October 02, 2006
A Different Model Indian MinorityIssues
 |
|
Towards a better, browner future |
Despite the economic progress among blacks in Queens, income gaps still endure within the borough’s black community, where immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean, are generally doing better than American-born blacks.
An earlier Malcom Gladwell article looked into some of these disparaties and observed -
…The implication of West Indian success is that racism does not really exist at all—at least, not in the form that we have assumed it does. The implication is that the key factor in understanding racial prejudice is not the behavior and attitudes of whites but the behavior and attitudes of blacks—not white discrimination but black culture. It implies that when the conservatives in Congress say the responsibility for ending urban poverty lies not with collective action but with the poor themselves they are right.
And, as Alex at Marginal Revolution notes, Gladwell tries hard (and somewhat unsuccessfully) to argue against the most obvious implication - put simply that Culture rather than Race is the primary determinant of success.
So what’s the Desi angle here?
… the Model Minority story is perpetrated by the Man to divide, conquer, and reinforce his hierarchy of powerWell, one of the ongoing, underlying debates at Sepia Mutiny is whether the Model Minority story is perpetrated by the Man to divide, conquer, and reinforce his hierarchy of power (see here, for ex.). For me, it’s tough for me to square that argument when many of the same folks who accuse the Man of crudely ignoring the diffs between Muslims, Bengalis, Sikhs, Afghanis, Hindus, etc. now suddenly accuse him of being able to distinguish a West Indian from an African American on something other than credit scores come loan-time.
Now given SM’s leftward drift of late, my right of center position probably comes across as flaming right. BUT, I’m still forced to look at results like the West Indian case above and argue that culture, rather than race drives these results. It’s pretty darn hard to construct a better experimental test case (although I’m a big fan of this recent one). Consequently, I’m skeptical about dispelling the Model Minority argument simply because opponents contend its supporters have a nefarious motive. The world of motives and intentions might make for great narrative drama (Arnold Kling once noted that this is the great, albeit ultimately detrimental, advantage of “type M” rather than “type C” arguments). But when rubber meets the road, the argument has a tough time holding up empirically especially relative to the clear data above.
What brings this entire debate so precariously close to the third rail, is the way folks - occasionally on both sides - conflate Race and Culture. This destroys a much needed precision in the conversation (if you want an example of this, just give the comment threads here a few minutes before some turd destroys precision with a blanket “uncle Tom” comment or the like).
When “conservatives” make Model Minority type arguments, it hits leftist 3rd rails on several levels. There is a leftist article of faith that all cultures are equal (except, only half jokingly, American redneck culture which must lose all such comparisons and is responsible for all the ills of the world). Making an argument about cultures having unequal outcomes sounds suspiciously close to arguing that races aren’t equal - BUT IT IS NOT. Or, if Western culture happens to come out on top in some such comparison, it reeks to lefty ears of neocolonialism. Or that Racism never did or still doesn’t exist - IT DID and DOES. But test cases like the West Indian case above give us valuable insights and hope for a world where culture and race are less inextricably linked and where dialog can be more constructive. What are the tactical things they are doing differently from their racial cousins? In this case, Thomas Sowell & Gladwell do note one example -
When the first wave of Caribbean immigrants came to New York and Boston, in the early nineteen-hundreds, other blacks dubbed them Jewmaicans, in derisive reference to the emphasis they placed on hard work and education.
For the Left, the Model Minority argument also attacks a core contention that unequal political power is the source of (and thus answer to) unequal economic outcomes and a host of other issues. What are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to do when West Indian’s aren’t Black Enough to be saved by amalgamating political power underneath them?
Opponents also conflate race and culture in a different way when they argue, for ex., that the Myth must be false because Indian cabbies clearly don’t make as much $$$ as Indian doctors. Perhaps the Indian doctor lives in a culture (albeit narrowly defined) which is different from the cabby’s and, for that matter, a good % of India? Afterall, we certainly know of household-to-household “cultural” differences with regard to education, ambition, etc. even within our extended families. And perhaps Indian culture as a whole is going through a cultural transformation which is why this generation has a considerably different economic opportunity vs. their forefathers?
vinod on October 2, 2006 01:58 PM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Awesome post, vinod. Everyone take up positions and load up paintball guns.
Let's forget leftism and rightism for a moment. The term "model minority" fails to make sense to me. Are African-Americans supposed to imitate Indians? Are Latinos supposed to make decisions that will make them more like West Indian immigrants? You're a minority, well here's a good model, get yer model right here. It's about as helpful as mothers sitting around saying, "Beta, why can't you be like Atul Gawande?" Because, damnit, I'm not him, and I have to do my thing my own way.
The term "model minority" is unhelpful because it is prescriptive, because it fails to see that groups have unique histories that call for unique solutions. None can be a model for any other, and any group that seriously takes itself as a "model minority" arrogates itself.
It doesn't mean groups can't learn from each other. That's the point. From each other. Indian-Americans seriously need to ask themselves what they can learn from some not-so-model minorities.
Setting up a hierarchy of value is to take a very naive view of history indeed. Since when is home ownership the beginning and end of the human dilemma? Americans of all income levels are in existential despair, and yet the number crunchers keep producing figures to assure us that we are the greatest society that ever lived.
Nice to see you posting again, Vinod. Does your definition of "culture" include what might be called "class"?
Setting up a hierarchy of value is to take a very naive view of history indeed. Since when is home ownership the beginning and end of the human dilemma? Americans of all income levels are in existential despair, and yet the number crunchers keep producing figures to assure us that we are the greatest society that ever lived.
k, you don't llike numerical comparisons like home ownership, etc.? well, what do you have in its stead? it certainly isn't always correlated with politics in regards to who uses numbers. taz & i both appeal to numbers, but we don't agree on much politically.
'Now given SMs leftward drift of late, my right of center position probably comes across as flaming right'
Actually it should read - my moderate position comes across as flaming right!!
Excellent post. My question is along the same lines as Nina P. How are you defining the word, "culture?" The last paragraph seems to indicate that you make very fine distinctions when it comes to culture (cabbies v. docs, household to household). But, isn't this different from the broad cultural distinctions that are the focus of the article (African American v. West Indian)?
What's up with all this unnecessary leftist/rightist stuff. It seems very defensive to me. This post and the comments that follow would be a lot more constructive without ad hominem attacks built in. There are social liberals, economic liberals, social conservatives, economic conservatives, nationalists, anti-nationalists, etc. all who visit SM. Conflating them all into a monolithic leftist/rightist just serves to derail this conversation before it even gets started. Note jilted_manhood's useless comment above as an example of what I mean.
It seems very defensive to me.
minorities can get defensive :)
Sriram and Nina P, if I may chime in for my fellow libertarian friend, the issue IS only about culture and not class. Class is defined in terms of privilege. Culture, on the other hand, is about values. True, the two are often interlinked, but it is examples like this, where the control is culture only, while all other socio-economic factors being more or less equal (ceterus paribus as economists are fond of saying), that demonstrate the strong correlation of culture with success as a model minority. Note that it is perhaps to early in the discussion to jump to conclusions about causality. I need to read the Gladwell article more closely.
I must reveal my total ignorance on this topic by asking a very basic question. Isn't the fact that culture matters in the success of a minority kind of obvious? I'm not convinced that race doesn't matter at all, but to me it just intuitively makes sense that all things being equal, the population with the stronger cultural value system will be more successful. Where is the actual debate here?
There is a strong feeling in the black community that the prevalant urban culture today is what defines us as a people. Many feel that attacking that culture is an attack on who they are and that they shouldn't have to change that. Many people feel that it isn't their culture but the government, institutionalized racism, and other racial biases that is keeping them poor. I can elaborate if you need/want.
Okay libertarian guys. You say culture matters. That begs the question: What cultural traits?
Also, there are some people who believe black people are inherently unable to perform at or above the level of their peers of other races...
the population with the stronger cultural value system will be more successful.
you need to define the elements here. i.e., what are 'cultural value system'(s) and what is 'successful.'
Vinod, good post and great topic for discussion.
I do not think your argument covers all the pertinent issues, though. When we refer to Indians as a 'Model Minority', we tend to include only the highly educated class: the doctors/engineers and their children. We kind-of ignore the other vast Indian immigrant working-class community - the taxi drivers, motel-owners etc.
The main difference between these two kinds of immigrants is obviously their education levels before they moved to the US. It made all the difference. It is far more difficult for a less-educated immigrant to come to the US and rise up to the levels of the highly educated immigrant.
Similarly, it seems to me that there are two factors which distinguish this Carribbean immigrant community from the rest of the black population in the US:
1) They live in Queens, NY. This is probably one of the most diverse and least racist regions of the US. Racism exists, really and truly and far more strong in other parts of the US than NYC.
2) Like the educated class of Indian immigrants, these immigrants seem to have started out with a college degree from their parent countries. This is a far bigger advantage than you would think. It is indeed extremely difficult for a poor family to get a college education for their kids in the US, especially a good-quality education. In India, we have institutes like IITs which make a quality education very affordable. I don't know for sure, but I bet that a college degree in the West Indies would cost far less than an equivalent degree in the US of the same quality of education.
I think that in your post, you are simplifying the issue. Some of the problems with the black community are indeed 'cultural', but not necessarily. If you can't afford to send your kids to a good school, they are never going to receive a high-quality education and are always going to be behind, at least for a generation or two.
However, the 'culture' that you refer to, I think, is probably about 'trying' to get out of the rut. It does look like immigrants 'try harder' to rise up the ladder than African-Americans. I am not convinced of this particular 'cultural trait' and would like to see more evidence.
I can elaborate if you need/want.
Please do.
When we refer to Indians as a 'Model Minority', we tend to include only the highly educated class: the doctors/engineers and their children. We kind-of ignore the other vast Indian immigrant working-class community - the taxi drivers, motel-owners etc.
they aren't vast according to the statistics (the statistics might undercount them). i've referenced the statistics enough times. there are a non-trivial number of working class browns, but they are not modal.
Oneup,
If you frame the debate that way, then at best it has to be a combination of culture and racial bias that keeps a community poor. I don't see how either side can be intellectually honest and completely discount the role of culture or racial bias. However, I think I'm leaning towards the argument outlined in Vinod's post in that it seems to me, from a purely intuitive sense, that culture would be the more weighted and influential of the two sets of economic forces.
1) They live in Queens, NY. This is probably one of the most diverse and least racist regions of the US. Racism exists, really and truly and far more strong in other parts of the US than NYC.
how do you measure the metric of racism? assertion smells a bit circular to me (e.g., blacks do well, so it must be not racist)
. It is indeed extremely difficult for a poor family to get a college education for their kids in the US, especially a good-quality education. In India, we have institutes like IITs which make a quality education very affordable.
1) 25% of americans in their 20s have college educations
2) about 40% of high school graduates start at a 4 year university last i checked
what is the acceptance rate at IITs???
i live in a state with the highest % of kids taking loans at state universities. it is difficult for a "poor family" to get a college education for their kids cuz they don't have the income to do that. but, the poor kid can get grants and loans. harder than 5 years ago, but really it is far more likely than getting into an IIT.
'Note jilted_manhood's useless comment above as an example of what I mean'
He he he!!! Anonymity and playing second fiddle to someone else are both very contrary to Jilted's nature. Therefore he wouldn't be here if he didn't have a really grand purpose in mind!
Another useless comment for you ( though not for everyone )
"Being anonymous' - correction
On culture vs. class - for much of my adulthood I've lived, technically, in poverty. I distinctly remember a friend saying I was middle class. They said it didn't matter how little money I made, I still had middle-class values (which contains the subset faculty-brat values, a more accurate descriptor). Even at my poorest, I shared cultural traits like my style of speaking and writing, my choices in what I spent my little money on, my ideas about art and literature and film, more with "average" people in higher economic brackets than my own. Perhaps culture is more significant than class, but the two are deeply intertwined. Surely I inherited my middle-class, faculty-brat values from my middle-class, university-faculty parents.
In the context of Urbana, IL, my family shared more cultural traits with other faculty families, including non-white immigrants, than most "redneck" (poor white) townie families.
brown ed. and income and occupational stats (indian american actually, but they are 88% of brownz in usa) from 2000 census.
nina p, your points is spot on. i know many people who have 'downshifted' even for quality of life issues.
This is news to me. Indians irrespective of whether they are on Wall Street or driving a cab have been succesful mostly because of their work ethic and desire to get ahead in the rat race. And for the most part they stay out of trouble. I always thought that is what the "model" referred to.
The taxi drivers and motel owners may not be educated but they sure have the potential to make a shit load of money and most of their children end up in white collar professions so it does contribute towards being model.
I don't agree. It isn't the "good schools" that drives kids but rather the cultural pressures to succeed and I think that is what I get from this post. When I was growing up in Queens in the 80s the desi kids were all going to public schools and public colleges and every single one I grew up with is successful today. Our parents couldn't afford prep schools or Columbia/NYU even though a vast majority of us easily got in but that sure as hell did not prevent them from giving the kids the kind of foundation that is necessary to succeed. And many of these parents owned grocery stores or motels or drove cabs.
There was a program on NPR the other day, it was a program about kids and teaching them money management and the guest was saying "Kids today have it easy, they don't have the kind of hunger that is necessary to succeed."
Also I disagree with the above. I've lived here for 20 years and while diversity is strong here I am not convinced people are tolerant of others without bias. The enclaves of cultures that exist in Queens don't cross boundries for the most part. The Indians and Hispanics live side by side in Elmhurst for example but do not mingle nor care for each other.
also, many of us must know grad students and postdocs (or had parents who were). their income is 'working class.' but their attitude and opportunities are not (e.g., go into consulting and go from 25 K to 100 K in one year).
razib: You are correct about the relative ease of obtaining a college education in the US vs. in India. But I think the relevant question isn't how many Indians (worldwide) in their 20s have a college education, but how many Indians in America in their 20s have a college education. I suspect that this number is significantly higher than 25% (although you seem to have a much better command of the various figures than I do), and, more importantly, that the percentage of their parents who have a college education is also significantly higher than both the average in the US and the average in India (and that the IIT-graduate sub-population is massively over-represented).
millind, i don't deny the importance of selection bias. click the link above, and you'll see that the question for brown americans is "how many have a masters degree in their 20s" :) my only quibble was the implication that it is impossible or very hard for poor folk to get a bachelor's degree. it isn't...necessarily (i think it is hard for many urban black kids because they don't do well in school, in part because of a culture which denigrates academic attainment as 'acting white').
since not everyone will click the link, i'm dumping the relevant stuff into thread
Educational Attainment of Indian American, White and Black Population Above Age 25 in the United States, 2000
indian american above 25:
no college at all:
indian american : 23%
white american: 46%
black american: 58%
yes, selection bias matters, but the children are not regressing to the american mean.
If we want to be really intellectually honest, lets take it to the next level: IQ, culture, race or class CAN keep an individual poor. At least one of them is necessary to keep a person poor, but none of them are sufficient.
The above intellectually honest statement is very clinical but doesnt really serve any purpose. The real questions and answers lie in the area of how these factors weigh in to add up to a persons acheivements. So, if the weights are x,y,z,(1-(x+y+z)): The result is (x*IQ)+(y*culture)+(z*race)+ ((1-(x+y+z)*class). As you can see, for someone to be really poor, one or more of these has to be very low.
Note - I am ignoring the fact that x,y,z are probably also dependent functions. But, point still valid.
Now, it gets interesting if we take it to community level. Ignore IQ because (x*IQ) variation will be trivial across communities. The very fact that certain races are poorer than others means being in the wrong race is a handicap, but either culture or class can be counterweights. As its is obvious, tweaking out more information from this is difficult because it is many times impossible to seperate three factors - culture/race/class.
So, West Indians provide an unique data set to work with: same race different culture. Now their children will provide a subset of being same race, less of same culture and better class. So, if they are more significantly more successful than their peers of same race and class then culture's weightage is significant. If they are not then race is a bigger factor - meaning their parents success was defined more by virtue of not being identified with their peers race.
It would be fun if we had more of such unique data from which to tweak out facts instead of looking at information from our own filters.
But again, numbers are not infallible either: If the weights vary significantly with time then the entire discussion becomes moot. In laymans terms meaning - the less racist we become, the less we can blame on race :)
The point of the 1996 Gladwell article was to explcitly compare Canadians and Americans of Jamaican origin, and show how one group has fared worse than the other. He does talk about culture -- Canadian versus American, and how different attitudes of the host society affected the way immigrants assimilated.
Why aren't Indians the 'model minority' in Canada? (We've got lots of working class Desis.) Is it, following the Vinod hypothesis, because Indian-origin Canadians have a different culture? Is it due to the 3rd rail of right-wing politics -- class origin? Or because white Canadians see Desis filling the 'working-class ethnic' slot?
Or some other reason? An unwritten New Yorker Article awaits its Sepia Gladwell!
because Indian-origin Canadians have a different culture?
sure. you've commented on this. indo-canadians are not 'hindu american engineers.'
Actually, what seems interesting about those numbers is that the second generation Indians [i]are[/i] regressing (albeit slowly), whereas other racial groups, such as Mexicans, are actually progressing. The graph winds up looking skewed like that more because of selection bias than anything that is obviously inherent to Indian culture or Mexican culture. Also, the axes are (imo) misleadingly scaled.
You can be sure of that - the acceptance ratio at IIT's is roughly 1-2 %. For more popular majors its something like 0.2 - 0.5 %
Actually, what seems interesting about those numbers is that the second generation Indians [i]are[/i] regressing (albeit slowly)
offspring of parents tend to regress to the population mean. mexican americans might be an issue where improved opportunity is at work. indian americans, who are generally from privileged backgrounds, don't experience this 'bounce.'
oh, and to be clear, i suspect that the indian american pop. in the USA is currently selection biased strongly toward high IQ, so they won't regress back to average american (or brown) levels, but something higher. just like truncation selection in animal breeding.
I still feel that this graph isn't presenting its data in a very useful way. What would be more interesting is looking at the difference between fathers' and sons' educational levels. In that case, the "native" data point would be effectively zero, the Mexican data point would be positive and the Indian data point would be negative. There is a regression, it's just slow and, because it starts from a very high point, isn't immediately obvious.
The interesting result here isn't that Indian sons remain educated; it's that, regardless of being well educated, they are still less educated than their fathers. From this data (which suggests that "natives" retain educational levels better than Indians), and working from a base hypothesis that education levels should be maintained across generations, doesn't it seem fair to conclude that "native" culture is actually better at promoting education?
razib: I think I can agree with that. But because that bias has nothing whatsoever to do with culture (and everything to do with selection bias), we can't use this data to draw conclusions about culture, can we?
The interesting result here isn't that Indian sons remain educated; it's that, regardless of being well educated, they are still less educated than their fathers
well, honestly, not really. if offspring always tend to regress somewhat back to the population mean when you select far from the mean, because only a % of attributes are heritable (genetic or cultural).
But because that bias has nothing whatsoever to do with culture (and everything to do with selection bias), we can't use this data to draw conclusions about culture, can we
depends. i think in the case of brownz selection bias is most of the story for their success.
p.s. to be clear, it isin't 'interesting' that sons are less educated, on average, than fathers. it is what you except if you sample a group far deviated from their population norm. there are many things that allow a person to be educated, but they can pass only a % of those things on to their children, so the other variables that are uncontrolled tend to be not as favorable.
Yeah, that makes sense, and I withdraw my point related to that. But I still don't see how you can draw the opposite conclusion (that there isn't a regression back to the mean) from the data. It seems as if we would have to wait one or two more generations to make that claim...
But I still don't see how you can draw the opposite conclusion (that there isn't a regression back to the mean) from the data.
i looks like there is a regression. count the numbers of years for education.
and just to be clear, if a system like this regression happens usually for one generation. it isn't a progressive regression to the mean generation by generation until there is a 'set point' you reach.
e.g., assume a trait is 50% genetic in that half of the variation is due to genetic variation. the other half is random and uncorrelated with the genetic variation.
so,
parental population mean: 100
selected parental population mean: 150
selected population offspring mean: 125
but, the third generation wouldn't have a mean of 112.5, they'd be 125 as well, because the regression is done.
I vote for Sriram's anaylsis of Oneup's synopsis: "it has to be a combination of culture and racial bias that keeps a community poor."
AGREED. Unfortunately, most black Americans descended from slaves suffer from cultural vacuousness. Only in the past few decades have the links between West African and black American culture been reestablished. Until those connections were made, the exploitive practices of the majority rule, whether in jest or legislation, served to fill that void with innumerable negative images, stereotypes and valuesa culture of despairwith little else to counteract it [except liberation concepts from Christianity]. Similarly, now that their poverty is no longer a legislated mandate, are dalits poor because they are lazy or poor because they do not know how to live any other way?
As much as I'd love to entertain a competition in which model immigrants slug it out against one another to see who's got the highest net worth and number of ivy leaguers in their midst, that is one competition that I and millions of others belonging to non-voluntary minority groupsAfrican Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans descended from native Texans, New Mexicans, Californianswill have to sit out.
Selection bias is most of the story for the success of IIT as well
uh, yeah. good students = guarantee of a good skool.
Just a tip Vinod. Stop being so defensive or protaganistic about political leanings and you'll find that the comment thread centers more quickly on reasonable analysis. The qualifiers and claims don't serve any purpose other than to politicize issues- and we need less politicization and more analysis.
By the way, bringing this back to the original topic, is there any evidence that selection bias isn't at work in the case of West Indian immigrants?
T-hype: Great comment!
Anyone: Is it possible Afro-Carribeans are "selection biased" as well? I understand 90% of educated Jamaicans leave Jamaica.
No von Mises, you run a blog so we can see your advice in action? or should i assume that all your comments are cool analysis?
Is it possible Afro-Carribeans are "selection biased" as well? I understand 90% of educated Jamaicans leave Jamaica
moving to another country is selection-bias by itself.
also, note that culture can be selection biased too. the iranians who emigrated to the USA in the late 70s brought a more secular sensibility than is modal in iran. the koreans who emigrate to the US are more likely to chrisitan than koreans as a whole.
Razib,
You dont need to erect barracks and barriers preparing for WWIII when there doesn't need to be a WWIII in the first place. "The Left thinks...." and "The Right thinks...." assumes homogeneity.
You dont need to erect barracks and barriers preparing for WWIII when there doesn't need to be a WWIII in the first place. "The Left thinks...." and "The Right thinks...." assumes homogeneity.
dude, have you seriously looked at some of the vitriol v-man has been on the receiving end of in the past? this blog has a 2 year history, you live and learn.
Yeah, I don't think Vinod is being defensive. There is a history here of bloggers and commenters who have been on this site from the beginning and some of the original 'fights' were not really domestic R and D partisan squabbles, but genuine philosphical disagreements: right versus left not as a Washingtonian dogfight but as battles of ideas. That's not trivial. And, when done correctly, it's damned interesting. Ideas, not idealogues or ideologies. Eh, whatever. This model minority is exhausted becuase she is working seven days a week 'cause of the understaffing in hospital. I used to have this friend who was a communications professor who would say that someone was 'colonizing' her if they were being overbearing. Man, do I feel like the socialista academic medicine community is colonizing me right now....how's that for mixed political metaphors. Set me free, oh set me free over the Berlin wall of academe-medicine into the West Germany of private practice. Not for the money, peeps, for the freedom. Freedom from beaurocrats, freedom from aristocratic academics (where do you think the money comes from when it comes from the NIH-government, eh?Just where does it come from?), freedom from the slow and inefficient and not-team-players....FREEDOM!
Oh, and oneup, I like reading your comments.
Sigh. I need some sleep......
I tried to look for some of that vitriol via your link but wound up here and the search stopped. Kryptonite...
I tried to look for some of that vitriol
assume some of it has been deleted of course.
It is indeed extremely difficult for a poor family to get a college education for their kids in the US, especially a good-quality education. In India, we have institutes like IITs which make a quality education very affordable. I don't know for sure, but I bet that a college degree in the West Indies would cost far less than an equivalent degree in the US of the same quality of education.
This is incorrect. College education may very well be expensive in the US, but that doesn't necessarily make it out of the reach of most families (who can seek out loans to meet expenses). In fact, much of the reason that college tuition can and has gone up is becuase private institutions started lending $ to students in the first place - prior to that, colleges took care to keep tuitions at an affordable level - i.e. families can afford the entire cost out of pocket, or college students could work while in school to make ends meet. Anyway, this is not the case in India or the West Indies where, primary education on, your family must provide 100% of the funds. So, no, I don't think it is harder for a poor individual to get a college education here than in India/West Indies.
okay, I have to qualify my aristrocratic academic NIH thing: the researchers I know are the hardest working people on the planet and thank the heavens for them. the interferon I take for my MS is all thanks to the lab-types. No, I was thinking of how the parts relate to the whole when I wrote that.....did not mean to disparage!
okay, no time, but here's my thoughts: why not emulate what works? When oneup says that a certain urban culture is seen as authentic, what does that say? Thatparticular urban culture is relatively new....why is it so sancrosanct? Why is it so authentic if some of it represents a new phenomenon? Why should a community decide what is authentic? Why can't the individual?
It's not just that they don't value education though, a lot of black people have been convinced that even with an education, they aren't going to get anywhere in life. A theme that is repeated heavily in parts of our culture (See Kanye's the college dropout). Higher education has failed a lot of us for a variety of different reasons. Most of our parents didn't go to college (mine didn't) and don't have people around us who have been to college and so we don't know how to make a degree work for us. There's a lot of trial and error... Then you have an astounding amount of misinformation out there where too many of us are being told that a college degree automatically gets you a six figure career. And unlike other people who have wealthy or middle class family members or strong ethnic communities to network in, if we don't get it right the first time, we often have nothing to fall back on.
Also, its important to note that in the very recent past, institutionalized racism was very prevalent. It is only recently, through Affirmative action and various laws, that black people have had a fair shot. I forget who did the study, but everyone who has taken an intro psych class has probably heard something like this:
You put a dog in a box with a low fence. Dog on one side, food on the other. And the dog freely jumps from one side to the other to get the food. Then one day, you let an electric current flow through the floor on the side with the food. Now when the dog jumps over there he gets shocked and immediately jumps back to the other side. You do this for several days and the dog keeps trying because a dogs gotta eat. But eventually, the dog has had enough, and doesn't even bother. Once the dog stops caring, you stop the electric current... but most dogs have given up. Learned helplessness.
Like I said, its not just laziness... black people really do have reasons not to trust this world is equal, even if those reasons are outdated. IMO, black people would do better if we stopped telling people they can only succeed by luck.
Unfortunately, whenever someone black starts to say things like this, they start to lose their place in black society. I've gotten into too many arguements where I was accused of not caring about black people because I maintain that we are capable of doing what everyone else can.
I had a lot more I wanted to say...
Oneup - you have to start your own blog. Seriously.
kurma, they were probably trying to eliminate confounding variables (e.g., differentials in female access to to education across countries). in genetics you often compare fathers to offspring specifically to eliminate 'maternal effects' during gestation.
Hip hop started out as a very realistic artistic expression of what was happening in black communities across america. It was an accurate reflection of the violence and sadness that was a part of growing up in the ghetto. And sometimes, it was also a window to the joy and happiness that people still managed to experience. But then hip hop hit the mainstream and it was sensationalized... with a new focus on the negatives. Unfortunately, no one in the black community denounced the new stuff coming out as fake. Most likely because people had to defend against the censorship of hip hop music so heavily in the beginning... they didn't want to become the people they were so against in the past.
So now you have a bunch of crap on the radio saying things that black youth think is honest and real.
P.S. Hip hop is still great... but I can do without the vast majority of mainstream rap.
Thanksm, but I would neglect it :-)
oneup, have you read john mcwhorter's latest book?
No, not yet. I was recently reading the education essay from Thomas Sowell's lastest book. It was dedicated to schools where black children, regardless of economic background, were succeeding at levels that exceeded their white peers... But I had to leave it in the bookstore.
I had to ban myself from the bookstore because I ALWAYS leave with at least one book. And I go once a week... and I have to read for my classes.... but there's always the library.. lol
What about the book though?
itz pretty good, and a quick read for one that is pretty long (i liked mcwhorter's case studies).
also, previous critics had stated that his other work is anecdotal. this is not, it is pretty thick with empirical research.
Vinod,
You make at least two fundamental assumptions that are completely incorrect.
This point, which you also highlighted in the caption text to make sure it fully stood out, is completely wrong. The "Model Minority story" is not "perpetrated by the Man," whatever that caricatural statement means. It's about the psychology of the ethnic group itself. In the sentence quoted above, you link to a post that I wrote about an article in which an Indian-American argued that Indian-Americans were the model minority. That is the crux of the matter. "The Man" is a completely obsolete concept -- you heard it here first. There is no conspiracy against the Black man or woman, the Brown man or woman, or any such thing. Rather, there is the psychology of group identification and definition. When people define themselves as a group, they do so relative to what they perceive as other groups. What the Indian-American writer in my post was doing was claiming Indian-Americanness as a group identity, and then distinguishing it from other minorities on the grounds of it somehow being better at adapting to and succeeding in America. End of story. That's the model minority argument. Anyone who tells you it's about "The Man" is a shallow thinker.
Leaving aside your defensive pre-emptive strike, this is your second false assumption. The model minority story is not about race. Let me make myself clear: IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE. Its about ethnicity. Race is an externally applied category, and as Razib and others can explain until the cows come home, it is very shaky or in fact fallacious. It is not a useful category. So why do we still use it? Partly because our institutions and popular culture havent yet caught up. But partly because frequently when we talk about race we really mean ethnicity. Ethnicity, unlike race, is a self-ascribed identification that people use to claim similarity with some and therefore difference from others. Ethnicity is fluid and constantly subject to redefinition. Political anthropologists have proven that it evolves instrumentally, as a result of the strategic decisions of individuals in respose to threats, opportunities, constraints. Indian-American is an ethnicity, so is Desi; they overlap, but not everyone in the overlap one recognizes himself or herself in both terms. Its still under negotiation.
I too saw the NY Times story that you quoted, and when I learned that black incomes were higher than white incomes in Queens, I kew immediately, and Im sure many other readers did, that it was because of the West Indian dimension. No shit! This is a well known story, not a brand-new revelation. Black and white in the context of this article are as useful as they are everywhere else, which is not very much. Queens doesnt respond well to such stark divisions. Just this morning on the radio there was a story about graft and cooked books in an alcohol rehab facility in Queens. The caregivers were mainly Russian; the patients mainly Uzbeks. The Russians stinted on the care of the Uzbeks and helped themselves to the savings. The model minority has much more to tell us about this story than it does about some crude grouping of blacks and whites in a place like Queens. Put simply, that shit dont tell us much.
And therefore, neither does your post. Youve taken a question that merits a considered, mutually respectful argument and turned it into a screed against a caricature. Thats a waste of your time. Youve implied that many readers hold some crude, primitive conflation of Culture and Race and that I, your fellow blogger, hold the same conflation, since you point to my post as your example. And thats insulting. The rest of your post is baiting, defensiveness, and demagogy.
But its not about race. Its about ethnicity. Its not about how white people/capitalism/the system/The Man/Babylon -- whatever caricature you wish to deploy, its not about how they views us. Its about ethnicity, and how we view ourselves. Its about what we see when we look in the mirror. It all starts there.
Peace, brother.
Vinod, Siddhartha, others....now this is why I started reading this particular blog...let the intelligent disagreements begin....okay, I really have no time for this.
I beg to differ, a comparable college/university education in Jamaica is far, far more expensive than in the US, and acceptance into a school like C.A.S.T or the Univ of W.I. is subject to extremely high marks in the levels (O, A etc.). Which is why most parents of means send their children to the US to obtain a college education, because there are no such things as loans and grants in Jamaica, you either have money or you don't. To even obtain a good secondary education in Jamaica you have to have money, in 1988 when I was in the first form my parents were paying almost 2K every trimester for me to attend high school.
But its not about race. Its about ethnicity. Its not about how white people/capitalism/the system/The Man/Babylon -- whatever caricature you wish to deploy, its not about how they views us. Its about ethnicity, and how we view ourselves. Its about what we see when we look in the mirror. It all starts there.
Siddharta,
You, as cultural critic, surely know more about this than most, but the anti-model minority browns ascribe the "myth" to white folk. Here is a writeup on Vijay Prashad (American spokesman for Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Trinity College (Ct.) Prof:
Even as he questions the rate of success for Indians, as popularly perceived in the media, he is convinced -- like many other critics before him -- that the myth of model minority was invented to berate the African Americans for failing in education and business.
Many social activists and academics have argued: Instead of taking the blame for the failure of African Americans, the white establishment wants to make them the perpetrators of their own poverty and destitute -- and use the myth of South Asian success to demean African Americans.
The myth of model minority, Prashad argues is consistently deployed as "a weapon in the war against black America." He challenges conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza ( Illiberal Education) who has heralded South Asian success in the US. Prashad also seeks to question "the quiet accommodation to racism" made by many South Asians.
Peace
Oops. Link to article quoted above.
Its about ethnicity, and how we view ourselves. Its about what we see when we look in the mirror. It all starts there.
Who/What forms the image in a persons mind ? I really want to know.
I have a 15 yr old at home. We discuss ethnicity over dinner. He is an Indian American with friends who are
Italian American, Chinese American, African American, Russian American (!) and kids that are just plain American.
Are you saying some ethnicities look at themselves with low expectations ?
In some ways, yes.
I think Chris Rock's "n---a v. black people," bit presents a point of view of the problems faced by the African American community and its self-perception.
I think you quote Gladwell in your article and Gladwell clearly pointed out that West Indians consider themselves the 'good blacks' who work hard etc., but in reality a large part of their success is due to what Gladwell termed 'multicultural racism.' This kind of racism refers to one ethnic group (powerful majority culture) favoring another ethnic group (West Indians) at the expense of another (poor African-Americans).
Gladwell did not consider West Indians to be a model minority. In fact, he argued that if they viewed themselves in this way they would be perpetuating multicultural racism.
Vinod, I can't help but think this article you shared was a way for you to justify immigrant success and blame poor blacks for the situations they find themselves living under. Yes, some elements of African-American culture hurt instead of help, but whether you want to accept it or not RACISM is the overall culprit!
I also think East Indians should think twice before they accept and/or apply this 'model minority' label to themselves no matter how positive it may appear at first, or work to your advantage because it will end up becoming a trap that you will find hard to escape.
I think you quote Gladwell in your article and Gladwell clearly pointed out that West Indians consider themselves the 'good blacks' who work hard etc., but in reality a large part of their success is due to what Gladwell termed 'multicultural racism.' This kind of racism refers to one ethnic group (powerful majority culture) favoring another ethnic group (West Indians) at the expense of another (poor African-Americans).
what you're doing here is dismissing the work ethic of west indians. are west indians who run businesses which cater mostly to the black community (west indian and native born) somehow being helped by whites? should west indians who scrimp & save give thanks to the white man for approving loans? do the west indians who constitute a disproportionate number of blacks at harvard owe their admission to white admissions officers who favor them over native born blacks? rendering to the White Gods and their White Magik all the causative power in this world removes any sense of agency from mere colored mortals. we in a universe where the White Gods determine the fates, no?
I also think East Indians should think twice before they accept and/or apply this 'model minority' label to themselves no matter how positive it may appear at first, or work to your advantage because it will end up becoming a trap that you will find hard to escape.
1) were brownz yo.
2) some "traps" are really great, and god i hope brown people don't escape the "trap" their stuck in
That's the model minority argument. Anyone who tells you it's about "The Man" is a shallow thinker.
&&
But its not about race. Its about ethnicity. Its not about how white people/capitalism/the system/The Man/Babylon -- whatever caricature you wish to deploy, its not about how they views us. Its about ethnicity, and how we view ourselves. Its about what we see when we look in the mirror. It all starts there.
siddartha, i totally agree with the bolded parts. but the reality is i encounter people constantly on these message boards who render to White Society all that is bad and ill in communities of color, that racism is the Root of all Evil, that the White Man is the root of all evil. if one brings up a black man from detroit who is poor and semi-illiterate he deserves compassion for what society has done to him by constraining his choices. in contrast, there has been a long standing tendency here by many (not most, but enough) of mocking ignorant inbred crackers, who themselves are constrained in their choices.
a point, there has been talk of re: culture vs. selection bias. i think this dichotomy is problematic.
1) we all know that "culture" is a loaded and imprecise term. the key here i think is to focus in on what separates one culture from another. all cultures tend to have religions. but some cultures are monotheistic, while others are not. all cultures have music, but some cultures emphasize precussion while others less so.
2) selection bias is a precise and important issue, but, its relevance does not negate that culture is a major factor, because there is heritable culture variation within supra-cultures.
to bring it back to a brown example. consider two parents who met at an IIT. they move to the USA, and have children. by the fact that they are at an IIT we can assert some expectations about what sort of individuals these two parents are, and what sort of cihldren they might have.
we might assume
1) they have high IQs
2) they have a strong work ethic
3) they value education
4) they are driven to succeed
assume that IQ is 50% heritable. that is, half the populational variation is due to genetic variation. if the midparent IQ is 135 (i think plausible), and you assume that the population mean IQ is 100 (this is not true in india, but, a) there is probably substructure within the population so you need to constrain what 'population' you mean b) nutrition, env., cultural norms, etc. probably depress realized IQ).
the breeder's equation implies that the expected child's IQ should be 117.5 (that is, the children will regress halfway back to the mean).
then you have the other aspects, like parental expectations, role models, etc. additionally, personality traits tend to be partly heritable, so one might wonder if need to succeed in a conventional way is biased in the children. additionally, in the 1998 book the nurture assumption judith rich harris reviewed the past generation's behavior genetic literature which suggests the following:
50% of the variation in personality across the population is attributable to genetics (e.g., parental variation)
10% is attributable to parents
40% is not attributed to either
harris asserts that peer groups is where the other 40% come's from. if you have two parents who are engineers their income should be decent. they will place their kids in good schools, socialize and live in neighborhoods with high achievers, etc. so you have a 'boost' from the environment in such a manner.
so yes, saying that a "culture installs values" is simplistic. you need to decompose and unpack the parameters. you also need to place the parameters in their context. they express themselves in a social environment.
Siddartha -
First - apologies for any misrepresentation of your views...
While your post argued that situation, I think most folks would agree that in most cases, the "model minorities" label is externally applied. For ex., Wikipedia's 'clinical' treatment -And that's the clinical (i.e. politically correct) Wikipedia take... The day to day, more colloquial use is more akin to Vijay Prasad's argument that it was invented (by The Man) to keep the black man down (thanks Risible for the link)
Look, I agree that there are probably shades of usage for "model minority", but the 80% case seems pretty well recognized in the snippet quoted above.
Again, I can appreciate that you make that distinction in your post. In fact, I suspect that in most of the cases that you use "ethnicity", I'm using "culture" -- in both cases, we're attempting to recognize that there's individual volition that goes far beyond the genetic color of your skin.BUT, in the 80% case, folks who are talking about the evils of the "Model Minority Myth" argue it was invented for RACIST motives. (not "ETHNICISM" or whatever) These folks are often deep in the "Type M" world (M for "motives"). Vijay Prasad and the others quoted above certainly seem to come from this school of thought.
And I'm sorry you feel that way. For now, I'll excuse your thorough dissing of my post as a reaction to hitting one of your 3rd rails. Thankfully, enough other folks on this thread seem to have found the post interesting enough to merit almost 100 comments... What a perfect example of the "type M" argument!Siddhartha,
You said:
As described here, the model minority story/argument/idea was first coined in 1966 by a Newsweek writer. It had little to do with a group (here, Japanese-Americans) identifying itself as a model minority. And even if the origin of the phrase wasn't malicious, isn't it possible it was later used as a tool by politicians/the media/talking heads to berate African Americans and other minorities for their supposed failures? The reason I ask this is because you seem to assert that the model minority phrase was coined by certain groups as they viewed themselves in relation to other groups. So then why wasn't the phrase something else? Successful Minority. Affluent Minority. Educated Minority. But no, the phrase is model minority. And that, my friend, is fundamentally adversarial.
I don't know what you do for a living. Let's say that you are a lawyer working at a big law firm. If three associates go around saying that they are Model Associates, would you start modeling yourself after them without questions? I sure hope not. Now, if the managing partner deems these three associates as the Model Associates, you'll probably take note if you want to get anywhere at that firm. Why? Because the partner has power and authority to deem as such. And isn't this implicitly adversarial? The partner is pitting one group of associates against another. Even if the Model Associates are indeed very hard working, bill the most hours, and write beautiful briefs, the fact is that for the term Model Associate to gain currency it has to be legitamized by someone powerful.
Now, I admit that this is a very simplistic example when compared with the phrase model minority and its use in American culture. For example, you can argue that you, the Non-Model Associate, will just have to work harder and will yourself to be better than those deemed the Model Associates. But what about the very real factors that complicate this notion? Let's say that you were brought into this firm against your will by a merger, that you were treated with contempt and disregard by your boss for the first few years as an associate, that you were denied the resources to compete against other attorneys at your firm, that you were isolated to a floor of your building occupied by the billing staff and never received the superior training that other associates received six floors above...
You can laugh at that example, sure, but only because it is fundamentally simplistic compared to the multitude of factors that determined the outcomes of various minority groups in America. To look at the model minority myth outside of the context of the meta-event of racial integration in the 20th century and simply deem it as a self-ascribed description is pretty ignorant.
Actually, divorcing the Model Minority phrase from power is pretty shallow, and historically incorrect. You heard it hear first. And because it was applied to RACIAL groups, it must be looked at in its RACIAL context. This is the whole point; that the Man (don't take it literally, take it as a connotation) employs it in the context of racial groups, not ethnic self-identification. And that's why we have to look at it that way. I agree with you that race is often not a useful way of viewing societal trends, and that West Indian blacks are going to look at themselves in different, fluid ways in comparison to descendants of Africans brought here as slaves. But I am talking about a political construct, not an ethnographic one.
Now, the story isn't finished, of course. I will be the first one to agree that several Indian-Americans view themselves as a Model Minority; in fact, they talk non-stop about it. BUT I will also be the first one to celebrate and laud our success in America...I'm not one of those individuals who will berate you if you even so mention the fact that many Indian-Americans have done extremely well in America, in several areas. It is a source of pride for me that many desis have worked their asses off and succeeded in this country. Yay us.
But do you not see how this pride can become political? How it HAS become political? It's so not just about how desis view ourselves in comparison with other groups. It's one thing for me to say, "I think it's cool how so many desis have worked hard and succeeded in this country." It's another to say, "I think it's cool how we have succeeded - how come you haven't? What's wrong with you?"
I can see how you would think that this is all about a phrase we ascribe to ourselves (by the way, your use of the word "ascribed" kind of supports my point that the model minority phrase was coined from the outside, but whatever). It's b/c we talk so openly about it. Do you really think a politically correct white person is going to go around saying, "You Indians are such a model for other people, especially blacks!" No, it doesn't play out like that in day to day life (it does, however, on neo-con talk shows). But it plays out in the white boss who assumes that his Asian American candidate is going to work harder than his black one. I think you can figure this one out. The patient who thinks his Indian doctor is more qualified than his Hispanic one. And so it goes.
Please don't take my response as a personal attack; it's not. Thanks.
The above only illustrates a particular profession, but I think it may also be relevant to a whole ethnic group. Would Indians still be attributed the same level of Model-Minoritiness if say, Tim Mcveigh or the Colorado kids where of Indian origin?
I find it highly uncomfortable resting my laurels on such a mercurial label.
Bengali in comment #88 is hitting on what Gladwell was talking about -- it's not just about how you view yourself, or what your IQ is (though both are important). How the general 'culture' (or community) views you is also very important, and contributes to determinng your success. West Indians are viewed differently by the majority community in Toronto and New York, and through various pathways, including but not limited to work ethic, this influences their outcomes.
I do agr