Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Asian Americans do the best on SATs and other such tests. Is my social capital diminished or destroyed because they are dominating in that area? I don't think any artificial means are being deployed. Unless hard word and a culture of studiousness constitutes "artificial means."
Thus there is no equal footing, at least in the realm of standarized tests. Is something awry here?
The problem with your parallel is that you're comparing something that starts on the same standard to something that starts or started on different. One shows domination an outcome of same standard, the other shows dominate dictating the outcome.
It all comes down to what exactly is our definition of "diversity". We certainly don't want a society where we all think and look exactly alike. But in America that has never been an issue.
Take me... I am of a culture where we look at the concept of time in a casual manner. And so when I show-up for work late ("late" according to my employer's culture) he gets upset and threatens to fire me. "Hey, you should embrace the diversity!" I proclaim.
I am going to assume your second statement is a stealth example of the proverbial slippery slope.
Most European countries were extremely ethnically homogeneous during the golden economic growth for many years after World War II. Sweden didn't become rich from diversity. Diversity didn't enter Sweden until Sweden was already rich. And the diversity that countries like Sweden are trying to bring in, has done absolutely nothing but hurt them.
A country becoming rich or poor has nothing to do with diversity. I don't think Hitler was thinking along the lines when he pushed against diversity. I can see, however, how diversity has helped America grow. Diversity made America, while the drive to rid Germany of diversity also turned out to be its biggest enemy.
And the golden economic growth you allude to, wouldn't have been possible without the diversity as the economy went truly global.
The problem with your parallel is that you're comparing something that starts on the same standard to something that starts or started on different. One shows domination an outcome of same standard, the other shows dominate dictating the outcome.
I hate to seem dumb, but could you clarify your answer?
I did lousy on my SATs (test anxiety), but I had a pretty good GPA.
A country becoming rich or poor has nothing to do with diversity. I don't think Hitler was thinking along the lines when he pushed against diversity. I can see, however, how diversity has helped America grow. Diversity made America, while the drive to rid Germany of diversity also turned out to be its biggest enemy.
And the golden economic growth you allude to, wouldn't have been possible without the diversity as the economy went truly global.
Look, you have to look at the history of a country in regards to diversity. When do countries become diverse, before they are wealthy or after they are wealthy? In almost all cases, diversity doesn't reach a country until after it is wealthy. Why would it? It isn't like anyone actually wants to move to a poor country. People only want to move into countries that are doing better than their own. So diversity never exists until a country is already successful.
You may believe that diversity made America. Which is a good argument, because obviously America was built off the backs of diverse people. But did diversity really make America grow? History says no. There was a great push for assimilation in this country, there was great pressure put on people to speak English and become Americans. Diversity was the enemy of this country as it grew. Where you tend to see diversity as a strength in America is on the basis that diverse people settled this country. But you have to look at the actual facts of the matter.
It wasn't that diverse people settled America and that is what made it great. It is that PEOPLE settled the vast wilderness of America. And this population growth helped drive the America economy into the superpower it is today. So it isn't that diversity is good, it is that the increased population is good. They will say how immigration to America is good, and they are right in many ways. But it isn't because of diversity, it is because the best way for an economy to grow is through increased population(look at China, do you think China is becoming economically powerful because they make better decisions than say, Belgium? Or is it because of their massive population). And White Americans are just not having enough children these days to keep up with demand.
The economies of Europe did benefit from foreign trade in the golden age starting after WWII. Foreign trade is a good thing for everyone. But diversity and immigration has absolutely nothing to do with foreign trade. Japan is probably the greatest trading nation in the world, but Japan has no diversity and no immigration.
I think the reason we don't hear people saying "we need to have more Irish"....etc. is because Caucasians have been the dominate ruling race. If Whites were the minority and had been the minority then don't you think we be hearing more call for people of Caucasian descendancy?
You didn't answer to my issue. Again, you are claiming "color" has some unique quality in terms of diversity. What does it bring to the table? Nothing.
Now if you are talking about "culture", then I would likely agree. Though color is not the significant trait of culture.
As I said, you take several people of color all raised in the same area in the US to which are not significantly beholden to a certain culture (which as I said is very common) and you get several people of varying color all of the same culture. So color at that point brings nothing to the table. Making it a determining factor has no value.
Neither. Standardized tests simply are not my forte.
Could you elucidate your answer?
Just as I thought. Here is the post you had originally responded to (highlighted for emphasis): "Social capital is destroyed when one group dominates another -- which must be accomplished by artificial means; that should tell you it's wrong. It's enhanced when all the groups can operate on an equal footing, as one."
You then went on to suggest that SAT didn't operate on equal footing because Asian-American students did better. You looked at the outcome which was not based on favoritism. It was based on individual effort, when all individuals operated on equal footing, that is same standards. Your performance was based on your abilities. Also worth noting is that, since identical standards applied, it didn't guarantee that all Asian-American students would do better than you.
This is exact opposite of a set up where a certain group is deemed privileged, a domination accomplished with forced means. I quoted Nazi Germany as an example, which was very much operating on different footing for groups of people. Politics, religion, race and even sexual orientation were the forced factors in defining that social capital, designed to go against diversity.
Do you still see similarities in outcomes of SAT scores by Asian Americans compared to your performance, to Nazi Germany, enough to draw a parallel?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
