper boldly titled: “Asian Registry is a Big Stride Forward towards Better Welfare.”

This title alone seems an insult to many Asian Americans, who value hardwork and financial independence, and did not come to America for handouts — not hundreds of years ago when they first arrived, and not now.

Although this law applies to all Asian Americans, Chinese Americans have most actively opposed it. Ordinary people who never paid much attention to politics are suddenly organizing street protests, distributing flyers, and talking to their legislators. Many are first generation immigrants from mainland China.

I often wonder whether the shared experience in Communist-era China is the cause of the opposition. Growing up there, my brothers and I had to register at school as “small business owners,” though the business belonged to our grandparents and had long before been confiscated by the government. We grew up knowing that no matter how hard we worked or how talented we are, our chance of achievement was much less than those who could proudly fill in “peasant” or “laborer” as their family background.

That preferential treatment carried over to our opportunity for higher education or a desirable career — even prospects for marriage could be affected by family background established generations before, and nothing we could do would erase it. Only the good fortune of coming to America freed us from such categorization.

The Asian Registry, which would require my American-born and raised children to fill in school forms regarding their ancestry, leaves me wondering how this information might affect their educational career. I believe that America is a land of equal opportunity and equal protection, regardless of national origin. To me, the Asian Registry is a cruel mockery of the ideals this nation stands for.

This is not just an Asian American issue. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now requires both Hispanic and Asian Americans to fill in their nation of origin when applying for a mortgage. Common app, a student application “warehouse” for colleges, also demands that applicants of all races fill in their nation of origin.

This is indeed an American issue. Can we ever become a nation where people are judged by the content of their character if educational opportunity depends on our national origin?

I wish that one day the citizens of this nation need only fill in one box to identify themselves: American.

讨论:奥巴马的死亡证明上,其族裔是否应该填写肯尼亚

来源: 2017-11-27 美国人的妈  百彩人生

 

很多人已经知道,

仅仅,详细分类了亚裔的

种族细分向我们最关心的教育下手了!!!

美国大学申请用的Common Application Form(入学申请通用表)把族裔细分了,亚裔人口比例为4.43%(美国2010人口普查)的人群,被细分成10类;

(觉得不是个事情的就不用往下看了!)


现在,

亚裔细分,

竟然,

到达了一个人的死亡记录!!


放大点,放大点,

放大点,

看看……

除了上图以外,还有,

马里兰州的新生儿注册表的亚裔细分:

加州库柏蒂诺联合学区(Cupertino Union School District)家庭语言调查问卷局部截图。这张问卷把华人进一步细分成:普通话使用者(Mandarin)、广东话使用者(Cantonese)、台湾话使用者(Taiwanese)、台山话使用者(Toishanese)……

大学入学申请表的亚裔细分:

医学院申请表格出现细分:


请大家注意,

仅仅是亚裔被这样详细细分,

其他的族裔,

有的粗分,有的不分……

如果按照亚裔的细分规律,中国,印度,日本,韩国,巴基斯坦,菲利宾等等,那怎么非洲裔也得来个阿尔及利亚,安哥拉、贝宁,南非啥的吧;白人怎么也得分出个英国、法国、德国、啥的吧…..

我们敬爱的前总统,奥巴马——的女儿,填写大学申请表,是否,应该填写——肯尼亚呢???这对于大学录取又有什么意义呢?

总统奥巴马的肯尼亚寻根之旅

PETER BAKER 2015年7月24日

https://cn.nytimes.com/usa/20150724/c24prexy/

奥巴马死的时候,他的死亡证明上,是否应该填写肯尼亚呢?

既然,要分,大家要一视同仁呀,

亚裔如此特别的,一枝独秀着……这是不对的,

我们不要被特殊对待,

我们要公平公正。

到这里,

大家还记不记得,

AB1726,是被要求去掉了教育系统中的细分的……

还记不记得,

肤色法案SCA5的真实意图是想让大学录取按照种族配额的…..

有人会说,那都是加州法律……

但是,

这些全美全面铺开的细分就放在眼前,

怎么这么神同步呢?

而且,

十分迅速地分到了教育上……

现在从出生表到死亡表,都分了……

分、分、分的再细一些,

有人要这些数据干嘛?

这么细的分类,是想把谁精准地拎出来?

分而治之?

有人会说了,哪里有那么多的阴谋呀?

大家还记得,

梁警官案件的不公平审判么?

系统是会看人下菜碟的,

不发声、不抗争是会被牺牲掉地……

(详情请看下文:)

十根筷子坚如铁,一根筷子容易折

我们该怎么办?

第一,用各种方式,留下那些细分证据,比如,拍照、复印扫描等;只填写:亚裔或美国人。

第二,传出去,首先,传到当地社区,集体想办法;

第三,坚定反细分,向所在区地方官员反映,结合第二条,团结一切可以团结的有正义感的人和团体会更大声;

第四,参与地方政治,不一定非要整天斗志激昂,只用在吃吃喝喝玩玩乐乐之时,顺便,讨论一下,哪位值得我们支持,投个票,捐顿饭钱;结合第二条,如果当地社区,可以推出坚定代表社区发声的有品格的政客,就极好极好;

第五,对那些违背公平公正原则的政客,无论哪个族裔,即使是华裔,坚决抵制。

第六,长期长期的做上面五条,不要过了今天这个激情,就好了伤疤忘了痛……

在这里,

不禁要问一问,那些细分族裔的推手们,还记得Dr.Ben Carson说过的话么?还记得金博士说的,希望孩子们能生活在一个不是以人的肤色,而是以他们的品格优劣来评价他们的国度么?

细分族裔的推手们,你们意欲何为?

Our strength as a nation comes in our unity. We are the United States of America, not the divided states. And those who want to divide us are trying to divide us, and we shouldn’t let them do it.

— Ben Carson

细分族裔,会将美国引向何方……

我们又该如何面对……

众人划桨开大船

词 :魏明伦、王持久
曲:陈翔宇

一支竹篙耶,难渡汪洋海
众人划桨哟,开动大帆船
一棵小树耶,弱不禁风雨
百里森林哟,并肩耐岁寒,耐岁寒
一加十,十加百,百加千千万
你加我,我加你,大家心相连
同舟嘛共济海让路
号子嘛一喊浪靠边
百舸嘛争流千帆竞
波涛在后,岸在前
……
……
一根筷子耶,轻轻被折断
十双筷子哟,牢牢抱成团
一个巴掌耶,拍也拍不响
万人鼓掌哟,声呀声震天,声震天
同舟嘛共济海让路
号子嘛一喊浪靠边
百舸嘛争流千帆竞

波涛在后,岸在前
……
….

..
.

十根筷子坚如铁,一根筷子容易折

2020 Census May Ask White People To Get Specific About Their Ethnicity

“White” has been a constant of the U.S. census.

Other racial categories for the national head count have come and gone over the centuries. But “white” has stuck ever since U.S. marshals went door to door by horseback for the first census in 1790, tallying up the numbers of “free white males” and “free white females,” plus “all other free persons” and “slaves.”

Census takers determined who counted as “white” or any other race. That changed in 1960, when U.S. residents were first allowed to self-report their race. Since then, just answering “white” has been enough to respond to the race question.

But the upcoming census in 2020 may ask those who identify as white to explore their family tree to share their ethnic background as well. Anyone who checks off the “white” box could also mark boxes for groups such as “German,” “Irish” and “Polish” or write in another option.

That change depends partly on whether the White House approves proposals to modify how the federal government collects race and ethnicity data. They originated when President Barack Obama was still in office, and now it’s up to the Trump administration to approve or reject them. If approved, the Census Bureau may move forward with this new way of asking people of all races about their identities on the 2020 questionnaire.

Friday is the deadline for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which sets standards for this type of information for all federal agencies, to announce its decisions on the proposals. Any policy changes would come at a time of heightened awareness of white nationalist calls against multiculturalism and growing partisan divides over issues about race in the U.S.

Research by the Census Bureau suggests the proposals could produce a more accurate count in 2020. In a report released in February, the bureau’s researchers write that the suggested changes are responding to a public “call for more detailed, disaggregated data for our diverse American experiences as German, Mexican, Korean, Jamaican, and myriad other identities.”

It could change the discussion”

Asking white people about their ethnic background is not a new concept for the census. Recent census forms, including the questionnaire used in 2010, have asked all recipients about their ethnicity specifically in terms of “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.” A question about a person’s ancestry or ethnic origin was first included in the 1980 census and remained on some forms as recently as 2000. Past forms have asked for a person’s place of birth, the countries where the person’s mother and father were born and languages spoken other than English.

Those questions about ancestry and ethnicity, though, were presented separately from the race question. Asking about race and ethnicity together in a combined question may seem like a minor, technical detail. But some scholars who study white identity say it could have major implications.

“I think it could change the discussion,” says historian Nell Irvin Painter, who wrote The History of White People. “Masses of Americans think of their census racial identification as their real identification, as if it carried more than just policy implications.”

The federal government has distilled whiteness into a bureaucratic definition to collect information for redrawing legislative districts, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and measuring health effects. Since 1977, “white” in government data describes anyone “having origins in any of the original peoples” of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. (Another proposal the White House is considering could reclassify people of Middle Eastern or North African descent as a distinct racial group separate from “white.”)

Whiter than others”

For many white people, though, whiteness today has more to do with their experience living in the U.S. than their ties to “original peoples.”

“The ethnicity component for whites is pretty much meaningless now for people that have been in the U.S. for so long their ethnicity is so diluted,” says Charles Gallagher, a sociologist at La Salle University in Philadelphia who studies whiteness.

Gallagher adds that some white people from families with long histories in the U.S. may connect with a “dime-store ethnicity” — an identity they can pick and choose to emphasize from their family trees. It allows white people, he says, to connect with the American immigration story without much, if any, social cost.

“At one time if you’re Italian or if you’re Irish in the U.S., it meant quite a bit in terms of having access to resources. That is just no longer the case,” he says.

Still, Gallagher worries about the timing of this proposed change to how the Census Bureau asks about race and ethnicity in light of growing attention on white nationalist groups.

“This was done basically through a lens of multiculturalism that allowed whites to embrace their own ancestry, as well as other groups doing the same thing. How it could get used in this climate, I think, is a little different,” says Gallagher.

“[The alt-right] people are going to mark ‘German’ or they’re going to mark a category that allows them to connect to this idea of Europe,” he says. “But that’s a very small part of the population.”

Terry Blastenbrei of Kansas City, Mo., who has identified as white on the census, shares those concerns.

“We see some folks as whiter than others as it were. And so that’s, I think, a potential issue that we could see develop if we start breaking it down even further,” says Blastenbrei, who works as an operations manager for what he describes as progressive political campaigns.

Still, if ethnicities are added under “white” on the 2020 census, Blastenbrei says he would consider checking off multiple boxes.

“A lot of people assume by looking at my last name that I’m probably German, but I come from so many different backgrounds,” he says, citing ancestors from other European countries including Luxembourg, France and Poland.

A “bad idea”?

For Painter, the historian, drawing ethnic distinctions among white people on the 2020 census could be seen as harkening to earlier ideas about white identity that valued Anglo-Saxon heritage.

“That is a throwback to the early 20th century when educated Americans and noneducated Americans thought there was more than one white race,” she says, referring to days when skull measurements were used to determine racial superiority among white people.

Painter does not approve of the government asking white people about their ethnic backgrounds in 2020. The state of white identity today, she adds, is “utter confusion,” largely undefined between two poles of being white — either sharing the extremist views of white nationalists or not having a race in order to be an individual instead.

“Given that white identity operates most easily in the shadows, that is to say it’s not queried, I think bringing it out and asking people to dwell on it is a bad idea,” Painter says.

But Karen Brodkin, an anthropologist who wrote How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America, would welcome the changes to the census.

“I would rather be named and visible in all of my diversity,” says Brodkin, who says she would check off the “white” box and write in “Jewish” on her census form in 2020.

Brodkin is concerned that the specified checkboxes and suggestions for ethnicities under “white” as currently proposed by the Census Bureau are all from Western Europe except for “Polish.” The bureau’s researchers chose the options based on the largest groups from Europe currently in the U.S. As their February report notes, “The categories included in the questionnaire generally reflect social definitions recognized in [the U.S.], and do not attempt to define groups biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.”

Still, Brodkin says Jewish identity may be hard to fit into the boxes the Census Bureau is considering. The bureau is not allowed to require people to report their religious affiliation. But some Jewish people who identify as white on the census consider their ethnicity as Jewish, which census participants would have to write in themselves.

“I think the debate would be, ‘Gee, we’re not really white,’ ” Brodkin says. “Another would be, ‘I’m Sephardic … and there’s no place for me here.’ ”

The Census Bureau must submit the final wording of the upcoming census questions to Congress by the end of March 2018.

美大学招生 人口最多白人只分3类 亚裔却细分10类

来源: 文学城

大学共同申请组织将亚裔申请人细分十个群体,华裔学子可能成为最大受害者。(亚裔教育联盟提供)

美国亚裔教育联盟(AACE)9日致信大学“共同申请组织”(Common Application Organization),要求停止将亚裔细分为十个类别。联盟认为,细分的目的就是搞非法的种族配额,勤奋学习、成绩优秀的华人和其他亚裔孩子,将成为族群细分后的最大受害者,将会严重降低大学录取学率。

今年大学共同申请组织设计的表格,将亚裔细分为十个群体︰华裔、印度裔、日裔、韩裔、菲裔、巴基斯坦裔、越南裔、其他东亚裔、其他南亚裔、其他东南亚裔。然而,美国人口最多的白人只分为三个群体。

美国亚裔教育联盟副主席欧阳了寒接受本报电话采访指出,亚裔是美国人口最少的族群之一,共用申请表却使用十个子项目对亚裔作微观细分。这种对亚裔申请人细分的结果,只会加深很多大学包括长春藤盟校,对亚裔学子普遍存在的种族歧视。他指出,这种做法不但非法,而且违反道德准绳,侵犯申请人隐私。无论联邦政府还是任何州政府,都没有立法授权民间教育团体,对亚裔美国人细分十个族群。他举例,美国人口最多的白人,在申请表上仅有三个子项目。而白人来源或出生地,包括欧洲和其他大洲50多个国家。

欧阳了寒指出,“共同申请组织”的作法引起华裔家长们强烈反弹,他们认为此种做法前所未有。亚裔内部发展并不平衡,在教育领域内,中、日、韩、印度目前领先。如果细分会进一步突出少数亚裔族群的优势,将他们推向风口浪尖,成为“众矢之的”,更容易受到重点大学包括藤校的限制,可见居心叵测。

美国亚裔教育联盟主席赵宇空指出:“所有孩子,无论在美国出生或是归化入籍,都是美国公民,都应该受到平等对待。在大学申请过程中对亚裔申请人细分,这是非法、不道德并造成种族分化的行为,只会给那些歧视亚裔孩子的大学,便于非法限制勤奋学习和成绩优异的亚裔孩子的录取机会。该共同申请组织应立即停止这种歧视性做法。所有亚裔孩子都应该抵制这种对他们隐私权的非法侵犯,拒绝选择这些具有分裂性质的细分类别。 ”

亚裔教育联盟在9日严正要求共同申请表组织,立刻停止对亚裔申请人非法细分,并推出个人请愿书网站,呼吁华人积极参加抗争,踊踊签名并广为转发︰https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-collection-of-discriminatory-disaggregted-raceethinicity-data-for-college-applicants.html?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0

AACE Urges Common App Organization Stop Discriminatory Subdivision of Asian American Applicants

source:Nov 08, 2017, 21:30 ET  Asian American Coalition for Education

LIVINGSTON, N.J., Nov. 8, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE) has recently issued a letter, urging Common Application Organization stop its dividing of Asian American applicants into 10 subcategories in the Common Application.

 

 

In this letter, AACE pointed out that this practice is not properly authorized and immoral:

  1. It is unauthorized intrusion of the applicants’ privacy because neither the federal government nor any state has passed legislatures that explicitly authorize subdivision of Asian Americans for educational purpose;
  2. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all American citizens are under the equal protection of the laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 stipulates that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin,… be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Race, national or ancestral origin should not be used as factors to discriminate against any student during the college admissions processes;
  3. The subdivision of Asian American applicants only exacerbates the racial discrimination against Asian American applicants by many American colleges, including Ivy League schools.

In this letter, AACE also reveals the discriminatory nature of this subdivision. Common Application Organization uses 10 subcategories to micro-classify Asian Americans, one of the smallest racial groups, while only using three sub-categories to classify white, the largest racial group in America, who has ethnic, national and ancestral origins from more than 50 countries in Europe and other Continents.

Mr. YuKong Zhao, the President of AACE said: “All children, either born or naturalized in America, are American citizens and should be treated equally. The subdivision of Asian American applicants in Common Application is discriminatory, immoral and divisive.  It only enables some colleges to discriminate against hardworking and high-performing Asian American students. The Common Application Organization should immediately stop this discriminatory practice. All Asian American applicants should reject this unauthorized intrusion of their privacy and refuse to select these divisive subcategories.”

AACE’s letter to Common App Organization can be accessed at: http://asianamericanforeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Opposition_Letter_Against_Common_App_Subdivision_201711.pdf

马里兰州亚裔细分法案的实施和对策

来源: 2017-11-03 上官御史 美华一周

亚裔同胞们,最近两年以加州亚裔细分法案为代表的州立法决议在美国东西两岸各州层出不穷,而且大多数已经通过了。正常人都知道美国大概有3亿(3万万)人口, 其中2000万亚裔,亚裔中的华裔380万,菲律宾裔340万,印度裔320万 等等。另外,美国概念中的亚裔是特指来自东亚,东南亚和南亚印度次大陆地区的移民。具体来说就是巴基斯坦以东地区,蒙古中国以南地区的亚洲移民算作是美国的亚裔。伊朗以西及西亚中东,小亚细亚,北非地区移民都算是美国的白人,还有前苏联的几个中亚共和国以及俄罗斯亚洲地区移民就更是白人了。

所以目前加州,纽约州,罗德岛州,马萨诸萨州以巨大的立法行政资源来细分不到10%的人口,而且这些人口也只来源于小半个亚洲地区,并没有足够的人口多数和地区代表性,那么这些亚裔细分法案推动者意欲何为?

1表面理由a:为了亚裔的健康

亚裔细分法案推动者最喜欢的理由是各个族裔的易患病症不一样,需要细分好治病。这个说法是经不起推敲的。的确,亚裔里的华人好像容易得乙型肝炎(HBV),但是这样细分以后医生就可以假定非华人就不会得乙型肝炎吗?每一个病人都是独特的,都需要认真对待,用族裔来治病或诊断是不付责任的做法。而且在人与人之间血液交换频繁的美国(你懂的),病毒跨人种传播已经不是新鲜事了,有兴趣的参考丙肝病毒(HCV)和艾滋病毒(HIV)的跨人种传播。亚裔细分法案的推动者又会说小族裔的病没有政府的资金投入来研究,所以需要细分。其实恰恰相反,联邦政府对罕见病的投入非常大,自从1983年就出台立法对研究罕见病药物提供资金和政策支持,如果必须要细分族裔才能加大治疗罕见病的力度,为啥突然对亚裔这么照顾?白人,黑人,西裔都需要细分一下,才好治大家的病。亚裔细分推动者的下面一招辩解是,其他亚裔小族裔没钱看病,需要细分来保证他们可以得到足够的照顾,这就是亚裔细分的表面理由b。

2表面理由b:为了其他弱小族裔的公平机会

这个照顾弱小族裔的理由更经不起反驳了。既然一部分小族裔家庭条件不好,看不了医生,干脆用税表或者W2来区分病人,收入少的看病不收或少收钱。这样按照家庭收入来照顾所有人,直接对接IRS的数据库,又快又准又人道又公平。反而用族裔来区分病人,非常不合理。比方,难道美国的380万华裔都能看得起病吗?东南亚小国文莱的王子如果在美国,会没有私人医生吗?

图1. 加州小学生注册表,华人被细分成大陆,台湾,广东和台山人。

3表面理由c:亚裔语言文化的复杂性

如果语言文化需要细分,那么政府准备做什么?是把每一项法律政策翻译成亚裔细分后的各种语言吗?

如果真要这么做,为什么加州亚裔细分表会分台湾人,大陆人,广东人,台山人 (图1.),难道这4种人的语言写法不一样吗?这四种人的汉语发音可能不一样,那么为什么不分出上海,湖南,四川等等这些口音?这个语言复杂性更适用于第一代移民,而不是出生在美国的亚裔。

事实上亚裔二代的英语水平越来越好,亚裔二代在ESOL考试的通过率在某些地区甚至高过一些母语不是英语的白人移民,如果从语言入手,白人和非洲黑人的语言多样性实际上足够细分的标准。为什么要单挑亚裔后代?

如果以文化分就更加荒谬了,所有的华人,包括大陆,台湾,新加坡,马来西亚,韩国人,越南人都庆祝农历新年,中秋等华人传统节日。而白人,他们的文化多元性就太多了,日耳曼人,维京人,拉丁人,斯拉夫人,阿拉伯人,犹太人的语言文化都不一样,光我们知道的圣诞节就不是每一个白人的节日,他们问什么不需要细分?

4真实目标:教育和工作的配额制度

美国的第一个亚裔细分在加州实现也不是一帆风顺的,最初的加州亚裔细分法案要求在医院和公立学校包括加州大学收集亚裔细分数据,后来反对声太大,甚至州长都否决了法案的最初版本。州长Brown看到教育领域细分是这么说的“dividing people into ethnic or other subcategories may yield more information, but not necessarily greater wisdom about what actions should follow.”,这就提醒公众要注意细分数据的使用会有非常糟糕的结果。细分法案的推动者随后删除了教育领域的细分,保留了医疗领域的加州亚裔细分,AB1726法案于2016年9月通过。法案的真实目的立刻暴露,大多数加州小学的注册表于2016年开始收集亚裔细分的数据(图1),尽管法案只允许在医院收集,这充分说明法案的推动者的真实目的在于教育领域。最近,美国高中生申请大学的网站common app也开始细分亚裔 (图2),这个网站方便731所美国大学的录取工作。所以亚裔细分的真实目的就是大学入学机会的族裔配额制度。

图2. 标准申请大学网站的亚裔细分注册表。

亚裔中的华裔,印度裔和韩裔由于重视教育,一直在高等教育和就业表现良好,大概有超过20%的美国大学学生是亚裔。而这几个大亚裔的人口比例只有1%,这样吸引了族裔问题专家的政客的眼球,他们忽视家庭和孩子的勤奋努力,认为是社会的种族歧视造成一些族裔没有上大学,政府需要帮助他们,如果把华裔,印度裔的入学比例下降到人口比例,大多数其他亚裔就有机会上学工作。这些政客真的有这么好的想法来帮助小族裔吗?答案是否定的。我们从强制行动(Affirmative Action)法案的结果就可以很容易预测亚裔细分的动机和结果。

5真实结果:增加选票和分化瓦解华裔

因为华裔的投票率低,所以政客欺负华裔基本上是最安全的做法。把300万华裔的奋斗作为蛋糕分给其他数千万亚裔,可以增加自己政党的选票,而且对自己的后代也有好处。推行亚裔细分的政客没有一个是来自大陆普通话地区的,他们的目标是把自己人放在小族裔的位置,利用他们的弱势为自己的后代铺平道路。这样的做法和利用城区黑人的弱势为郊区或者来自非洲的富裕黑人子女上学谋利是一个套路。相似的还有来自欧洲西班牙的白人移民,自称Hispanic,取得入学工作的便利一样。所以亚裔细分法案出台,最高兴的是来自东南亚地区的华人,比方新加坡华人,他们继承了华人重视教育的家庭传统,又可以在亚裔细分法案的庇护下把自己归类成非华人,取得更多配额。所以任何以族裔来区分的政策,最终结果都是分化瓦解大族裔,而且真正相对贫穷的小族裔人群并不会受益。

图3. 希特勒30年代细分犹太人使用的表格。

6隐藏动机:边缘化和驱逐华裔

亚裔细分法案的另外一个隐藏目标是集中营做法。大家都知道中国大陆还是一个意识形态和美国对立的国家,2013年节目主持人Jim Kimmel提出杀光华人不还钱。80年前的希特勒德国也提出过杀光犹太人不还钱的做法,并且实施了。因为犹太人已经在欧洲生存融合了上千年,希特勒当年细分犹太人的标准是1/16的犹太血统都是犹太人(图3)。在严峻的环境中,出于自保,更大程度上也是为了向周围的人证明,自己身上的日耳曼血统占据支配地位,15万名德国犹太裔自愿加入德军,便他们参了军,也还是不能被完全信任,身份的撕裂极大地阻碍了他们在德国社会和军队中的晋升。混血儿们一直致力于从法律层面彻底改变血统带来的窘境,他们渴望成为纯正的德国人。大家是不是对当年犹太人的自保做法很熟悉?我们既然移民美国,我们的孩子出生在这里,为什么还要给他们加上Chinese American的帽子?他们就算被赶回中国,连mandarin都说不清,怎么生活?我们要团结所有亚裔,抵制这样的邪恶种族政策。

7马里兰州的亚裔细分和我们的对策

不幸的是,在马里兰州,亚裔细分法案正在悄悄实现。现在所有马里兰医院的新生儿表格注册已经有了亚裔细分(图4),这样的表格家长必须在孩子出生24小时内填写,用来申请社安号和出生证,让填写父母的亚裔种族。马里兰的亚裔细分法案并没有被州立法机构讨论,这样的做法是违反联邦法的。我们应该有足够的底气和勇气拒绝填写亚裔细分。联邦法只收集自愿填写的6大族裔,黑人,白人,西语族裔,亚洲人,美洲印第安和阿拉斯加人,夏威夷和太平洋岛人。我们有正义感的华裔已经拒绝填写,只填写亚裔,并且成功拿到出生证和社会安全号 (图4)。

华人维权步步坎坷,但是如果我们第一代移民不为自己的后代创造一个公平的环境,我们移民美国的目的是什么呢?我们当初是为了追求平等的生活才来到美国,实现自己以及后代的美国梦,“This land is your land”!

图4. 马里兰州新生儿注册表的亚裔细分。请填写Asian only来发出反对亚裔细分的声音。

Time to end government-sponsored discrimination and just be Americans

source: Linda Bentley – September 5, 2017

Ward Connerly
Ward Connerly

CAVE CREEK – It’s been 10 years since we met with Ward Connerly, who founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) with Dusty Rhodes (president of National Review) in 1996, when he announced plans to have the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) placed on the 2008 ballot.

It was modeled after the California Civil Rights Initiative, which passed with 54 percent of the vote, to end the practice of government-sponsored race and gender preferences in public employment, public education and public contracting.

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who, at the time, was director of the Goldwater Institute for Constitutional Litigation and the initiative’s legal advisor, stated, “It’s time for Arizona to stop increasing the number of people who are given preferences because of race.”

Bolick said, “Racial preferences don’t work and harm the very people claimed to benefit from them.”

However, in September 2008, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office (SOS) issued its official determination that the AzCRI did not qualify for the ballot and sent the ballots and publicity pamphlets off to be printed without Proposition 104, as the initiative was officially known, which AzCRI Executive Director Max McPhail claimed violated state statute.

State statute allows all petition filers 10 days to challenge the SOS’s signature count.

Although Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Edward O. Burke granted a temporary restraining order to halt the printing of ballots and publicity pamphlets, he found himself in a quandary of having to infringe the rights of those submitting petitions or hold up the printing of ballots and pamphlets, which, according to Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne’s testimony, would delay voting by an equal number of days printing were to be delayed.

Burke was left to only question how the legislature managed to create such a situation.

Because the time allotted to verify over 330,000 signatures was deemed inadequate, Connerly withdrew the challenge and Proposition 104 was never placed on the ballot in Arizona.

A disappointed McPhail said the AzCRI would have made Arizona a place of equal opportunity for all instead of one that uses discrimination as a tool to create “diversity.”

He said, “Achieving diversity should never be an excuse to discriminate.”

Back in 2007, Connerly, as a dedicated champion for a colorblind America, stated, “Getting our nation to a point of applying a single standard to all Americans is one of the most crucial issues of our time … we must start by getting our government out of the business of privileging some citizens over others. Real lives are radically affected, and great social and economic injustice is done when decisions are made about individuals based on the color of their skin or the origin of their ancestors.”

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated government can never have a “compelling interest in discriminating on the basis of race to ‘make up’ for past racial discrimination in the opposite direction. Under the Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or debtor race. We are just one race in the eyes of government – the American race.”

Connerly continues to press on with his fight and issued a statement last month in which he points out, “As a nation, our flight to a better society has entered a patch of very severe turbulence; and, as is all-too-often the case, the matter of race is a major factor. Most significantly, it appears that hysteria has overwhelmed reason, a fact that is enabling a form of mob rule, with historical monuments being destroyed, and political demagogues exploiting our circumstances for their own benefit.”

Connerly goes on to note while our nation is most in need of bold and decisive leadership, “the man we have elected to lead us has been politically gelded by those who reject his presidency and who are determined to defeat him.”

Connerly pondered what must happen in our beloved country before we realize that “subdividing Americans into numerous tribes and then distributing benefits on the basis of tribal affiliation is a recipe for social and civic disaster.”

He concluded, “The evidence is compelling that for the sake of our national sanity, we need to alter course and squeeze race from American life. It is truly poisonous to the body politic!”

Believing all affirmative action programs should be ended and all government forms soliciting information about race should be shredded, Connerly stated, “If President Trump wants to make America ‘great again,’ that mission won’t be fulfilled until all that matters about a citizen’s identity is that he or she is American.”

Mychal Massie, an ordained minister and chairman of the Racial Policy Center, a think tank he founded in September 2015, is also an advocate for a colorblind society.

Last week Massie penned an article, “Black is a color: Not a race” in which he states, “Being black is not a human condition, albeit that is what many today treat it as … being recognized as a skin color is the antithesis of unifying the fabric of the United States.”

Massie goes on to say, “The overwhelming majority of those who possess large amounts of melanin, i.e., blacks, do not live in America as Americans; they live in America as a color. They demand to be identified by their melanin content and yet they are offended for being recognized by same.”

Believing it is the “hyper-fixation upon melanin content” that divides us as a nation, not some “orchestrated evil perpetrated by malevolent white men,” Massie states, “The word minority is insulting and stigmatizing. I am an American. There are 330 plus million Americans, how can I be a minority if I am an American? Why would I want to be portrayed as something less than the whole of America?”

Massie finds the African-American title ludicrous as it is perpetrated upon children because an ancestor came over on a boat 400 years ago and says it forces them to be what they are not.

He said, “They are Americans, not Africans.”

Massie concludes, “To that end the idea of ‘hyphenated Americanism’ is a trick of the cultural Marxists intended to divide America against itself for the purposes of weakening our autonomy and anesthetizing us to globalism.”

As far as the census goes, Massie believes it should only ask “American: yes or no; and male or female.”

ACRI is a national civil rights nonprofit organization created to educate the public on the harms of racial and gender preferences.

The organization’s website states “ACRI also seeks to affect a cultural change by challenging the ‘race matters’ mentality embraced by many of today’s so-called ‘civil rights leaders.’ ACRI’s leaders and supporters believe that civil rights are individual rights and that government policies should not advocate group rights over individual rights.”