Original post made
by GSB, Mountain View,
on Mar 14, 2008
I am an Asian and I did not attend because based upon the blog here the whole agenda was about homosexuality.
Less than 1% of the Asian community in Palo Alto is homosexual so it is not an issue for us.
As an Asian I have never experienced hate violence or threats in Palo Alto. The main hostility is from beggars and vagrants on University Avenue and by Whole Foods.
One issue for us is the large number of Asian women who prefer to date and marry Anglo men, but I suppose that is part of the melting pot concept
With respect, why is Asian women marrying Anglo men a problem for Asians? Is this a problem for the Asian men who can't find enough Asian women and they want an Asian wife, or is it that Asian women do not like other Asian women marrying Anglo men, or is it that the older generation of Asians prefer that their daughters would marry an Asian?
Forgive me for asking, but I think many of us non-Asians would be better informed about your culture if we could see why this was a problem?
And, are you male or female and at the age of those marrying, or at the age of the parents of those marrying?
The Asian woman with anglo men is a race and class issue. I find that Asian women who are with anglo men tend to be snobbish towards other Asians. I have talked with a lot of Asian women who do not want to date Asian men and they all say the same thing: they feel sorry for Asian men. Asian men in America are somewhat considered "boys", constant immigrants, etc. unless ofcourse they are married or dating anglo women. The issue is similar to the African-american woman dating/married to an anglo man, or an African-American man dating/married to an anglo woman.
Asian men also have a much more difficult time assimilating than Asian women. Asian women can become anchors of news shows, U.S. secretary of labor, executives, etc. because anglo-americans see women of color as less of a threat. If you look at all minority men, Asian, African-American, Hispanic, etc. they all have issues because of the dominance of white males in American society. African-Americans have the largest number of men incarcerated, Hispanics and Asians all considered inferior to the white male. Why would an Asian woman date or marrry an inferior male when there are white men who'd give them a chance? It's called marrying up, nothing new and has been done for centuries. I'm sure if there were a large number of whites living in China or Japan, the reverse would be true, there would probably be a large number of white women marrying Chinese or Japanese men because they are the dominant males. Women like strong men.
Am I the only one that feels/thinks that racial issues are no longer relevant? Asian, Anglo, blah, blah, blah. If you're an American, you're an immigrant. Period (unless you're Native-American of course). Let's see, I guess I'd be classified by those who still think race means anything as "Anglo" because I'm Caucasian, but my family comes from Ireland, England, Scotland, France, etc. I even have a Cherokee ancestor. To me, as should be with others, there is no "Asian women like to date Anglo men" argument because we are all racial mutts. That is, no matter the color of your skin, chances are your ancestors don't all come from the same place. Homosexuality is another issue that's irrelevant. If you're not gay, why do you care? I find it absurd that those with the least motivation to discuss gay issues -- straight people -- are often the ones so against the idea of gay marriage or gay equality.
Guess what folks? We're all mutts. We're all human beings. We're all different. We're all the same. There is no longer a need to divide the human race with quarrels about ethnicity and sexuality. It's long past time to unite and appreciate the differences and similarities that make us, us.
You're not the only one Danny. That is exactly how I feel about both issues too. It is also a big reason why I like the Bay Area. There are a lot more people that see each other as just other humans than a lot of other parts of the country.
I'll go a step further and say that I don't think illegal immigrants should be persecuted either unless they are involved in terrorist activities.
While I understand the sentiment, Danny, I disagree that "We're all mutts." Many recent immigrants are not mutts when you consider they trace their lineages to the same country for a long, long time. Even some of us whose families have been in the US a long time can trace our lineages to the same region of the planet through any genetic line you choose. Sure, you can make the argument that if you go far enough back, or if you distinguish (even within the same country/region) slight differences, blah blah blah . . . .
That said, I agree that this should not be a factor. However, to "appreciate the differences," you must understand first that there are differences - if we're all mutts, what is the difference?
Kudos to both Matt and Geoff -- it's people like you who make living in the Bay Area so great. The sense of diversity AND equality is exactly what makes this area so special. OK Geoff, maybe "mutts" isn't the right word, but I'd argue the difference is that we all have different heritages, different backgrounds. But those differences shouldn't serve to divide us, they should serve to unite us, for if we are all different, we are also all the same BECAUSE we are all different. Wow -- that last sentence confused even me.
OK, maybe this is all a little too Nitzi for a Friday afternoon, but it's just my philosophy. I struggle to understand persecuting others because of their race or sexuality. Mike Huckabee was actually running a cmapaign based on bigotry of homosexuals -- it was one of the ugliest things I've seen in politics recently. A "Christian" was actually rallying people and encouraging bigotry, and suggesting it become public policy as well.
Since we are all different BUT are all human beings (therefore also the same), isn't it high time we, as a species, for once and all put an end to racial and sexual discrimination?
There are limits on tolerance and there are limits on approval.
For example we do not tolerate bigamy or polygamy in the USA, it is a part of other cultures.
Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, the Dali Lama and many sects of Buddhism do not approve of homosexual behavior, though they may tolerate it to a greater or lesser degree.
85% of the population in USA is Christian and it was founded on Christian, but non sectarian, principles.
The reason polygamy is not tolerated is because it violates all Christian sects values.
The fact that it is legal in Muslim and pagan countries does not mean it should be allowed here.
Uh, I actually know white women married to Asian and Hispanic guys--including a couple who basically wouldn't date white guys. To them, white guys are bland and guys of different ethnicities are sort of glamorous and exotic--not-so-tall, dark and handsome.
With my Asian women friends, there does seem to be a thing for dating white guys. In some cases, there's a marrying-up thing--but in most of the cases, a couple of other factors are more important. First, they often see their own family's culture as sexist--so they marry, in part, to get away from that. Then there's also the lure of the exotic--guys of the same ethnicity seem too much like brothers.
There is a strong pattern of exogamy in the United States. Even those of us who aren't mutts are mutts compared to what goes on in Europe. I traced part of my family tree not long ago and found out I was even more mixed than I'd thought. There are more than 300 years of marrying that cute immigrant girl next door.
And the longer ago the immigration the more mixed--I don't think I know any Japanese-American kids who aren't of mixed ancestry, though I do know lots of adults. It's to be expected, in part, because there are a lot more non-Japanese prospective partners than Japanese ones. And the bulk of Japanese-Americans have had families here going back several generations. They're not facing the same family stigma about marrying someone of a different ethnic background as are the kids of more recent immigrant groups.
JEALOUS lovers will wish they could adjust the height of their heels, for the power of the green-eyed monster depends on how tall you are.
So say researchers from the Universities of Groningen and Valencia who asked 549 men and women in the Netherlands and Spain to rate how jealous they felt and to identify the qualities in a romantic competitor that were most likely to bug them.
Men, who generally felt most nervous about attractive, rich and strong rivals, were increasingly relaxed, the taller they were themselves. Women, on the other hand, were most jealous of others' beauty and charm, but least so if their own height was average.
This makes evolutionary sense, say the researchers, because previous findings suggest that whilst taller men do best with the ladies, it is women of medium height who enjoy the best health, fertility and popularity with men.
But unlike tall men, medium-height women can be more vulnerable to jealousy under some circumstances. Faced with socially or physically powerful rivals they actually felt more jealous than shorter or taller women. According to the study, this may be because tall and strong, or socially well-connected women could well pose a threat to average-height feminine favourites since they might win conflicts, including physical fights. "Taller women are more dominant and have greater fighting abilities than shorter women," write the researchers in Evolution and Human Behavior (vol 29, p 133).
I have one white single male friend who actually dates only Asian women. His rationale are that they are much more likely to put themselves in second place in the relationship and actually "do anything he asks" and is "always willing to please" in the relationship. You can take those comments whichever way you like.
The Asian men I've talked to say they don't want to date Asian women because they find them too "close minded". Being with a white woman is like "arrival." Similar with Asian women and white men. For an Asian woman, having a white husband or boyfriend is like a trophy.
So, what happened at the meeting? Was it all about Asian women and white men? Homosexuality? Polygamy? Socialism? What?
I'm an Asian woman married to an Asian man and I love him very much. We're very happy and he treats me well and with respect. I feel I have a lot of freedom and I don't feel "subservient" to him. In fact, my Asian husband is very open-minded and very nice.
Well, I can see I should have attended this "not in our town" event. My Husband of 20 years left me for an Asian woman whom he later married, he said she was a better cook!!!!
Don't feel so bad, there are a surprisingly high number of Asian women who are second wives. It's interesting how Asian women will put up with a lot from white men. Asian women would probably shun marrying a divorced Asian man, but for a white man, it's okay. Maybe you should consider an Asian man.
The United States was not founded on Christian principles; our founding fathers rejected the idea that ANY religion should have any sway in governance. The genius of their agreement that the government should have nothing to do with religion is that it allows all religions to flourish and doesn't subject anyone to an official state religion. The Christian right tries to claim that this nation was founded as a Christian nation but that notion is simply untrue. Read your history.
Certain sects of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later Day Saints, a Christian denomination, do believe in and practice polygamy, although it is against the law.
Our abhorrence of polygamy has little to do with religious principles, and rather more to do with general societal values, rejection of incest, age of consent in sexual matters, and property rights. Our rejection of bigamy probably has more to do with concern for unworkable family structures and sympathy for aggrieved wives. I'm not sure about polyandry.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting but I am sure it wasn't about who Asian women are marrying. We have groups in this community that are still discriminated against and even if that doesn't apply to you (you are lucky) meetings like this are important for all of us to attend if we want to live in the kind of community that is welcoming to all.
Peter (and gn)
I think you are both right here. The US was not founded on Christian or any other religious principles and the founding fathers did want to ensure that no religion should have any sway on government. However, as most if not all the founding fathers themselves were raised in the principles of the Christian faith, it would make sense that their moral stance was from their own personal background. What they were objecting to was the State Church idea that came from England whereby the head of state was also head of the state Church. Their feeling that if they made sure that the heads of the country were not also the heads of an established church, that both state and church could function without interference from the other. They were not objecting to religion itself, just that it should stay separate from state.
Remember, the founding fathers were very much for the freedom of religion not the freedom from religion, two very different things.
I attended Not In Our Town as a Facilitator.
Firstly the discussion above has turned to some very interesting ideas and perspectives I liked those about going beyond discrimination of race and religion.
The focus of the meeting was confronting bias, in particular hidden bias in our community. My estimate was an attendance of 150-200 people.
We watched the movie Not In Our Town that told the inspiring stories of how five communities responded after brutal hate crime were perpetrated in their midst. We listened to personal stories of a member of the Islamic community, an African American from the Santa Clara Network for a Hate-Free Community, a latina spokesperson for the Day Worker Center in Mountain View, a Sikh from the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund also a spokesperson from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender community.
The participants broke up into small groups to provide a forum for everyone to share their experiences and make proposals for action against discrimination and biases.
1. Working Together With Law Enforcement
- reporting Hate Crimes
- how can the community address hate crimes and bias
- building relationships in communities that are at risk
- avoid profiling
2. When the Population Shifts
- influx of new residents from different countries
- reducing tension
3. The challenge of Diversity in the Work Place
- thousands of skilled and experience people of color and LGBT members as a result of incidious discrimination. Hidden bias Cost Corporate America $64 Billion A Year!!! See 'Giving Notice' by Freada Kapor Klein
4. Communities of Faith: Hate Targets and Leaders
5. New Models for Confronting Bullying and Harassement in School
6. Welcome to Our Town: Creating Safe and Inclusinve Communites.
Dear scribes you missed a lot of info.
"Remember, the founding fathers were very much for the freedom of religion not the freedom from religion, two very different things."
In fact, they're the same thing.
Not so. Remember your English history if you in fact learned any at school. The first colonists to the New World were in fact Puritans. This group of people were tired of two things in England, hence their determination to emigrate.
Firstly, they were tired with the way the English religion was changed with each new monarch and there was persecution to those who would not change. Every time there was a new monarch, or if said monarch disagreed with the Pope or his government, he would change his religion and that of the people. Those who did not change were often burned at the stake or perhaps locked up for years in dungeons with their families. The changes in religion were from Catholicism to Anglicanism, very similar religions in the minds of the Puritans. They were more interested in their relationship with God, rather than the religion of the monarch. As their name indicates, they wanted remain pure to the Bible and its doctrines rather than follow an established state Church where they had the doctrines of men rather than God as figurehead.
Secondly, these Puritans were conservative and pure in faith. They did not like the flamboyant religious freedoms that were a result of the continual changeover from one religion to the other. These freedoms stemmed from the Cavaliers who dressed and lived lavishly rather than the strict dull lifestyle of Oliver Cromwell and his roundheads.
As a result of these two facts, they wanted to emigrate to a New World where they would be free to worship God as they wanted, which in reality was very strictly biblical and not have any interference from the government on how they should do this.
It is with this background that the founding fathers founded this country. They knew the experience of England and the wishwashy politics of state religion. Therefore, they wanted to give the people the freedom of worshiping God the way they chose and if someone wanted to be more strict than someone else then they had the right to do so.
This is what freedom of religion means.
Freedom from religion means that the people want no religion. That was not the case way back then. Argue as you like, the people back then were very religious and the idea that they should have no religion at all was very alien to them. That idea is comparatively modern.
> The United States was not founded on Christian principles;
> our founding fathers rejected the idea that ANY religion
> should have any sway in governance.
This is not even remotely true. Early America was extremely religious-with Protestantism being the dominant mode of Christianity. There were Puritans, Anglicans, Ana-baptists, Baptists, and by the time of the founding, Methodists. Catholics were very much in the minority at the time of the founding.
At the time of the founding, there were state-sponsored churches in most of the colonies--with the last one being terminated around 1840. The Declaration of Independence openly predicates the rights of citizens of the new country on a divine entity. The idea of a separation of church came a little later, and was fairly weak (as government policy) until the later half of the 20th century.
> The first colonists to the New World were
> in fact Puritans.
Not true. The first permanent English colony was in Jamestown, VA (1607) and these colonists were Anglicans. (There had been a colony established on Roanoke Island just south of Jamestown in 1586--but this colony disappeared--now called "The Lost Colony").
Interesting that so many people had something to say about Asian women marrying Anglo men. Seems that Chairman Mao had some similar ideas when he met President Nixon in the early '70s:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amid a discussion of trade in 1973, Chinese leader Mao Zedong made what U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called a novel proposition: sending tens of thousands, even 10 million, Chinese women to the United States.
"You know, China is a very poor country," Mao said, according to a document released by the State Department's historian office.
"We don't have much. What we have in excess is women. So if you want them we can give a few of those to you, some tens of thousands."
A few minutes later, Mao circled back to the offer. "Do you want our Chinese women?" he asked. "We can give you 10 million."
Any truth to the claim that Chinese women make the best wives?
Thanks Elaine...seems to be a nice summary, I assume, though I wasn't there.
The term pilgrim as in the pilgrim fathers that our children learn about in school every thanksgiving as having the first thanksgiving meal with the indians, is in fact a religious term. The term pilgrim is someone who makes a religious journey to a far off place for religious reasons. These people therefore could not be called pilgrims before they left their homeland and I think you will find that in England these people had been known as Puritans. The first colonists in Jamestown may have been more politically sponsored as they were the first, but when the first waves of people coming to colonise the New World came, they came for religious freedoms to practice their religion in a more strict and fundamental way than they could at home. Therefore the name pilgrim actually applies to them once they arrived here.
> The first colonists in Jamestown may have been more
> politically sponsored as they were the first
Not even close! The first founders were here to find gold. For over 100 years the Spanish had been exacting vast sums of gold out of South America--and the British felt it was time for them to get a share of the pie.
The Virginia Company was formed with a charter from King James I in 1606. The Company was a joint stock corporation charged with the settlement of Virginia. It had the power to appoint the Council of Virginia, the Governor and other officials, and the responsibility to provide settlers, supplies and ships for the venture. The initial reaction to the Company was favorable but as the mortality rate rose and the prospect for profit grew dim, the support for it waned. The leadership resorted to lotteries, searching for gold, and silkworm production to increase profits. The charter was finally revoked in 1624 and Virginia became a Crown colony, largely as a result of the Indian Massacre of 1622.
I still say that those you quote were only here temporarily, politically and economically, looking for gold, quite right. But, they never were the ones who wanted to emigrate and live here like the Puritans, Quakers, etc. did. They were here to make their fortune then return back home as heroes.
These were not the ones who remained and spawned the founding fathers. The pilgrims arrived here to stay and make a new life for themselves and it is their descendants that brought the morals that this country was founded on, not by wording necessarily but by upbringing.
> I still say that those you quote were only here temporarily,
> politically and economically, looking for gold, quite right.
And where did they go after the "temporarily" ran out?
After those who came her for commercial purposes realized that there was no gold, they found black gold (tobacco), rice and at a later date--cotton. In the north, they found ship building, the carrying trades and eventually manufacturing.
About this time, the old manorial system was breaking down in Europe. The disruption created a large class of landless men ready for new homes and land. An increase in commerce and trade led to an accumulation of capital available for colonial ventures. At some point, feeding one's family became more important that feeding one's head.
One almost has to look at the first hundred years on a decade by decade basis--by colony. Life was very hard in the early days. Things were so hard that there was canabalism in the Jamestown colony during the first couple of years.
One also has to look at the history of Europe during this period too. The Puritans were running rampant in England--resulting in civil war. The 30-Years war was running simultaneously (1618-1648). Historians claim that about 15-25 percent of Europe "disappeared". Certainly some of those came to the New World--although it is more likely that they came here to get away from "religion" than to practice it.
By 1700, the immigration patterns shifted. By the time of the founding of the Republic, the distribution of the population was markedly different than during the first fifty years of the orignal colonies. While religion was still important in people's lives--it was not nearly as important as during early days of the colonies.
I am enjoying this banter, really reminds me of the history lessons back in school.
Where did you get the information that they more likely came here to get away from religion rather than practice it, because it was never like that in any of the history books I studied?
The English were having a very hard time with the continual changes between Catholic and non-catholic changes. Oftentimes families were being divided if not arrested en masse, and religious persecution became more of a political issue rather than anything else. If people were escaping for religious reasons, it was because they were afraid for their lives if they happened to be practicing the "wrong" flavor of the day. Their religion was so much of their lives that they would never consider renouncing religion as that would be heresy and likely to cause more persecution. By emigrating they would have felt that they could practice their religion without fear of persecution and that was what they wanted. These people had a very strong faith in God and they would never have wanted to give that up. Rather, they wanted to give up all the persecution. So coming here gave them this opportunity and they would have instilled that very strongly in the children they raised here. They would have taught their children to trust in God, not man, and would have wanted Government to stay out of what was to them a very private and personal faith.
> Where did you get the information that they more likely
> came here to get away from religion rather than practice it
One has to go back into the Reformation and trace the thinking of the Puritans to understand why they were "persecuted" by the "establishment".
In the 1600s, the Puritans made a real mess out of things in England when they became politically potent in the early 1600s. Their ascent to power led to Civil War and a regicide. Lots of people (Royalists) found themselves in Virginia (and the Caribbean) --rather than deal with the strict interpretation of the Puritans--who saw Oliver Cromwell arise to become almost a Puritan "Dictator". During those years, the Puritans baned Christmas Carols, for instance--setting back the tradition of Christmas music in England for 150 years. In Massachusetts, the Puritans outlawed Christmas in the mid-1600s, and eventually instituted a peculiar institution called "The Blue Laws"--which banned any number of things on the Sabbath. These folks would not be called "tolerant" in any way one might want to look at them.
Most of the issues associated with the "persecution" of the Puritans had to do with their insertion of their "stripped down" view of Protestantism into the political arena. They aligned themselves with other voices for change in England (freemen, merchants, academics, etc) and found themselves at odds with the Crown and the aristocracy.
When the Royalists finally regained power--the Puritans were definitely "personna non grata".
Oh .. and let's not forget that these "persecuted" Puritans had no trouble executing people who didn't fit their molds--calling them Witches and then calling them dead Witches.
Oh, and let's not forget the 30 Years war, which caused a lot of people to "disappear"--many coming to the New World to start over.
> Where did you get your information ..
The NET is full of primary documents these days (like the transcriptions of the Salem Witchcraft Trails). Reading the original works of those who were writing during the Reformation is now possible for anyone wanting to take the time to "google up" a bunch of links and go surfin'.
If you are lucky, you might even have a family bible that goes back to the 1600s .. with notes from your ancestors about their trip to the New World and why they came.
Puritans Not First has a point. Not even all of the Pilgrims were members of a religious sect--some were ship's crew members who stayed. If you look at the different colonies, you'll see that different groups settled them for different reasons. Virginia, for example, had both Hugonauts (can't remember what vowel is missing tonight) and Royalists who were getting away from Cromwell. Very different groups of people than those who were settling in Massachuesetts. New York, of course, had a large number of Dutch settlers. The Scotch-Irish, another early group of settlers, were trying to find some place--they were originally kicked out of Scotland into Ireland and continued moving west. Religion wasn't the key factor with them.
As for the founding fathers and religion. On one hand, the call for freedom was heard throughout many of the churches. On the other hand, FF, such as Jefferson, were Deists, and Thomas Paine, who arguably wrote the single most important pamphlet in favor of American independence, was an atheist. Ironically, Common Sense, which was a massive bestseller in part because it was distributed through the churches.
So, for some, freedom from, for others, freedom of. Depends on whom you're talking about.
Puritans Not First;
It seems like an easy step for you to next equate the attitudes and extreme religous opinions of the Puritans with today's (and yesterday's) fundemental Muslims.
"Oh .. and let's not forget that these "persecuted" Puritans had no trouble executing people who didn't fit their molds--calling them Witches and then calling them dead Witches.
Oh, and let's not forget the 30 Years war, which caused a lot of people to "disappear"--many coming to the New World to start over."
Wish I had some of you guys back with me in school, my history lessons would have been a lot more fun. I also wish I had some of my history text books back because although I remember so much of what you have mentioned, there was a different slant on things.
Religion and history have to be taught together. To understand history you must have a knowledge of religion as well as a handle on what is going on in all the different countries of Europe. There was a mention of the Irish and even the Scots Irish (scotch is a drink) and that is another dark chapter in the goings of English history, politics not to mention the battle between catholicism and the new fangled non Roman religions. It is also important to remember that although Henry XIII broke with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, he did not denounce catholicism, just made himself head of the Church in England. He still followed all catholic doctrine, just didn't want The Pope to be in charge because the Pope at the time didn't want him to divorce his wife, not because of the religious idea of divorce being wrong, but because of the political alliance that his marriage made would be defunct and possibly put disharmony through Europe (if it could get any worse).
Moving to the present--
There is no problem of hate speech in Palo Alto.
The only people who experience bias here are the fat, the ugly, the short and women over 40.
There is a problem with hate speech in Chicago where obamas minister has been spewing the most vile racist hate speech for 40 years with obama siting in the congregation listening to it for 20 of those years.
imagine what would happen if clinton were found to have attended david duke rallys for 20 year.
Talk about bias ans double standards !!
I am coming to believe that Barack Obama is one of the greatest con artists we've seen. His entire campaign has been about "coming together," a post-racial consensus, etc. Any mention of his middle name was immediately condemned as ignorant fear-mongering. He has played the role of racial unifier with great skill and finesse.
But there is a great deal of evidence out there that he is anything but. The Reverend Wright is exhibit A. Mrs. Obama is Exhibit B. But there's lots more.
To resident - another PA neighborhood.
I think you meant Henry 8th, not Henry 13th. :=)
Oops. Thanks. Something else a spell checker doesn't catch.
I believe Asian men make the best husbands. I've dated white guys and Asian guys and I find Asian men are very nice. My father-in-law, my brother, my husband, pastor and a number of Asian men I've met. The white guys I've had experiences with tend to have ego issues. I'm glad I married a sexy-Asian man, and yes he is sexy (otherwise I wouldn't have married him!) I didn't want to end up cooking and cleaning for a divorced white guy for the rest of my life.
Hey Weekly, why'd you delete my comment? Asian men are sexy. If people on this forum can talk about whether or not Asian women make the best wives, I think I ought to express my opinion that I think Asian men are sexy. Please don't make these racists deletions in favor of white men or just because the Weekly is run by white men.
Usually, if your comment's been deleted, there's a mention of it. Sometimes the posting stuff doesn't work, so your post might not have made it on. I honestly don't think the eds are going to take your stated preference for Asian guys personally.
Res, I know scotch is a drink, but there are some older phrases that use Scotch--i.e. Scotch broth and Scotch-Irish--trying saying "Scots-Irish" five times fast, particularly while sloshed on scotch and you'll see why "Scotch-Irish" took hold. They were pretty much the Scottish highlanders who were outlawed--interestingly, some clans were Catholic, others Protestant--religion was less of a factor here than in some other cases.
Anyway, a bunch landed in the U.S.--looks like more in the South and mid-Atlantic states. Virginia, Applachia, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky seem to have a lot of Scotland via Ireland names in them. Sen. Jim Webb has written a book on them which I'm curious to read.
I trust you have never been to Scotland. If you are ever there, do not try to call a true kiltwearing, scotch drinking Scotsman scotch as it will definitely cause him offence. I have heard that food and drink get away with it as you rightly point out in the phrases, scotch pancakes and scotch broth, but they are both used by outsiders rather the Scots themselves, just like french fries and canadian bacon. The Scottish people do not like to be called scotch, they leave that term for the national tipple.
I presume that you don't like to be called yank, because in some countries that term would be used to describe any American.
The person who was part of this exercise in narcissism, self promotion
and victim creation claimed that 150 to 200 showed up.
This is a very wide range error rate 25 to 33%
As everyone had to sign up in advance there must be an accurate number easily available.
i hope no city or county employees attended on paid time, in fact i will be outraged if it turns out that any did.
I would also like to know if any city funds were spent on this silly event.
If these people are worried about hate violence they should be over working in East Palo. We have never had, and do not have any hate violence in Palo Alto.
"We have never had, and do not have any hate violence in Palo Alto." Just like there are no gays in Iran, right?
Regarding interracial relationships, it seems that in the Bay Area -- an area that is generally open-minded, with a lot of racial diversity, and above-average race relations -- there should be a lot of dating between races, and it shouldn't be a big deal. This is especially true since both groups are frequently in similar economic standing in this area, making them likely partners in other respects.
The normalcy of most relationships involving an Asian woman and a white man is obscured mostly by the peculiarity of some sexist white men, who have entered into these relationships for questionable reasons, and the racist attitudes held by society towards Asian males, which has to the present prevented more dating between them and, say, white women (that is, two groups that are commonly found in Silicon Valley, often in the same socioeconomic range, and thus likely partners). It seems to me that more Asian male/white women couples are happening, as these attitudes recede, but it still lags behind.
So, most interracial couples are probably healthy and a sign that race doesn't matter (as a barrier) as much as it used to. However, sometimes this is not the case, and more importantly, sometimes these relationships never happen because discrimination does in fact persist.
I've been to Scotland and am, in fact, partly descended from those Scotch-Irish I mentioned. If you look at the histories on the topic, you'll see they go back and forth between Scotch-Irish (the older nomenclature) and Scots-Irish (newer). I used the term that was used at the time and by people, such as my grandmother, who were Scotch-Irish to describe themselves and their families. They didn't get the book on proper terminology, or maybe they just couldn't read. (They were generally the poor immigrants as opposed to the rich immigrants in the South.)
In Scotland, Scots are Scots, but that's a different issue. I'm not sure why present-day Scots should determine what my ancestors should be called--after all, the Scots in Scotland aren't descended from the Scots exiled to Ireland.
Are you sure it's simply discriminatory attitudes toward Asian guys? I see a couple of other factors--it's easier to marry "up" as an Asian woman marrying a white guy. Women tend to marry into their husband's class--so the same upward mobility advantage isn't offered by the reverse--for either the man or the woman. I also don't know that white women are seen as a particular status symbol for East Asian guys. (I have seen that occasionally with some Indian guys.)
I think there's also a sexism issue with some cultures--if some women are marrying to get away from that, it's not surprising that other women might not be willing to marry into it.
It was easier for me to marry an Asian guy and I feel like I got a good "catch." To be with a white guy was like going downhill.
The above link shows what I mean
So, you wouldn't mind if a Scotsman called you a yank?
Shouldn't we consider why marrying an Asian guy, who may be of a higher economic status than most white guys, is considered somehow marrying lower? I agree with you that people tend to marry into similar economic classes, but this does not begin to explain why marrying an Asian guy is not marrying up, either for an Asian woman or a white one.
Why is being with a white guy going downhill? Shouldn't it depend on the individual, just like it does with any Asian guy? Certainly we shouldn't merit someone for their race, but for their own attributes.
It is interesting, you often see asian women with anglo men, you seldom see asian men with anglo women.
You hardly ever see black men with asian women or asian men with black women.
You hardly ever see hispanic men with asian women or hispanic women with asian men.
The homosexual community is very tiny in the asian community and not approved of at all so what are all those single asian males doing? programing? or renting by the hour?
I've been called a Yank by a Scot (and some other Isle of Albion types). No, I'm not offended by it. I might be if I were a Southerner.
Again, when it comes to Scotch-Irish, since that is part of who I am and what my people called themselves, I figure I've got a bit of the inside track on it. In general, I call people what they want to be called.
I think some of the class thing is less about ethnicity and more about immigrant status. I was thinking of white women married to Asian guys (and as I've said, I know quite a few) and with one exception, the Asian guys are at least third- and fourth-generation Americans. I think the real difference might be that white guys and zero-gen. Asian women will marry, but you don't get the reverse--white American-born women are less likely to marry Asian immigrants (or, again, it may be male Asian immigrants may be the ones who don't want to marry white women.) After a couple of generations, everybody's marrying everybody--with the exception of African-Americans--I think, unfortunately, racism continues to be an issue, though just in my lifetime, I've seen that become less of an issue
(Hello Barack Obama--though he seems to be more the kid of an immigrant).
Just thinking of couples--one pair were college sweethearts; one pair met through a dating service and both people wanted to start families--I think both kind of stretched past their old boundaries to date cross race and cross-religion, but they seem happy and I get the feeling they kind of like their differences--it's kind of exciting for them. A third case involved a woman who was ready to be a single mom and liked the whole idea of Asian sperm (her words, not mine)--so she was more than ready to be matched up by friends.
My sneaking suspicion is that these marriages probably do pretty well just because people don't marry one another because they're supposed to.
I've known some gay Asian-Americans--I suspect they do what a lot of gays do who come from conservative backgrounds. They have a gay social life that they keep very separate from their families. That quiet programmer just needs to quietly head up north on weekends. From my very limited observation, "mixing" seems to be a non-issue in the local gay subculture, so I doubt there's a local Asian-only or only-anything gay scene, I think there's just a gay scene.
(Okay, anyone who knows want to let us know?)
someone should check the statistics- I believe Asians have voted and will vote against Barack (this is before the flap over Barack's pastor).
Gn post suffers greatly form ignorance. Just a few:
"Less than 1% of the Asian community in Palo Alto is homosexual so it is not an issue for us"
really? Is that wishful thinking....?
"For example we do not tolerate bigamy or polygamy in the USA, it is a part of other cultures"
Really? Don't we tolerate about 15,000 "plural" marriages
(authorities just close their eyes and we do too) and happily pretend they don't exist. This is in addition to all " de fact" polygamists who having a spouse at "home" have another or others on the side.
Who are you kidding?
I hate to disappoint but in Scotland (where I lived many happy years and have presently scottish family also) nobody calls people from Ulster, Irish/Scots or the other way around. If they are people from Northen Ireland they are called protestants or catholics from Ulster. Scots Irish is an american term. Until not long ago both groups spoke Gaelic but those were different types of Gaelic. Also there is no Sctoch-it's called whisky or malt. Only americans call whisky scotch....
There are no white people and no black people either,unless a very pale person loses blood or one paints one's face with black ink- we are all different variations of the "brown" coloration.
Why should skin color matter? Is there a good reason? Or are we talking about cultural groups? For those of you who like to make skin color an issue I regret to inform that skin color is undergoing globalization too and pretty soon we (through our young intermarrying) shall all be a wee bit browner even probably gn who I presume already has a bit of lovely "color".
Agreed--the Scotch-Irish are a particular set of early immigrants to colonial America. It's an American term referring to immigrants of Scottish descent who came here via Ireland--largely in the 18th-century.
So, American term used by and about a particular group of immigrants. As Resident's wiki link notes the term is used as adjective in American English--it's archaic--but then so are the people being discussed. In American English, it's not considered a pejorative. (And American English is the reigning dialect in Palo Alto, no?) While "Scots-Irish" seems to be the P.C. replacement, the correct grammatical replacement would be Scottish-Irish--since "Scotch" is modifying "Irish" in the phrase.
Scottish English and American English have their own ways. There *is* such a thing as "scotch"--if you're in the United States. Same way there are moggies in Scotland, but not in the U.S.
Of course, the other claim American of Scottish descent can make is that we're the real Scots--as it was the highlanders, or Celts, who got kicked out of Scotland . . . and eventually to the Americas.
(Except, of course, that that set of emigrations was so long ago that lots and lots of marrying out has happened.)
I agree. But my comment was for those who claim that the expressions mentioned are terms of origin.... Oh, those clearances did a lot for America...
My clan, apparently, pretty much migrated wholescale--they're an official highland clan, but there's no clan head in Scotland--not since the last one emigrated to New York nearly 200 years ago. Of course, they didn't have much of a reputation in Scotland either--except as really good cattle thieves . . .hmmm, well my night vision always was pretty good . . .
You people are all idiots.
That's all I have for the moment.
Good day to you sir.
Hey do you rembember Linda's Drive In restaurant?
How about those Parisian Burgers and the chili?
Warm and crunchy tate tots. What a great place to
meet with friends!!
FYI: A lot of "white man - Asian woman" couples are composed of nerdy white guys and nerdy Asian woman, have you noticed??? Nerdy white guys who are not attractive and cannot find anyone better (Asian or not who's attractive) and those Asian women (not Asian American women) can't tell the difference and think the nerdy white guy is a "trophy"!!!