Duplicitous Lisa Krieger wrote an article published in the Merc todaywhich supports every point I make from time to time about the Merc—thatit works to divide readers, and that it seeks to deceive our community.You may see the article in question here.
Dear San Jose Mercury News;
Krieger’s article is a remarkably divisive article seeking to causetrouble between Asian Americans and European Americans. Krieger hasalways sought to put wedges between demographics even when there is notreally a demographic-based dispute.
That’s part of the problem in Cupertino—the Merc has thoroughlybrain-washed readers that Cupertino is hopelessly split into twodemographic-based camps. Nothing could be further from the truth inCupertino, and nothing could be further from the truth in the currentdust-up with UC-Berkeley’s shift in admission policy. To accuseUC-Berkeley of seeking to benefit “whites” at the expense of “Asians”is really a stretch.
And notice how the writer gave a voice to several Asian Americans tobash UC-Berkeley and Euro-Americans, but she allowed none of the latterto have a voice in the matter. To the Merc, the diverse whiteCalifornian peoples are just a silenced punching bag. This one-sidedreporting is solid evidence for the loathing (or self-hate) felt forthe Euro-American demographic by Krieger and Merc editors.
Merc, if you must divide us into contentious disputants, how about allowing us a voice?
DECEIVING OUR COMMUNITY
The fundamental deception in the writer’s dishonest reporting is that she twists the meaning of “whites.”
In fact, and an honest reporter would have made this clear, “white” isfrequently a default category, varying from agency to agency as tomeaning and numbers.
For example, when you read federal government hate crime statistics,you will note that there are zero American Latino perpetrators. Thisis because American Latino perpetrators are sorted into two categoriesby the federal government with “black” getting about 10% of their hatecrimes, and “white” getting about 90% of their hate crimes by default. The Merc has consistently lied to its readers about this phenomenon,too.
The related phenomenon in the UC-Berkeley matter, that Krieger liesabout by silence, is that the category “whites” is extensively used atUC-Berkeley as the default classification for all the European,Semitic, Turkic, Persian, and North African-American communities.“Whites” is, indeed, used in the UC-Berkeley issue as this kind ofdefault label whether desired or not by those so labeled.
So this means that Jewish immigrants from Israel, and Palestinian,Jordanian, Turkish, Persian, and North African immigrants fromSouthwest Asia are lumped into the “whites” category whether they wantit or not at UC-Berkeley.
A mildly amusing news story from three or four years ago featured animmigrant from Egypt who objected mightily to being considered “white”in America because it barred him from various programs designed to givedifferent “non-white” demographics a leg up.
And when Jews, Germans, Russians, Irish, Arabs, Persians, and NorthAfricans at UC-Berkeley are jammed into the “white” category, thissmothers their diversity within a category (“white”) that isconsistently lied about in the Merc as having no diversity whatsoever.
CONCLUSION
The article by Lisa Krieger is loaded with adjectives, inflammatoryquotations, and unexplained categories of discourse, and it works hardto smother “white” diversity to divide us and to deceive us. Don’t befooled again by this bigotry.
Name withheld by request–Ed.