@Duchess64
Asian Americans are extremely diverse and vary greatly in financial status.
A significant proportion of Asian Americans (particularly in some communities) suffer from poverty.
Agreed! Poor Chinese communities in New York, Boston, and one in Salem Massachusetts.
Two questions:
1) Does racism to Chinese people cause their poverty?
2) Does racism to Chinese people cause their academic "failure"?
PS: Just to add, I know of many poor white communities as well.
@earl-of-trumps saidNote, median Asian income is over 80k, well above all other races.
@Duchess64
Asian Americans are extremely diverse and vary greatly in financial status.
A significant proportion of Asian Americans (particularly in some communities) suffer from poverty.
Agreed! Poor Chinese communities in New York, Boston, and one in Salem Massachusetts.
Two questions:
1) Does racism to Chinese people cause their poverty?
2) Does rac ...[text shortened]... cause their academic "failure"?
PS: Just to add, I know of many poor white communities as well.
@ashiitaka saidThe purpose of that thread was primarily to refute the "model minority myth" that right wingers here explicitly and Duchy more implicitly support. The research cited there and here (almost all done by Asian and Asian-American academics) strongly debunks the notion that the gains made by Asian-American groups could be easily replicated by blacks if they only "worked/studied" harder and thus their relative poverty is their own fault because of some moral failing and/or innate inferiority.
Rewinding through my mind, I can find a thread called "Asian-American Privilege", started by you between 110 and 112 weeks ago (I cannot recall the exact date). I can also remember - in my capacity as this forum's resident Necromancer - resurrecting it and explaining your likely motive for the original (provoking D64) when the topic was broached in an unrelated thread (the ...[text shortened]... t to the Great Purge. Oh well; it's not like I've forgotten them, but sometimes the proof is needed.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhat would " academics in Asian American studies" actually say? Something like this:
"And at the root of Sullivan's pernicious argument is the idea that black failure and Asian success cannot be explained by inequities and racism, and that they are one and the same; this allows a segment of white America to avoid any responsibility for addressing racism or the damage it continues to inflict.
"Sullivan's comments showcase a classic and tenacious conservative strategy," Janelle Wong, the director of Asian American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an email. This strategy, she said, involves "1) ignoring the role that selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants has played in Asian American success followed by 2) making a flawed comparison between Asian Americans and other groups, particularly Black Americans, to argue that racism, including more than two centuries of black enslavement, can be overcome by hard work and strong family values."
"It's like the Energizer Bunny," said Ellen D. Wu, an Asian-American studies professor at Indiana University and the author of The Color of Success. Much of Wu's work focuses on dispelling the "model minority" myth, and she's been tasked repeatedly with publicly refuting arguments like Sullivan's, which, she said, are incessant. "The thing about the Sullivan piece is that it's such an old-fashioned rendering. It's very retro in the kinds of points he made."
Since the end of World War II, many white people have used Asian-Americans and their perceived collective success as a racial wedge. The effect? Minimizing the role racism plays in the persistent struggles of other racial/ethnic minority groups — especially black Americans."
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669/model-minority-myth-again-used-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacks
@no1marauder saidyes friend, you have double standards! and the habit of saying what ever will get you out of a situation.
I said no such thing.
There is no "double standard" just you either deliberately and/or ignorantly mischaracterizing what my posts clearly say.
@no1marauder saidI believe it was the case that Nigerians to the US are hyperselected, along with Afro-Carribbeans, and that the first generation immigrants tend to be not just more successful, but more conservative. I knew a man who did legal work in NYC that told me that defense lawyers do their best to avoid putting Jamaicans or any other Afro-Carribbeans on a jury -- it's the equivalent of putting some working class old white guy with a chip on their shoulder.
Chinese immigrants to the US are 15 times more likely to graduate college than Chinese in China:
"For example, 3.6 percent of Chinese non-migrants report having a college education whereas 52.7 percent of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. report having a college degree. Put differently, Chinese migrants in the U.S. are 15 times more likely than their non-migrant counterpa ...[text shortened]... p is not hyper-selected. We refer to this process as the “spill-over effects” of hyper-selectivity."
http://www.wipsociology.org/2018/06/20/hyper-selectivity-and-the-asian-second-generation-advantage/
Kind of weird thing but...
Your source does not have a source for its source -- it's just a blog by some guy named Van Tran.
But he does link to a longer version of the PDF, though now I am dealing with a much longer paper.
Tran and his team do consider, though, that there are plenty of things about the Asian minority that give them capital for self-advancement that have little to do with money:
Hyper-and hypo-selectivity havecultural, institutional, and social psychological consequencesfor the educational attainmentof the second-generation(Lee and Zhou 2017, 2015). The hyper-selectivity of Chinese immigrants can enhancethe educational outcomes of the second-generation, even among those from working-class families in ways that defy the classic status attainment model. For example, Chinese immigrants who arrive with high levels of education and socioeconomic resources create ethnic capital in the form of supplemental education programs, SAT prep courses, and tutoring services that are accessible to working-class co-ethnics(see also Kasinitz et al. 2008; Tran 2016). Moreover, the high-achievers become the role models and mobility prototypes to which group members aspire, and the reference group against whom they measure their success. These co-ethnic resources and cross-class social ties give second-generation Chinese—including those from working-class backgrounds—a leg up compared to other groups.
https://osf.io/na4y9
These behaviors are smart and future-oriented.
It sounds like the sort of behavior that was used by Koreans back when their country was at third world levels.
It is also the sort of pattern that you are seeing from Asian countries today: huge investments in education to be able to generate a skilled workforce to bring in the money in a global market increasingly defined by skilled labor.
I think this has more to do with culture and future-oriented thinking than it does with existing resources. While Asian immigrants have selection factors, and some of them perhaps hyper-selection factors as listed here, even Tran has admitted that the Vietnamese lack this, and that there are plenty of working class immigrants who benefit from the resources made available by their co-ethnics.
This is kind of interesting way to see it, too: it shows that co-ethnic unity is a source of strength, not the sort of thing that you would normally seen advanced as an ideal by the left. ^^
@eladar saidAnd why this is so relevant is that it shows that white Americans do not discriminate against Asians in terms of education and employment opportunities.
Note, median Asian income is over 80k, well above all other races.
Nor did white Americans develop an IQ test to cater to Asian cultures and skill sets, or an educational system that was designed for the advancement of Asian students.
Whites are likewise not plotting against black Americans.
They simply have constructed a generally meritocratic system in which Asian people are generally the most successful.
1 edit
@philokalia saidFunny, the article you cited hardly agrees with such a benign view of the present racial situation in the US:
And why this is so relevant is that it shows that white Americans do not discriminate against Asians in terms of education and employment opportunities.
Nor did white Americans develop an IQ test to cater to Asian cultures and skill sets, or an educational system that was designed for the advancement of Asian students.
Whites are likewise not plotting against ...[text shortened]... generally meritocratic system in which Asian people are generally the most successful.
"In her study of second-generation Nigerians, Imoagene (2017) shows that second-generation Nigerians succeed, in part, by actively choosing their ethnicity while negotiating their race. Despite their extraordinary academic achievement, however, she also finds that because of their racial status as Black, second-generation Nigerians face biases and barriers that impede their full integration into U.S. institutions (see also Owens and Lynch2012; Owens and Massey 2011; Patacchini and Zenou 2016). Like Tran (2015) and Waters (1999), in their studies of second-generation West Indians, Imoagene (2017) similarly cautions that the class and ethnic advantages of the second generation Nigerians may not extend to the third and later generations because of their racial status and the social construction of Blackness in U.S. society."
"Nigerians comprise only 1 percent of the total U.S. Black population(see Table 4). This mere fraction is not enough to change the social construction of blackness, which was born out of the legacy of slavery, entrenched by Jim Crow laws, and embedded through the de jure and now de facto practice of the one-drop rule of hypo-descent."
https://osf.io/na4y9 pp. 24-25
It is also noteworthy that the paper recognizes that none of these groups would have been able to immigrate to the US in large numbers except for the changes in immigration law enacted in the mid 1960s, which are bitterly attacked by white nationalists like yourself:
"The influx of new immigrants to the United States became possible with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, which eliminated quotas based on national origin and opened the door to newcomers from non-European countries. The change in U.S. immigration law altered he national origins of immigrants so dramatically that today, more than four in five hail from Latin America, Asia, Africa, or the Caribbean, and only one in seven comes from Europe or Canada (Lee and Bean 2010). The shift in national origins—from Europe to Latin America, Asia, Africa, andthe Caribbean—is the single most distinctive feature of the country’s “new immigration.”
"Since 1965, Latinos and Asians have more than quadrupled in size from 4 and 1 percent of the population to 18 and 6 percent, respectively. Latinos are now the largest minority group, and Asians, the fastest growing group in the United States(Lee and Zhou 2015; Wong et al. 2011). Driving the growth of the Asian population is immigration; two-thirds of U.S. Asians are foreign-born, a figure that increases to four-fifths among Asian adults. Among Latinos, just over one-third (35 percent) are foreign-born. While the total Black population increased by only 1 percent (from 11 to 12 percent)since 1965, the foreign-born Black population grew to one-tenth of the U.S. Black population, up from a mere 1 percent. The group that has decreased in size since 1965 is non-Hispanic Whites. While they remain, by far, the largest group in the country who account for two-thirds of the population, their proportion has steadily declined since 1970, when they comprised five-sixths of the U.S. population.
Ibid. pp. 5-6
"In her study of second-generation Nigerians, Imoagene (2017) shows that second-generation Nigerians succeed, in part, by actively choosing their ethnicity while negotiating their race. Despite their extraordinary academic achievement, however, she also finds that because of their racial status as Black, second-generation Nigerians face biases and barriers that impede their full integration into U.S. institutions (see also Owens and Lynch2012; Owens and Massey 2011; Patacchini and Zenou 2016). Like Tran (2015) and Waters (1999), in their studies of second-generation West Indians, Imoagene (2017) similarly cautions that the class and ethnic advantages of the second generation Nigerians may not extend to the third and later generations because of their racial status and the social construction of Blackness in U.S. society."
What's their proof that it is the racial status and social construction of "Blackness" that causes this?
There's no meat here -- just a statement.
It is also noteworthy that the paper recognizes that none of these groups would have been able to immigrate to the US in large numbers except for the changes in immigration law enacted in the mid 1960s, which are bitterly attacked by white nationalists like yourself:
I am not a white nationalist -- if you call me a white nationalist again, I will report you for harassment or bullying as it is a completely unfair characterization of my views.
Secondly: this is not relevant.
@philokalia saidI'm sure they use the same type of evidence in those studies that I have mustered here, which you and other right wingers shut your eyes to.
[quote]"In her study of second-generation Nigerians, Imoagene (2017) shows that second-generation Nigerians succeed, in part, by actively choosing their ethnicity while negotiating their race. Despite their extraordinary academic achievement, however, she also finds that because of their racial status as Black, second-generation Nigerians face biases and barriers that impe ...[text shortened]... d social construction of "Blackness" that causes this?
There's no meat here -- just a statement.