Super Lin-tendo!

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Plaschke nails it

I don’t think Plaschke nails anything.

Hes using a stereotype, that Asians wont push back because they’re not a vocal minority, for his argument as to why stereotypes against Asian Americans seem to be more acceptable. Asian Americans, and the Chinese/Taiwanese in particular, are the “model minority” in the US, and can be considered one of the most “successful” racial groups within the US by many measures. Their average incomes are greater than the US population at large, they are the most educated and they are the least incarcerated. So perhaps being at the top of the US food chain, so to speak, makes it okay in some people’s mind to playfully stereotype them. Of all the disgraceful and distasteful stereotypes cast at Lin I don’t remember hearing or seeing any that were actually hateful or mean spirited, many may have been ignorant and dumb but I don’t think any were cast with malice. However, Asian Americans are also a pretty small population so Plaschke may have a point in that they are unable to vocally defend themselves, but I would be hesitant to imply its because they lack ability or motive as a people.

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Reflections on ESPN's apologies, actions - Poynter Review Project Blog Blog - ESPN

I thought about if the ESPN guy should have been fired last night and although I think the termination was severe i understand it. At the end of the day he is an editor and its his responsibility not to print written word that can be misconstrued. The racial pun in the headline could have been a terrible one but it was made completely by accident. People who caught it and thought something that hateful could have been printed on purpose are either overly sensitive or racist towards Asians. But ESPN, like all media outlets, cater to everyone including the overly sensitive and its an editors responsibility to best represent and protect his employer with all viewers. Unfortunately with the over PCness in our country he needs to be perfect when putting something into print.

I completely disagree with the suspension of Max Bretos. Just watch and listen to it, nothing should be misinterpreted by what he said and how he said it. Its ridiculous that certain phrases cant be used in conjunction with certain people. If we are all walking around thinking about stereotypes we need to avoid when speaking all were doing is stereotyping people internally. Its one thing to type something and catch a mistake before you publish it, it’s another to say something with no ill intentions in a none defamatory way and get in trouble for it. Its ridiculous. Also apparently Max Bretos’s wife is Asian American. I guess she should consider divorcing him if using the same judgment employed by ESPN.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I don’t think Plaschke nails anything.

Hes using a stereotype, that Asians wont push back because they’re not a vocal minority, for his argument as to why stereotypes against Asian Americans seem to be more acceptable. Asian Americans, and the Chinese/Taiwanese in particular, are the “model minority” in the US, and can be considered one of the most “successful” racial groups within the US by many measures. Their average incomes are greater than the US population at large, they are the most educated and they are the least incarcerated. So perhaps being at the top of the US food chain, so to speak, makes it okay in some people’s mind to playfully stereotype them. Of all the disgraceful and distasteful stereotypes cast at Lin I don’t remember hearing or seeing any that were actually hateful or mean spirited, many may have been ignorant and dumb but I don’t think any were cast with malice. However, Asian Americans are also a pretty small population so Plaschke may have a point in that they are unable to vocally defend themselves, but I would be hesitant to imply its because they lack ability or motive as a people.

If you're open to it, I could refer you to some books regarding Asian American social issues. Ability has never been the problem. "Motive as a people" is definitely an issue. Lack of political/social activism is totally apparent in the pan-AA community. The attributes you mention (salary, education, etc) is a direct byproduct of a general immigrant mentality brought over from Asia (particularly China, Taiwan and South Korea). I'm glad you mentioned the MMI- while this may seem like a "good" stereotype... it's actually not. Whether you agreed with Affirmative Action or not, the MMI negated a specific minority afforded others- I'm not defending Affirmative Action, just putting into context what MMI actually elicits.

While it's true certain groups excel in education, others (notably SE Asians) have a far different experience (economically). Silly as it sounds, the MMI backlash featured a movement within the UC-system during Affirmative Action's heyday that promoted SE Asians being "excluded" from "Asian American" (just to gain certain advantages unafforded AAs). While the AA (specifically non-SE Asians) may land in a higher tax bracket, the entire group faces a harder glass ceiling than any social group.

Political apathy permeates the community because of the MMI mentality: Immigrants enter the States, work hard, never "buck" the system, teach their kids the same way. This mentality stems from the Eastern philosophy that group importance always takes precedence over individualism (a Western emphasis). In China, the proverbial "nail that sticks out gets hammered." In America, the same nail often gets rewarded. Is it any wonder why AA social activism pretty much starts and ends within university?

Of course, immigrant parents have huge influence on their children's futures. Many parents believe careers in entertainment, media or politics aren't lucrative/feasible for sustaining successful careers. I believe these fields are the front lines for social change- as generations pass, the representation will naturally increase.

I completely disagree with the suspension of Max Bretos. Just watch and listen to it, nothing should be misinterpreted by what he said and how he said it. Its ridiculous that certain phrases cant be used in conjunction with certain people. If we are all walking around thinking about stereotypes we need to avoid when speaking all were doing is stereotyping people internally. Its one thing to type something and catch a mistake before you publish it, it’s another to say something with no ill intentions in a none defamatory way and get in trouble for it. Its ridiculous. Also apparently Max Bretos’s wife is Asian American. I guess she should consider divorcing him if using the same judgment employed by ESPN.

I've spoken with several African American buddies on this point: If a writer published the following line (with no intention of offending anyone), would they be angry: "The Alabama defense played niggardly against LSU." Every single one of them said they would. Technically, "niggardly" is an appropriate description of how the Crimson Tide D played in the 'ship. But it's difficult for me to fathom how a writer or editor (of all people) can't foresee the possible double entendre. Point being, who's to say what constitutes a level of ridiculousness?

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

If you're open to it, I could refer you to some books regarding Asian American social issues. Ability has never been the problem. "Motive as a people" is definitely an issue. Lack of political/social activism is totally apparent in the pan-AA community. The attributes you mention (salary, education, etc) is a direct byproduct of a general immigrant mentality brought over from Asia (particularly China, Taiwan and South Korea). I'm glad you mentioned the MMI- while this may seem like a "good" stereotype... it's actually not. Whether you agreed with Affirmative Action or not, the MMI negated a specific minority afforded others- I'm not defending Affirmative Action, just putting into context what MMI actually elicits.

While it's true certain groups excel in education, others (notably SE Asians) have a far different experience (economically). Silly as it sounds, the MMI backlash featured a movement within the UC-system during Affirmative Action's heyday that promoted SE Asians being "excluded" from "Asian American" (just to gain certain advantages unafforded AAs). While the AA (specifically non-SE Asians) may land in a higher tax bracket, the entire group faces a harder glass ceiling than any social group.

Political apathy permeates the community because of the MMI mentality: Immigrants enter the States, work hard, never "buck" the system, teach their kids the same way. This mentality stems from the Eastern philosophy that group importance always takes precedence over individualism (a Western emphasis). In China, the proverbial "nail that sticks out gets hammered." In America, the same nail often gets rewarded. Is it any wonder why AA social activism pretty much starts and ends within university?

Of course, immigrant parents have huge influence on their children's futures. Many parents believe careers in entertainment, media or politics aren't lucrative/feasible for sustaining successful careers. I believe these fields are the front lines for social change- as generations pass, the representation will naturally increase.



I've spoken with several African American buddies on this point: If a writer published the following line (with no intention of offending anyone), would they be angry: "The Alabama defense played niggardly against LSU." Every single one of them said they would. Technically, "niggardly" is an appropriate description of how the Crimson Tide D played in the 'ship. But it's difficult for me to fathom how a writer or editor (of all people) can't foresee the possible double entendre. Point being, who's to say what constitutes a level of ridiculousness?

Thanks for posting this, very interesting.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

.

Political apathy permeates the community because of the MMI mentality: Immigrants enter the States, work hard, never "buck" the system, teach their kids the same way. This mentality stems from the Eastern philosophy that group importance always takes precedence over individualism (a Western emphasis). In China, the proverbial "nail that sticks out gets hammered." In America, the same nail often gets rewarded. Is it any wonder why AA social activism pretty much starts and ends within university?

We just don't care because it is not emphasized as a matter of importance and it's a waste of time when we could be making money.

Of course, immigrant parents have huge influence on their children's futures. Many parents believe careers in entertainment, media or politics aren't lucrative/feasible for sustaining successful careers. I believe these fields are the front lines for social change- as generations pass, the representation will naturally increase.

And those three areas are indeed more risky career tracks, with the last of the third being full of bullshit and mongering.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

We just don't care because it is not emphasized as a matter of importance and it's a waste of time when we could be making money.

Hence the aforementioned social apathy. And I've never believed that being a social force and making money were mutually exclusive. Thankfully, we're starting to see a shift away from this antiquated perspective.

And those three areas are indeed more risky career tracks, with the last of the third being full of bullshit and mongering.

About as risky as entrepreneurial endeavors- extremely popular among AAs. It's just that immigrant parents/1st generations categorize my examples as non-tangible risks, for whatever reason.

And since when did Asians (foreign or domestic) fear risk? Vegas or Macau, anyone?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Hence the aforementioned social apathy. And I've never believed that being a social force and making money were mutually exclusive. Thankfully, we're starting to see a shift away from this antiquated perspective.

I still think that collectivism has less to do with it than just plain old indifference for "non-issues". Take care of yourself, then engage in beggary and faux philosophizing.

About as risky as entrepreneurial endeavors- extremely popular among AAs. It's just that immigrant parents/1st generations categorize my examples as non-tangible risks, for whatever reason.

And oftentimes entrepreneurs have acquired certain skills that those pansy subjects do not foster and require. They likely could enter a job market that requires specialized knowledge or skills that usually are obtained through an education

And since when did Asians (foreign or domestic) fear risk? Vegas or Macau, anyone?

Can't piss away money if you don't have it in the first place. If they're burning away renminbis at such rates with the high ass interest rates they charge in Macau, I think it's safe to assume that portion of the population is relatively well off. They still might treat non-gambling transactions differently because humans behave irrationally like that.
Penny-pinching is pervasive. Practically every boy and girl from China knows how to cook and they will do so to save that extra 5-6 dollars a day from getting a $6 fast food meal or 10.50 dinner at a restuarant. The "savings rate" of China is pretty high as well.


Essentailly, it's about the perception about how strong the "sink node" for money over time is in a particular industry. If the job at hand does not suck in money strongly and consistently enough, committing resources fully(i.e pursuing a degree in Theatre, Political Science, or Journalism) towards a career track in that industry is discourage.

Entertainers are essentially beggers if they cannot capture a wide enough audience. And after capturing market share, the market is extremely fickle. Unless you're monstrously skilled like Yundi Li, you are going to live off of subsidies and/or struggle to make a large amount of income.

Media people do not require much "hard skill" acquisition, which means if you're out of a job, you're dead as a dodo. Writing for a paper? Unless you're damn good, you're not going to strike it big. Reporter? Good luck in that market. Hot chicks and old, established vets, established folks dominate. It's a competition you're not likely to win.

And politics, the very subject matter is absolutely a waste of time in which you essentially become a viewpoint monger unless you're into that stuff.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

I still think that collectivism has less to do with it than just plain old indifference for "non-issues". Take care of yourself, then engage in beggary and faux philosophizing.


And oftentimes entrepreneurs have acquired certain skills that those pansy subjects do not foster and require. They likely could enter a job market that requires specialized knowledge or skills that usually are obtained through an education

Well, it's obvious from certain words you use that this conversation may devolve into something less than academic. Or what I consider academic, you consider "faux philosophizing" and "pansy" subjects. I don't fault you for your perspective... Most AAs have similar beliefs as it were. You said it yourself- Most AAs are raised to view social activism as a waste of time.

The problem with your first statement is history, itself. When you say "take care of yourself first", the statistics show the social group has done just that (high SES, top education, etc). Yet none of this "beggary" you speak of has come to pass. AAs have taken care of themselves. The question then becomes, "Why haven't we seen the next step?" Naturally, a man has to take care of him and his family, first and foremost. But when a strong number acquires that success multiple times over, the community doesn't evolve one iota. Monetary success within a social group isn't necessarily a negative- But when an entire social group places such a high priority on a singular aspect of existence, they miss the big picture.

Aside from the fact that AAs often remain (by choice) to live in ethnic enclaves, such areas never grow beyond cheap Asian restaurants, cell phone shops and boba houses. In Los Angeles, the AA population pretty much resides in the San Gabriel Valley... a few pockets home to wealthy families and expensive houses. The actual community? Everything is still cheap, minimally kept and status-quo. OK, there's a Chinese New Year's festival every year... whoop-dee-do.

Can't piss away money if you don't have it in the first place. If they're burning away renminbis at such rates with the high ass interest rates they charge in Macau, I think it's safe to assume that portion of the population is relatively well off. They still might treat non-gambling transactions differently because humans behave irrationally like that.
Penny-pinching is pervasive. Practically every boy and girl from China knows how to cook and they will do so to save that extra 5-6 dollars a day from getting a $6 fast food meal or 10.50 dinner at a restuarant. The "savings rate" of China is pretty high as well.

I can't argue there. Except we live in a country with Western values, so again this old country mentality is disconnected with the current station of most AAs.

Essentailly, it's about the perception about how strong the "sink node" for money over time is in a particular industry. If the job at hand does not suck in money strongly and consistently enough, committing resources fully(i.e pursuing a degree in Theatre, Political Science, or Journalism) towards a career track in that industry is discourage.

Entertainers are essentially beggers if they cannot capture a wide enough audience. And after capturing market share, the market is extremely fickle. Unless you're monstrously skilled like Yundi Li, you are going to live off of subsidies and/or struggle to make a large amount of income.

Media people do not require much "hard skill" acquisition, which means if you're out of a job, you're dead as a dodo. Writing for a paper? Unless you're damn good, you're not going to strike it big. Reporter? Good luck in that market. Hot chicks and old, established vets, established folks dominate. It's a competition you're not likely to win.

And politics, the very subject matter is absolutely a waste of time in which you essentially become a viewpoint monger unless you're into that stuff.

You're forgetting a huge portion of the industries I used as examples. You don't have to be a lotto-chance actor in order to be part of the entertainment industry. You don't have to be a writer to mandate programming within the media. Working your way up to an editor, producer or executive follows a similar script as some low-level analyst working up to CEO. Producers choose what films and shows get made. Editors choose what gets printed and what stays on the floor. Executives decide what teeny-boppers get to hear on the radio. Advertisers construct images that shape viewer opinion. These are the entertainment and media positions that curry both monetary success and huge influence on a societal level. They're also filled by those with communication, PR, journalism, creative writing, philosophy and psychology backgrounds. Unfortunately, these career paths are prematurely curbed because Asian parents think they're merely fluff industries. I also find it absolutely terrifying that Asian parents don't place a high emphasis on communication skills (an integral success factor in America).

I won't argue the nefarious nature of politics, itself. But if you're saying it's a fruitless endeavor for AAs, I strongly disagree. Faces in positions of leadership affect public perception.

Although I'm accustomed to your widely-shared views, I'm still a bit saddened. We'll continue to limit the potential of future generations if we constrict their educational choices to "hard-skill" majors like business and engineering. In a few parts of Asia (China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan), I observed students learning the exact same way- rote memorization, numbers, calculations... rinse and repeat for their entire educational experience. Guess what? The American educational system (while not perfect) is starting to change for the better- The aim (after learning the basics) is to teach students how to think critically, how to problem solve, how to reach a decision through authentic activity. Pigeon-holing your kids into one of three career choices runs antithetical to this paradigm shift. Innovation and elegant solutions are not exclusive to certain job sectors.

What's the point of immigrating to this country if our kids aren't afforded the opportunity to carve their own paths and achieve success doing what they want? The American dream isn't illustrated with a "sink node" bar graph.