Chicago to hire 111 Black Firefighters
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
And has that happened? Were the standards better during slavery when blacks were excluded from participation in society? Why do whites feel so entitled - why keep punishing the blacks for their skin colour and the cumulative effects of discrimination? Even when they are provided opportunities it is still a burden that blacks have to tolerate and suffer through. They still have to bear up the burden and anxiety of being discriminated for.
We are now living in a different time and place, thankfully. Today there are many more opportunities than ever were before for many minorities not just blacks but women too. Although the past was a very bad blemish upon the white society of that day there are more improvements being awarded minorities than ever before in the US history. While those endeavors aren't yet the "equalization" that many want it at least is going the right direction. If you can't see that there has been many improvements since the days of slavery then you really don't have a very good idea of what's been happening during the past 50 years or so. More is needed to be done to insure that progress is made but I would think that improving the educational system would be the best target to undertake today. Education that's paid for by society as a whole has gone backwards in many instances while private education is going faster forwards.
I don't believe that whites feel "entitled" to a certain degree but do want to be tested as fairly as possible against any other person. Again I stress that only through education will more things change for the better for everyone concerned. I agree that there are minorities that do get a very wrong deal but not as much as they did 50 years ago. Things are changing but take time to overcome the fears and racism that still exists in todays society. I believe that the only way to comprehend what's going on is just look who is now the President of America and that states a very positive thing of tolerances against any minority don't you think so too?
You mean, they want other people to not discriminate against them, even though they still discriminate against other people? Ironically, whites will no longer feel discriminated against, the day they are able to extend that same courtesy to other people. And I speak from the vantage point of having experienced said racism. I don't think the fact that a few blacks getting job opportunities commensurate with their population is really a big enough deal to cry a river over. Its only a bandage after all since most blacks still live in appalling conditions, being punished for their race, their name and their skin colour, none of which they have any individual control over. I find all this whining over blacks getting a small proportion of quotas really laughable, considering the extent of their problems in society
As for standards, lets hear about your experiences with blacks in quota given jobs and how they failed to meet your expectations of quality service.
When serving in the military I didn't have any problems with any of the minorities that were along side me. I had a minority supply sargent, amongst others, that never gave anyone, that I know of, any problems. So my dealings with minorities have been limited to say the least but when I was working with them I never found any differences as you seem to suggest. But that is my life not someone else's and that's all I can enlighten you too.
Sure it is, if we set aside the fact that for many years sports scholarships were the only route of entry for blacks into the hallowed halls of education.
Its interesting that Berkeley has no quota for minorities. I'm not surprised that Asians are over represented since education and its importance is drilled into us with mothers milk [it would be interesting to compare how many of those Asians are foreign students and how many Asian Americans second generation onwards are represented in uni - I have a feeling that Americanised Asians are as bad as other Americans when it comes to education]
Meanwhile I looked up the racial distribution of educational attainment
What do you think of that?
We're arguing without facts. Are there any statistics of increased risks posed due to black firefighters being taken on?
And yet you speak of lowered standards due to the quota system. So what is that based on? What have you experienced that leads you to believe that inducting blacks based on quota would lead to a lowering of standards?
superstring01
Moderator
An interesting and supporting article in the Wall Street Journal.
Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
Can a regimen of no playdates, no TV, no computer games and hours of music practice create happy kids? And what happens when they fight back?
By AMY CHUA | The Wall Street Journal
A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:
- attend a sleepover
- have a playdate
- be in a school play
- complain about not being in a school play
- watch TV or play computer games
- choose their own extracurricular activities
- get any grade less than an A
- not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
- play any instrument other than the piano or violin
- not play the piano or violin.
I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I'm also using the term "Western parents" loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.
All the same, even when Western parents think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It's hours two and three that get tough.
Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.
What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it's math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.
Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can't. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me "garbage" in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn't damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn't actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.
As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized. One guest named Marcy got so upset she broke down in tears and had to leave early. My friend Susan, the host, tried to rehabilitate me with the remaining guests.
The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fatty—lose some weight." By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her "beautiful and incredibly competent." She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)
Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best. Chinese parents can say, "You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you." By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how their kids turned out.
I've thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do. I think there are three big differences between the Chinese and Western parental mind-sets.
First, I've noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children's self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.
For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child "stupid," "worthless" or "a disgrace." Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole school. If the child's grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher's credentials.
If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.
Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn't get them, the Chinese parent assumes it's because the child didn't work hard enough. That's why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)
Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it's probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it's true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.
By contrast, I don't think most Westerners have the same view of children being permanently indebted to their parents. My husband, Jed, actually has the opposite view. "Children don't choose their parents," he once said to me. "They don't even choose to be born. It's parents who foist life on their kids, so it's the parents' responsibility to provide for them. Kids don't owe their parents anything. Their duty will be to their own kids." This strikes me as a terrible deal for the Western parent.
Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences. That's why Chinese daughters can't have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can't go to sleepaway camp. It's also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, "I got a part in the school play! I'm Villager Number Six. I'll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I'll also need a ride on weekends." God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.
Don't get me wrong: It's not that Chinese parents don't care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It's just an entirely different parenting model.
Here's a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called "The Little White Donkey" by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it's also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.
Lulu couldn't do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally, the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.
"Get back to the piano now," I ordered.
"You can't make me."
"Oh yes, I can."
Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, "I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?" I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn't do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.
Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn't even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn't think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn't do the technique—perhaps she didn't have the coordination yet—had I considered that possibility?
"You just don't believe in her," I accused.
"That's ridiculous," Jed said scornfully. "Of course I do."
"Sophia could play the piece when she was this age."
"But Lulu and Sophia are different people," Jed pointed out.
"Oh no, not this," I said, rolling my eyes. "Everyone is special in their special own way," I mimicked sarcastically. "Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don't worry, you don't have to lift a finger. I'm willing to put in as long as it takes, and I'm happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games."
I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.
Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that.
Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.
"Mommy, look—it's easy!" After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn't leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed "The Little White Donkey" at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, "What a perfect piece for Lulu—it's so spunky and so her."
Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children's self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child's self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there's nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn't.
There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids' true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it's a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what's best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.
Western parents try to respect their children's individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they're capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.
. . .
—Amy Chua is a professor at Yale Law School and author of "Day of Empire" and "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability." This essay is excerpted from "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" by Amy Chua, to be published Tuesday by the Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Copyright © 2011 by Amy Chua.
Those Asians have the right idea. That's why they have no need for "affirmative action" and are actually hurt by it. I'm pretty strict myself, but those Asians blow me away. Good for them.
So you're arguing that hiring based upon race is perfectly fine? Then why must it be in favor of minorities? They (except for Asians who commit the sin of working hard) certainly seem to do worse on entrance exams. Perhaps we should just exclude them from consideration and save the trouble of even testing them.
Discrimination by race is either right or wrong. Claiming it is Ok when used to benefit a prefered group is the exact same logic used to justify Jim Crow, or Apartide, or even slavery itself.
I believe racism to be wrong because it ignores the rights of and the distinctiveness of the individual. What about you? If you are against racism, tell me why. Then explain how you can, within the context of that reason, justify racial discrimination in hiring practices.
Good for you. So instead of targeting the opportunities provided to marginalised minorities, how about you spend your angst in targeting the racism that makes affirmative action necessary?
What I notice is that inspite of quota systems, they seem to be getting their educations without complaining about quotas for blacks. Maybe right there is something else you need to consider. If quota systems are set aside for merit, all the choice positions will be occupied by Asians, because if there is one thing we do well, it is test scores.
Btw, if Chinese methods produce such prodigies why is it that its the Chinese that move to the US and not Americans that move to China. Something else to consider
superstring01
Moderator
Well, for certain, there's a lot more freedom in the USA. And some of it has corrupted us on many levels, but I'd prefer this existence to the hive existence in China or Japan. India seems to do better on many levels (freedom) while still instilling great educational standards in their kids.
I think that the mother in the article goes a bit far. My parents were too lax. My best friend's parents were right on. They engaged in extra-curricular activities, but rule number one: perfect grades. The mother was a "stay at home" mom who spent the evening sitting with and studying with her kids. No excuses. You got good grades in their house or suffered the consequences.
But music, sports and whatnot were the kids' choice, but exceptional performance was nonetheless expected in them as well.
All six of their kids are all well balanced and reasonably successful. 5 of six with degrees. 3 with graduate degrees. My friend ended up as the youngest superintendent of a major school system in the state of Ohio-- 28. There is something about having passion, drive, determination and a sense of "disgust" for anything but the best being drilled into you from an early age.
And these weren't "strict" parents in the traditional sense. They weren't religious ("lax" Catholics describes them best). There weren't "profanity" rules in their house (we could swear, which was really weird), they bought condoms for their sons and had the daughters on the pill. Dr. N. (the dad) forwent private practice so that he could have work life balance and be the baseball coach of the local team. I've given this example before: When one of their sons was caught listening to a rap song about "rape", they didn't freak out. All the sons were promptly taken to a rape crisis center to know what rape was. No need to tell the kids to "not listen to that music." My dad burned the tapes. I got new ones. My best friend and his brothers got rid of them on their own because they were educated to do so. I rebelled while Kyle just matured. That's amazing parenting. They were, IMHO, the best parents I've ever seen. And the mom and dad were passionately in love with each other. Also a big bonus when you're parenting six kids.
~String
I think that the mother in the article goes a bit far. My parents were too lax. My best friend's parents were right on. They engaged in extra-curricular activities, but rule number one: perfect grades. The mother was a "stay at home" mom who spent the evening sitting with and studying with her kids. No excuses. You got good grades in their house or suffered the consequences.
But music, sports and whatnot were the kids' choice, but exceptional performance was nonetheless expected in them as well.
All six of their kids are all well balanced and reasonably successful. 5 of six with degrees. 3 with graduate degrees. My friend ended up as the youngest superintendent of a major school system in the state of Ohio-- 28. There is something about having passion, drive, determination and a sense of "disgust" for anything but the best being drilled into you from an early age.
And these weren't "strict" parents in the traditional sense. They weren't religious ("lax" Catholics describes them best). There weren't "profanity" rules in their house (we could swear, which was really weird), they bought condoms for their sons and had the daughters on the pill. Dr. N. (the dad) forwent private practice so that he could have work life balance and be the baseball coach of the local team. I've given this example before: When one of their sons was caught listening to a rap song about "rape", they didn't freak out. All the sons were promptly taken to a rape crisis center to know what rape was. No need to tell the kids to "not listen to that music." My dad burned the tapes. I got new ones. My best friend and his brothers got rid of them on their own because they were educated to do so. I rebelled while Kyle just matured. That's amazing parenting. They were, IMHO, the best parents I've ever seen. And the mom and dad were passionately in love with each other. Also a big bonus when you're parenting six kids.
~String
It's part of a larger theory intended to forestall improving race relations
The theory here is that racism existed once upon a time, and doesn't really anymore insofar as there are no effects left from racism.
Therefore, corrective measures against the effects of racism are in and of themselves racist. It is simply an update of an older argument.
What the theory overlooks, of course, is reality.
As long as proponents believe there is no more racism, and that a black person born today faces no greater challenges in society than a socioeconomically equivalent white person, the argument makes sense.
However, we know its presuppositions are untrue. In the end, then, these people are actually advocating white supremacy.
Despite evidence that some people still suffer the effects of racism, and others still enjoy the benefits thereof, these people believe that racism is over and done with.
Remember here who you're dealing with: This is the guy who says people aren't really racist, but, rather, are so upset about a fantasy Obama that they're willing to say racist things. This is a guy who thinks accusations of racism are baseless, but also believes that substantiating those accusations should be forbidden.
He wouldn't actually advocate the continued suppression of minorities in this country. At least, I don't think he would. He just doesn't believe it happens.
At least, that's as near as I can figure. The only part of it that makes sense to me is that it seems to fit with the rest of his outlook on racism.
S.A.M. said:
The theory here is that racism existed once upon a time, and doesn't really anymore insofar as there are no effects left from racism.
Therefore, corrective measures against the effects of racism are in and of themselves racist. It is simply an update of an older argument.
What the theory overlooks, of course, is reality.
As long as proponents believe there is no more racism, and that a black person born today faces no greater challenges in society than a socioeconomically equivalent white person, the argument makes sense.
However, we know its presuppositions are untrue. In the end, then, these people are actually advocating white supremacy.
Despite evidence that some people still suffer the effects of racism, and others still enjoy the benefits thereof, these people believe that racism is over and done with.
Remember here who you're dealing with: This is the guy who says people aren't really racist, but, rather, are so upset about a fantasy Obama that they're willing to say racist things. This is a guy who thinks accusations of racism are baseless, but also believes that substantiating those accusations should be forbidden.
He wouldn't actually advocate the continued suppression of minorities in this country. At least, I don't think he would. He just doesn't believe it happens.
At least, that's as near as I can figure. The only part of it that makes sense to me is that it seems to fit with the rest of his outlook on racism.
I oppose racism across the board, can you say the same? I don't think so since you seem to support it if it is in favor of the "right" race.
Really? Check out these links:
Asians Against Affirmative Action
Racism against Asians in Affirmative Action
Rejected Applicant Alleges Bias Against Asians
I want the most qualified person to fill those positions. I don't give a shit what race those people are.Maybe right there is something else you need to consider. If quota systems are set aside for merit, all the choice positions will be occupied by Asians, because if there is one thing we do well, it is test scores.
Chinese methods of child rearing in the context of a free market economy and an open society are quite effective. How that would translate into Americans wanting to move to China is a bit unclear since we would then be applying American methods of child rearing in a much more closed and controlled society.
How about you start by at least aknowledging the numerous times that we've discussed this stuff with you before? It's kind of rude and oblivious to attempt to sweep all of that stuff under the rug, and just re-boot the whole discussion. Or, worse, maybe it's a calculated tactic.
Well, that and the fact that the Asians in question are immigrants from the upper socioeconomic strata of their respective home countries and not, y'know, starving agricultural laborers or the descendents of dispossessed chattell slaves.
And the fact that we're ignoring all of the Asians that don't fit this (affluent northeast/south) Asian stereotype - there's plenty of academically and socioeconomically "underachieving" Philipino and Vietnamese and Hmong and etc. communities to be found in the USA. Heck, there's plenty of low-status Indian-Americans as well, although these days they seem to get overshadowed in the popular imagination by the concentrations of South Indians in Silicon Valley and the like.
Why? Isn't it possible that discrimination has no inherent moral status of its own, and is only imbued with such by how it figures into larger sociopolitical systems that have morally salient effects on people?
Wait, are we talking about "racism" or "discrimination by race" here? Those aren't the same thing.
This is another topic that we have already discussed with you, at great length, repeatedly in the past here. I'm having a hard time believing you don't know what the standard arguments here would be - and they're part of the settled body of law that you claim to want to interrogate in your OP, to boot. Which makes this challenge-from-ignorance look very much like a calculated, bad-faith tactic.
Uh... Indian Americans might do well at this, but I'm not sure we can recommend India, as such, so highly. The literacy rate there is about what you find (on average) in sub-Saharan Africa. As are most indices of education in India. Lots of poor people there, even if there are plenty of whip-smart upper-class types who crowd the ranks of top engineering programs the world over.
No, you don't. You oppose "discrimination" across the board, and pointedly refuse to come to grips with how that relates to "racism." In point of fact, you rarely ever voice any such opposition except when it's to oppose discrimination that might chip away at white privilege - which is to say that you are a consistent, vocal supporter of racism.
I can't recall you ever saying anything whatsoever that I could take seriously as opposition to genuine racism. But I routinely see you post material that is openly racist - and not just your consistent opposition to affirmative action. You also routinely embrace racial stereotyping (violating the individualist conception you claim as the moral foundation of your opposition to any and all discrimination): the stuff about how hard-working and upright Asians are, or how disparate impacts prove that whichever other minorities are inherently inferior, etc.
Who do you think you're fooling, at this late juncture?
What if race itself goes directly to qualifications? Would you be in favor of racial discrimination in the hiring of, say, social workers who'd be servicing communities of some specific racial demographics?
More to the topic: how does one measure "qualifications?" How does one make sure that any such method of measurement, is not itself racially biased in subtle ways?
Quite effective at what?
Attaining college admission? I suppose so.
But if you dig into the model minority stereotypes a bit, you'll find it's much more equivocal than it might appear at first glance. The stuff about household income exceeding the national average, for example, evaporates once you correct for the fact that Asian Americans are highly concentrated in expensive coastal cities. I'm not sure how you'd even correct for the fact of Asian Americans being disproportionately selected from the upper-middle and upper classes of their home countries, but that just goes to show how apples-vs-oranges the comparisons underpinning these stereotypes are.
What about Jews? Jewish tend to disproportionately (by %) go on to attempt, and succeed, in higher education. Are Jewish mothers "Chinese" mothers? Is it Jewishness or Germanness (as most Jews in America are Germanic).
Just a thought.
My family is German. My grandmother's mother was Jewish. No one in my family is Jewish - Catholic or "Protestant/made up American religion
at best (not really religious for that matter, although they dislike the idea of me being atheist [even Buddhist would be better than atheist!]). Interestingly, my grandmother is the ONLY person in the family who encouraged any decent amount of study. My mother was valedictorian for her school. Sadly she never went on to do anything as getting married and out of the house was her main goal. Most everyone in my family told me attending university was a waste of time and that I should get a job. Luckily a teacher persuaded me to take the SAT/ACT and I got a scholarship and thought... what the hell. Also, ironic enough, luckily there were no good jobs to get.
Did you read those links? Most of them are protesting restricting Asian enrollment in favour of whites, not black quotas and you have only one Asian student using the study by Princeton professors which indicates that whites would not be affected if minority quotas were removed. I find that hard to believe given my experience with white, Asian and black students.
Not surprisingly:
I have to say, this reminds me very much of caste politics in India.
Then why don't you campaign against the discrimination of blacks in housing, education and employment?
Only as long as they follow the authoritarian model which is prevalent in China. Would you subscribe to an authoritarian society for all? You said that you are a strict parent. Do you think the model of Chinese society would make better performers out of Americans?
Yeah it will be interesting to see how that would pan out, since those children would have to go out and compete in a strict unforgiving and authoritarian society.
Also the point which quadrophonics makes about Asians in the US, they come from upper middle class or wealthy families and do not have a history of slavery in the US nor are they viewed as sub-human [anymore] - the Asian stereotype has changed a lot in the last few decades which has worked to their benefit. Hopefully, it is now time to upgrade the blacks in the US
I would say rather it fits in with the rest of his politics. I have noted that it is a characteristic of those who believe in the trickle down approach that they resent any "restriction on the rights" (as they view it) of the upper strata of society and believe that any opportunities provided to the marginalised are taking away from those who "work hard" or "deserve" it. Such people also generally feel that it is a waste of social capital to expend it on the stupid and lazy [which is how they generally view people who lack wealth] who in their opinion simply need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps
This is not unique to rightwingers in the US - we frequently see Brahmins making an ass of themselves over the quota system accorded to Dalits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_politics_in_India
Michael said:
I believe Chua addresses this in her book, that the actions of well meaning parents can also push children in the other direction. It can either make the child's spirit or break it. And the other point: that succeeding at education does not necessarily mean succeeding in everything else as well.
Does that sound familiar?
Also:
I would say that most Asians practise either authoritarian or authoritative parenting. The lax parent who gives freedom to the child is alien to the Asian psyche - that role, of pampering is fulfilled by other members of the family.
The literacy rates in India are better than are usually assumed [though much lower compared to neighbours like Sri Lanka, Iran and of course China]. Its the literacy rates in English which may not be that great, but in another decade or so, I think we will see rapid changes in that as well with Dalit groups exhorting their children into English medium schools. Regardless of literacy status, the attitude towards education and the role of parenting is the same as what Chua has demonstrated across a wide strata of Indian society. Where it suffers is in the same socioeconomic groups which are also undermined by the caste system. i.e. some people consider themselves "not good enough" to aim for those goals of scholastic success. Interestingly, I have seen this attitude to persist even in the face of the acquisition of wealth and other social status.
Last edited:
Sure, we've (meaning you and I) discussed affirmative action before. So what? You stated your opinion. I stated mine. No one was convinced and we went about our day.
Now this topic is once again in the news so I brought it up again. Perhaps this time the discussion will be more productive.
Racism without discrimination is nothing but a thought crime. It is the discrimination that is bad, not the racism.
See the above.quadraphonics said:
What twisted logic.
Please provide some openly racist quotes. Here's a link for you: http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=5915153
The Asian mother post was in response to String's quote on the subject. A general discussion of a cultural phenomenon among a certain group is not racist.
If said demographic had a unique subculture (like the Amish, for instance) it would probably be reasonable to have people on the job who understood that culture. I would imagine that a test could be given that would test one's knowledge of the culture or subculture in question, thus avoiding an openly racist hiring policy.
However, I will admit that that might be a rare situation in which race could actually be a legitimate consideration. Even then, we're really talking more about knowledge and familiarity with a particular subculture than race. Some black kid from the suburbs would probably be just as clueless when it comes to dealing with people from the inner city as a white kid from the suburbs.
Off the top of my head, by designing the test such that it tests knowledge and skills one will actually need on the job. By being sure that everyone has access to the same study materials. By assessing the predictive power of the test and fine tuning it over time to better separate the high performers from the low ones.
There should be no restrictions based upon race whatsoever. Not in favor of whites, blacks, Asians........... or anyone. Race should not be a factor in admissions at all. To quote the first link I posted from Asians against Affirmative Action:
Whether you are Asian or not, if you're sick of letting affirmative action deprive individuals of equal opportunity, you've come to the right place.
All we want is to be given a shot at equal opportunity, just as everyone else is. It's time we showed our voice and demand equal opportunity through race blind admissions.
Let's face it - affirmative action is racism.
All we want is to be given a shot at equal opportunity, just as everyone else is. It's time we showed our voice and demand equal opportunity through race blind admissions.
Let's face it - affirmative action is racism.
Because all of those things are already illegal.
I believe in equal opportunity. We are not interchangeable automatons to be manipulated by bean counters who allocate benefits based upon random physical characteristics such as skin color, ancestry, or religion. We are individuals and should be treated as such.