Confusing New York ‘hate crime’ videos about Pinoys

By Alex P. Vidal

“Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.”

—Francis Bacon

LET’S not be confused by the videos circulating in the social media that purportedly report about “Asian hate” incidents involving Filipinos particularly in New York—unless they have been officially reported as such and properly verified and documented by authorities.

I recently spotted at least two uploaded by the “ABS-CBN News.” They all went viral.

Because the “attacker” was a black person “who punched someone” didn’t mean it’s already an “Asian hate” crime-related violence.

The recent video showing a “Filipino MMA expert” pinning down an “attacker” (an African-American) or “tumulong para mahuli ang attacker” has led to a plethora of confusion: the attacker was an “Asian hater” for randomly punching two people, “including a 17-year-old.”

Any yahoo can punch an innocent bystander without being racist or hater of Asians.

The 17-year-old mentioned in that video could be the same “18-year-old Filipino tourist” referred to by Philippine Consul General Elmer Cato of the Philippine Consulate General New York in his tweet in July, which was massively reported in the Philippine media as a case of “Asian hate.”

It created panic, fear and ripples among worried family members in the Philippines who have loved ones in New York and other U.S. states.

-o0o-

We are 100 percent certain the good consul general never met that “18-year-old Filipino tourist” or the “17-year-old” mentioned in the video if he really existed.

No official documentation, no CCTV video of the actual attack, no testimonies (backed by concrete evidence not rhetorics) from credible witnesses, no actual or taped interviews with the New York Police Department (NYPD) investigators to confirm Asians were deliberately targeted in the attack, means there was no Asian hate-related bullying.

No identification means half truth. No accuracy means its authenticity can be challenged.

Other than extolling the heroism of the Good Samaritan and the “Filipino MMA expert” who helped arrest that American-African assailant, the video was inconclusive.

Check the video again. It’s about the “heroism” of a Good Samaritan,  the “Filipino MMA expert” who reportedly helped arrest the “attacker.” It’s not about a Filipino victimized by haters targeting Asians. Let’s make this clear: Filipino the hero, not Filipino the Asian hate victim.

Every now and then, random street rumbles involving gangs occurred in New York City and other major cities with large population in the United States.

“Asian hate crime” has nothing to do with the violent street fistfights involving gangs, drug dealers, insane and homeless thugs who ran berserk.

So as not to be victimized by what we call in Philippines journalism as “kuryente” or (false news from a false source) we exhort Philippine Consulate authorities to double check the facts and all the information being dumped in their office by “concerned” individuals or sometimes erratic informers before twitting the stories or reporting them as “related to Asian hate crime.”

-o0o-

When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.”

Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.

Michael Green of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, wrote that the United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC).

Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter.

When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “(W)e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration.

The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.

(The author, who is now based in New York City, used to be the editor of two local dailies in Iloilo.—Ed)