Some notes on Min Zhou and Jennifer's Lee's study.
Okay, I see what Zhou and Lee are trying to pull here. To understand where they are coming from, we need to understand the official ideology of the US. It is Victimology, especially as it pertains to 'people of color'. Political Correctness says 'white privilege' is to blame for everything, and people-of-color deserve special sympathy and love because they are so oppressed.
Asians tend to be servile and imitative. They lack agency. So, it's natural that Asian-Americans want to serve the official US ideology of 'noble people of color oppressed by white privilege'.
But the fact of Asian success in education and income goes against this Official Narrative. So, Zhou and Lee try to twist history, facts, and logic to somehow rationalize Asian success(as misunderstood) and to somehow make Asians out to be 'victims' after all.
The official narrative owes to Jewish Domination of the US. Jews control media and academia. Jews promoted 'white guilt' to paralyze challenges to their power. Jews see white gentile power as the main potential threat to Jewish supremacy. So, they pushed the Narrative of 'white privilege' being the reason for all that is wrong in the US. That leads to 'white guilt', which paralyzes white unity, pride, and power. (But so-called 'progressive' whites also push the 'white guilt' narrative to virtue-signal and flatter themselves as the 'good whites' at war with 'bad whites'. By their moral equation, there are two kinds of whites: the redemptive ones who atone for their 'sins' and the deplorable ones who won't get down on their knees. But we see the same kind of moral dynamics among Asian 'progressives'. For instance, these Asians love to beat on fellow Asians in Asia as 'racist' for not welcoming mass immigration and multi-culturalism. Asian-Americans feel themselves to be morally superior to Asians in Asia because they believe in diversity and minority rights, especially the homo kind so heavily promoted by Wall Street, Hollywood, and Pentagon. So, just as white 'progressives' feel good about themselves by attacking other whites deemed 'less evolved', Asian 'progressives', in imitation of white moral logic, feel themselves to be superior to Asian nationalists who are less enthused about diversity as panacea to all problems. But then, if diversity is so great, why are diverse Asian nations more problematic than homogeneous ones? If diversity is so great, why do Latin Americans flee diversity to go to whiter USA? Why do North Africans flee diversity to move to white Europe? Ironically, even as Asian 'progressives' beat up on whites, all they do is imitate the white model of 'progress'. If white 'progressives' think it's great for white nations to commit racial suicide by promoting diversity, then Asian 'progressives' feel they must do the same for Asia. Asian see, Asian do.)
Jews have played it both ways when it comes to whiteness. Sometimes, they are white, sometimes they are not. At certain times, it's useful for Jews to hide behind whiteness. That way, Jews can pretend that 'whites' dominate Hollywood, Wall Street, Las Vegas, Ivy League universities, and etc. So, all that wealth and power are said to be about 'white privilege'. That way, Jewish power and wealth is stashed behind whiteness. It is 'blamed' on whites even though Jews really dominate Hollywood, Las Vegas, Harvard, Silicon Valley, etc. (Jerry Yang of Yahoo was no match for Jews in the end.)
But Jews also want to play the role as #1 victim of whites. They mention the Holocaust forever. They say their grandfathers were banned from Wasp country clubs in the US. (Never mind Jewish country clubs banned non-whites. And never mind Jewish role in communism killed millions of Christian Slavs.) So, Jews play it both ways. They hide behind whiteness to launder their wealth and power to make it seem 'white' than Jewish. But they also pose as victims of whites, those Christian 'anti-Semites'. Look how Jews are currently hugging Muslim 'refugees' as their Best-friends-forever from evil Nazi Trump. But Jews totally hide the fact that the main reason why those Muslims were turned in refugees is because of US foreign policy steered by Zionist interests. Zionists made US wage Wars-for-Israel, and that led to implosions of Iraq, Libya,and Syria. And that led to massive displacement of peoples. So, Jews caused the wars, but Jews now posture as saviors of those refugees. Wow, what shameless chutzpah.
Anyway, Jews have created this Dominant Official Narrative. It blames 'white privilege' for all evils. And it says 'people of color' are noble because they are 'oppressed'. Since Asians are slavish and servile, they want to serve this dominant narrative and seek approval from the powers-that-be.
But their success in school and work goes against this Narrative. Now, if Asians had spine, guts, and balls, they might challenge the dominant narrative and call for a new paradigm. But Asians are servile and must toe the party line of the Dominant narrative. This is typical Asian behavior. North Koreans all bow before NK narrative. During Mao yrs in China, Chinese were servile dogs to Maoism. During Japanese military rule, Japanese blindly served the imperialist government. But when US occupied Japan, Japanese became servile dogs to the US and remain so to this day. Koreans are the biggest dogs of US empire. When Japan ruled Korea, Koreans served Japanese empire in Manchuria. South Korea under US empire served the US empire and went to Vietnam and killed tons of 'gooks'. Asians follow.
So, Asian-American scholars like Zhou and Lee follow the dominant narrative in the US imposed by Jews who rule America. Jews imposed it to serve their own tribal interests as the ruling minority elites. Jews also promoted homo agenda because homo power/privilege normalizes the notion of minority-elite-rule. Maybe the British Imperialists in India should have promoted homo-privilege to shore up their power and privilege.
Indians felt it was wrong for majority Indians to be ruled by minority Brits. But if Brits had normalized elite-minority rule by promoting worship of homosexuals, maybe Indians would have been more amenable to minority British domination. One thing for sure, Jews know they can fund and use homosexuals in ANY nation as their proxy. Wherever Zionist-US empire spreads its tentacles, one of the first things it tries to do is plant the homo flag. It is a sign that 'minority elite power must trump native majority power'.
Another reason why Zhou and Lee reject the Asian-Success Narrative is maybe because they are fearful of resentment by other groups. This is an understandable fear. Jews have felt this fear for a long long time. Naturally, the less successful resent the more successful. Communist revolutions were based on masses of workers feeling resentment against the rich bourgeoisie. Third World rebellions were about masses of natives rising up against rich Western imperialists. In Southeast Asia, there have been massive pogroms against the more successful Chinese minorities. Following the Asian economic crisis of late 1990s, Chinese in Indonesia were attacked by native mobs. Many were raped and killed. In Philippines, it is common for poorer natives to attack, rob, and even murder Chinese and Koreans who tend to be richer. And Maoism was about class resentment in China. Communists waged war on landlords that killed millions. Cultural Revolution waged war on the educated class(capitalist roaders) and it led to destruction of millions of lives.
So, Asian-Americans are surely fearful that Asian success will not only be something that is admired but something that will be resented. Especially as the US becomes more diverse and fills up with blacks and browns who lag behind, sign of success may become a target of resentment and hatred.
(Asian success is also resented by all groups because Asians are seen as weak, passive, wimpy, and dorky. Even though whites once resisted black power, they became accustomed to black mastery in expression, performance, charisma, and oratory. So, whites now look up to blacks are rightful leaders and masters. In contrast, whites, blacks, and browns see Asians are a bunch of bland and colorless geeks and dorks. The idea that such dorks should be so successful doesn't seem right to them.) California is a very divided state. It has the biggest divide between rich and poor. More diversity means more inequality, especially as different groups have different advantages. In LA riots, blacks attacked Koreans. Blacks attack Chinese in San Francisco. And Mexicans have no love for Asians whom they deride as 'Chinos'. Also, Asian immigrants who went to Mexico in the 19th century and early 20th century were treated horribly.
The concept of 'white privilege'(that scapegoats white gentiles for everything wrong with the world) is useful to Jews and Asians who are more successful than blacks and browns. Without the specter of 'white evil', blacks and browns will look upon Jews and Asians and say "YOU GOT ALL THE MONEY AND PRIVILEGE!!" But with the bogeyman of 'white evil', Jews and Asians can say, "No, no, WE are victims too. We Jews, Asians, blacks, and browns, all of us are victims of the real enemy, 'white privilege'." This is a dirty game played by Asian-Americans. It is a just another way of scapegoating another people. More honest Asians, like Linh Dinh, know there are many hurting white folks too.
White-bashing is useful for Asian-Americans. Thus, they try to convince blacks and browns that Asians are really 'brother and sisters' with the 'people of color'. (But then, even black and brown is problematic as category of victimhood in increasingly diversifying America. After all, with the arrival of more African immigrants, not all black Americans can be said to be of slave heritage. Indeed, many African immigrants have ancestors who captured and sold black slaves. If Affirmative Action was devised to help blacks of slave ancestry, it is doing a funny job by favoring African immigrants whose ancestors actually sold slaves. As for 'Hispanic' and 'Latino', this is problematic when applied to indigenous peoples of the Americas. If all indigenous people of 'Latin America' should be called 'Latinos', does that mean American Indians in the US should be called 'Anglo'? In the US, blacks from Latin America are also called 'Hispanic' because they speak Spanish. Using this logic, blacks in the US should be called 'Anglo' since they speak English. 'Brown' or 'Latino' comprises too many groups, from those of white Conquistador stock to mixed blood to blacks of slave ancestry to indigenous people who are mostly pure-blood Indio. Also, if South America should be called 'Latin America' because Latin European conquered it, why isn't Philippines called Latin Asia? Wasn't it conquered and ruled by Spanish for a long time? Given Chinese economic domination, maybe it should now be called Sino-Philippines. In the current US, if you're a Nigerian immigrant whose ancestors sold slaves, you get affirmative action and sympathy points. But if you're a Polish immigrant whose ancestors had no role in the slave trade and, if anything, suffered horribly in the 19th and 20th centuries when Poland was nearly wiped off the map, you get no sympathy points, you get labeled with 'white guilt', and you aren't favored for anything.)
The irony however is that, even as Asian-Americans play the game of PC and bash whites, they want to be with whites. After all, their immigration patterns are 'white-supremacist' and 'racist'. Ask any bunch of Asians in Asia where they want to move to, and they prefer Anglo-created white majority nations. Almost no one prefers the more diverse Latin American nations, Middle East, or Africa. indeed, Asians prefer to move to white nations than to other Asian ones. Asians also know that white nations will be more tolerant of them than other Asian nations will be. There are still periodic pogroms against Chinese in Southeast Asia, but when was the last pogrom against Chinese in US, Canada, or Australia? If Chinese need to worry in Australia or France, it's violence from Africans and Arabs. Blacks and Arabs see Asians as small scrawny easy pickings and victims of crime.
Anyway, Asian immigration patterns are 'white supremacist' because Asians believe white nations are better and superior to all others, even to their own. They believe whites build, run, and manage better nations with more rule of law and property rights. Also, when they come to the US, they try to settle in white areas than in black or brown areas. And they prefer to intermarry with whites. So, despite all their PC rhetoric, Asians are totally pro-white in what they actually DO. Also, even plastic surgery craze in Asia is about wanting to look white. Korean girls are dying to have blonde Nordic hair and dye their hair.
One might call this phenomenon RACIAL CLIMBING. If social climbing is about moving up the class ladder (working class up to middle class up to upper class), Racial Climbing is about moving up the racial ladder. Despite all the official PC dogma about equality, there is Racial Hierarchy to globalism, though this hierarchy differs according to expertise and dominance. In sports-music-and-sex, blacks are seen as gold standard. This is because blacks dominate sports like sprinting, fighting, basketball, football. Also, as blacks have loud voices and faster muscles, they dance and sing in ways that drive people wild. So, blacks are seen as cool. So, we see so many Asian boys imitate rapper and Asian girls imitate the likes of Beyonce. They want to be 'black' in expression. It's a form of Racial Climbing. Also, black women have innovated moves in fuck-dancing like bumping and grinding and 'twerking', which is like woman-on-top fucking movement. Asian women try to imitate those movements. Also, black men have the biggest penises, so they are worshiped as sex studs, and there is even cuckold culture among liberal white men who invite black men to do their wives. And black stud is such a global phenom that it is one of the biggest categories of Japanese porn as described here:
So, in music-sports-sex, Asians practice racial-climbing toward the Black. They try to sing black, dance black, and a good number of Asian women reject Asian men as inferior and have sex with blacks. There is a huge subculture in Japan where Japanese women seek out sex with black men. One of the most famous novelist, Amy Yamada, created a whole genre about having sex with black men. It's the Japanese/Asian version of 'If you go black, you don't go back".
But when it comes to other areas, Asians practice different form of Racial-Climbing. When it comes to aesthetics, Asians prize white looks at the highest beauty. Japanese anime feature white-looking characters whose physiques are also closer to Western ideal. Asian bodies tend to be stockier. Anime features Nordic-type bodies with longer legs and arms. Also, the eyes are round, noses are pointy, as with whites. Korean women have plastic surgery to look white.. And many are obsessed with having blonde or brunette hair. They find black hair boring or dull. And since they want to look white, they want their kids to look white. That is why so many Asian women don't marry Asian men in Asia and dream of immigrating to the West to have kids with white men. Or they dream that white knight will come to Asia, marry them, fill their wombs with superior seed, and carry them away to the West. This is why increasing numbers of Korean/Japanese men decide to marry lower-IQ Asian women from Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Korean and Japanese women, having been globalized and immersed in culture of narcissism, feel themselves to be Too Good for short small inferior Asian men. They want to go White. 80% of Japanese and Korean women say they want to emigrate to the West. So, they practice a kind of Racial Climbing toward White.
In a way, all this 'progressive' Asian bashing of white people is to mask the fact that they are addicted to whiteness and want to be with whites. After all, if Asian-Americans are so into Asian-ness, why did they leave behind their ancestral homelands and their own peoples/cultures forever? Why do they want to intermarry with whites? Why do they want to have white-looking kids with white spouses? Why do they prefer to live in white neighborhoods in the West than in Asian communities in Asia? Indeed, it is ironic that, even as Asian-American scholars bash whites so much, they do everything to gain access to white nations.
Why don't Asians want to move to Africa? Chinese will go to Africa to do business and buy up property. But they don't want to settle there for good. For permanent settlement, they always seek out nations created and maintained by whites, especially Anglos. They have far less regard for nations managed by Latin whites. In this sense, 'progressive' Asian-Americans are closet-white-supreamcists. They see the white world as ideal and want to live in it. Koreans prefer white nation to Korea. Japanese prefer white nation to Japan. Chinese prefer white nation to China.
Asian-Americans claim to be 'progressive', but if truly so, shouldn't they try to emigrate to the poorest nations on earth? Won't their energies be put to more 'progressive' uses in poor nations? If 'progressivism' means leveling the playing field and making the rich less rich and making the poor less poor, then Asian progressives should seek out poorest nations for emigration destination. It's been said that Asian immigrants are hardworking and contribute to the economy. Okay, but US, Canada, and Australia are already rich without Asian immigrants. So, they don't need Asians to be rich and successful nations. So, if Asians come to white nations, they are just making rich nations richer. Why help the rich to become richer? If Asians are truly 'progressive', they should go to the poorest nations and use their energies, talents, and capital to help develop those economies. And even within the US, Asian-Americans, if truly'progressive', shouldn't try enter elite institutions and industries and live in rich white neighborhoods to separate themselves from the hoi polloi. They should move to Detroit and black parts of Baltimore and expend their energies to helping poor communities.
But it seems like Asians in America are all-too-aware of black violence and crime. Even as Asians imitate 'cool' and 'badass' blacks in sports and music --- and even as some Asian-American women have jungle fever and go with black men --- , they generally try to live apart from blacks. Their fear of blacks is same as that of whites and Jews. (Jews talk about how much they love blacks, but they do everything --- gentrification, stop and frisk, section 8 housing etc --- to keep themselves safe from black thuggery. In a way, Jewish 'sympathy' for blacks is a means to mask their use of gentrification and mass immigration to lessen black power, which Jews fear as the #1 threat to urban livign. It's like Jewish 'sympathy' for Muslim refugee is really a veil for Zionist-led US imperialism in the Middle East. Jews 'humanize' their tribal interests with publicity stunts about how they dearly love Negroes and Muslims. But in terms of what they really DO, it is more gentrification --- codeword for pushing-blacks-out-of-cities --- and more Wars for Israel in Middle East. Thomas Friedman of the NYT even excoriates Trump for attacking ISIS. In his view, US should let ISIS and Assad fight it out. Make gentile fight gentile while Israel watches from above like Yojimbo character of Kurosawa movie.)
Zhou and Lee say Asian-Americans do better because they come with college degrees and with more money. But this is a recent phenomenon. Except for Japan, most of Asia was poor until recently. South Korean economy, it is said, was smaller than North Korean economy, in the mid 70s. And far fewer Asian immigrants back then had college degrees. Also, Japanese immigrants who came in the late 19th century and early 20th century were not well-educated. They came mostly to do farm labor. They came to do what Mexicans are doing today. And yet, their children did pretty good later on... even after their property was taken by FDR regime during WWII.
Also, Zhou and Lee say 'the culture of poverty' theory has been 'discredited'. By whom? It's dangerous to say any social theory has been 'discredited'. Society is not like chemistry or physics. There are too many variables and too many factors.
At any rate, Zhou and Lee seem to say Asian-Americans do better because they come with higher rates of education attained in Asia. But then, why does Asia itself have higher rates of academic achievement than most other parts of the world? How can one overlook the factor of culture?
Consider South Korea after the Korean War. It was poorer than most African nations. Many were illiterate or semi-literate. Most people never went to college or even high school. Most never got fancy education. So, how did such a backward and ignorant people make such academic gains so fast? It had to do with culture. Korea, along with Japan(and Vietnam to some extent), is part of the Sino-Confucian cultural system that placed great reverence for learning.
Due to economic backwardness, social stratification, and material scarcity, most Chinese-Koreans-Japanese weren't able to get fancy learning for most of their history. Most had to be farmers and artisans or some such. Still, because of the Confucian culture, there was the IDEAL of education. And because such ideal existed, any family that could afford to educate their kids did so. Most Asian cultures are NOT part of this Sino-Confucian system. Cambodians, Indonesians, Filipinos, Mongols, Tibetans, and etc have different cultural emphases. In contrast, Confucian nations prioritized education. To be educated meant social respect, status, and cultural capital. In the past, most could not afford to educate their kids. But once modernization and westernization greatly expanded material means and opportunities, so many East Asians prioritized education for their kids.
This is why culture matters. Suppose there are two peoples. Two people are equally poor and backward in material terms. Both peoples can afford books for only 2 out of 10. So, 8 out of 10 in both communities get no education. But suppose one people have no special respect for education whereas the other people idealize education as the highest ideal.
Suppose material conditions improve. Now, both peoples have the means to educate everyone, or 10 out of 10 can have books.
But here's the difference: Whereas the people who respect education will expand education for all, the other people will mostly ignore new opportunities for education since they don't see much value or respect in its.
This is why culture matters. Confucianism made learning and education the center of culture. So, if one could get education and go to college, that was the thing to do.
According to Zhou and Lee, success can only come from success. In other words, Asian-American success is the result of Asian-success. Successful Asians arrive in the US and become successful Asian-Americans. But how does that explain the success of Japanese Americans who came as farm-laborers long ago? They were not well-educated. So, why did they do well later?
It was because they had the ideal of education in their cultural mindset. So, even as Japanese parents worked as farm laborers, they pushed their kids to learning.
If success only comes from success, how did South Koreans make progress? After the Korean War, there was only signs of failure and poverty all over. And how did China rise so fast? Consider the arc of Chinese history since mid 19th century. Taiping Rebellion wiped out 20 to 40 million people. It was hell on earth. Imperialist aggression led to division of China. Manchu rule finally came to an end, and there was era of Warlords where China was divided. Then, there was civil war to unite China. But Japan attacked, and then then there was war with Japan. And then, there was civil war, with communists winning. And then, Mao came up with crazy Great Leap and Cultural Revolution that shut down universities for several yrs. There was little chance for Chinese to study in that time. Most Chinese lost everything. They lost everything in wars, in purges, in civil wars, in more purges, in famines, and etc. History of China was one disaster after another since 19th century. In 1980s, China was a land of bicycles and poverty. Chinese universities were a joke. Almost no one went to college. And yet, in a few decades, China rose so fast. And the expansion of Chinese educated class has been astounding. Why? Because even through all that hell, the Chinese retained their sense of Confucianism(despite Mao's campaign against it) that made education and learning a priority. (In some ways, the reason why Marxism was appealing to Chinese was its quasi-Confucian element. Confucius despised the business-merchant class most as parasitic and rootless. He favored philosopher-kings ruling over honest decent peasants. And Chinese communism did reflect this ideal somewhat: Communist philosopher-kings leading the honest peasants against the bourgeoisie who'd collaborated with Japanese and imperialists.) Anyway, the story of China and Korea are the stories of success from failure, not success from success. Today, nearly everyone in South Korea went to college. But most of their grandparents didn't go to college. And almost none of their great grandfathers went to college. So, how did Korea go from a nation of almost-no-college graduates to a nation of universal college graduates? Because Koreans have this Sino-Confucian mentality of reverence for education. So, even when Koreans couldn't go to college, it was their dream to have their kids go to college. And if not, the hope was their grandchildren would go to college. This is why culture matters. For Zhou and Lee to overlook something so obvious means their minds have been poisoned by PC or they're just being disingenuous to serve the official narrative.
The other factor that mustn't be overlooked is IQ. But people don't wanna touch this because Political Correctness says there are no IQ differences among races and besides, 'race is just a social construct'. According to PC, all theories and observations about race are wrong(or must be wrong) because racial science was misused by people such as Nazis. But this is ridiculous. It's like saying that since Stalinism was a terrible form of socialism, all socialist theories are wrong. But social-democratic models have been known to work pretty well.
The fact is races are real, and racial differences do exist. More DNA studies are making this clearer by the day. For example, Ashkenazi Jewish success cannot be explained purely by history or culture or whatever. As Steven Pinker surmised in his New Republic article, it may well be true that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ than other groups.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Charles Murray got in hot water because he said blacks have lower IQ.
The PC machine goes Red-Guard crazy whenever an 'inconvenient' fact is mentioned. Part of the reason is 'white guilt'. Because of black slavery predicated on black inferiority, many people are knee-jerk allergic to any notion that blacks may lag other races in any department.
Also, Jewish power derives from 'white guilt', so Jews keep peddling it for what it's worth.
If black failure can be ascribed to lower IQ(as well as more impulsive behavior that leads to crime and violence), then whites will feel less guilty for black problems. If whites feel less guilty, they might feel more pride. That might lead to more power, and such power may challenge Jewish supremacist power. So, Jews need to keep 'white guilt' going. So, the official dogma says ALL BLACK PROBLEMS are due to white evil and the 'sin of slavery'. (Jews overlook the fact that Jewish capital played a big role in the slave trade.. as well in the Chinese opium trade. Jews also overlook the fact that Jews played a huge role in communism that destroyed millions of Slavic lives. Also, Jews overlook the fact that Jewish oligarchs economically raped Russia in the 90s, and that led to rise of Putin as savior of Russia from global piracy.)
You gotta hand it to the Chinese in China, though. Unlike clueless Asian-Americans who become useless teachers pets of Zionist-Jewish professors, the Chinese elites seem to know Jews rule America. I mean, No Shit, Jose.
Anyway, other than Culture, we need to take IQ into account. We see this among Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews. All kinds of Jews, just like Sino-Confucians, have great reverence for learning. Sephardic Jews have a tradition of learning and scholarship like the Ashkenazi Jews. But studies have shown that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ than Sephardic Jews, and the differences in intellectual achievement between the two groups attest to this. Israel has more sephardim than ashkenazim, but the big brains are usually ashkenazi.
So, culture alone doesn't explain everything. Culture can direct a people toward certain goals. But the level of achievement is shaped by genetics. If Koreans and Japanese revered education BUT if their average IQ were 85, they'd have achieved far less. This is obviously true with individuals. If there are two people and both of them dream of going to an elite college AND if one guy has IQ of 100 while the other has an IQ of 140, the latter has a much bigger chance despite their shared respect for education. Genetics matter.
PC made it controversial to ponder group IQ differences, but they most likely exist. Ashkenazi Jewish achievement in science, medicine, letters, and etc simply cannot be explained by culture or economic factors alone.
Same goes for athletics. The reason for black dominance is largely genetic.
Of course, infrastructure and training matters. One reason China does so much better than India in the Olympics is because China invests a lot in its sports program. India, in contrast, just doesn't care. So, even Korea wins more medals than India.
But there are genetic limits as well. No matter how much China invests in track and field, it cannot compete with West African blacks in sprinting and East African blacks in long-distance running. Blacks have more fast-twitch muscles. And Chinese cannot compete with blacks or even whites in basketball. Even small Croatia beats China in basketball despite lots of training. Jamaica with its small population produces faster runners than all of China.
Brokaw once ran a documentary on why blacks dominate sports.
And this article says Nigerian(West African) immigrants are dominating sports. So, black genetics makes for black success in sports. In contrast, Asian genetics make Asians failures in sports.
This article says blacks get most athletic scholarship among minorities and Asians get smallest.
One would have to be hopelessly politically correct to deny genetic factors in this.
So, when we talk of success and failure, we need to ask IN WHICH FIELD. If colleges admitted people based on athletics, blacks would be the biggest successes and Asians would be the biggest failures. Indeed, Asians would need affirmative action to get any meaningful representation in sports.
Some will say this is cultural. Asians don't try out for sports because their culture emphasizes brains. But there are plenty of Asians are who crazy about sports. And sports culture is heavily promoted in Japan, China, and Korea. Any Asian-American with decent chance to make it to NFL or NBA will try out. The fact is they don't have a chance, so they don't bother trying.
The only kind of athlete with Asian blood who had a chance is usually the child of black father and Asian mother. But it's the black side of him that makes him succeed in sports. Not the Asian side. After all, plenty of blacks with NO Asian blood succeed in sports in the US, but almost no Asian without black blood succeed in American contact sports. Indeed, so-called Blasians(almost entirely the product of black men humping yellow women) are the result of Asian women rejecting Asian men(as sexual inferiors) and going with black men(as sexual superiors). So, even interracialism is about racial differences and racial preferences. It's not about equality.
Anyway, even though Sino-Confucian culture of China(and overseas Chinese), Korea, and Japan gives them a leg up over other Asians without such a culture that emphasizes learning(and status attained through education), there are genetic factors as well. Study after study have shown that East Asians have higher IQ than other Asians. Did Confucianism select the smarter ones, give them more means to raise children, and favor higher IQ?
Culture can affect genes. In African tribal culture, the greatest honor went to the warrior-hunter with most muscle and biggest penis. So, he got the most women, and his tough-guy genes spreads most. Also, as Africa had tons of deadly mosquitoes and dangerous predators, the weak ones got weeded out.
In contrast, East Asian societies were agricultural and produced surplus food. So, even weaklings passed down their genes. Also, the East Asian societies favored those with smarts and diligence(and patience). So, geeks had most prestige and passed down their genes the most.
Those who acted 'black' would have been castigated, exiled, or even killed for most of Asian history. Japanese society was very rigid and regimented. So, slightest deviance could be punished with death. So, wilder Japanese traits got weeded out, and Japanese became docile and cooperative(though when trained and drilled to invade other nations, they can act like attack dogs and do Nanking). This is why Japanese are good at cooperation. But it has also made them timid, shy, awkward, and wimpy. This is why so many Japanese women are dissatisfied with Japanese men who lack manly qualities by global standards.
Mongols, in contrast, favored different kinds of genes. Mongolian society favored the herder-hunter-warrior. So, the big tough guys got most respect and had the most women. So, their genes got passed down the most. So, Mongol IQ is generally lower than that of Japanese, but Mongols are tougher and stronger. Japan has 100 million, Mongolia has 1 million. But Mongolia produces these Sumo wrestlers that have dominated the Japanese sport. Mongolian guys usually bounce Japanese guys around like ping pong balls.
Mongols, in contrast, favored different kinds of genes. Mongolian society favored the herder-hunter-warrior. So, the big tough guys got most respect and had the most women. So, their genes got passed down the most. So, Mongol IQ is generally lower than that of Japanese, but Mongols are tougher and stronger. Japan has 100 million, Mongolia has 1 million. But Mongolia produces these Sumo wrestlers that have dominated the Japanese sport. Mongolian guys usually bounce Japanese guys around like ping pong balls.
Now, things may change. As many smart East Asians move to the West, nations like Korea and Japan and China may suffer brain drain. But there is also Womb Doom. As East Asian women become globalized, they come to realize that there are superior men to be found in the West. Why have children with loser Asian males when you have marry and have kid with superior white, Jewish, or black men who are taller and have larger penises? Globalism means pornographication of culture via rap music, American TV shows(where women brag about how their men have big dicks and how other women are to be pitied for being with men with small dicks), feminism(that especially attacks men with smaller dicks as being unable to make women happy), and interracialism. So, some sexes/races win out, others lose. Therefore, East Asia is now suffering Womb Doom. Increasing numbers of East Asian women in Korea, Japan,and China have white fever or black fever. They want to come to the West to have sex and babies with superior men. So, as East Asian men lose their women, they will have to marry the Other Asian women from Philippines, Burma, Indonesia, and etc. As these women have lower IQ, their kids will also have lower IQ. So, East Asia will become dumber as time passes. Also, white men have a greater need for Asian women because they are losing out to black men. As black men are more muscular and bigger-donged than white men, more white women go with black men. So, white men feel emasculated vis-a-via black men. Their only hope of regaining manhood is by taking Asian women from Asian men. And they easily get Asian women since Asian women see white men as superior to Asian men in height, looks, and penis size(generally speaking, as there are small dicked white guys too). It's like Jeff Guo totally misses the point:
Lee and Zhou say Asian-America is diverse. True. So, is European-American and Latin-American. Considerable difference between Italian-American and Swedish-American. Big difference between white-Cuban-American and Mexican-indigenous-person.
There are many different Asian groups as well. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that all Asian groups are equally important in the US. There are Tibetan-Americans but they are insignificant compared to Chinese-Americans. There are Burmese-Americans but they are far less represented than Korean-Americans.
Another 'diversity' we need to consider is the sexual division. Since so much of current sociology is about gender, gender, gender, this aspect must not be overlooked. Asian-America is divided between Asian-Female-America and Asian-Male-America. Why is this important? Because of huge divergence in market value. If both asian men and asian women were equally prized by American sexual standards, asian men and asian women would stick with one another since they would find each other attractive. If asian men and asian women were were both equally rejected, they would stick with one another since no one else would want them.
But as it happens, asian women are highly desired while asian men are totally despised. So, this leads to a great rift between Asian female America and Asian male America. As Asian American women become Americanized, they come to see Asian males through American eyes. American eyes prize black men as top studs. Black man is king of rap, sports, sex, and etc. He is all over sports, music, TV, etc. White men are also prized for being tall and handsome. But Asian men are seen as the lowest of the low. So, even Asian women come to see them as 'losers' and will only tolerate social relations with them. NO sexual relations.
So, this leads to division of Asian-America into Asian-female-America and Asian-male-America. Asian females are winners with high market value. Asian males are total losers with zero market value. It's like in computer dating sites, men of all races go after Asian women most. But women of all races go after Asian men least. And even Asian women prefer white males over Asian males in their preferences. And this isnt the due to KKK or Neo-Nazis controlling the culture. After all, sports, TV, pornography, music, and entertainment are all controlled by Jewish democrats, blacks, and homosexuals(and even Asian women). There are no KKK or Neo-Nazis in American Pop Culture.
And yet, the racial hierarchy and stratification are so obvious in sports and pop culture.
The PC explanation would be to blame 'white privilege'. But if it's about 'white privilege', why are there so many images of white women with jungle fever who reject white men for superior black men? Why is Kim Kardashian, who only goes black, such a big thing? Why do fashion magazines feature famous white women with children with black men? If white 'racism' controls US Media, then races would not mix. But we see tons of white men with Asian women in pop culture. Hollywood is run by Jews and homos.
So, the only explanation is that race is real and racial differences are real. And globalism has the worst sexual impact on Asian males. Asian females love globalism since it means the opportunity to leave Asia, reject inferior Asian men, and go with superior men of other races and have superior babies with white features or black muscle. If globalized Asian women look down on Asian men as losers, why would they want to have loser Asian sons with loser Asian men? It's no wonder that Japan is pioneering the technology of sex robots. As Japan is globalized and as Japanese wombs are colonized by white seed and black seed, loser Japanese men better have sex with robots.
This Asian boy overstates the case, but he has a point. LOL
The face of black manhood in the US is some athlete, singer, or movie star. And when you think of white manhood, you think of someone like Daniel Craig, 007.
But when you think of Asian manhood... it's George Takei whose claim to fame is having some white guy insert his penis into his bitch-butt.
And Asian-American homos work in Asian pop industry to feminize Asian boys in Japan, Taiwan,and Korea through K-pop with its androgynous eunuch-like idols. The message is clear. Asian men are such failures as men that they might as well be 'gay' or castrated or trans-sexual.
Anyway, the point is... the issue of Asian failure or success is relative to which area. Asian males may succeed more in education than blacks and whites. But they fail in sports, cultural representation, and sex. What good is getting good grades and getting a decent job IF you can't find someone to form a family with? If Asian women with higher market value go with non-Asian men and if non-Asian women generally reject Asian men(as losers), it means there will be lots of Asian men who end up like this guy in Fargo: Indeed, the loser Asian male is one of the big tropes of American culture.
Ignoring genetics in sociology and anthropology misses too much truth in the name of PC. Racial differences are real, and this explains the successes and failures of each group. Blaming slavery doesn't explain it either. After all, slavery was common in China, Japan, and Korea. I read one account that said 40% of Koreans in beginning of 20th century were slaves. Also, there are similar problems with blacks in Europe that exists in the US, and these blacks came as free people and were showered with generous benefits. Also, does anyone really think Asians would have ended up the same in the US if they'd been brought over as slaves?
Also, racial differences explain why white Americans favor and disfavor other groups in different areas.
Also, racial differences explain why white Americans favor and disfavor other groups in different areas.
For instance, when it comes to residence, whites prefer to live with Asians than with blacks. Asians are less likely to be criminal, thuggish, and disruptive. And Asians would rather live with whites than with blacks. Most Asians avoid areas with large black populations(unless they have businesses in such areas).
But when it comes to entertainment, whites prefer to see blacks on TV than Asians. Whites finds blacks more athletic, musical, colorful, expressive. Whites see some value in Asian women as sex partners. But Americans don't wanna see Asian males in movies. Even Asian women prefer to see movies and TV shows where Asian women are paired with white men than with Asian men.
So, these racial factors do count. One reason for MLK's cult status owes to genetics. As a black guy, he had booming voice. If whites had enslaved Asians, no Asian guy could have spoken like MLK no matter how much his people suffered. And this is one reason why whites feel far less sympathy for Asians and Mexicans. As short and colorless people, their suffering has less dramatic effect. When Asians complain, they sound shrill and hysterical whereas blacks sound eloquent and commanding in their complaints.
Those are genetic factors of politics and psychology, and they matter. After all, would Hitler have gained power without his great power of oratory? If he had the voice of Pee Wee Herman, the Germans would have laughed at him.
The reason why 98% of Americans say they will vote for a black guy to be president but only 5% say they would vote for an Asian guy to be present has to do with genetics. White people see blacks as having charisma and leadership quality. They see Asians as colorless and dorky and passive.
And even though Zhou and Lee complain of bamboo ceiling, this owes partly to genetics. East Asians generally lack the spark. Amy Chua is something of an exception whether one agrees or disagrees with her views. But Lee and Zhou are clear examples of East Asian colorlessness, lack of originality, lack of spark, and servility to official narrative. Chua, right or wrong, had the guts to challenge the official dogma and offer new ideas for discussion. But Zhou and Lee, more typical of their kind, just sick with victim-narrative of PC. They are little more than teachers pets of their white/Jewish professors.
The paradox of American power is this. To rise higher, one must show that one has spark, individuality, and originality. If you don't have those qualities, you might be useful at middle level, but you haven't proven yourself. Lee and Zhou are useful as mid-level academics pushing the PC lines. In Marxist lingo, they are useful commissars and nothing more. They are academic hacks who serve the current official dogma. They don't challenge it.
To prove your worth, you have to be bold and offer something new that challenges the paradigm and narrative themselves. But the problem is such ambition is met with stiff resistance from the powers-that-be. And the fact is that most Asians, despite their fancy college degrees and Ph.D's, lack the vision and courage to take on the narrative and think new thoughts. They follow like dogs.
This is where Asians are different from Jews. When Jews rose up the ranks of American media and academia, they challenged the Wasp narrative and official ideology. For good or ill, they really changed the discourse and trajectory of American intellectual thought.
In contrast, East Asian scholars and academics just go along with the Narrative taught to them by their Jewish globalist masters. Jews challenged the Wasps. Asians serve the Jews(and homos as proxies of Jewish imperialism).
In contrast, East Asian scholars and academics just go along with the Narrative taught to them by their Jewish globalist masters. Jews challenged the Wasps. Asians serve the Jews(and homos as proxies of Jewish imperialism).
Worse, some Asians lie and lie, like Keith Chow, whose diatribe against Hollywood totally missed the point of the real problems of race and power in America.
Jews rigged the game so that we are all supposed to blame 'white privilege'. But it's about time we admit that the Power in America is a far more complicated game than such lame formulation.
