<p>I guess I’m struggling with the word “deserve” here. Do I make more money than person X - yes. Do I “deserve” more? Do I make less money than person Y - yes. Does person Y “deserve” more? There’s a moral code being put in there with the word deserve that I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around. We all “deserve” jobs that enable us to pay the rent, be productive and engage ourselves mentally. Do I “deserve” to be paid more than the janitor and less than the hedge fund manager?</p>
<p>Im somewhat befuddled that someone who, I guess, majored in some areas of the social sciences, is not aware that there have been debates about the justice of income distribution in society. </p>
<p>Yes, this is about a moral code. There is positive description of how incomes are distributed, and normative discussions of the issue. A debate about justice, (which I saw as part of the article in the OP) is of course a normative one (though it should be informed with empirical information).</p>
<p>"I guess I’m struggling with the word “deserve” here. Do I make more money than person X - yes. Do I “deserve” more? "</p>
<p>if theres no place for “deserve” than since A. You make more than X, and X can survive, and clearly you can survive on what X makes and B. its very unlikely that if we taxed you say 20% more, that you would work 20% less (esp as you probably enjoy what you do far more than doing what X does) and C. We have a looming budget crisis, such that some people want to radically cut back medicaid, among other things - than I think its reasonable to make you pay more in taxes.</p>
<p>Right now there are people in congress flirting with a possible financial disaster because they think you DESERVE your money. In a basic, moral, unarguable way. ANd they will not pass a debt limit increase without a long term budget plan, and they will not compromise on a long term budget plan that includes an increase in the progressivity of income tax rates. </p>
<p>Discussing the kinds of issues raised by the OP, while ignoring the debate at the heart of our polity at the moment - it just seems strange to me.</p>
<p>So Yang doesn’t want to have to go around practicing putting some grin on his face b/c that’s not who he is.</p>
<p>Compare that to the “disdain” he has for his ethnic roots - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or so-called “Asian values.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder what Yang shows more disdain towards (btw, Yang seems to be one of those angst-driven writers, so he probably has a negative outlook on most anything).</p>
<p>Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the norm in Europe (well, Northern Europe as well).</p>
<p>There’s a reason why Scandinvians and Germans aren’t seen as “warm and inviting” as say, the Italians.</p>
<p>Not saying that they are any less friendly, but their social norms are diff. from the Southern Europeans.</p>
<p>This is true, texas; I agree with your observations about the Indian subcontinent, but I go beyond your observations about literal communication – although that’s important in itself. It was not accidental in my last post that I referenced semantics. If one does not understand the concepts behind the language, one is at a disadvantage in understanding the cultural assumptions. It is equally true of any two parties coming to terms with this. Clearly it would be true of westerners emigrating to China, Japan, Korea, or to Middle Eastern countries such as Turkey, Iran, etc. The literal communication is only the first layer. As essential as it is, it is not enough for success in that culture.</p>
<p>Gee, I guess countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines or former British territory like Hong Kong have never experienced democracy.</p>
<p>And you would be incorrect.</p>
<p>Census data shows that the highest rate for IR marriages with whites is for Eastern Asians.</p>
<p>Hollywood execs don’t even bother to cater programming to Asian-Americans b/c Asian-Americans watch what white Americans watch (unlike black or Hispanic Americans).</p>
<p>Eastern Asians tend to be either not very religious or pretty hard-core Christian; whereas many Indians (be they Hindu or Muslim) see differences in religion being a barrier to intermarriage, etc.</p>
<p>Indians also tend to keep in touch w/ their cultural roots a good bit more (reason why movie theaters in areas w/ a big enough Desi population run Bollywood films) and terms like “Banana”, “Twinkie”, etc. aren’t nearly as prevalent in the Desi community as for the Eastern Asian community.</p>
<p>East Asian watch the same TV shows and films (the only show that really was popular among both whites and blacks was Monday Night Football), read the same magazinesa dn books, wear the same type of clothing, etc. as whites (how many East Asians have you seen wearing ethnic garb?; otoh, it’s not uncommon to see Desi women wearing traditional clothing).</p>
<p>Has not as much to do with astuteness and the willingness to adapt as one’s environment.</p>
<p>If one grew up in an ethnic enclave where one’s friends/peers were mostly others from the same ethnic background, the person is not going to adapt as quickly (one can say the same thing for a black or Hispanic person who grew up in an ethnic/racial enclave).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That has more to do with individual personality than anything else. </p>
<p>You know, there are actually Asians with outgoing personalities - not only just here, but in Asia as well (not every Asian is a “robot”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No assertion was made that certain white European immigrants didn’t face prejudice, etc.</p>
<p>But the fact remains, it is easier for them and their descendants to assimilate and be seen as “American.”</p>
<p>A person whose parents immigrated from Europe would likely be seen being more American than a 6th generation Asian-American.</p>
<p>And while European immigrants did face prejudice, disrimination, etc. - it wasn’t to the level of non-white immigrants.</p>
<p>There’s a reason why until 1968, most immigration from Asia was cut off.</p>
<p>The Chinese laborers who built a good portion of the transcontinental RR were paid a good bit less than their white counterparts (many of them being immigrants from Europe), despite being given the most dangerous jobs (hence, the origin of the phrase “China***'s chance”).</p>
<p>There’s also the anti-miscegenation laws which applied to Asians - since the Page Law of 1875 pretty much excluded the immigration of women from China, the Chinese laborers started to socialize outside their group which caused a storm. Funny how these laws didn’t much matter when it came to Asians once GIs started to return from Asia with their Asian warbrides.</p>
<p>In addition, there were laws which prevented Asians from engaging in many diff. types of work (there’s a reason why so many Asians in California ended up working in an Asian laundry).</p>
<p>And let’s not forget the disparity in treatment btwn the Japanese-Americans and German or Italian-Americans during WWII (also, other Asian-Americans like Chinese, Korean or Fil-Americans had to go out of their way to show that they weren’t of Japanese ethnicity).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why bring in the Chinese into the discussion?</p>
<p>Every group is ethnocentric to a degree, and the Han Chinese are no diff.</p>
<p>But for the Han Chinese, it isn’t race-based - they look down upon non-Han Chinese Asians such as the Koreans, Thai, Japanese, Fils, etc. and even look down upon Chinese minorities like the Hui, Miao, Yi, Yao, etc. peoples.</p>
<p>And chances are a white person will be treated better than a non-Han Asian person.</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>
<p>Yeah, you actually are reading way too much into these discussions, fabrizio. I said ‘interface,’ and I meant it. It’s about exposure and education, and a lack of insularity. That lack of insularity (colonialism) has brought with it both good and bad. However, the fluency with Western language (the culture that is built into linguistics), and the fluency with Western concepts (concepts that have been specifically taught to them) has greatly advantaged Indians and Pakistanis who have chosen to immigrate into our culture and who do wish full assimilation. I know this population quite intimately, both as colleagues and as students. They differ markedly in their rate of assimilation vs. the Chinese, for example. And I do mean virtually immediately upon immigration – not after a full generation or more.</p>
<p>I wasn’t making comparisons with Malayasians, Indonesians, etc. I was speaking about Indians. And I said British influence was one reason, not the only reason. But as always, you prefer to take my statements out of context, to distort, to make a federal case out of them, and to personalize them.</p>
<p>Then what you say is true for Indians (and now Pakistanis) should be true for Malaysians, Singaporeans, and Hong Kongers, since Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong all used to be part of the British Empire. Is it? That’s an “out-of-sample” test of your explanation. But just like the first time you pulled this, you don’t answer the question.</p>
<p>And what exactly made the various East Asian nations “insular”? You originally wrote, “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.”</p>
<p>Well, the Japanese have also experienced democracy, both before and after WWII. Moreover, during the Meiji Era, they began to import from the West wholesale. Over three decades, the Japanese government hired thousands of foreign advisors to modernize Japan. Did they come from China? No. They came from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Continental Europe (i.e. the “West”). It got to the point where Chinese people realized that the cheapest way to get a Western education was to attend a university in Japan. And if anyone wants a stark image of just how “Westernized” Japan became, you need only compare the [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Itoh_Sukeyuki.jpg]copy[/url”>File:Itoh Sukeyuki.jpg - Wikipedia]copy[/url</a>] with the [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_and_Kate_wedding.jpg]original[/url”>File:William and Kate wedding.jpg - Wikipedia]original[/url</a>].</p>
<p>So why do Indians “get it” better than the Japanese, epiphany?</p>
<p>If Indians assimilate better than East Asians, it has NOTHING to do with the United Kingdom’s role in ruling over India as a colony for two centuries. Nothing.</p>
<p>And not only that - all the hard data points out that East Asians assimilate better than South Asians.</p>
<p>epiphany just ran w/ something that she thought she knew about (funny, how she seems to know so much about East Asians), which turned out to be bogus.</p>
<p>Personally, I think someone should “interface” with Americans. Our ignorance of science and geography is startling and different from the rest of the world.</p>
<p>A country evolves. It exists on a land mass. If new kinds of people occupy that land mass the values of the country will evolve. Why shouldn’t they?</p>
<p>For me, there is nothing sacrosanct about the WASP culture hammered out by the first European immigrants to New England and Virginia. St. Augustine, Santa Fe and Albany (Dutch) are older settlements than Jamestown or Boston. </p>
<p>The Puritans were interesting, but they had their own quirkiness and in Jamestown missing church two weeks in a row was a capital offense.</p>
<p>I see nothing inferior about new cultures being brought here. That’s what makes America so vital.</p>
<p>And our major cultural contributions, movies, cars and jazz and rock and roll seem amalgams of many cultural traditions (well maybe not cars.)</p>
<p>If stiff competition from Asian students bumps up the academic chops of non-Asian Americans perhaps this is a good thing.</p>
<p>I teach community college students who think they deserve A’s just for attended class and completing all assignments, albeit in a mediocre way. These attitudes are not going to cut it in a global market, and I can’t convince them of this. Perhaps harder worker classmates might.</p>
<p>And I say this as the mother of a male violinist who could not compete with his female Asian counterparts. Some of the Western guys could. I told him to practice even more. He didn’t want to, and now the violin is just a hobby. His choice.</p>
<p>Xenophobia seems part of humans’ genetic inheritance. However, we can transcend knee-jerk reactions that ghettoize different cultural assumptions.</p>
<p>My father remained bitter his entire life about his treatment as a Jew in the 1940’s. He was an officer in the Air Corp and then the OSS, so I think he was accepted and integrated into mainstream American life. He wasn’t an immigrant. He was a college grad, but he always felt one down and judged. His problem? Maybe. </p>
<p>I don’t want to do this to other Americans.</p>
<p>We can stigmatize all cultures if we want to or gently satirize them with love or just respectfully embrace them.</p>
<p>In the movie Fools Rush In the WASP parents appears as parochial as the Hispanic parents, just in a different way.</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Itoh_Sukeyuki.jpg]copy[/url](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Itoh_Sukeyuki.jpg%5Dcopy%5B/url){kind=link}
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_and_Kate_wedding.jpg]original[/url](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_and_Kate_wedding.jpg%5Doriginal%5B/url){kind=link}
