<p>Merit? MERIT? Eighteen year olds don't have merit -- what they have is potential, and many studies have shown that SAT scores don't predict achievement (our President being just one example).</p>
<p>What an odd example to pick.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BASING A SYSTEM ON MERIT ONLY WORKS WHEN EVERYONE IN THE SYSTEM HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO ACHIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
Sure, in an ideal world everybody would have the same opportunities. But is just isn't so. How can you see what each student has had to overcome? It's easy to see the color of skin, but can you see which students have had tumultuous home lives, struggles with physical or mental illness, emotional problems, abuse, absentee parents, indifference, etc? I offer that there are far more impediments to achievement than skin color. These things that challange a stable, supportive and loving home life are not connected to race or even to wealth.</p>
<p>"The movie Grand Canyon does an excellent job of demonstating that a society that leaves a group of its members in disadvantaged circumstances, no matter how affluent the top, is disfunctional and unwholesome."</p>
<p>Equality isn't necessarily all it is cracked up to be either. It depend heavily on what you are equal to. I'd rather be a welfare Mom with central heat and a flush toilete that Louis XV with my wine cup freezing solid on the banquet table.</p>
<p>Poverty is relative and it is better to be a poor American than a poor Hottrntot even if the Hottentota are all socially equal.</p>
<p>"Momwaitngfornew,</p>
<p>Yes exactly! You would be "prefering" those candidates simply because they were black and for no other reason, exactly my point and what Ad officer claims he does not do."</p>
<p>Sorry, Curious, my example does not "prefer" blacks over whites. It prefers a diversity of backgrounds. If a brilliant violinist applied, with great grades and scores in addition to his musical talent, then he would be preferred as well. However, if a thousand brilliant violinists applied, then their talent would be probably have a negligible impact on their applications because they are so many of them. It's all in the numbers. </p>
<p>It should be noted that all these cases are simplified. As AdOfficer has stated countless times over the past several months, applicants are individuals, and are judged as such. If someone has overcome massive barriers, particularly if those obstacles are societal/institutionalized, then that person deserves admittance over someone who has shown less initiative. That philosophy goes beyond race.</p>
<p>There's always an underlying current to these AA threads that seems to assume that admitted URMs are not as good as whites and Asians. I object to that. I have seen in my own classrooms that this is not the case, so I don't know why that assumption persists. If admitting URMs decreased the quality of the student body, then I could understand why people would object. But it doesn't do that at all. If anything, the elite schools are producing better alumni</p>
<p>Some of you say that you want race-blind admissions. What does it matter that a qualified black person was admitted? If you answer, "Because a white/Asian person was rejected," then you are indeed caring about skin color, and therefore your "race blind admissions" really means that you want your particular race/culture preferred. If you say, "Because they aren't qualified," I'd like to see proof of that, since I've seen evidence that URMs are every bit as bright as their white counterparts. If you say, "Because they don't have the same rigorous preparation," then you are admitting that they are indeed disadvantaged in the educational system. If you say, "Because their SATs are lower," then you are ignoring the many studies that show cultural (and gender) biases. What is left?</p>
<p>Most parts of the country don't have rowing or lacrosse, AdOfficer, and the vast majority don't have the finances to buy admission with a million dollar donation. In fact, I'm sure many people with the money to buy admission don't know that colleges are that openly corrupt as to have development admits.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>
<p>Just because your students nod pleasntly when you make arguments like that I wouldn't assume that these arguments will persuade anyone who doen't have to agree with you. I set up that example. If thats what you mean by seeking diversity it is tautologically identical to racial preferences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some of you say that you want race-blind admissions. What does it matter that a qualified black person was admitted? If you answer, "Because a white/Asian person was rejected," then you are indeed caring about skin color, and therefore your "race blind admissions" really means that you want your particular race/culture preferred. If you say, "Because they aren't qualified," I'd like to see proof of that, since I've seen evidence that URMs are every bit as bright as their white counterparts. If you say, "Because they don't have the same rigorous preparation," then you are admitting that they are indeed disadvantaged in the educational system. If you say, "Because their SATs are lower," then you are ignoring the many studies that show cultural (and gender) biases. What is left?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As you know, I am a supporter of race-blind admissions.</p>
<p>It does not matter that a qualified black student was admitted. I have never suggested that there is a problem with admitting qualified students, black or not.</p>
<p>In fact, you’re asking the wrong question. No supporter of race-blind admissions objects to a high-scoring, high-achieving, talented black student being admitted. To suggest that supporters of race-blind admissions have a problem with this scenario is to create a straw man.</p>
<p>I am for race-blind admissions because I oppose both discrimination against and discrimination for; I believe that no one should be discriminated against or granted preferential treatment based on his race. To avoid the possibility that certain students are being discriminated against while others are being discriminated for, I advocate race-blind admissions.</p>
<p>Our nation has historically mistreated people based on their race. Why, then, are we continuing to use race as a factor? That we now use positive discrimination instead of negative discrimination does not negate that we are still discriminating.</p>
<p>"If you say, "Because they don't have the same rigorous preparation," then you are admitting that they are indeed disadvantaged in the educational system."</p>
<p>Many minorities are indeed disadvantaged. But that's not an argument for affirmative action. The solution to such a problem would be to improve primary and secondary education to the point where minorities are able to score equally with whites/asians on the SAT's and such. The solution is not to lower standards for minorities just because they came from substandard schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...colleges and universities don't exist just for you or your kid...they exist for the betterment of society through expanding knowledge and access to it. we are only as good as the sum of our parts - having a fractured society where the advantaged continue to be advantaged and the disadvantaged become MORE disadvantaged as their lives progress does not make society better. it isn't just about the individual...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Love this quote, AdOfficer. Many in the anti-racial diversity camp ignore this big picture. Racially stratifying students into separate university tiers based on some people's interpretation of "merit" will not accomplish this goal.</p>
<p><a href="curious14%20asks:">quote</a>
Siserune,</p>
<p>Tell me do you justify affirmative action
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will worry more about the "injustice" of it around the time that the US starts treating blacks as full humans. Alternatively, it may deserve higher priority among college-related political issues as soon as universities stop selling fool's gold at $40K/yr. Until then, the victim narrative of AA's non-beneficiaries (who are, however, beneficiaries of blacks' inferior status) is boring, appalling, or both.</p>
<p>With that said, given that the current admissions system exists, it is interesting to analyze its workings and implications, as in this new study and the others mentioned (E&C, Kidder etc).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many in the anti-racial diversity camp ignore this big picture. Racially stratifying students into separate university tiers based on some people's interpretation of "merit" will not accomplish this goal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see that you are prefacing diversity with racial. Thank you.</p>
<p>By using the phrase "racially stratifying," you are implying that some students are entitled to attend some universities when in reality, no one is entitled to anything, unless he is the scion of a family that can donate big dollars.</p>
<p>You're also ignoring the concept of fit. Is it not possible that these students who were "racially stratified" enjoy the schools they are at?</p>
<p>Bay, not everybody can attend Harvard for a myriad of reasons. For that matter, not everybody can attend and graduate from Berkeley, Michigan, or Georgia Tech. Lots of students attend UC-Davis, Wayne State, and Georgia Southern. And, lots of students do well at these schools, regardless of their race.</p>
<p>There is a paragraph from the 1964 Civil Rights Act that many people seem to have either ignored or dismissed as obsolete, particularly in the wake of Meredith and Parents Involved. I quote as follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Desegregation" means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but "desegregation" shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Woah, woah, woah. "Without regard." That means "no consideration," better known as "race-blind."</p>
<p>Any straightforward reading of both the constituion and the Civil Rights Act would find these racial preferences to be both illegal and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, O'Connor decided to turn herself into an intellectual pretzel to defend the pratice. Luckily even she admited that there had to be some kind of time limit on the practice. I think she mentioned 25 years. I can't believe anyone is fooled by the convoluted arguments of the pro-racial preferences crowd. I don't know why they bother.</p>
<p>You know, I really don't care about AA, but I hate when people use bad arguments to justify it. The socioeconomic depression of minorities is not a reason for racial preference. This has often been a reason use to justify AA. Colleges could simply give a boost to those applicants coming from low income households. Minorities are disproportionately represented in the lower income brackets, so this would help minorities more than other groups.</p>
<p>The only reason to justify AA is racism that the student themself experiences. The question is how much this actually hurts the student's performance, and this is controversial.</p>
<p>I guess you could also justify AA as a sort of admissions reparations for the parents of URM applicants, who nearly everyone can agree had their careers seriously hurt because of race issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Colleges could simply give a boost to those applicants coming from low income households.
[/quote]
If we agree that race confers a disadvantage upon blacks, and that poor income also confers a disadvantage, then on what philosophy can we boost one and ignore the other?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In 1995, black students from families earning more than $70,000 per year scored a total of 850 on average. Using the CPI inflation calculator, available at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm</a>, $70,000 in 1995 dollars is the equivalent of $95,699.74 in 2007 dollars. These families are able to send their children to private schools, private tutoring, and private counseling. They are not poor. In 1995, Asian students from families earning less than $10,000 per year scored a total of 825 on average. Using the CPI inflation <a href="snip….">blah, blah, blah and more invincibly ignorant blah</a>
[/quote]
This information betrays a highly simplistic view of the pressures that suppress black performance on the SAT. It assumes testing ability is linked directly to income, making no account of real wealth, of asset and culture accumulation, instead assuming that by the one figure of income, rich blacks had an advantage over poor whites. When the poor man wins the lottery, we ought not expect him to at once think and act like Warren Buffet, but spending his windfall on the petty things for which he has longed all his life. A city-dwelling black family in 1995 made $75K by no means necessarily had an SAT advantage over a white family making $9K, though it may have had other advantages. Our views toward education are affected by numerous factors, not merely by what goes on in the classroom. They are affected by the way in which a father holds his son’s hand as he teaches the son how to write. They are affected by how frequently a husband reads and laughs with his pregnant wife. They are affected by the rites, the rituals and cultural practices to which that pregnant wife is subjected each day as she visits her neighbor, her doctor, her friends. They are affected by the extent to which she and her husband question their identity, by how comfortable they feel as they visit the store, and drive to church. If these things are not quite in place for a family, education in that family will suffer regardless of how much income the family makes. If they exist to any real extent, then they can more than make up for the lack of income a family may have. When you condemn wealthy black families because their children score the same as poor whites, you in fact condemn American history and the society it has given us because where the SAT is concerned, the pressures to which this society subjects even the richest black families are about equal to those that affect whites who just barely eek out a miserable existence. If the children of the richest blacks are under such pressure that they score only as well as the poorest whites, we now see why the children of the poorest blacks score lowest of all.</p>
<p>We need to understand what it is that I mean when I use the word “pressure”. I do not necessarily refer only to discernable stress, but rather to any force or condition capable of moving a people or denying them a certain goal. Perhaps you wish to be a world-class NBA basketball player, for example, but are unable to achieve this height in the sport because you have no legs. Perhaps you have no desire to be a basketball player due to your ignorance of the sport, yet you live in a society wherein being a basketball player is required. In these cases the pressure against your being a basketball player is extreme, though you may be a happy, well-adjusted person in society. I am convinced that blacks, even the wealthiest of us, suffer a variety of pressures, some pressures in the sense I have mentioned here, and others in the traditional sense of stress. These pressures wage continual war against black performance on the SAT, and on academics generally. They are extreme.</p>
<p>We are not all Americans here. In 1995 blacks had lived in America as full and legally protected citizens for only thirty years, unlike whites making less than $10K. We didn’t even have vote protection until 1965, unlike even the poorest whites. We must also remember that whites, even the poorest of them, while not having great wealth economically, had enough cultural wealth and power to participate in the flat denial of codified rights for blacks, not to mention such non-codified rights as the freedom to take available seats on a bus, or in a theatre, or a restaurant. As recently as the late sixties and into the 1970’s blacks were not free, by law, to marry whomever they pleased. As recently as 2001 Alabama voted to end its ban on biracial marriages, and even then nearly half of Alabamians voted to keep the ban. These things didn’t just exist as historical anomalies. Alabama happened to be the last of many states to end them. And the attitudes that created them did not end when the laws ended, as the Alabama vote proves. They still exist in great force, even in the twenty-first century. The culture is changing, but it still greatly condemns blacks and values whites, and even the poorest of whites benefit from it while the richest of blacks suffer. It really does not matter how much money a black family makes, if its culture does nothing to short-circuit this most pernicious aspect of American culture, black children’s intellectual capability and education will suffer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Poor whites and poor Asians aren’t living in the same communities as upper middle class blacks. These poor students live in dire poverty. They live with uncertainty every day of their lives. They are the ones who have to supplement their family incomes. They are subject to pressures that upper middle class black students are not subject to.
[/quote]
You merely cite different pressures that produce the same essential result for rich blacks when it comes to the SAT. Rich blacks may have other advantages due to their income, but these advantages are not always as significant as those which automatically accrue to whites-- even poor ones. If a family has in its midst the factors to which I have alluded above, they are not in “dire poverty” when it comes to the SAT, though they may have little money. Surely poor whites have great pressure due to their economic poverty, and these pressures cause social stigma and issues of a different variety (which stigmas and issues explain why poor whites scores are so low despite that even they can afford a used SAT prep book), but as with blacks, were they able to short-circuit the mental pressures affecting them, their children would perform equal to or better than richer whites and Asians. Unfortunately many black and poor white families are caught in a cycle where their children are born in dysfunction, and where those children as a result fail to develop their intellect to eventually become stunted adults who have children who also will never reach their potential. This sort of culture was developed purposefully for blacks, and enforced by law throughout American history. It was useful to whites during slavery, but simply because slavery ended does not mean this culture ended. It indeed still exists in various forms today, and it kills us today as it killed us under slavery. Many people who whine about how blacks should lift themselves as Bill Cosby did, fail to understand that Cosby is not the American success story we make him out to be. Should we spend even a little time tracking him we would see he has a very bitter edge about all I am saying here. He would agree with most of it. We disagree only on a few strategies concerning how we might overcome the difficulty. Though Cosby is wealthy, the pressures I mention here quite likely have affected his family, his own children, despite his being more aware of these pressures than the vast majority of wealthy blacks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wealthy students don’t have to worry that the next day they might not have shelter. They don’t have to worry that they might not have food tonight. They don’t have to work to supplement their parents’ incomes.
[/quote]
And surely these pressures kill intellectual performance, which is why poor whites score about the same as wealthy blacks. But what you seem unable to grasp is that these are not the only pressures that kill intellectual performance. In the lives of blacks, even rich blacks, pressures in American culture, pressures that come directly to us via our unique history, suppress SAT performance. Poor blacks have these in addition to all the pressures affecting poor whites. And THAT is why their scores are so low. Until these issues are discovered and shorted, our performances will suffer.</p>
<p>"If we agree that race confers a disadvantage upon blacks, and that poor income also confers a disadvantage, then on what philosophy can we boost one and ignore the other?"</p>
<p>Go back and read my post. I said that racism against a student could be used as a valid argument. And by racism I mean that their teachers might grade them unfairly or something like that. I did point out that people disagree about how much of an effect racism has on a URM student's performance in the modern day.</p>
<p>My only point was that you cannot use the depressed socioeconomic conditions afflicting the URM community as justification for racial preference. This component could be taken care of by separately giving a boost for socioeconomic disadvantage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier, you and I both know that Jesus was not black. You yourself even admitted that Jesus was not “sub-Saharan.” He was dark skinned, yes, but he was not black.
[/quote]
I never claimed he was sub-saharan black. But I know He was not white either. Yet we are always subjected to this Nordic myth here. Imagine some black kid seeing his own parents kneeling down each Sunday to this nonsense. Imagine white kids seeing their black peers AND their peers’ parents kneeling down to this. It is a very powerful and destructive force that fortifies whites, and destroys blacks in ways most of us cannot even imagine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is redundant to refer to him as “White Jesus.”
[/quote]
It is not. Jesus was likely a dark-skinned Semitic Jew, who was obviously able to exist among ancient North Africans without a problem. He likely had short hair, and thick features—something in appearance between a modern day Jew and an African. If you wish to call this “white” then do what you must if it helps you sleep. It is obvious to me He was not by any means white, and that those blue eyes and all that long blond hair is just a myth, an “enhancement” designed to boost certain kinds of people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is also redundant to refer to Santa as “White Santa.” The concept of Santa originated in Western Europe, not Africa.
[/quote]
Of course the point here does not concern the origin of Santa, but the effect he has in American culture. Whose culture is it anyway? Santa and White Jesus suggest every Sunday and year after year that the culture does not belong to blacks. Without cultural answers to these things, and very, VERY many more like them, black children will continue to see how distant they are from being American like everyone else. Santa is a concept among thousands, one that defines our culture. Very little of this sort of cultural power exists to shape the confidence and dreams of blacks. It perpetually shapes the dreams of whites.</p>
<p>I do not want to suggest that we create black Santa or develop some myth (like St. Kwanzaa) out of whole cloth to answer these concepts. And I do not wish to give the impression that whites are necessarily the enemy. It is the culture that is the enemy. It was developed from the beginning to help whites and suppress blacks. Many of its pro-white/anti-black features still exist and are indeed so plentiful and taken for granted whites reading this note are probably wondering what the big deal is about a Westernized Jesus. Its just an image, after all. Of course the problem is that it is just an image until film directors, artists, churches, and popular media display the likely truth about Jesus. THEN it all ceases to be just an image. It becomes a sensation, a novelty that we might read about for a day as we go back to worshipping White Jesus. I do not suggest blacks answer this directly. It is futile anyway, and it also small-minded and reactionary. The more we answer white supremacist imagery with photo negativity, the more we teach our children to run from something that seems all powerful and insurmountable, something that can only be answered and not throttled into submission. In my house, we simply tell the truth. When it comes to Santa, all of my kids, even the three-year-old, know he does not even exist and that the image they see is just this myth that certain Americans love to tell themselves “for fun”. My kids then go out and see the pretty lights in the malls, and smile knowingly as they watch little children of all races sit on the lap of some fat white guy. Riding on the train one Christmas season with one of my children, someone asked the boy, then about four, if he was ready for Santa. The boy responded “No, because Santa is not real”. Everyone gasped and then looked disapprovingly at me. I shrugged and said aloud “Well he isn’t. No sense in lying to my kids”.</p>
<p>We do likewise with Jesus. My children’s simple reading of Ancient Mid-East history in addition to Christian history reveals to them the myth and shows them what the truth most likely is. I need not even talk in detail about it. They come to it themselves. And as they see White Jesus in popular Western culture, they do not come to see white greatness, but rank ignorance. They are content to allow it to persist unmolested because they understand that many people need a white Jesus, and not truth, to feel good about their religion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You seem to suggest that there is a dearth of black heroes in America.
[/quote]
I do not suggest this at all. I suggest that until my Jesus becomes your Jesus, and your Santa becomes my Santa, so that my kids will gain the same advantage as yours simply by Jesus and Santa being who they are, and not some image fabricated to bolster one group above the other, we only kid ourselves about such things as racial preference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I was in second grade, I learned about tall tales. One of the heroes was John Henry. Though it was over a decade ago, I recall all of us thought he was cool because he beat a supposedly superior machine. None of us cared at the time, but for your information, the machine was operated by whites.
[/quote]
The thing you overlook here with me is that I would that the machine had been operated by blacks. But such a thing was generally forbidden us at the time referenced by John Henry. Essentially, Henry was able to do only what he did, dig ditches and hammer things. That he was great at it is fine, but I have never thought it appropriate to let our admiration get so out of hand that we overlook the reality before us. I think I would tell my children lies should I tell them that they should aspire to be like John Henry without showing them the whole truth. I don’t think Henry would have wished this. I have told them the truth about this myth—namely, that the man had the admirable trait of confidence and that he was a hard worker who had a heart attack working with all his heart on a railroad from which he would make mere pennies and from which whites would make billions, and that we should respect Mr. Henry for his toughness, though his death is hardly the stuff of noble myth, and that the tragedy of his case is that his life was generally all he could have hoped for, whether he could have made billions or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The following year, I began to enjoy playing baseball. I read books from the library, which featured the greats of the twentieth century, like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, and Hank Aaron. I even learned about other great players like Cool Papa Bell. Babe Ruth and Roger Maris may have held the home run records, but Bell was cooler. He was the master of “outfield” homeruns.
[/quote]
I respect these men, but they are all entertainers. You may read of them and think they are “cool”, as you say, but I don’t exactly hear you saying they are your idols, men you would like to emulate yourself. It could be that you are simply unable to emulate them, which fact applies also to vast numbers of blacks. Surely you have other role models for yourself, people more aligned with your abilities and inclinations. Blacks need them too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ever since the untimely death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he has been enshrined as an American hero. Every year, we celebrate his legacy. After I studied U.S. History two years ago, I began a habit of reading his speeches on his day.
[/quote]
Great speeches certainly. But for all his greatness, we must see that MLK was a supplicant, forced to petition white society to grant blacks certain rights. He was certainly necessary; but I think despite MLK, our heroes are too few, their interests too narrow to address so varied and great a potential as can be found in the minds of black children.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier, there is no shortage of black American heroes and icons. If you want to ignore John Henry, Hank Aaron, and Dr. King, that’s your prerogative. Have fun.
[/quote]
I don’t ignore them. I simply recognize that we must move beyond them. They would want this. As blacks, we ought not be content to have our myths centered around such things as death from hard labor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am confident that in today’s politically correct environment, it is impossible for books that describe “mere handfuls of noble whites throttle tens of thousands of dark-skinned human corruptions” to be placed on school shelves. I can only think of The 300, the comic by Frank Miller, as a book that could possibly satisfy your description.”
[/quote]
Who said anything about being placed on school shelves? It is in the culture, it is ubiquitous, and it is powerful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Given the vocal nature of the NAACP, I contest your notion that our culture produces films that show “mere handfuls of whites throttling apparent millions of dark-skinned humans.” You may be referring to The Birth of a Nation, which was produced ninety years ago, before you and I were born. Today, we credit D.W. Griffith for his bold cinematography and we censure him for his film’s racist undertones.
[/quote]
But that film had nearly a century to shape the attitudes of millions of people, harming millions of black children in American society before we even began to address its problems. It is just one film, there are thousands of pieces of media like it, and they have for many centuries fortified whites while harming people with dark skin, especially blacks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That you continue referring to “mere handfuls of whites” shows that you are oblivious to actors like Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. The Bad Boys series shows the opposite, which you neglect to mention, namely, “mere handfuls of blacks throttling apparent millions of light-skinned humans.”
[/quote]
There is almost always a great difference between showing blacks like Will Smith and Martin Lawrence doing the ridiculous and showing white guys doing it. In the first cases we are typically dealing with comedy, which is supposed to be ridiculous, and no one gets any racial support from it. In the second cases we are typically dealing with the same old bogus racial</a> imagery that have been fortifying whites and condemning blacks since forever. “300” was no joke, like “Bad Boys” was.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You suggest that Asians are able to insulate themselves from the pressures that face blacks. I assure you, I have been told numerous times that I am not a genuine American.
[/quote]
But you don’t have slavery, Jim Crow, and the results of this history, including poor SAT performance, to prove it. Moreover, you get to “reconcile your duel heritage”. For blacks, there is no heritage to reconcile with anything, except what slavery has left us – and that is just a hard heritage to manage. We are still trying to find a heritage that fits us, one that makes us feel whole. I am sure you suffered each time you were told you weren’t American. But I really don’t think you are incurring anything more than the typical growing pains of any recent immigrant whose folks came here willingly, seeking ways to make money like everyone else. No one has done anything to you that hasn’t happened to every single immigrant group that has ever come here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, I was not able to reconcile my dual heritage until I was sixteen. Some Asians abandon their parents’ heritage. Others keep it and let it blend with their American heritage. It is a struggle, please do not trivialize it.
[/quote]
I am sure it is very difficult. I want to know more about it. But I don’t really think it has a place in this discussion. There is a gigantic canyon of a difference between your struggle and mine. You have a heritage to leave behind if you wish. I would just love to have one of these, to read about some humble village somewhere in Africa, and know for a fact I have a link to its people, to its history, to the thoughts that created it, to know that its chronology marches through time, right up to me, and through me to my children. I would really love to have this and then be able to throw it away or keep it if I wish. I don’t have it – and I can’t have it. It would be nothing great if I were a rarity. But this sort of emptiness of heritage veritably defines my entire people. Now we are left to fashion greatness out of the mess history has caused us. Unlike you, I am starting from scratch, right at the very bottom, first trying to find a “self” from which we might build culture, then institutions, then wealth, then ever continuing self-realization. I am not complaining about this. Shoot, in a way, we are already on the journey and it is great in its own way. But it tells me that the difference between our two experiences are so great it is impossible to employ your experience as a twin to mine.</p>
<p>Hey, I have responded to your post because you PM’d me and apparently wish to read my thoughts. I very much appreciate this. Unfortunately I am a bit too tied up to spend more time on this discussion. So, please don’t be offended if I don’t respond further to you. I’m just a bit more focused on something else right now.</p>