In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
Oh, it matters a ton. The slave populations underwent a period of forced de-culturation. They were imported singly with completely severed ties to the their families, were forcibly assimilated to a "black" population composed of completely different african ethnicities, forbidden from speaking their native languages, Christianized, forbidden from acquiring literacy... By contrast, the Chinese laborers who came here maintained ties with their ancestral villages, often returned to China one or more times, were not forcibly Christianized or prevented from speaking Chinese, practicing Chinese customs regarding family structure and so on... the situations are really not even remotely comparable. Being stripped of your cultural heritage is to lose an incredibly valuable resource, even leaving aside the fact that being a part of the Chinese diaspora is a valuable economic asset in itself (this is just how the Chinese have worked for centuries, consider the large expatriate Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, for example).
Two centuries is not enough time to redevelop the kind of cultural assets which were violently stripped during middle passage, let alone under the kinds of conditions which blacks have endured in the Americas. There's absolutely nothing comparable about the situations. It's not to say that asian ethnicities haven't been the subject of bigotry or hardship in the US, but it's just on a different level and it's not fair to compare them in some sort of puerile gloating "haha, the asians can do it, so why can't you do it, stupid black people?" Also, China is not Africa. They're completely different places.
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
Oh, it matters a ton. The slave populations underwent a period of forced de-culturation. They were imported singly with completely severed ties to the their families, were forcibly assimilated to a "black" population composed of completely different african ethnicities, forbidden from speaking their native languages, Christianized, forbidden from acquiring literacy... By contrast, the Chinese laborers who came here maintained ties with their ancestral villages, often returned to China one or more times, were not forcibly Christianized or prevented from speaking Chinese, practicing Chinese customs regarding family structure and so on... the situations are really not even remotely comparable. Being stripped of your cultural heritage is to lose an incredibly valuable resource, even leaving aside the fact that being a part of the Chinese diaspora is a valuable economic asset in itself (this is just how the Chinese have worked for centuries, consider the large expatriate Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, for example).
Two centuries is not enough time to redevelop the kind of cultural assets which were violently stripped during middle passage, let alone under the kinds of conditions which blacks have endured in the Americas. There's absolutely nothing comparable about the situations. It's not to say that asian ethnicities haven't been the subject of bigotry or hardship in the US, but it's just on a different level and it's not fair to compare them in some sort of puerile gloating "haha, the asians can do it, so why can't you do it, stupid black people?" Also, China is not Africa. They're completely different places.
Let's just presume that you're correct. Doesn't this mean that the black population's problems aren't due to racism -- ie they can't blame whitey for continuing to hold them down? Instead, wouldn't the root problem be the fucked up black culture as good folks such as Bill Cosby argue?
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
Oh, it matters a ton. The slave populations underwent a period of forced de-culturation. They were imported singly with completely severed ties to the their families, were forcibly assimilated to a "black" population composed of completely different african ethnicities, forbidden from speaking their native languages, Christianized, forbidden from acquiring literacy... By contrast, the Chinese laborers who came here maintained ties with their ancestral villages, often returned to China one or more times, were not forcibly Christianized or prevented from speaking Chinese, practicing Chinese customs regarding family structure and so on... the situations are really not even remotely comparable. Being stripped of your cultural heritage is to lose an incredibly valuable resource, even leaving aside the fact that being a part of the Chinese diaspora is a valuable economic asset in itself (this is just how the Chinese have worked for centuries, consider the large expatriate Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, for example).
Two centuries is not enough time to redevelop the kind of cultural assets which were violently stripped during middle passage, let alone under the kinds of conditions which blacks have endured in the Americas. There's absolutely nothing comparable about the situations. It's not to say that asian ethnicities haven't been the subject of bigotry or hardship in the US, but it's just on a different level and it's not fair to compare them in some sort of puerile gloating "haha, the asians can do it, so why can't you do it, stupid black people?" Also, China is not Africa. They're completely different places.
Let's just presume that you're correct. Doesn't this mean that the black population's problems aren't due to racism -- ie they can't blame whitey for continuing to hold them down? Instead, wouldn't the root problem be the fucked up black culture as good folks such as Bill Cosby argue?
A large part of the cause for that culture is the system (The Man).
How can election polls swing so much given the increasingly polarized nature of American politics, where switching one’s support between candidates is a significant move? We investigate this question by conducting a novel panel survey of 83,283 people repeatedly polled over the last 45 days of the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign. We find that reported swings in public opinion polls are generally not due to actual shifts in vote intention, but rather are the result of temporary periods of relatively low response rates by supporters of the reportedly slumping candidate. After correcting for this bias, we show there were nearly constant levels of support for the candidates during what appeared, based on traditional polling, to be the most volatile stretches of the campaign. Our results raise the possibility that decades of large, reported swings in public opinion — including the perennial “convention bounce” — are largely artifacts of sampling bias.
On August 21 2014 11:25 Nyxisto wrote: Have I missed the part of American history about Americans turning their Asian immigrants into slaves? The histories of both groups aren't similar, they're literally the opposite.
Actually yes. After the British outlawed the slave trade they replaced it with trading indentured labourers from India and the Far East, "recruited" under false pretences to be forced labourers who would never be able to return home. They were transported across the ocean in the same chains on the same ships, often for the same work.
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
Oh, it matters a ton. The slave populations underwent a period of forced de-culturation. They were imported singly with completely severed ties to the their families, were forcibly assimilated to a "black" population composed of completely different african ethnicities, forbidden from speaking their native languages, Christianized, forbidden from acquiring literacy... By contrast, the Chinese laborers who came here maintained ties with their ancestral villages, often returned to China one or more times, were not forcibly Christianized or prevented from speaking Chinese, practicing Chinese customs regarding family structure and so on... the situations are really not even remotely comparable. Being stripped of your cultural heritage is to lose an incredibly valuable resource, even leaving aside the fact that being a part of the Chinese diaspora is a valuable economic asset in itself (this is just how the Chinese have worked for centuries, consider the large expatriate Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, for example).
Two centuries is not enough time to redevelop the kind of cultural assets which were violently stripped during middle passage, let alone under the kinds of conditions which blacks have endured in the Americas. There's absolutely nothing comparable about the situations. It's not to say that asian ethnicities haven't been the subject of bigotry or hardship in the US, but it's just on a different level and it's not fair to compare them in some sort of puerile gloating "haha, the asians can do it, so why can't you do it, stupid black people?" Also, China is not Africa. They're completely different places.
Let's just presume that you're correct. Doesn't this mean that the black population's problems aren't due to racism -- ie they can't blame whitey for continuing to hold them down? Instead, wouldn't the root problem be the fucked up black culture as good folks such as Bill Cosby argue?
Those are not separate problems. The key sentence in what I said was "under the kinds of conditions which blacks have endured in the Americas." We can unpack that sentence, but at that point I'm not saying anything other than what everybody already knows.
Racism is not "an attitude held by white people toward black people." It's not about feelings. (the vulgar discourse would have you believe that this is the case)
On August 21 2014 11:25 Nyxisto wrote: Have I missed the part of American history about Americans turning their Asian immigrants into slaves? The histories of both groups aren't similar, they're literally the opposite.
Actually yes. After the British outlawed the slave trade they replaced it with trading indentured labourers from India and the Far East, "recruited" under false pretences to be forced labourers who would never be able to return home. They were transported across the ocean in the same chains on the same ships, often for the same work.
That's interesting I didn't know that. Which of their colonies were they importing labor to.
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
Oh, it matters a ton. The slave populations underwent a period of forced de-culturation. They were imported singly with completely severed ties to the their families, were forcibly assimilated to a "black" population composed of completely different african ethnicities, forbidden from speaking their native languages, Christianized, forbidden from acquiring literacy... By contrast, the Chinese laborers who came here maintained ties with their ancestral villages, often returned to China one or more times, were not forcibly Christianized or prevented from speaking Chinese, practicing Chinese customs regarding family structure and so on... the situations are really not even remotely comparable. Being stripped of your cultural heritage is to lose an incredibly valuable resource, even leaving aside the fact that being a part of the Chinese diaspora is a valuable economic asset in itself (this is just how the Chinese have worked for centuries, consider the large expatriate Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, for example).
Two centuries is not enough time to redevelop the kind of cultural assets which were violently stripped during middle passage, let alone under the kinds of conditions which blacks have endured in the Americas. There's absolutely nothing comparable about the situations. It's not to say that asian ethnicities haven't been the subject of bigotry or hardship in the US, but it's just on a different level and it's not fair to compare them in some sort of puerile gloating "haha, the asians can do it, so why can't you do it, stupid black people?" Also, China is not Africa. They're completely different places.
If two centuries is not enough time to redevelop shredded cultural assets, how long is?
I can't source it, but I'd bet good money that the vast majority of 2nd generation or beyond Asian Americans are illiterate in and/or almost completely unable to speak their ancestors' language. That shouldn't be a surprise, as I think most Americans of European ancestry also do not make much effort to learn such languages.
I think there aren't perfect parallels between the African and Asian experience in America, but they're not completely different in terms of being victimized by disgraceful government policies. The question is whether the differences are relevant or if they are barriers, such as the fact that Asian cultures have a very high regard for education.
Writ large, when discussing why Korea could be poorer than most African countries in the 1950s yet much richer in 2014, a key reason is that even impoverished, Korea had a high literacy rate and a high cultural regard for learning. For development economists, it has been very difficult if not impossible to transfer that advantage to many African countries where people have historically not been literate and have very low regard for academic pursuits.
Well here's the video from the second cop who shot someone in the St Louis.
I can't argue with their legal right to use their weapons. Clearly better ways they could of handled it though.
The last 2 shots are definitely questionable and should warrant further inquiry.
Based on how many bullets they fired (9+) and how they behaved afterwords (tossing around and handcuffing the dying man instead of even attempting to save his life, 12 cops+ and no ems [I could spot anyway], etc), killing him certainly seems like it might of been predetermined.
Blows my mind so many people look at this and see a 'job well done'
On August 21 2014 16:45 DannyJ wrote: I look at that and think "what a retard" more than anything else.
As for the cops behaving oddly I'd think they probably aren't thinking straight after such a situation.
Tossing around and handcuffing a guy who is bleeding out from multiple bullet wounds (at least 2 delivered while he was laying on the ground) is quite a bit beyond 'odd'.
That's interesting I didn't know that. Which of their colonies were they importing labor to.
The Guianas and Suriname are examples of countries in the Americas with large populations of descendants from indentured servants from India and the Dutch East Indies. They were also moved around the European colonies in Asia a whole lot. Which is why many former colonies in the region still have significant minority populations from India/China/Java.
The largest group of indentured servants/slaves brought to North America were whites though. Black slavery is exceptional in that racism allowed it to persist for so long, under such deplorable conditions.
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
I think a key mistake many people make in discussing "Asian" success in North America is that they are conflating two very different groups of Asians. You have one wave that came primarily as laborers, heavily discriminated against. These are the guys who started the Chinatowns, and honestly, many of their descendants can be quite "ghetto". There are also those who have been able to rise above, much like there are also "successful black people", but they are by and large the exception.
Then you have the next generation of immigration - people like my parents, who already had impressive degrees back in their home country, coming to the U.S. for higher generation, doing well, and ending up with solid, well-paying jobs. Their kids are the ones who are disproportionately represented in the UC system and the Ivy league. The history that these privileged kids have (myself included) is in no way comparable to that of kids hailing from "Chinatown", and it's hard to understand why certain minority groups do well and others succeed if you don't first make this observation.
Personal motivation and education certainly matters - I don't believe it's *all* the fault of "The Man". However, I am also wary of downplaying environmental factors. I've spent about the same amount of time in the United States and Taiwan, and it's amazing how large the difference between kids can be, based purely on where they grew up. A bunch of my high school friends from Taiwan never made it to college. Most of my college friends at Michigan (of Taiwanese heritage) are all either in stable jobs or in grad school. I could have gone either way, it's just that I had the good fortune to be born in the United States to parents who gave me every opportunity they could. I'm not "guilty" about that, but I recognize that there were factors beside my own hard work and awesomeness that helped make me "successful".
I think Funnytoss has a good point - Asian immigration to the US has continue and a good amount of the population of the Asians in the US are not the ones that were discriminated against in the past. Just as there are a portion of black population that are hardworking and respectable.
On August 21 2014 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Well here's the video from the second cop who shot someone in the St Louis.
I can't argue with their legal right to use their weapons. Clearly better ways they could of handled it though.
The last 2 shots are definitely questionable and should warrant further inquiry.
Based on how many bullets they fired (9+) and how they behaved afterwords (tossing around and handcuffing the dying man instead of even attempting to save his life, 12 cops+ and no ems [I could spot anyway], etc), killing him certainly seems like it might of been predetermined.
Blows my mind so many people look at this and see a 'job well done'
Wow that's fucked up, your communities relationship with law enforcement is disgusting. A sane person inside the head of either party would have prevented the whole deal.
On August 21 2014 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Well here's the video from the second cop who shot someone in the St Louis.
I can't argue with their legal right to use their weapons. Clearly better ways they could of handled it though.
The last 2 shots are definitely questionable and should warrant further inquiry.
Based on how many bullets they fired (9+) and how they behaved afterwords (tossing around and handcuffing the dying man instead of even attempting to save his life, 12 cops+ and no ems [I could spot anyway], etc), killing him certainly seems like it might of been predetermined.
Blows my mind so many people look at this and see a 'job well done'
Wow that's fucked up, your communities relationship with law enforcement is disgusting. A sane person inside the head of either party would have prevented the whole deal.
The problem with politics is that no sane person would ever want to do that. It's like bathing in maggots, where success is directly correlated to how much shit you can spew and fling around.
On August 21 2014 11:28 bookwyrm wrote: It's really not the same, xDaunt. It's not good, but the Atlantic slave trade is really a whole nother thing. Chinese laborers would go back and forth between China and the West Coast (even during the exclusion act). They maintained ties with their homes throughout the entire process (and the Chinese as a people have a long history of extended expatriate networks, it's sort of a specialty). There was no wholesale severing of cultural continuity, not even close.
I've heard lots of explanations, and none of them has been satisfactory. This cultural tie with the homeland thing is a new one though. Why does it matter? More to the point, why does it matter two centuries after such ties were severed?
I think a key mistake many people make in discussing "Asian" success in North America is that they are conflating two very different groups of Asians. You have one wave that came primarily as laborers, heavily discriminated against. These are the guys who started the Chinatowns, and honestly, many of their descendants can be quite "ghetto". There are also those who have been able to rise above, much like there are also "successful black people", but they are by and large the exception.
Then you have the next generation of immigration - people like my parents, who already had impressive degrees back in their home country, coming to the U.S. for higher generation, doing well, and ending up with solid, well-paying jobs. Their kids are the ones who are disproportionately represented in the UC system and the Ivy league. The history that these privileged kids have (myself included) is in no way comparable to that of kids hailing from "Chinatown", and it's hard to understand why certain minority groups do well and others succeed if you don't first make this observation.
Personal motivation and education certainly matters - I don't believe it's *all* the fault of "The Man". However, I am also wary of downplaying environmental factors. I've spent about the same amount of time in the United States and Taiwan, and it's amazing how large the difference between kids can be, based purely on where they grew up. A bunch of my high school friends from Taiwan never made it to college. Most of my college friends at Michigan (of Taiwanese heritage) are all either in stable jobs or in grad school. I could have gone either way, it's just that I had the good fortune to be born in the United States to parents who gave me every opportunity they could. I'm not "guilty" about that, but I recognize that there were factors beside my own hard work and awesomeness that helped make me "successful".
And also you have to make the distinction between groups like you (and me, my parents emigrated from Taiwan for postgrad) and various refugee groups like the Vietnamese, etc. It gets quite nuanced really.
IIRC correctly, in the 1960-70-80's there was actually a big push to bring highly educated foreigners (read: Asians) to the US in order to support technological and scientific research and development. That's the wave of Asians that is touted as the model minority. On the other hand, those who came over to work on the railroads and founded the Chinatowns... well, many of them are still in those Chinatowns.
Everything in that video is exactly how their training tells them to do it. The guy wasn't answering questions and was approching the police officers with a knife how else would that have been handeled. You can't even use a tazer in that situation beacuse of the deadly weapon.
The handcuffs are there to make sure that the suspect doesn't get back up and grab a gun. They are not going to search a body that they just shot or else they'd contaminate the crime scene. The other choice is for them to search a dead body while its still bleeding on the ground which I would think is worse.
They put 9+ hollowpoint rounds into someone, that person isn't alive and the only way someone could help them is if they could replace organs quickly and remove large amounts of metal shards from the body. EMS isn't going to treat it like an emergency when its clear from every party that the victim died before they hit the ground.
Please stop trying to demonize the police trying to see things that aren't there when there are a dozen things that are already wrong with the situation.
On August 21 2014 23:38 Sermokala wrote: Everything in that video is exactly how their training tells them to do it. The guy wasn't answering questions and was approching the police officers with a knife how else would that have been handeled. You can't even use a tazer in that situation beacuse of the deadly weapon.
The handcuffs are there to make sure that the suspect doesn't get back up and grab a gun. They are not going to search a body that they just shot or else they'd contaminate the crime scene. The other choice is for them to search a dead body while its still bleeding on the ground which I would think is worse.
They put 9+ hollowpoint rounds into someone, that person isn't alive and the only way someone could help them is if they could replace organs quickly and remove large amounts of metal shards from the body. EMS isn't going to treat it like an emergency when its clear from every party that the victim died before they hit the ground.
Please stop trying to demonize the police trying to see things that aren't there when there are a dozen things that are already wrong with the situation.
If that is what they are trained to do, you might wanna consider different training. I am pretty sure that if the same situation had occured in germany, the guy would not have been shot 9 times. If the policemans first instinct to an unknown situation is to shoot first and ask questions later, you have a big problem.
I must honestly say that that video shocked me greatly. First you have a person walking about, than its just bangbangbang and in less than 2 seconds you have a dead body lying on the ground. It should not be that easy to kill a person, and if you make it that easy, you need a lot of safeguards for the people who have that power. Seriously, how can anyone look at that video and think "yeah, everything went totally right there."
On August 21 2014 23:38 Sermokala wrote: Everything in that video is exactly how their training tells them to do it. The guy wasn't answering questions and was approching the police officers with a knife how else would that have been handeled. You can't even use a tazer in that situation beacuse of the deadly weapon.
The handcuffs are there to make sure that the suspect doesn't get back up and grab a gun. They are not going to search a body that they just shot or else they'd contaminate the crime scene. The other choice is for them to search a dead body while its still bleeding on the ground which I would think is worse.
They put 9+ hollowpoint rounds into someone, that person isn't alive and the only way someone could help them is if they could replace organs quickly and remove large amounts of metal shards from the body. EMS isn't going to treat it like an emergency when its clear from every party that the victim died before they hit the ground.
Please stop trying to demonize the police trying to see things that aren't there when there are a dozen things that are already wrong with the situation.
Dude, if shit like that would ever happen here, our whole Policeforce would probably get reformed and rehauled...
America is a police state -- we have the largest incarceration percentage in the world, so there is no arguing the fact that we are the world's biggest police state -- and the only reason a police state becomes a police state is monetary. We have created a plethora of incentives to expand police force and to expand prison construction, so... naturally these things have to be used.
This incident is a symptom of a much larger problem.
How anyone can defend the police on this, or a variety of other issues, I'm not sure. It boggles my mind. This country has continuously become a meaner, crueler place than it was. You can't blame it on one institution or one person.
I'm really trying to move out of here, to be quite honest. I recently had a Scandinavian vacation to go to a friend's wedding, and aside from the more blatant cultural differences, the subtle difference in attitude and civility is becoming less subtle. It's starting to feel very real to me that America is currently just the asshole of the world, and I'm tired of being a part of it.
EPT
