Archive for the ‘Racial discrimination’ Category

A minorities’ delusion – “interracial marriages will end White supremacy”

May 29, 2018

This is the best article I’ve read on the Royal Wedding, from a Black scholar – Opinion: The #RoyalWedding was never going to be a vehicle for racial progress  Contrary to his view is Al Sharpton’s that the White supremacy is now on its last breath. This reminds me of that, not long ago, an Asian woman wrote an article implying the right wing #WHITEsupremacist had accepted Asians as their equals, because some of them are married to Asian women. And now Al Sharpton sees the #RoyalWedding the same way.

The #RoyalWedding was very beautiful, I most sincerely wish Prince Harry and Meghan live happily ever after. It is indeed a great progress against #WhiteSupremacy. However, it’s a delusion that #WhiteSupremacy is now on its last breath, just because of some kind of interracial marriage, or marriage with the royals. Prince Harry must be a very nice and kind man. His choice may reflect the progress of the royals and the society, but I believe mainly because of his own personal reasons.

Will interracial marriages end White supremacy? Eventually yes, I believe  – when the great majority of the whole population in Western societies are mixed blood, and when the minorities are all as rich and successful as the Whites. But that has a long, long way to go. Maybe next century. And I don’t think the Whites would do nothing and sit there watching …

In our times, it will be really delusional to think interracial marriages or marriage with royals would eliminate White supremacy. Any change would mainly take place at an individual level. Whether a person is racist or not has not much to do with interracial marriage.  The main reason for the delusion of the minorities is that they all have the tendency to overestimate the importance of interracial marriages, or even marriage itself, culturally.

Because, for most of the people in the White culture, when it comes to interracial marriage, it would never be of the same importance as the minorities believe. Marriage to a spouse of minority does not make a racist not racist any more. He or she marries you might be just for some kind of special personal needs, and has nothing to do with his values. It’s somehow like “pet love”, they love their spouse and mixed children like loving pets, but will the pets become their equals? No, in most cases, never. Needless to say the kind of ethnic group of people that their spouses belong.

We would make irreversible mistakes to think the otherwise. And this is exact mistake I made that costed me of my whole life. Take a look at my story – racial persecution on an Asian student started by two White professors who are both married to Asian women, and my delusion on interracial marriage played a key role in it, you will know in White culture, blood is thicker than water, this blood means that from the same ethnic ancestry, not necessarily from the same family. Particularly so when there is a conflict between these two kinds of blood.

My story is a text perfect illustration: it all started from a White professor David Waterhouse of University of Toronto teaching us his White supremacist theory on art history studies. Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P1Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P4

This professor Waterhouse taught us “beauty” is an “European concept”, that others like Asians did not have in history, called to establish a “biological approach” to art history study, and to revive a Nazi Germany racist theory called “Style”. And this White supremacist professor’s married to a Japanese woman.

I disagreed. When Waterhouse eventually acknowledged his loss to me for this dispute, he retaliated against me with a series of fraud that failed my Ph.D application. I complained to Ontario Human Rights Commission. Commission asked me to pick 2 experts for anonymous rereading of my paper that challenged Waterhouse’ theory and that I claimed as under graded by him as a retaliation.

I chose two professors, one was Professor Sullivan from the UK, and the other James Cahill, in the Chinese Art History Department at the University of California, Berkeley. They both are renowned professors, and also, both were married to Chinese women, which I believed, would make them not racist. Professor Sullivan got married to a Chinese woman decades ago. Cahill had only recently married his current wife, a student of his from mainland China, 27 years’ his junior.

Cahill called the OHRC (the Commission), commented that my paper was “Quit good”, but he was reluctant to give a written grade as he was supposed to do, and said he would not get involved in an unknown situation, as he himself had problems with some of his Chinese students before as well. I was not surprised by that since Waterhouse already told us in class that Cahill exploited the intellectual products of his Chinese students to get his fame.

The OHRC disclosed my dispute with Waterhouse and sent Waterhouse’ article to him, in violation of the university’s “anonymous rereading” policy.
In April of 1995, Cahill faxed his written Opinion to OHRC, the Commission officer Alan Strojin called me from Hamilton to tell me about it. When Strojin read it to me, I was totally shocked, not merely because Cahill’s oral assessment of my paper “Quit good” now became a low B grade, and he backed up Waterhouse in the dispute on concept of beauty, but because that Cahill himself openly acknowledged his own politically motivated wrong doing –

On basically every issue that he concluded against me in his Opinion, Cahill would at the same time acknowledge that he was in fact fully aware of the truth that was contrary to his conclusion.

Such as, while acknowledging the university policy that rereading must be anonymous without knowledge of any background circumstances involved in the dispute, Cahill deliberately disclosed in this Opinion that he had acquired even very detailed knowledge and supposedly confidential information on the disputes on my paper and my dispute with Waterhouse, clearly implying that behind my back, he had already made intimate exchange of information with U of Toronto or even Waterhouse himself -a knowing violation of the university’s re-reading rules. And based on such knowledge he gave my paper the same – B and for same reason of “poor English”, all consistent with Waterhouse.

When finding that I misunderstood Waterhouse’ article because of my “misunderstanding” because of my “poor English”, Cahill wrote that I “quotes P as saying things I can’t imagine he did, since they also don’t make sense”. This is an acknowledgement of his real opinion on Waterhouse’ article, for what I quoted is not mistaken but black and white in Waterhouse’s paper, no English issue involved.

While giving me a poor grade, Cahill acknowledged “As for S’s paper: it is a very ambitious piece of work, with notable strengths; a good mind is clearly at work here. Good points are made, and valuable insights expressed.” While blaming my “poor English”, Cahill would also comment to the opposite that I had “attained an admirable degree of proficiency for a non-native user”; etc.
And while acknowledging that the rereading must be only based on the merits of the paper in dispute, in the first beginning of his “expert’s opinion” Cahill confessed that political considerations upon my human rights Complaint changed his assessment of my paper – “At the beginning, when I thought it was simply a matter of assessing the paper and saying what I thought a fair grade would be, the matter seemed fairly straight forward. Of course the basic issue is still that. But some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the paper and the grade certainly complicates the matter.”

Why would he do so? Usually people would take serious measures to cover up their own wrong doings. But Cahill made such an open confession that he knew what he was doing –he deliberately did the wrong thing for he actually knew it was contrary to the truth, and that he did it for a political/racial purpose.

The only conclusion can be that he was making a show. He was not only out to save Waterhouse from being punished for his racist reprisal against me, but also he was taking this opportunity to show Waterhouse and all other Whites involved – that as the old English saying: “Maybe he is a son of bitch, but he is our own son of bitch”. No matter how viciously racist Waterhouse was, he would back him up, because he was one of his own kind. Second he wanted to show me – how dare and how stupid you Chinese are, to think that since I’m married to a Chinese woman, I would do justice to you against one of my really own?

This of course, is racism, and is White supremacy, for which he would sacrifice any other kind of people, including those related to him by way of marriage, maybe even including his own spouse and children when needed?

As a result of his expert’s opinion, I was criminalized – for when I was shocked on the phone with the OHRC officer Strojin, I ranted “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too”, and was found guilty for threat to Waterhouse by the court. I am now a true “criminal of thoughts”. For the concept of beauty. And lost everything in my life.

Lesson? Both Cahill’s and Waterhouse’ marriage to Asian woman never ended their racism and White supremacy. Perhaps even enforced that in them,  particularly in Cahill’s case a 27 years’ younger Chinese woman would marry him, in his pass retirement age, that made him feel the supremacy of his Whiteness status, and despise  the Chinese even more.
I hope my lesson can benefit every minority, including those who are celebrating the royal wedding.

Advertisements

When the White Supremacist TAs Go On to Become Professors …

October 20, 2017

On this topic – Should a Racist Grade Your Papers? Students Discover White Supremacists Teaching at Their Universities, I have the highest credentials to complete the discovery for these brilliant students and the author of this article – these White supremacist TAs discovered by the students will go on to become professors at privileged universities, receive fat salaries, possibly even get married to Asian women …while continuing spewing out their White supremacy theories in their classroom teaching…and then when their theory get a substantial challenge from a student of color, in my case a Chinese graduate student like me, they will retaliate such as observed by this article: grading down your papers, even falsifying grades…etc., to defeat you. And then when you start complaining to university – the university and later the government will join the professor to actually make you a criminal of thought. That will finish your whole life. This is what happened to me, a true story.

This is a story that I, a person of color ended up in jail for my free speech challenging White supremacy. A White professor (David Waterhouse of U of Toronto) taught us in class that beauty is a European concept, and Asians did not have such a concept in history, so we need a “biological approach” in art history study, and call for re-establishing a notorious Nazi theory that has been criticized by some Jewish scholars as significantly promoting race feelings in 1930s. But I disagreed with that and proved to him in my paper that we Asians and all humans did have the concept of beauty in history, so it’s not a White privilege. He then wrote on my paper he had to agree with my findings. Then first Waterhouse mocked me saying “China has been far left behind history, yet some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions…”, second he retaliated me with fraud over my grade and student record that failed my Ph.D application behind my back. When I discovered and complained about his racist retaliation, he said he could not be racist since he is married to a Japanese woman. And the University officials defended him at my accusation of his Nazi theory saying “That’s his freedom of speech”, and gave me no response to my claim that I also have free speech to challenge White supremacy.

Then when I complained to The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), another White professor got James Cahill of Art History Dept., U of Berkeley, got involved as an expert for a second opinion for my paper that I claimed being graded down for it challenged Waterhouse’ White supremacy theory. I picked him because he was married to a Chinese woman, (his student, 27 years of his junior, his number X wife?) But I didn’t know marrying to a Chinese wife does not change a White supremacist, and Cahill already had problems with his Chinese students previously. Now he seized the chance to retaliate the Chinese to maintain his White supremacy. He graded my paper in line with Waterhouse, and disclosed his unlawful behind door communication with the U of Toronto to provoke my anger for a malicious prosecution plot. Upon his Opinion, the persecution of me started at the Commission.

First the Commission coerced me into testifying my thoughts to the Commission, assuring me under law nothing in my testimony could be used against me, then Commission officer Alan Strojin solicited my thoughts as to “what are you going to do now?” when telling me over the phone that the Commission would dismiss my case on basis of Cahill’s Opinion. I desperately cried and ranted on phone that “if they are going to kill me, not only me die”, they charged me for this testimony for “threatening Waterhouse”. A judge convicted me in total disregard of the Canadian Charter right against self-incrimination, and on his admitted “guessing” that I “meant” to threaten Waterhouse in my mind despite I never even mentioned his name in my ranting. So I have literally become a real “criminal of thoughts” made by Canadian and US governments. Now I have been expelled from employment, from the society, all because of my “criminal record”.  Meanwhile, all the true criminals who committed crimes against me during my struggle go Scot free, being harbored by the criminal justice systems of Canada and USA, such as Alan Strojin, and James Cahill’s perjuries in courts of US and Canadian, and death threats against me by online US government agents, etc.

I’m glad I did a search on White supremacy this morning and saw this article of Roots on the top of the search result. Thanks to the author and the students. Hope the younger generations of students of color will know more about White supremacy, and be prepared.

 

The so called free speech is only a White privilege

February 22, 2017

Lately in Canada, free speech has become the most heated topic in news media in relation to a motion, M103, tabled by MP Iqra Khalid. I am in strong support of the motion. Six innocent lives have been lost, a motion to condemn Islamphobia and all kinds of hate speech and systemic racism, that’s really so little for the Muslim community to ask. I strongly support the motion. Nowadays, the racist hate speeches against the racial minorities are going wild. This is a much-needed motion. Thank you MP Iqra Khalid!

The so called free speech is only a White privilege in Canada. A person of color might even end up in jail for his/her free speech. My story is the best example. A White professor had the free speech to tell me in class that beauty is a European concept, and Asians did not have such a concept in history, so we need a “biological approach” in art history study. But I did not have the free speech to answer him that we Asians did have the concept of beauty in history, because when I did so I had to pay the price of my whole life. First the professor (David Waterhouse of U of Toronto) mocked me saying “China has been far left behind history, yet some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions…”, second he retaliated me with fraud over my grade and student record that failed my Ph.D application. Then when I complained to The Ontario human rights commission, first the Commission coerced me into testifying my thoughts to the Commission, assuring me under law nothing in my testimony could be used against me, then Commission officer Alan Strojin solicited my thoughts as to “what are you going to do now?” when telling me over the phone that the Commission would dismiss my case on basis of an Expert’s Opinion by a White professor, James Cahill of U of Berkeley, and then when I desperately cried and ranted on phone that “if they are going to kill me, not only me die”, they charged me for this testimony for “threatening Waterhouse”. Judge Knazan convicted me in total disregard of the Canadian Charter right against self-incrimination, and on his admitted “guessing” that I “meant” to threaten Waterhouse in my mind despite I never even mentioned his name in my ranting. So I have literally become a real “criminal of thoughts” made by Canadian and US governments. Now I have been expelled from employment, from the society, all because of my “criminal record”. This is a real “free speech” story.