Wednesday, July.13, 1994-- The Michigan Daily - 5
I
Pupj4, Annoying
Questions
' 'Where are you from?" asks the pale-faced man.
That is the most annoying question I know. In fact, I think it is a
rather stupid question, but I am told that there are no such things
stupid questions. I sip from my reservoir of patience.
"'Southemn Califomnia," I answer.
"No, where are you from?" asks the pale-faced man.
I know what kind of answer the pale-faced man wants. But I choose not to give it
to him.
"Well, I was born in Nebraska," I say innocently.
"No, I mean where are you from?" asks the pale-faced man.
I have already given the pale-faced man much of my life history -my birthplace,
the college I went to, and more. But the pale-faced man is still not appeased. I pretend
to be slightly perplexed by his questioning.
"My parents were born in Taiwan," I say, sounding helpful.
The pale-faced man now has what he has been after. I conceal the fact that I'm
slightly (actually, a great deal) irritated. You should be mostly courteous while
answering the pale-faced man's questions. It wouldbe uncouth to seem angry, militant,
radical or politically correct.
I dread the directions which my conversation with the pale-faced man could take.
"Oh, I really like Chinese food,"the pale-faced man might say. I've learned to eat (and
even like) steaks, hamburgers, baked potatoes, sweet corn and various other "white"
foods; I do not try to impress the pale-faced man with this.
Perhaps the pale-faced man will say, "I visited Taiwan for a couple of weeks
veral years ago." I lived in a white town in a white neighborhood and went to a white
high school. I've studied European history and the roles that white people played in
American history. I know that the pale-faced man will find these things unremarkable
- as do I.
Or perchance the pale-faced man will ask, "Is Taiwan anything like Thailand?"
If you have a skin of a darker shade, have a queerer sexual orientation, or have a
differently-abled body, then it is useful skill to be able to field stupid annoying
questions calmly and graciously. "Do you eat rice andbeans every day?" "How do you
get your hair to look like that?" "Why can't you people just act normally?" "So how
do you have sex?!"
p The straight white male too often seems to be like the king who looks out from his
castle tower and sees nothing but his own dominions, and is bewildered by the notion
that otherkingdoms and lands lie justbeyondthe mountains. He does not see my world.
Perhaps he chooses not to see it. In my world, home-cooking consists of wontons, fried
noodles and chicken feet. In my world, wearing shoes inside the house is considered
gauche. In my world are newspapers in Chinese describing the latest Hollywood
scandals. My world-my America-is real, as vital, and as American as the America
of the straight white male. White America, brown America, yellow America, Black
America, red America, gay America, straight America, rich America, poor America
- these Americas mesh and intertwine like colors on marbled paper. I see straight-
hite-male America everyday in my workplace, in my friends, in the newspapers and
on television; straight-white-male America does not see my America or the other
Americas.
My worldisbut ashadow to the pale-faced man who asks me where Iam from. The
pale-faced man's knowledge of my world is limited to the answers to stupid annoying
questions which I provide him.
It hasbeen four decades since Brown v. BoardofEducation.Yet we live separately,
allowing ourselves to know nothing about our neighbors and each other. Polls show
that most members of minority groups experience discrimination and racism. Yet
many whites think that racial discrimination is arelic from America's past. The radical
Ight spreads unchallenged distortions about gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and can do
so because most straights know little abouttheir les-bi-gay friends, neighbors and kin.
The next time the pale-faced man asks me one of those stupid annoying questions,
I will probably politely give him the answers he want. But then again, I might be sick
and tired enough to simply bean him in the head.
Ending welfare and other threats
Recently, welfare has been
personified as an overweight baby-
making woman crushing an already
overburdened tax-paying public.
Popular opinion tells us that some-
thing must be done about this
problem, and the Clinton administra-
tion has scrounged together provi-
sions for a diet plan. But just as the
average American diet lacks suffi-
cient fiber, it is unlikely that Presi-
dent Clinton's plan will provide
enough moral fiber for most welfare
recipients, who generally are too lazy
to work, or who have attempted to
legitimize illegitimacy by having
children for money.
Clearly, welfare presents a dire
crisis to this country, but (if you can
possibly believe it) an even bigger,
more insidious problem faces today's
nation: namely, the growing preva-
lence of subversive social studies and
their damaging statistics.
You may not realize it, but public
perception (as reflected by gossip,
rumor and public opinion polls) is
our most important national institu-
tion; it's what makes America,
America. Yet many recent studies
have tried to subvert some truth of
the hallowed general opinions that
we cherish as the gospel truth.
Take, for instance, the welfare
problem. Common consensus, and
therefore, common sense, says that
the only thing stopping welfare
recipients from work is welfare itself:
Take away the benefits and they'll
get off their lazy butts and get a job.
That sounds like perfect logic, but a
University study (as reported in The
Detroit News) found that two-thirds
of the people that Gov. John Engler
knocked off general assistance two
years ago are still unemployed, and
many are chronically ill to boot.
Most others have found only
sporadic low-paying jobs.
The University study is not the
only one to heavily contradict the
public's view of welfare. An eight-
year study of Wisconsin welfare
recipients by sociologist Mark Rank
of Washington University in St.
Louis (as reported in The Washing-
ton Post) found that women on
welfare have lower birthrates than
other women, and little financial
incentive to have children.
Frightening, isn't it? These
studies could plunge a cold knife into
what the majority of Americans hold
to be true in their patriotic hearts.
Even more chilling is that some of
these statistics were planted in our
very own backyard; "Invasion of the
Body Snatchers" comes to mind.
A short time ago, obliteration of
all forms of public assistance would
have been enough to end the welfare
threat; however today the added
presence of these subversive studies/
statistics calls for Machiavellian
measures. With that in mind, I put
forth the following proposal: entice
all of the people on welfare to
"eliminate" every person involved
with these social studies in the
United States.
This would be much easier to do
than it sounds. Just promise the
welfare rats lifetime benefits (and
perhaps a little government cheese)
and they'll do anything, especially
when they are guaranteed immunity
from prosecution. A provision could
be made for the pregnant ones to
subcontract and get the shiftless
fathers of their illegitimate children
to do it for them.
When the dirty work is done, the
welfare recipients will (of course) be
prosecuted and sent to prison where
they belong. And don't you worry
about them reading this and finding
out about the last part of the plan;
they are all illiterate.
Yes, the more I think about it, the
more determined I am to see this plan
to fruition. The world must be made
safe for unchallenged public opinion.
Can you believe the three major networks pre-empted most of their
7ternoon programming in the last two weeks to televise the O.J. Simpson case
live from Los Angeles? Come on, the Simpson ordeal is not the Iran-Contra
hearings! And don't the American people have anything better to do with their
time? Recent estimates claim up to 1 in 4 Americans have watched these
afternoon broadcasts. This is sad. Just remember -the guy beat his wife, and
this fact is not on trial. - Patrick Javid