Support NeoGAF

[tallkid123]

It's not just East Asians immigrants, South Asian immigrants (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh) do very well too. But it also depends on family background and education level.

That said the ambition isn't high in these people. They just want a good paying job in the end, they are not usually looking to being the President or searching a cure for cancer.

Asians (including South Asians) will go and succeed anywhere.

My Asian father was born and raised in Fiji (an island in the pacific ocean). Studied hard, got a degree overseas and then got paid the big bucks and worked for an organisation equivalent to the World Bank.

If you guys ever go to Fiji, it's the Indians who were brought over by the British colonialists that control the economy and businesses as opposed to the indigenous population.

Not all. Philippines is primarily Catholic, for example. Thank you Spanish Empire!

Having spent a lot of my life in that country, I'd say that the effect of Roman Catholicism has been nothing short of a disaster on the people (overpopulation especially). I also say this as someone who was raised Catholic myself.

Does 'Asian' include South Asians and Pacific Islanders?

Mixed race people like me fall through all the gaps.

 

[Davidion]

I don't really understand the tone of the conversations here; there seems to be this weird undercurrent of disdain. Pretty much every common reason for why Asians tend to be successful has been listed and rehashed over, so what's the big confusion? Hell, we even covered the ground of disparity with other immigrant groups by noting the success of other groups.

You can try to target some other mystery formula that would explain the phenomenon, but like it or not, the common reasons given typically takes you a good 75-90% of the way.

 

[pigeon]

I question the premise, OP.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/05/poverty-and-the-model-minority/

For one thing, as you can see, the Asian poverty rate is 9.9%, while the white poverty rate is 8.7%. Foreign-born Asians and foreign-born whites differ by about 0.3%. So they really aren't succeeding at any extraordinary level, on average.

Nor is there anything fundamental about "Asians" that make them more likely to succeed. Some Asian groups have a tendency to be more successful -- Filipino, Indian, Japanese all happen to beat out the average Caucasian. Others do quite poorly -- Hmongs are 27.6% likely to be poor, Bangladeshi 23.6%, Cambodian 19%. Even Chinese are slightly more likely, at 11.3%, to be poor than a Caucasian. The confluence of all Asian cultures under one banner is a constant source of confusion and indeed discrimination -- it's the equivalent of lumping the US and Mexico together as America and then asking why Americans were so much poorer than other developed countries.

The reality is that when people talk about "Asian" immigrants they're usually really asking why African-Americans and Hispanics aren't as successful. The answer to that is simple -- in the one case, it's Jim Crow; in the other, it's manifest destiny and the US-Mexican War. Asians just happened to not be anywhere near America while America was developing its deep-rooted cultural structures designed to empower whites at the cost of people of color, so the discrimination targeted at them is a little more ad hoc. (Not that there wasn't a lot of Asian prejudice in the early 1900s, of course.)

 

[Haly]

Oh snap, numbers.

 

[zero_suit]

I question the premise, OP.


For one thing, as you can see, the Asian poverty rate is 9.9%, while the white poverty rate is 8.7%. Foreign-born Asians and foreign-born whites differ by about 0.3%. So they really aren't succeeding at any extraordinary level, on average.

Nor is there anything fundamental about "Asians" that make them more likely to succeed. Some Asian groups have a tendency to be more successful -- Filipino, Indian, Japanese all happen to beat out the average Caucasian. Others do quite poorly -- Hmongs are 27.6% likely to be poor, Bangladeshi 23.6%, Cambodian 19%. Even Chinese are slightly more likely, at 11.3%, to be poor than a Caucasian. The confluence of all Asian cultures under one banner is a constant source of confusion and indeed discrimination -- it's the equivalent of lumping the US and Mexico together as America and then asking why Americans were so much poorer than other developed countries.

The reality is that when people talk about "Asian" immigrants they're usually really asking why African-Americans and Hispanics aren't as successful. The answer to that is simple -- in the one case, it's Jim Crow; in the other, it's manifest destiny and the US-Mexican War. Asians just happened to not be anywhere near America while America was developing its deep-rooted cultural structures designed to empower whites at the cost of people of color, so the discrimination targeted at them is a little more ad hoc. (Not that there wasn't a lot of Asian prejudice in the early 1900s, of course.)

Welp, OP debunked.

 

[braves01]

OP a new challenger just entered your dojo.

 

[TheKaeptain]

I question the premise, OP.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/05/poverty-and-the-model-minority/

For one thing, as you can see, the Asian poverty rate is 9.9%, while the white poverty rate is 8.7%. Foreign-born Asians and foreign-born whites differ by about 0.3%. So they really aren't succeeding at any extraordinary level, on average.

Nor is there anything fundamental about "Asians" that make them more likely to succeed. Some Asian groups have a tendency to be more successful -- Filipino, Indian, Japanese all happen to beat out the average Caucasian. Others do quite poorly -- Hmongs are 27.6% likely to be poor, Bangladeshi 23.6%, Cambodian 19%. Even Chinese are slightly more likely, at 11.3%, to be poor than a Caucasian. The confluence of all Asian cultures under one banner is a constant source of confusion and indeed discrimination -- it's the equivalent of lumping the US and Mexico together as America and then asking why Americans were so much poorer than other developed countries.

The reality is that when people talk about "Asian" immigrants they're usually really asking why African-Americans and Hispanics aren't as successful. The answer to that is simple -- in the one case, it's Jim Crow; in the other, it's manifest destiny and the US-Mexican War. Asians just happened to not be anywhere near America while America was developing its deep-rooted cultural structures designed to empower whites at the cost of people of color, so the discrimination targeted at them is a little more ad hoc. (Not that there wasn't a lot of Asian prejudice in the early 1900s, of course.)

I was looking for this.

 

[computers putin']

I question the premise, OP.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/05/poverty-and-the-model-minority/

For one thing, as you can see, the Asian poverty rate is 9.9%, while the white poverty rate is 8.7%. Foreign-born Asians and foreign-born whites differ by about 0.3%. So they really aren't succeeding at any extraordinary level, on average.

Nor is there anything fundamental about "Asians" that make them more likely to succeed. Some Asian groups have a tendency to be more successful -- Filipino, Indian, Japanese all happen to beat out the average Caucasian. Others do quite poorly -- Hmongs are 27.6% likely to be poor, Bangladeshi 23.6%, Cambodian 19%. Even Chinese are slightly more likely, at 11.3%, to be poor than a Caucasian. The confluence of all Asian cultures under one banner is a constant source of confusion and indeed discrimination -- it's the equivalent of lumping the US and Mexico together as America and then asking why Americans were so much poorer than other developed countries.

The reality is that when people talk about "Asian" immigrants they're usually really asking why African-Americans and Hispanics aren't as successful. The answer to that is simple -- in the one case, it's Jim Crow; in the other, it's manifest destiny and the US-Mexican War. Asians just happened to not be anywhere near America while America was developing its deep-rooted cultural structures designed to empower whites at the cost of people of color, so the discrimination targeted at them is a little more ad hoc. (Not that there wasn't a lot of Asian prejudice in the early 1900s, of course.)

oh wow, coming through to shut shit down I see.

 

[zero shift]

I question the premise, OP.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/05/poverty-and-the-model-minority/

For one thing, as you can see, the Asian poverty rate is 9.9%, while the white poverty rate is 8.7%. Foreign-born Asians and foreign-born whites differ by about 0.3%. So they really aren't succeeding at any extraordinary level, on average.

Nor is there anything fundamental about "Asians" that make them more likely to succeed. Some Asian groups have a tendency to be more successful -- Filipino, Indian, Japanese all happen to beat out the average Caucasian. Others do quite poorly -- Hmongs are 27.6% likely to be poor, Bangladeshi 23.6%, Cambodian 19%. Even Chinese are slightly more likely, at 11.3%, to be poor than a Caucasian. The confluence of all Asian cultures under one banner is a constant source of confusion and indeed discrimination -- it's the equivalent of lumping the US and Mexico together as America and then asking why Americans were so much poorer than other developed countries.

This is what inspired me to make my first thread. However upon further research I found some more info that conflicted this. I addressed this in my OP. I actually used Hmong and Cambodians as my examples. Those numbers may seem high but the Hmong used to have a poverty rate of 64% no more than 20 years ago, and then 37% ten before that. Just ten years ago the Cambodian poverty rate was over 29%. There poverty rate has decreased and their median incomes have gone up.

Source

As for Chinese, they are the biggest immigrant wave for the nation. Many of them are very poor so it skews the numbers for the old ones. The only exception I've noticed is that the Vietnamese poverty rate has stagnated since ten years ago. Then again there is a recession currently going on.

The reality is that when people talk about "Asian" immigrants they're usually really asking why African-Americans and Hispanics aren't as successful. The answer to that is simple -- in the one case, it's Jim Crow; in the other, it's manifest destiny and the US-Mexican War. Asians just happened to not be anywhere near America while America was developing its deep-rooted cultural structures designed to empower whites at the cost of people of color, so the discrimination targeted at them is a little more ad hoc. (Not that there wasn't a lot of Asian prejudice in the early 1900s, of course.)

Its also other whites. How does a kid from poverty get straight A's when a middle class white boy from the suburbs struggles in with basic college courses? And what about the refugees from the South America during the Nicaraguan and Salvadorian wars? Really the only comparable ethnicity I see are Cubans and I believe that largely stems from most of them coming from the educated and upper classes and Miami giving them insanely low business loans.

 

[Piecake]

Its also other whites. How does a kid from poverty get straight A's when a middle class white boy from the suburbs struggles in with basicl college courses?

Huh? Im confused on what you are trying to say here

 

[FreezeSSC]

I went to school for engineering and as such was exposed to a lot foreign born immigrants in university, i can definitely say from my experience it was a cultural difference. im hispanic and i'd say my family dynamics growing up instilled in me certain values that in hindsight made it more difficult for me in college. I.E. i didnt have the ability to study for countless hours at first and my grades suffered. this probably sounds extremely stereotypical but i ended up befriending some asians and began studying with them and saw their determination at succeeding in each class to the point that all other aspects of there life were neglected (social, romantic, recreation). it took a huge effort on my part to adapt to their methods but once i was able to my grades increased dramatically. only thing however is they were able to output at this level seemingly effortlessly but i can.... idk how to explain it but the best way is that dont want to live to work. even in the workforce i stilll see their determination, in the office i work with the first person is also the last person to leave, an asian engineer he's literally a machine. comes in at 730 am and leaves around 6:30-7pm every day, i dont even try to compete with that.

 

[zero shift]

Huh? Im confused on what you are trying to say here

One's socio-economic status is often highly tied to how well they perform in school. There are numerous studies, as well as common sense, that display this. Its a multi-factor approach with school quality, neighborhoods, crime, etc. Typically the higher the socio-economic status, the better one performs in school and its very rare for people of low socio-economic status to get good grades. Yet Asian immigrants, even poor ones, on average outperform even top whites in schooling. It isn't just in America, it happened in Germany as well where half of Vietnamese boys go to gymnasium as they out perform their native German peers, virtually all were sons of migrant workers.

I went to school for engineering and as such was exposed to a lot foreign born immigrants in university, i can definitely say from my experience it was a cultural difference. im hispanic and i'd say my family dynamics growing up instilled in me certain values that in hindsight made it more difficult for me in college. I.E. i didnt have the ability to study for countless hours at first and my grades suffered. this probably sounds extremely stereotypical but i ended up befriending some asians and began studying with them and saw their determination at succeeding in each class to the point that all other aspects of there life were neglected (social, romantic, recreation). it took a huge effort on my part to adapt to their methods but once i was able to my grades increased dramatically. only thing however is they were able to output at this level seemingly effortlessly but i can.... idk how to explain it but the best way is that dont want to live to work. even in the workforce i stilll see their determination, in the office i work with the first person is also the last person to leave, an asian engineer he's literally a machine. comes in at 730 am and leaves around 6:30-7pm every day, i dont even try to compete with that.

I'm a RA at my college and we have a fuck ton of Chinese from the mainland that are studying abroad. My experience with them has been similar to yours. They are always studying and getting good grades. However their social life is pretty much non-existent.

 

[Piecake]

One's socio-economic status is often highly tied to how well they perform in school. There are numerous studies, as well as common sense, that display this. Its a multi-factor approach with school quality, neighborhoods, crime, etc. Typically the higher the socio-economic status, the better one performs in school and its very rare for people of low socio-economic status to get good grades. Yet Asian immigrants often outperform even top whites in schooling. It isn't just in America, it happened in Germany as well where half of Vietnamese boys go to gymnasium as they out perform their native German peers, virtually all were sons of migrant workers.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/bo...ffects-behavior-and-academic-performance.aspx

The reason why children of middle/upper class families perform better than poor kids is that they simply had much more and a more meaningful interaction with their parents and loved ones at an early age due mostly to them being able to afford to do it.

Poor families? Well, youre working two jobs to get by. So it isnt poverty that makes these kids stupid, its not having enough human and language interaction at home and the home being much too stressful. Perhaps those Asian immigrants simply that you mentioned simply do a better job at providing what kids need at an early stage. I really don't know. I dont have the data

American students in schools with less than 10% of students on free and reduced lunch averaged 551, higher than the overall average of any OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development country. Those in schools with 10% to 25% of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch averaged 527, which was behind only Korea and Finland.

In contrast, American students in schools with 75% or more of children in poverty averaged 446, second to last among the 34 OECD countries.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/research/how-poverty-affected-us-pisa-s.html

Shockingly, its not shitty teachers or a shit school system that is putting us behind in education. It is poverty

 

[B!TCH]

I went to school for engineering and as such was exposed to a lot foreign born immigrants in university, i can definitely say from my experience it was a cultural difference. im hispanic and i'd say my family dynamics growing up instilled in me certain values that in hindsight made it more difficult for me in college. I.E. i didnt have the ability to study for countless hours at first and my grades suffered. this probably sounds extremely stereotypical but i ended up befriending some asians and began studying with them and saw their determination at succeeding in each class to the point that all other aspects of there life were neglected (social, romantic, recreation). it took a huge effort on my part to adapt to their methods but once i was able to my grades increased dramatically. only thing however is they were able to output at this level seemingly effortlessly but i can.... idk how to explain it but the best way is that dont want to live to work. even in the workforce i stilll see their determination, in the office i work with the first person is also the last person to leave, an asian engineer he's literally a machine. comes in at 730 am and leaves around 6:30-7pm every day, i dont even try to compete with that.

Doing well in school (I'd even argue that it applies to life in general) isn't so much about smarts or intelligence as it is about working hard. The primary difference to me between a student who gets straight A's and a student who gets by with C's is their freedom or willingness to put aside the various distractions in their life and focus on their studies.

That's really what makes the difference between a successful person and an unsuccessful person in the broadest terms.

The problem that a lot of young people struggle with is that it might not be all that clear to them what's important to them when it's important to them (school/studying). I get the impression sometimes that society doesn't seem to place enough emphasis or value on hard work so in a lot of ways I don't blame them... but that's probably a discussion for another day.

 

[YoungHav]

I live in Chinatown, now I give the work ethic and community support all the props in the world. What I don't like though is the rampant Medicaid and tax fraud in the community. What also adds to their success is racist policing. The police mostly turn a blind eye to things here that they would never do in a black neighborhood.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

dunno about the rest of the world, but in NZ it seems a combination of a freaky work ethic and a lot of them come with money and arrive to a huge asian support network of family etc.

 

[laesperanzapaz]

asian work hours....BARF

asian study schedule....VOMIT

enjoy your suicide rates, CJK.

 

[xbhaskarx]

asian work hours....BARF

asian study schedule....VOMIT

enjoy your suicide rates, CJK.

And how do suicide rates in Asia compare to those in North America or Europe?

 

[Piecake]

And how do suicide rates in Asia compare to those in North America or Europe?

generally speaking, its much lower in America and europe

 

[Necroscope]

Just as an observation, I went to many southeast Asian countries, everywhere I go, Chinese own most of the business.

 

[laesperanzapaz]

And how do suicide rates in Asia compare to those in North America or Europe?

just curious, I've for some reason thought you were an Asian girl? correct me if im wrong.

i believe the last time i checked, JPN and Korea have the worst rates in the OECD.

And China's female rates are the highest in the entire world.

There are stories of kids slitting their wrists....men must break their backs pulling insane hours, while women break their backs serving her shitty in-laws.....shit is sad

 

[Opiate]

I would largely contribute it to cultural concerns but genetic concerns are not implausible.

The same sorts of questions could be asked of Jewish people to an even greater extent, by the way.

 

[shanshan310]

ctrl f save
0 results
i think that means no asians actually replied here, so i'll give my 2 cents
they save what money they have (usually they send some money back to their hometown/relatives)
saving money is a very asian thing

What.

Lots of people save money. Its hardly an "Asian thing".

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Don't know, but Confucianism is very pervasive in all Asian cultures.

I'm not doing it justice, but Confucianism places a heavy emphasis on:

- Filial piety - caring for your parents, elders
- High personal morals, propriety, and humanism
- Education and attainment of intellect
- Hard work and self sufficiency - one of my favorite Confucian writings is:

I do not enlighten those who are not eager to learn,
nor arouse those who are not anxious
to give an explanation themselves.
If I have presented one corner of the square
and they cannot come back to me with the other three,
I should not go over the points again​

etc, etc.

While it's not like Asians actively study Confucianism like Christianity or the Bible, Confucianism is very pervasive in Asian daily life and culture.

Second generation Asians in the US, however, I feel definitely lose the strong sense of Confucian ideals. It's really striking.

As a second generation myself, speaking from my family, I do all those things on my own by my freewill. I was never brought up in a religious household and the only thing i had to do was pray to my grandparents once in a while.

edit: yeah I am currently talking some rough classes..biochem, OchemII,PhysicII, molecular bio, and i spend alot of time on these classes so my social life has dropped off alot. These classes are not hard, just time consuming IMO.

 

[Opiate]

So you don't know what cultural values other immigrants have? I'm not disagreeing with you on the Confucianism bit. But this is just another false stereotype that all Asians work hard, all succeed and that by relation; all other immigrants are lazy and fall or are in it for a free ride. But I guess if it's a positive stereotype people are more willing to accept it.

I'm willing to consider the possibility that Asian culture is not more productive, but that doesn't leave us with many palatable options.

East Asians are, empirically, more productive workers in the US, and they make more money on average by a significant amount than any other minority except Jews -- and this is including second and third generation Asians (who are not immigrants, which controls for that factor). So if this success isn't caused by culture, then what causes it? Because frankly the only other explanation I can think of is that they're simply genetically superior. And if you want to avoid stereotypes / be PC, that's a much worse conclusion than saying "their culture encourages a superior work ethic."

 

[laesperanzapaz]

I would largely contribute it to cultural concerns but genetic concerns are not implausible.

The same sorts of questions could be asked of Jewish people to an even greater extent, by the way.

troll post?

 

[Opiate]

troll post?

No. What would make you think that? Which part do you object to? Jewish people are extremely productive and have much higher incomes than average across a wide variety of societies (i.e. not just in the US). If we're looking at minority populations and asking, "hey, what makes them so successful?" Asking that question of the Jewish minority is reasonable.

 

[CrushDance]

I'm willing to consider the possibility that Asian culture is not more productive, but that doesn't leave us with many palatable options.

East Asians are, empirically, more productive workers in the US, and they make more money on average by a significant amount than any other minority -- including second and third generation Asians (who are not immigrants, which controls for that factor). So if this success isn't caused by culture, then what causes it? Because frankly the only other explanation I can think of is that they're simply genetically superior. And if you want to avoid stereotypes / be PC, that's a much worse conclusion than saying "their culture encourages a superior work ethic."

The problem is people use Asian without differentiating between the types. Are we to judge for example, all people of African descent by the failures of blacks in America? What about the immigrants that come over? It's flawed in my view because the numbers are skewed against immigrants of other ethnicity and cultures. There is no catch all African culture. Not to mention the implications that Asians are the brightest, Caucasians are just right, and everyone else is shit.

No. What would make you think that? Which part do you object to? Jewish people are extremely productive and have much higher incomes than average across a wide variety of societies (i.e. not just in the US). If we're looking at minority populations and asking, "hey, what makes them so successful?" Asking that question of the Jewish minority is reasonable.

And would that be because they're Jewish or because as a group, they tend to cling together and help one another? I'll be the first to admit that of the African families I know, it's more of a competition as to who's family/clan/tribe/country is better here than one of group support. It's something that both my parents have brought up and discussed at length many times.

Plus factor in that blacks have been screwed over for a long time in the west, making it very difficult for Africans that come over to find that support system or many people like them in STEM and other fields.

 

[Opiate]

The problem is people use Asian without differentiating between the types. Are we to judge for example, all people of African descent by the failures of blacks in America? What about the immigrants that come over? It's flawed in my view because the numbers are skewed against immigrants of other ethnicity and cultures. There is no catch all African culture.

That isn't really a problem, though. We could simply differentiate the African subpopulations and ask the same questions.

Let's say that Nigerian immigrants are much more successful than Gambian ones, for example (which is true, by the way). We could simply ask why that is, which is basically the same question we're asking right now but looking at a finer resolution. What we really want to know is why some subpopulations do better than others in aggregate and on average.

 

[Opiate]

And would that be because they're Jewish or because as a group, they tend to cling together and help one another? I'll be the first to admit that of the African families I know, it's more of a competition as to who's family/clan/tribe/country is better here than one of group support. It's something that both my parents have brought up and discussed at length many times.

Sure, it's possible Jewish people simply have a better culture. This explanation may be one of the reasons for that.

Plus factor in that blacks have been screwed over for a long time in the west, making it very difficult for Africans that come over to find that support system or many people like them in STEM and other fields.

Not to downplay the enormous discrimination against blacks (it's absolutely horrible, I agree), but if anyone can claim to have been discriminated against more than the blacks in history, it would be the Jews. The Holocaust is just the tip of the iceberg; Jews have been treated as second class citizens since before Christ was born.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

All Asian immigrants have always lived in good, no crime neighborhoods. All of their parents are well-to-do and educated. And finally, all Asian immigrants have never been discriminated against in any form. They've had it really easy.

What. The. Fuck.

This post is a joke right?

 

[isual]

I'd like more info on why Jews are successful. Always wanted to find me a nice jewish girl with big tits and marry her.

To give some perspective, I am Filipino living in the bay area. I never really got into the whole bboy hyphy movement growing up. I did my hs here, my college, and will be doing my MBA program here as well. I believe, as part of a group with no real identifiable political ties, if you can get out of your box/culture and adapt with others, you will succeed in Ameria.

Anyways, for asians, specifically hmong, cambodian, and bhurmese immigrants, the primary reason why they are poor when they come here to the states is because they usually came here under asylum or refugee status. leaving behind everything they had. Also, in their respective countries most of these folks have no access to a proper education, which leaves them in a difficult position when migrating to the states.

Unlike Chinese, Filipino, Korean communities who have been here for decades and have established strong communities for networking, the asians that immigrated here under asylum have no stable foundation to build upon, thus leaving them disenfranchised.

 

[CrushDance]

That isn't really a problem, though. We could simply differentiate the African subpopulations and ask the same questions.

Let's say that Nigerian immigrants are much more successful than Gambian ones, for example (which is true, by the way). We could simply ask why that is, which is basically the same question we're asking right now but looking at a finer resolution. What we really want to know is why some subpopulations do better than others in aggregate and on average.

I personally take no objection or insult to the idea that one culture can be more conducive or prioritize certain things over others. That just makes logical sense. My problem though is that it's really hard to believe such things when considering history and the present. It just echo's of old words coming back and propagating the idea that Africans and blacks are inferior or not as capable. That there is something inherently wrong with us and using such a wide group of people as the measuring stick for failure, the lowest common denominator.

The culture that people see of blacks in the west is almost always that of broken families. So yes, there is a culture specific to "them" and "others". But the question doesn't jump to: "It's cause they're black". But rather, "Why?". These broken homes, lack of social support and other things aren't something that is inherent in blacks or Africans. In fact it goes against everything that most African people think about family. There is nothing more important then family and social standing. African parents are in many ways "worse" compared to even Asian when it comes to discipline and studying.

All of this stuff just circles around the drain of the horrible stereotypes and beliefs that have been projected against Africans forever. There is a definite cultural problem within black communities in the west. I don't deny that. But I find it very hard to believe that if those kids had stable homes, good schools and thought of as capable instead of "why are they bothering?", they would do just as well.

The question really is. Why is that there is such a big cultural difference between blacks and whites especially in the west to begin with? Why were blacks forced to create their own in order to "survive"? I'm all for having the discussion about genetic differences. But the topic is heavily poisoned with what people want to believe.

Not to downplay the enormous discrimination against blacks (it's absolutely horrible, I agree), but if anyone can claim to have been discriminated against more than the blacks in history, it would be the Jews. The Holocaust is just the tip of the iceberg; Jews have been treated as second class citizens since before Christ was born.

No disputing that. But again. Jews have something in common. Support one another. Blacks do not. Most of the people that came over to the west came from different tribes, cultures and backgrounds. They didn't even speak the same language! That was all purposefully and systemically eroded generation by generation until they were freed. And then told "Go and make something of yourselves". When many of them couldn't even read, write or do basic things.

And the same for Africa. There is no end in sight when it comes to cultural differences and ethnic discrimination. So take into account the fact that blacks are still struggling to even hold their families together, let alone support incoming Africans. And add in the cultural and ethnic divides amongst those Africans themselves, and it becomes very difficult to find a baseline of support.

The only cultural problem that blacks/Africans have is that of fragmentation and fracture. And I honestly don't think it should be on the basis of "They're like us so let's support them!" to begin with. That's just wrong. And culture isn't genetic, it's something one learns and grows into.

 

[laesperanzapaz]

No. What would make you think that? Which part do you object to? Jewish people are extremely productive and have much higher incomes than average across a wide variety of societies (i.e. not just in the US). If we're looking at minority populations and asking, "hey, what makes them so successful?" Asking that question of the Jewish minority is reasonable.

i was referring to your genetic assumptions. Which is just ....SMH

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Culture.

High expectations.

 

[Opiate]

i was referring to your genetic assumptions. Which is just ....SMH

I said it's not implausible, there was no assumption made. It is certainly possible that different subpopulations of humans have modest genetic differences that may result in (for example) one group being more likely to be short, or more prone to specific diseases, or more likely to be intelligent or capable of focus. All of those are, at the very least, plausible, even if less likely. I think cultural differences are the more likely explanation for most of the differences we observe.

I am strongly against ruling out possibilities simply because we find them uncomfortable.

 

[Kabouter]

I would largely contribute it to cultural concerns but genetic concerns are not implausible.

The same sorts of questions could be asked of Jewish people to an even greater extent, by the way.

Well, as I wrote here there are certainly reasons for Jewish people to generally be more economically successful than the general populations of the countries they live in. And of course being successful generally means your children are going to be more likely to be so as well.

 

[Opiate]

I personally take no objection or insult to the idea that one culture can be more conducive or prioritize certain things over others. That just makes logical sense. My problem though is that it's really hard to believe such things when considering history and the present. It just echo's of old words coming back and propagating the idea that Africans and blacks are inferior or not as capable. That there is something inherently wrong with us and using such a wide group of people as the measuring stick for failure, the lowest common denominator.

The culture that people see of blacks in the west is almost always that of broken families. So yes, there is a culture specific to "them" and "others". But the question doesn't jump to: "It's cause they're black". But rather, "Why?". These broken homes, lack of social support and other things aren't something that is inherent in blacks or Africans. In fact it goes against everything that most African people think about family. There is nothing more important then family and social standing. African parents are in many ways "worse" compared to even Asian when it comes to discipline and studying.

All of this stuff just circles around the drain of the horrible stereotypes and beliefs that have been projected against Africans forever. There is a definite cultural problem within black communities in the west. I don't deny that. But I find it very hard to believe that if those kids had stable homes, good schools and thought of as capable instead of "why are they bothering?", they would do just as well.

The question really is. Why is that there is such a big cultural difference between blacks and whites especially in the west to begin with? Why were blacks forced to create their own in order to "survive"? I'm all for having the discussion about genetic differences. But the topic is heavily poisoned with what people want to believe.


No disputing that. But again. Jews have something in common. Support one another. Blacks do not. Most of the people that came over to the west came from different tribes, cultures and backgrounds. They didn't even speak the same language! That was all purposefully and systemically eroded generation by generation until they were freed. And then told "Go and make something of yourselves". When many of them couldn't even read, write or do basic things.

You seem very, particularly focused on the black example for some reason. I would just say that I completely agree that blacks in america represent a very particular case and I definitely agree that most of their troubles can be explained by slavery (at first) and second class citizenship (from 1864 to the present).

I'm not quite sure why this conversation jumped the way it did. There are quite a few different sects of Jews who do not get along well. There are many different Asian cultures, some of whom hate each other and have very little in common. Hispanics are a very diverse population as well, with Cuban immigrants having well publicized disagreements with Mexican immigrants, and South American immigrants have a completely different profile altogether. Native Americans are literally broken up in to tribes with disparate reservations. I don't think having different cultures -- even ones hostile to one another -- is as uncommon as you seem to be implying here. I don't quite understand why this became a defense of African Americans in particular when the discussion was never really about them and is much more broad. I will repeat: I completely agree that African American underachievement can majoratively if not exclusively be placed at the feet of slavery and long lasting White oppression.

 

[Kenshin001]

I would largely contribute it to cultural concerns but genetic concerns are not implausible.

The same sorts of questions could be asked of Jewish people to an even greater extent, by the way.

Why would genetic factors affect only the immigrant population?

 

[laesperanzapaz]

Opiate, you were not talking genetics in the context of biological differences (height, muscle tone, etc). You brought them up in context of work ethic and financial success in society.

Opiate, I love you bro, but comeonson.jpg

 

[Opiate]

Why would genetic factors affect only the immigrant population?

It doesn't. China, for example, does indeed have a higher average IQ than the US and virtually all Western nations.

But we're comparing across immigrant populations here. Immigration in general should represent a selection bias: only highly motivated people will be willing to move from the place they grew up in and go to live in a nation where they don't know many people and may not even speak the language.

So comparing across immigrant populations controls for that variable. Presumably the immigrant Chinese are more hard working than average, but so would be the immigrant Bosnians. This removes (or at least significantly reduces) the deleterious effects of this selection bias.

Opiate, you were not talking genetics in the context of biological differences (height, muscle tone, etc). You brought them up in context of work ethic and financial success in society.

Opiate, I love you bro, but comeonson.jpg

I don't see the difference? Height and muscle tone are things that vary genetically. So is work ethic and financial success. People who are genetically predisposed to stupidity are less likely to be financially successful. People who are born with ADD are less likely to have a strong work ethic.

All of these have nurtured influence too, of course: for example, eating a more western diet with more meat tends to make people taller (especially if the meat was treated with hormones), working out can make anyone more muscular than they would be if they lived a sedentary lifestyle, and of course people who work hard at school will be smarter than someone who doesn't. But all of these still have genetic components to them.

 

[CrushDance]

You seem very, particularly focused on the black example for some reason. I would just say that I completely agree that blacks in america represent a very particular case and I definitely agree that most of their troubles can be explained by slavery (at first) and second class citizenship (from 1864 to the present).

I'm not quite sure why this conversation jumped the way it did. There are quite a few different sects of Jews who do not get along well. There are many different Asian cultures, some of whom hate each other and have very little in common. Hispanics are a very diverse population as well, with Cuban immigrants having well publicized disagreements with Mexican immigrants, and South American immigrants have a completely different profiel altogether. Native Americans are literally broken up in to tribes with disparate reservations. I don't think having different cultures -- even ones hostile to one another -- is as uncommon as you seem to be implying here. I don't quite understand why this became a defense of African Americans in particular when the discussion was never really about them and is much more broad.

I'm focused on it because that's where these discussions always invariably end up. "What's wrong with blacks/Africans?". Which always skips any and all other explanations and jumps to that of genetics. Now I personally believe that there are genetic differences within and between peoples. That much is obvious from even the most obvious things. But like I said before, when it comes to the topic of intelligence and capability; there is a long history of using blacks/Africans as the barometer for failure. Your examples are true that every group has their own problems within. No argument there. I just don't believe that any of them have the history that blacks in particular do when it comes to social mobility and opportunity to establish a foothold. If I'm wrong, I'd be more than willing to be corrected.

It doesn't. China, for example, does indeed have a higher average IQ than the US and virtually all Western nations.

But we're comparing across immigrant populations here. Immigration in general should represent a selection bias: only highly motivated people will be willing to move from the place they grew up in and go to live in a nation where they don't know many people and may not even speak the language.

So comparing across immigrant populations controls for that variable. Presumably the immigrant Chinese are more hard working than average, but so would be the immigrant Bosnians. This removes (or at least significantly reduces) the deleterious effects of this selection bias.

But would that not have to do more with social comfort? Most western nations are just average, right? Every science class is packed with Asians, Arabs and a few blacks. All immigrants. Very few whites. Why is that? And then we could even go to bring up the issue of women in science and why they're underrepresented. When the theme for a long time has been that women are more intelligent or better learners than men.

Many white students I know and knew had no need to chase after hard degrees or anything of the sort. They had social comfort. A level of well being. All the girls went into nursing or English and all the guys went into compsci or...english. And a good number of them simply went into trades. Perhaps IQ's are higher in China not because Chinese are the smartest on the planet, but because it is a rapidly growing nation and the best way to move forward is to study? And things become highly competitive? Raising the overall average? How many students are there in a unstable country for comparison? It's completely reckless to make the leap that blacks are less intelligent, hard working or capable when the majority of black kids and families are broken and don't even go to school to begin with.

 

[Haly]

Opiate, you were not talking genetics in the context of biological differences (height, muscle tone, etc). You brought them up in context of work ethic and financial success in society.

Opiate, I love you bro, but comeonson.jpg

It's toeing some lines but it's not impossible. Consider OCD, which exists on a gradient. An extremely mild form of OCD would, hypothetically, manifest itself as a "work ethic" in the eyes of society, and a lot of personal accounts seem to mesh with this; people who are able to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives for the sake of work. From there, it's not that much of a stretch to say that one segment of the population might be more prone to this unique form of OCD than another because of the evolutionary advantages it provides. That and genetic predispositions to mental illnesses are well documented.

 

[Opiate]

I'm focused on it because that's where these discussions always invariably end up. "What's wrong with blacks/Africans?". Which always skips any and all other explanations and jumps to that of genetics. Now I personally believe that there are genetic differences within and between peoples. That much is obvious from even the most obvious things. But like I said before, when it comes to the topic of intelligence and capability; there is a long history of using blacks/Africans as the barometer for failure. Your examples are true that every group has their own problems within. No argument there. I just don't believe that any of them have the history that blacks in particular do when it comes to social mobility and opportunity to establish a foothold. If I'm wrong, I'd be more than willing to be corrected.

Well that wasn't where I was going with the conversation.

I think an interesting point one can make to compliment your position would be this: the only group that has struggled as mightily as blacks have in America would be Native Americans, who have extremely high rates of alcoholism, disease, and low educational attainment. You'll note that these are the two populations which did not enter the USA voluntarily. I do no think that is a coincidence.

This is more than a casual observation. It means Asian immigrants (and Bosnian and Colombian etc.) will be effected by selection bias, where only highly motivated individuals will choose to uproot their entire lives to go move to a new country. Native American and African American populations would not have this same selection bias.

 

[CrushDance]

It's toeing some lines but it's not impossible. Consider OCD, which exists on a gradient. An extremely mild form of OCD would, hypothetically, manifest itself as a "work ethic" in the eyes of society, and a lot of personal accounts seem to mesh with this; people who are able to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives for the sake of work. From there, it's not that much of a stretch to say that one segment of the population might be more prone to this unique form of OCD than another because of the evolutionary advantages it provides. That and genetic predispositions to mental illnesses are well documented.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

Well that wasn't where I was going with the conversation.

I think an interesting point one can make to compliment your position would be this: the only group that has struggled as mightily as blacks have in America would be Native Americans, who have extremely high rates of alcoholism, disease, and low educational attainment. You'll note that these are the two populations which did not enter the USA voluntarily. I do no think that is a coincidence.

This is more than a casual observation. It means Asian immigrants (and Bosnian and Colombian etc.) will be effected by selection bias, where only highly motivated individuals will choose to uproot their entire lives to go move to a new country. Native American and African American populations would not have this same selection bias.

Well you put it shorter than I did. But yes, that's pretty much what I attempted to get across. It's interesting that you raise the point about Native Americans though because if anything, they should be smack dab in the middle due to genetics. But they're not.

 

[sleeping_dragon]

blame sun tzu and the art of war. it was the catalyst for the
asian culture today.

 

[Erico]

blame sun tzu and the art of war. it was the catalyst for the
asian culture today.

Uh, I'd say Confucius. Sun Tzu is the catalyst for the popularity of lame management fads in the US.

 

[Opiate]

Uh, I'd say Confucius. Sun Tzu is the catalyst for the popularity of lame management fads in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42d0WHRSck

 

[Haly]

Can we stop citing historical Chinese figures as thought they were solely responsible for the nearly whole of East Asian culture?

It's reductionist, and it's getting tiring. Confucius was a product of the culture at the time, and only formalized it in writing. He did not invent "work ethic", and after 2500 years I'm pretty confident that East Asians can take almost full credit for their accomplishments rather than having to share them with Confucius for the rest of human history.

Really, it's fetishization at this point.

 

[kiunchbb]

I think sometime people underestimate the Confucianism influence in our culture. Even if a person speaks perfect Mandarin or Cantonese, if that person cannot reference to Confucianism, there will always be some kind of barrier between that person and another Chinese. Next to Filial piety, education happens to be the most important value in Confucianism. Denying those values is same as resigning yourself as a Chinese.

Remember, for Chinese, citing Confucius analects isn't the beginning of a discussion, it is the end of a debate.