Racism among asians

[Peace]

As an Asian-american, I've noticed that there is a great instilled idea of ethnocentricism and racism that runs though the South Asian community in the United States. Unlike what most people would think, the racism is directed more strongly against the African American individuals.

 

Common views on other races:

 

Muslim/Arab Americans: Religious fanatics

East Asian Americans: Culturally unstable individuals with desperate need to be americanized.

Black Americans: Poor and often associated with criminal activities.

White americans: Loose values, and lacking refined morality and social skills.

Latino Americans: Not intelligent

 

It's a sad fact that these ideas have been transferred over to the first born Indian american generation as well. Most individuals in the desi community will often not make friends with Latino or Black Americans and will at most costs look down on individuals who marry non-"Desis".

 

I believe that at it's essense a lot of this has to do with the views instilled in Indians by the British Culture that propogated a lesser human value on individuals of African Descent or Latin American Descent. Furthermore, I think American media causes South Asians to associate loose morals with White Americans.

 

Unlike racism among Americans of European Descent which involves formation of hate groups that can be easily targeted and be restricted or disbanded by goverment officials, racism in the South Asian community is a deeply instilled cultural norm that doesn't have any legal repercussions.

 

How is it possible to change these values? By what means can the South Asian community learn to accept their neighbors and come to respect them as having "culture".

[Jhony5]

Common views on other races:

 

Muslim/Arab Americans: Religious fanatics

East Asian Americans: Culturally unstable individuals with desperate need to be americanized.

Black Americans: Poor and often associated with criminal activities.

White americans: Loose values, and lacking refined morality and social skills.

Latino Americans: Not intelligent

 

I agree...

[tiredofwhiners]

I also agree...The way to change the prospective is to change there ways. If they did'nt act out the stereo type, people would think differant of them.

[Msixty]

and Asians are small dicked midgets that cant drive for shit.

[Lethalfind]

and Asians are small dicked midgets that cant drive for shit.

 

LOL, I never saw an Oriental person who could drive...anyone seen any that drive race cars??

 

I read one time that the birth control of choice in Japan is the condom and that the average condom in Japan is smaller then the American condom...is it prejudice when its true??

[hugo]

There is truth behind what some term racism. It is a fact that blacks commit proportionately more crime and that the average IQ of black America is somewhere between 85 and 90.

[Jhony5]

Much truth is said in jest.

 

We live in a society where absolute truth concerning minorities is frowned upon. Such as Blacks being superior athletes. We all know its true. However it is not to be spoken of.

[Msixty]

Much truth is said in jest.

 

We live in a society where absolute truth concerning minorities is frowned upon. Such as Blacks being superior athletes. We all know its true. However it is not to be spoken of.

 

yeah, but your people would be fit too if they spent a couple hundred years doing bitch work

 

really, we weeded out the weak ones with manual labor, now all we got are big buff gangstaz that don't know how to shoot the fucking gun they just stole.

 

( I like black people, they are an important component to a healthy multi-cultural America. It's the ******s that piss me off.)

[Phantom]

Muslim/Arab Americans: Religious fanatics

East Asian Americans: Culturally unstable individuals with desperate need to be americanized.

Black Americans: Poor and often associated with criminal activities.

White americans: Loose values, and lacking refined morality and social skills.

Latino Americans: Not intelligent

 

Social cliche: There is always some truth in stereotypes.

 

But about the Eastern Asian Americans. You consider them "culturally unstable" because they have a "desparate need to be Americanized." Sorry, but if you are in America, you fucking better have a desparate need to be Americanized. Don't you dare come here and subject your culture on me.

[hugo]

The fact is everyone, except white males, are encouraged to celebrate their superiority. That is where socialism has brought us.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

IQ tests are not accurate. They're about as reliable regarding actual intelligence as SAT scores. That being said, poorer people tend to be less informed in general, so any race that has a higher poverty rate in a country will commit more crime and not excel as much academically on average. If you want a more accurate comparison of races, it's better to look at those of similar social and economic standing. At that point, differences aren't very significant.

[hugo]

IQ tests are highly accurate when measuring large numbers of a certain demographic. When large samples of two demographics are compared the inaccuracies of individual tests do not matter. The fact is there are problems in the black community that are responsible for the IQ gap. The root causes of the IQ gap need to be studied and addresses. The band-aid of affirmative action programs is leaking.

[hugo]

Paroxysms of Denial

Arthur Jensen

[...]

Nowadays the factual basis of The Bell Curve is scarcely debated by the experts, who regard it as mainstream knowledge.

 

The most well-established facts: Individual differences in general cognitive ability are reliably measured by IQ tests. IQ is strongly related, probably more than any other single measurable trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic and social variables. (Not mentioned in the book is that IQ is also correlated with a number of variables of the brain, including its size, electrical potentials, and rate of glucose metabolism during cognitive activity.) Individual differences in adult IQ are largely genetic, with heritability of about 70 percent. So far, attempts to raise IQ by educational or psychological means have failed to show appreciable lasting effects on cognitive ability and scholastic achievement. The IQ distribution in two population groups socially recognized as "black" and "white" is represented by two largely overlapping bell curves with their means separated by about 15 points, a difference not due to test bias. IQ has the same meaning and practical predictive validity for both groups. Tests do not create differences; they merely reflect them.

 

[...]

 

Although social problems involving race are conspicuously in the news these days, too few journalists are willing or able to discuss rationally certain possible causes. The authors' crime, apparently, is that they do exactly this, arguing with impressive evidence that the implications of IQ variance in American society can't be excluded from a realistic diagnosis of its social problems.

 

The media's spectacular denial probably arises from the juxtaposition of the book's demonstrations; first, that what is termed "social pathology" -- delinquency, crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy, child neglect, permanent welfare dependency -- is disproportionately concentrated (for whites and blacks alike) in the segment of the population with IQs below 75; and second, that at least one-fourth of the black population (compared to one-twentieth of the white population) falls below that critical IQ point in the bell curve. Because the smaller percentage of white persons with IQs below 75 are fairly well scattered throughout the population, many are guided, helped, and protected by their abler families, friends, and neighbors, whose IQs average closer to 100. Relatively few are liable to be concentrated in the poor neighborhoods and housing projects that harbor the "critical mass" of very low IQs which generates more than its fair share of social pathology. The "critical mass" effect exists mostly in the inner city, which has been largely abandoned by whites. Of course thinking citizens are troubled. Thinking about possible constructive remedies strains one's wisdom.

 

But can any good for anyone result from sweeping the problem under the rug? Shouldn't it be exposed to earnest, fair-minded public discussion? Our only fear, I think, should be that such discussion might not happen. Consideration of the book's actual content is being displaced by the rhetoric of denial: name calling ("neo-nazi," "pseudo-scientific," "racism"), sidetracks ("but does IQ really measure intelligence?"), non-sequiturs ("specific genes for IQ have not been identified, so we can claim nothing about its heritability"), red herrings ("Hitler misused genetics"), falsehoods ("all the tests are biased"), hyperbole ("throwing gasoline on a fire"), and insults ("creepy," "indecent," "ugly").

[RoyalOrleans]

There is truth behind what some term racism. It is a fact that blacks commit proportionately more crime and that the average IQ of black America is somewhere between 85 and 90.

 

The numbers do not lie at all. Numbers are the one thing that seperate reason from emotion.

[RoyalOrleans]

IQ tests are not accurate. They're about as reliable regarding actual intelligence as SAT scores. That being said, poorer people tend to be less informed in general, so any race that has a higher poverty rate in a country will commit more crime and not excel as much academically on average. If you want a more accurate comparison of races, it's better to look at those of similar social and economic standing. At that point, differences aren't very significant.

 

True.

 

Rich black folk buy grilles for their teeth.

 

Rich white folk buy grilles for their backyards.

 

Rich yellow folk buy cats and put them on the grille.

 

Rich red folk don't buy grilles, they buy firewater.

[hugo]

IQ tests are not accurate. They're about as reliable regarding actual intelligence as SAT scores. That being said, poorer people tend to be less informed in general, so any race that has a higher poverty rate in a country will commit more crime and not excel as much academically on average. If you want a more accurate comparison of races, it's better to look at those of similar social and economic standing. At that point, differences aren't very significant.

 

You ignore the fact that blacks from families making a 100K a year have lower SAT scores on average than whites from families making 30K. Try some other politically correct argument, no matter how false it may be. The differences are quite significant even when economic factors are ignored.

[hugo]

Some facts that darken TDTF's fantasy world.

 

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

 

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

 

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

 

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

[Lethalfind]

Hugo, reading your post makes me SO glad I no longer live in Texas.

 

The rampant racism against the black man is amazing. There are people who still believe that the black mans DNA differs from the white man because they are more closely related to the Ape. I have actually met men who are in the KKK...all in Texas.

 

Lets not forget the wonderful good ole boys who grabbed an elderly black man (handicapped too boot) and dragged him to death behind their truck and all for the fuckin fun of it...ALL in Texas.

 

How many black men have been found dead after being seen with a white woman in public...yes, this still happens in Texas.

 

Your statistics are skewed because anyone who is paying attentions realizes that the very tests you speak about are unfairly prejudiced.

[hugo]

My stats come from Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Facts are not racist. You can't fix a problem until you address it.

[Msixty]

Your statistics are skewed because anyone who is paying attentions realizes that the very tests you speak about are unfairly prejudiced.

 

You mean like how we give loopholes in education to black people just because their black but still make white kids work as hard as ever? That kind of prejudice? Hell, if we gotta help them that much they MUST be retarded.

[hugo]

2X+10=40. What does 4X equal. Clearly a racially biased question. It should have been if you screw two hos and buy a dime bag for $40 what would 4 hos cost?

[Msixty]

2X+10=40. What does 4X equal. Clearly a racially biased question. It should have been if you screw two hos and buy a dime bag for $40 what would 4 hos cost?

 

$60 fo' 4 hos?

[hugo]

$60 fo' 4 hos?

 

Smart kid.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

You ignore the fact that blacks from families making a 100K a year have lower SAT scores on average than whites from families making 30K. Try some other politically correct argument, no matter how false it may be. The differences are quite significant even when economic factors are ignored.

 

 

 

 

I've researched the bias of SAT and IQ tests in the past and even wroted a 30-page term paper on it. Its design has been proven to be biased in many cases, to the point where females tend to score much lower on SAT math scores compared to males, despite their actual grades being much higher by comparison than SAT scores reflect. There have been examples of questions with clear bias toward the demographic who would be interested (one of which I recall involved a rare sport mainly played by rich white males), and this is aside from the fact that it is based on a relatively small time frame.

 

The SAT and IQ tests are more about knowing how to take a test effectively than actual knowledge. It involved more of a person's ability to "guess" logically, know which questions to skip, etc. In many cases, the differences between SAT scores of people of different races/genders/economic ability and actual grades among the demographics have been vast. Even one of the founders of the College Board, as I recall, noted that the "SAT is bullshit." From what I recall of my research if the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, one of their complaints as well was the difference among demographics between SAT scores and actual grades.

 

 

 

You're citing facts regarding SAT scores that have been debunked MANY times by a number of people. And you obviously haven't researched the origin of the army IQ tests that the SAT sprung up from. I'm not going to waste my time looking up all the facts I went through when I wrote my paper, but off the top of my head:

 

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html

 

"Another study of 10,000 students at 11 selective public and private institutions of higher education found that a 100-point increase in SAT combined scores, holding race, gender, and field of study constant, led to a one-tenth of a grade point gain for college GPA (Vars, F. & Bowen, W. in The Black-White Test Score Gap, 1998). This offered about the same predictive value as looking at whether an applicant's father had a graduate degree or her mother had completed college."

 

 

"The poor predictive ability of the SAT I becomes particularly apparent when considering the college performance of females. Longstanding gaps in scores between males and females of all races show that females on average score 35-40 points lower than males on the SAT I, but receive better high school and college grades. In other words, the test consistently under-predicts the performance of females in college while over-predicting that of males.

 

Measuring the SAT I's predictive ability for students of color is more complicated since racial classifications are arbitrary. For students whose first language isn't English, test-maker research shows the SAT I frequently under-predicts their future college performance. One study at the University of Miami compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic White students. Though both groups earned equivalent college grades, the Hispanic students received on average combined SAT I scores that were 91 points lower than their non-Hispanic White peers. This gap existed despite the fact that 89% of the Hispanic students reported English as their best language.

 

Extensive research compiled by Derek Bok and William Bowen in The Shape of the River highlights the SAT I's questionable predictive power for African-American students. The ability of SAT I scores to predict freshman grades, undergraduate class rank, college graduation rates, and attainment of a graduate degree is weaker for African-American students than for Whites. Such discrepancies call into question the usefulness of using the SAT I to assess African-American students' potential.

 

The SAT I also does a poor job of forecasting the future college performance of older students. ETS acknowledges that the test's predictive power is lower for "non-traditional" students who may be out of practice taking timed, multiple-choice exams. For this reason, many colleges and universities do not require applicants who have been out of high school for five years or more, or those over age 25, to submit test scores."

 

 

I'm not denying that some "black" culture encourages stupidity. A lot of the hip hop culture does, but so does the Midwestern/Southern pride "white trash" culture. My point is that trying to link race with inherent intelligence or physical ability is fucking retarded. It mainly has to do with the culture, recent ancestory, and economic standing you were born into.

[hugo]

Every one has their studies

 

Subject: Re: Do SAT Scores Predict College Success?

 

The SAT tests have been embroiled in controversy for a very long time.

Evaluating the predictive validity of this instrument has been studied

and debated by many academics, politicians, students and the general

public. There is no consensus for a definitive answers. I’ve collected

some articles so you can draw your own conclusions – or continue to

investigate the subject on your own.

 

All the best.

 

~ czh ~

 

 

===============================================

YES -- SAT IS GOOD PREDICTOR OF COLLEGE SUCCESS

===============================================

 

http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/rdreport200_3919.pdf

Predicting Success in College: SAT Studies of Classes Graduating Since 1980

Author: Nancy W. Burton, Leonard Ramist

Published: 2001

 

Studies predicting success in college for students graduating since

1980 are reviewed. SAT scores and high school records are the most

common predictors, but a few studies of other predictors are included.

The review establishes that SAT scores and high school records predict

academic performance, nonacademic accomplishments, leadership in

college, and postcollege income. The combination of high school

records and SAT scores is consistently the best predictor.

 

Please note that the College Board is the publisher and owner of the SAT.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=17193

November 14, 2001

SAT II may predict success in college better than SAT

 

Despite criticisms, many Americans continue to regard the SAT as an

accurate assessment of intelligence.

 

But according to a recent study conducted by the University of

California, scores on the SAT II subject tests are better indicators

of how freshmen will perform in college than traditional SAT I scores.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://www.ucop.edu/news/sat/research.html

Relative Contribution of High School Grades, SAT I and SAT II Scores

in Predicting Success at UC: Preliminary Findings

 

This paper presents preliminary findings on the relative contribution

of high-school grade-point average (HSGPA), SAT I and SAT II scores in

predicting college success for 81,722 first-time freshmen who entered

UC over the past four years, from Fall 1996 through Fall 1999,

inclusive. The criterion of collegiate "success" employed here is the

same as that used by the College Board in the majority of its research

on the SAT - freshman GPA.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://www.co-opliving.com/coopliving/issues/2000/September/food.htm

Testing Kids and Predicting Future Success

 

The correlation between college grades and SAT scores is approximately

r = .42. This value indicates a moderate positive relationship. In

other words, students who have higher SAT scores tend to do acceptable

work in college.

 

 

====================================================

NO -- SAT IS NOT A GOOD PREDICTOR OF COLLEGE SUCCESS

====================================================

 

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=28835

March 23, 2005

Prof says revised SAT won't make the grade

Essay, math section may increase disparities

 

A new version of the SAT was administered to students across the

country on March 12, with changes including a 25-minute essay and a

more difficult math section that are designed to align the

standardized test more directly with the high school curriculum. Yet

Yale psychology professor Robert Sternberg, who has been developing

his own test to supplement the SAT, said even with the changes, the

SAT is inadequate in measuring skills important for success in college

and life.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html

SAT I: A Faulty Instrument For Predicting College Success

 

Promotional claims for the SAT I frequently tout the test's important

place in the "toolbox" of college admissions officers trying to

distinguish between students from vastly different high schools. Yet

the true utility of the SAT I is frequently lost in this rhetoric as

admissions offices search for a fair and accurate way to compare one

student to another. Many colleges and universities around the country,

in dropping their test score requirements, have recently confirmed

what the research has shown all along - the SAT I has little value in

predicting future college performance.

 

 

 

Let us place another ugly fact for consideration approximately 2 out of three blacks are born out of wedlock versus one white in four. Studies have shown that much of the black/white IQ gap correlates with the black/white bastardization gap. The more bastards in a race the lower their collectrive IQ. I'm sure TDFT gets all his facts from studies with a leftist agenda that try to sweep the problem "that some "black" culture encourages stupidity.

 

My point is that trying to link race with inherent intelligence or physical ability is fucking retarded. It mainly has to do with the culture, recent ancestory, and economic standing you were born into.

 

On that we agree. The black gap is primarily due to extreme stresses on the black family. There is also the fact that until the last couple generations a higher education for a black man would add little to his income potential. Once again, trying to obfuscate the intelligence gap does blacks, and in fact all of us, more harm than good. The problem needs to be addressed.