Tiger Child's View Paper Tigers What happens to all the Asian-American overachievers

[fabrizio]

<p>

In my experience in an Indian-saturated region (many of my colleagues are), the South Asian is decidedy different from the East Asian. Indians have experienced democracy; they also, historically, have interfaced with western cultural values and semantics through British influence, which has permeated their overseas education as well. They “get it,” and quickly. There are also some aspects of their own culture that bridge some aspects of ours.

If one does not understand the concepts behind the language, one is at a disadvantage in understanding the cultural assumptions.

</p>

<p>Pakistan has also “interfaced with western cultural values and semantics through British influence.” As I mentioned, until 1947, Pakistan and India were part of the British Raj. That is, they were colonies of the British Empire. So I ask then, do Pakistanis also “get it” as well as the Indians?</p>

<p>Malaysia and Singapore have also “interfaced with western cultural values and semantics through British influence.” Until 1957, they were both colonies of the British Empire. Do Malaysians and Singaporeans also “get it” as well as the Indians? In particular, do Malaysian Chinese and Singaporean Chinese “get it” better than Continental Chinese and other East Asians?</p>

<p>Indonesia “interfaced with western cultural values and semantics through Dutch influence.” Until 1949, it was a part of the Dutch Empire. Do Indonesians “get it” as well as the Indians? In particular, do Indonesian Chinese “get it” better than Continental Chinese and other East Asians?</p>

<p>Vietnam “interfaced with western cultural values and semantics through French influence.” France claimed it as a colony until the Viet Minh kicked them out in 1954. Do Vietnamese “get it” as well as the Indians? Do they “get it” better than the East Asians with whom they are commonly lumped together?</p>

<p>And as k&s pointed out, Hong Kong “interfaced with western cultural values and semantics through British influence” (again). Until 1997, it was still under British administration (i.e. a colony). Do Hong Kong Chinese “get it” as well as the Indians? Do they “get it” better than Continental Chinese and other East Asians?</p>

<p>Quite frankly, I find it amazing that you are claiming that British IMPERIALISM is what makes Indians “get it” better than East Asians. You may balk and say that you said influence, not imperialism, but being a guy, I have always loved wars in world history. How did the British come to influence India? Through free trade and equal partnership? NO! They came to influence it because they CONQUERED it and ruled it for nearly two centuries, first via the East India Company and second through the Crown itself.</p>

<p>It may very well be the case that Indians “get it” better than East Asians. That I do not deny as a possibility. But I strenuously object to your explanation that “British influence [sic]” is why.</p>