- 7,315
- 28,681
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
Is there anything in the AAPI thread that was inaccurate?
If so, please let me know.
That's the question I have for you.Methodical Management
I find it sad how badly you're struggling to differentiate between "fact" and "opinion" in what is a blatantly anti-affirmative action rant. The entire thread is interspersed with editorializing.
Let's just start with the first post:
"Already in the 1960s, Chinese and Japanese Americans had higher incomes than the US average. While the federal government started to enact programs to help blacks, there was no push to recognize Asians as a group that had suffered discrimination and needed government help."
I have some questions for you:
1. Are economic disparities the only meaningful measure of discrimination?
2. Is it a fact that there was "no push to recognize Asians as a group that had suffered discrimination?" NO push? None?
The basic premise of this rant is that the whole "pan-Asian" category is a form of "identity politics" used in a lobbying effort by those crafty Hawaiians to meddle in mainland affairs. No one, apparently, had ever thought to create such a category before, which this guy characterizes as "bizarre." Is that a fact?
So, I guess Frederick Douglass never said,
"I want a home here not only for the negro, the mulatto and the Latin races; but I want the Asiatic to find a home here in the United States, and feel at home here, both for his sake and for ours. Right wrongs no man. If respect is had to majorities, the fact that only one fifth of the population of the globe is white, the other four fifths are colored, ought to have some weight and influence in disposing of this and similar questions. It would be a sad reflection upon the laws of nature and upon the idea of justice, to say nothing of a common Creator, if four fifths of mankind were deprived of the rights of migration to make room for the one fifth. If the white race may exclude all other races from this continent, it may rightfully do the same in respect to all other lands, islands, capes and continents, and thus have all the world to itself. Thus what would seem to belong to the whole, would become the property only of a part. So much for what is right, now let us see what is wise.
And here I hold that a liberal and brotherly welcome to all who are likely to come to the United states, is the only wise policy which this nation can adopt."
The racist immigration policies to which Douglass was referring, here, were informed by eugenics.
In correspondence with Thomas Ross, the eugenicist who penned the White Nationalist favorite, The Cases of Race Superiority and Social Control, Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “Of course I am with you absolutely about Chinese exclusion and Asiatic exclusion generally,” adding, “so many of our reformers … are utterly ignorant of the fact that far seeing men wish us now to have fortification and navies primarily to protect our democracy if it is ever to be menaced by some great Asiatic military power.”
The idea of being treated as a pan-ethnic racial category was not invented by "woke" lobbyists seeking preferential treatment in absence of true discrimination - as your boy claims.
This was a category developed by "scientific racists" and subsequently imposed as, to use Henry Louis Gates' phrase, "the trope of the world."
So, as is typical for "colorblind" racists, your boy has this backwards. Racism is caused by racism, not anti-racism.
Now, what was happening in the 1960's that might have impacted average incomes among Chinese and Japanese-Americans? Can you think of anything? Anything that, say, an affirmative action opponent who hates the Civil Rights Act might not like?
Thanks to American Civil Rights activism, the 1965 Hart Cellar Act succeeded in overturning the racist quotas of the 1924 National Origins Act, as revised by the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.
The 1965 Law That Gave the Republican Party Its Race Problem
LBJ didn’t think the Immigration and Nationality Act would be revolutionary. He was wrong.
www.politico.com
People emigrate to the United States for many different reasons. As an immigrant, your social capital may vary accordingly, depending on whether you're forcibly imported as property, fleeing violence, looking for seasonal work, or seeking to attend college and enter the workforce under an H1-B visa. This influences social outcomes.
In 2020, the Trump administration moved to ban immigration from Nigeria, Tanzania, Eritrea, Krygyzstan, Myanmar, and Sudan. At the time, Justin Fox wrote an opinion piece on the subject, focusing specifically on Nigerian Americans, since Trump, apparently, thought that Nigeria wasn't "sending us their best."
U.S. Could Actually Use More Nigerian Immigrants
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- This column will not render a verdict on whether the White House decision last week to suspend immigration from Nigeria — the world’s seventh most-populous nation — and five other countries was mainly an expression of bigotry from an administration led by a man who once...
So, if Nigerian-Americans have median incomes above the national average, are more likely to own homes, are more likely to earn college degrees, are less likely to live below the poverty line or use SNAP, and are more likely to hold jobs than Americans as a whole, does that mean that anti-Black racism is no longer a problem? That the pan-ethnic census designation of "Black or African American" is some kind of nefarious, illegitimate lobbying effort by CRT/Woke/Marxist/Satanic cultists to mandate "anti-White discrimination?"
This is the logic you're pushing here.
It's really kind of amazing how easily you were twisted around by this wrestling -> alt right Internet pipeline.
They've actually got you out here, in public, Joe Roganing for the likes of Christopher Rufo, because they successfully convinced you that the libs are coming for your masculinity.
