Does Asian Privilege Exist?

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, we're talking about the same Yao Ming who owns a Chinese restaurant in Houston.  He doesn't look underdeveloped at all - it's his career not to be.  But, having to support that height with muscle to play a physical game in the NBA costs a Chinese Man a LOT... hence, Yao fatigues faster than his Black counterparts and is easily knocked over and is more prone to injury compared to his Black counterparts.  Yi Jianlin got tossed around like tumbleweed in Milwaukee he didn't last too long.

But, but, but, there's no such thing as "race", it's all a social construct.

Lehi

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But, but, but, there's no such thing as "race", it's all a social construct.

Lehi

I don't even understand this statement.  It sure isn't a social construct that make me have brown skin and black hair.

[NightSG]

On 7/13/2016 at 9:19 AM, zil said:

Whatever they've done, it has met the minimum requirement to classify the land as "agricultural" rather than "residential" (only a law / lawyer would see any truth in that classification).  The land where all those little houses are is classified as "residential" (duh).  That big house pays less in property taxes (not per acre or sq ft, but total) than any one of those little houses.  This is clearly idiotic.

Meh.  Check out most rural areas around here; you'll always find some "farmers" crying about how the farm only made $5k last year.  Never mind that that's after buying an $80k "farm truck" and all sorts of other "employee benefits" that they're dodging taxes on. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Social aspects?  Are we limiting the discussion now?

No, I'm just calling you on your inconsistency and pointing out that you're backtracking by bringing an inapplicable argument to the discussion.

Whenever anyone "complains" about privilege it is referring to perceived injustice based on the benefits one class gets that "should" be open to all, but through social limitations alone, they are not open to all.  I don't believe a whole lot of people are crying injustice about natural limitations such as a short person not being in the NBA.  If I'm short, then I won't be as good a basketball player as someone who is tall.  That does not consider my race at all.  While it is true that my race will have some influence on my height, that is not the determining factor.  It is the height along with my agility and other physical traits which will be the deciding factor.  Hence, Yao Ming.

And that's what I'm getting at with this "white privilege" declaration.  If you're going to change the definition of privilege to include natural limits, then we're not even talking about the same thing.  It's about having the same definition when we're discussing a topic.

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, social aspects... in the US, first we have to speak the language of the majority.  You talk with a strong accent you don't get too far. 

You're making my point.  This is not race based, but language based.  Still nothing to do with "white" privilege.

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

For some reason, they think you're retarded or something because you speak funny which is really hilarious because you're Asian so they think you eat calculus for breakfast...

This is an interesting phenomenon.  But you're exhibiting a very common attitude.  "Asians are just smarter than other races".  Why is that any more acceptable to say than to say "Blacks are less intelligent than any other race", as Hitler tried to sell during his life?  No, I'm not playing the Hitler card.  But think about it.  Why is one acceptable to say and the other isn't?  Again, nothing to do with white privilege.

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Unfortunately, it takes a few generations (could take up to 3) for our mouths to develop the muscular flexibility to speak the American English language.

I don't know where you got that from.  But it's simply not true.  English is not my first language.  Korean is -- or, rather, was.  In my formative years, my jaw, tongue and all other associated musculature were developed to speak Korean.  I was old enough to speak clearly and distinctly in Korean.  But I learned English within a few months and no one can tell on the phone that I'm of any particular ethnicity.

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

How we name our children... you name your child - Yun Chin Lee... forget it.  You walk in that school or send in your resume and people already have preconceived ideas of who you are before you even open your mouth to talk.  Now, David Robert Lee... you're fine.

Ok.  So, what preconceived notions did I have to overcome because of my race?  What have you had to overcome?  If anything, with your chosen field, it would appear from your position, you did receive a "privilege" that you consider silly.

Yes, I do see the irony in the discussion where the predominant debaters on the subject of Asian Privilege are the two prominent Asians on the board.

Ever since the OP I've just been wondering about the inconsistency on the matter of privilege.  At least NT's post is consistent all around.  Others try to avoid it altogether.

Anatess, you've specifically said that white privilege exists, but to consider Asian privilege is "silly".  I marvel at the inconsistency especially considering your statements on Asians and calculus vs preconceived notions based on foreign names.

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, I'm just calling you on your inconsistency and pointing out that you're backtracking by bringing an inapplicable argument to the discussion.

Whenever anyone "complains" about privilege it is referring to perceived injustice based on the benefits one class gets that "should" be open to all, but through social limitations alone, they are not open to all.  I don't believe a whole lot of people are crying injustice about natural limitations such as a short person not being in the NBA.  If I'm short, then I won't be as good a basketball player as someone who is tall.  That does not consider my race at all.  While it is true that my race will have some influence on my height, that is not the determining factor.  It is the height along with my agility and other physical traits which will be the deciding factor.  Hence, Yao Ming.

And that's what I'm getting at with this "white privilege" declaration.  If you're going to change the definition of privilege to include natural limits, then we're not even talking about the same thing.  It's about having the same definition when we're discussing a topic.

You're making my point.  This is not race based, but language based.  Still nothing to do with "white" privilege.

This is an interesting phenomenon.  But you're exhibiting a very common attitude.  "Asians are just smarter than other races".  Why is that any more acceptable to say than to say "Blacks are less intelligent than any other race", as Hitler tried to sell during his life?  No, I'm not playing the Hitler card.  But think about it.  Why is one acceptable to say and the other isn't?  Again, nothing to do with white privilege.

I don't know where you got that from.  But it's simply not true.  English is not my first language.  Korean is -- or, rather, was.  In my formative years, my jaw, tongue and all other associated musculature were developed to speak Korean.  But I learned English and no one can tell on the phone that I'm of any particular ethnicity.

Ok.  So, what preconceived notions did I have to overcome because of my race?  What have you had to overcome?

Yes, I do see the irony in the discussion where the predominant debaters on the subject of Asian Privilege are the two prominent Asians on the board.

Ever since the OP I've just been wondering about the inconsistency on the matter of privilege.  At least NT's post is consistent all around.  Others try to avoid it altogether.

Anatess, you've specifically said that white privilege exists, but to consider Asian privilege is "silly".  I marvel at the inconsistency especially considering your statements on Asians and calculus vs preconceived notions based on foreign names.

 

 

I'm going to bow out of this discussion because... it seems like my understanding of the application of "Privilege" does not match yours.  We won't be able to understand each other.

In my opinion - your height is part of your race, your language is part of your race, your intelligence (not smart versus dumb but the way your brain processes information) is part of your race, your level of aggression is part of your race, etc. etc.  Yes, you CAN LEARN to move your mouth differently to speak a different language with the predominant majority's accent.  Yes, you can learn to harness your aggression to adapt to the majority behavior.  Yes, you can overcome anything that comes with your race to swim in the majority's orbit.  That's something you HAVE to do that the Majority doesn't HAVE to do.  That's privilege.

Just because Asians succeed in America doesn't mean they have "privilege".  Not according to my understanding of privilege.  A white man who doesn't have to worry about finding shampoo and hairdressers for their type of hair at the same time that they worry about their homework has privilege over an Asian man who has to worry about finding shampoo and hairdressers for their type of hair at the same time that they worry about their homework in preparation for a school day.  Even as the Asian man gets better grades than the White man.

That's my understanding of privilege.

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In my opinion - your height is part of your race, your language is part of your race, your intelligence (not smart versus dumb but the way your brain processes information) is part of your race, your level of aggression is part of your race, etc. etc.  Yes, you CAN LEARN to move your mouth differently to speak a different language with the predominant majority's accent.  Yes, you can learn to harness your aggression to adapt to the majority behavior.  Yes, you can overcome anything that comes with your race to swim in the majority's orbit.  That's something you HAVE to do that the Majority doesn't HAVE to do. 

That is probably one of the most racists statements I've heard in a long time.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That is probably one of the most racists statements I've heard in a long time.

Of course.  Because, people think it is racist to say Filipinos are short.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Of course.  Because, people think it is racist to say Filipinos are short.

I thought you were bowing out of the conversation.

Here is where I'm coming from:  I really don't care if anyone is racist.  Just don't harm anyone because of race.  I just get really confused by inconsistency.  i.e.: It's ok to think whites succeed because of race but not Asians.

1) We are all born a certain way because of a combination of our bodies and our spirits.  That combination makes us who we are and how we will react and interact with our world.

2) As we grow we have other inputs, society (including parents, teachers, media, government, etc.) disease, chance, God, etc.  This impacts both our bodies and our spirits.  The combination of body, spirit, and inputs make us who we are today and whom we will become.

 The only things we are justified in attributing to race are the truly racial characteristics which are those which can pass two tests:

1) Are they definitely physical in nature (based on our DNA) that cannot be changed?
2) Characteristics which are:

.....a) Overwhelmingly frequent in one particular race.
.....b) Conspicuously rare in other races.

To attribute any characteristics that do not pass these two tests is looking at a race with "race colored" glasses -- or more commonly -- racist.  By that definition, one satisfies the criteria whether your assumption is positive or negative.  But the negative ones tend to be more offensive.  Yet, to believe the positive labels are also looking through race-colored glasses.

When you essentially said that Asians are smarter than other races, that is essentially Asian supremacy talk.  Why?  While intelligence can be connected to brain functionality (clearly a physical trait) can you honestly say that Asians are overwhelmingly smarter than other races?  No.  Can you say high intelligence is conspicuously missing from other races? No.  It doesn't pass either test.  PLENTY of highly intelligent people are found in ALL races.  And I've certainly come across my share of low intelligence Asians as well.

So many people have a preconceived notion about Asians being smart because of Hollywood more than anything else.  But to you it was so much a fact of life that you didn't even question it.

When you say Asians are short that is a statistical fact.  Not only is the average much shorter than other races, but the percentage of exceptions to the rule are very low.  Not only that, it is a physical trait that one cannot change. "Who among you can add a cubit to his stature?"  Yes, this is a racial characteristic.

When you say Blacks are taller... not really.  Yes, the NBA attracts the greatest of the outliers.  But compare tall blacks with Scandanavians and Polynesians.  If you take out the NBA type exceptions, they are not really taller than several other races.

Blacks are found committing more crimes than other races.  So, blacks are inherently crimminals?  Nyet!  There is much that contributes to the current statistics.  But I see no evidence that it is based in their DNA.  Instead I blame it on culture both theirs and that of those around them.

"Jews make great lawyers and accountants" so goes the conventional wisdom.  Really?  Do Jews have a corner market on legal and arithmetic genes?  Hardly.  But those who go to a Yeshiva go through intensive study of the Torah.  The logic courses, the cross referencing skills, the memorization, etc. all lend tremendously to legal skills.  Thousands of years of legal arguments have been refined in the Yeshiva.  The rest of us have a few centuries of legal history.  No, it is not a racial trait.  The study of the Torah also includes gematria on a level that it is almost a game to them.  These traits that seem so common among Jews are not rooted in their DNA, but in their culture.

Asians do better in academics because most Asians in America place a high value on education, both their own and that of their children.  So, they learn more and are more versed especially in STEM type subjects.  Is it in the DNA?  No.  It is in the cultural values that most Asians bring with them from their country of origin.

But, but, but, culture is part of what defines a race!  An argument could be made.  But I don't buy it.  Race is something you can't change.  Culture is something you can both choose and change.  Race is that same thing no matter how many skin lighteners or tanning salons, or bottles of peroxide you utilize.  But culture is a choice.  Whether that is a culture of a nation, a family, or a culture of ONE.

NOW THAT I'VE DEFINED MY POSITION ON RACE, WHAT ABOUT PRIVILEGE? There is a difference between having strengths vs privileges.

Each individual will have strengths and weaknesses.  It always pays to play to your strengths.  Let the Lord help us with our weaknesses.  If I were born with tremendous physical aptitude, I might want to choose a career field that would make use of that -- athletics, military, law enforcement, or security.  If I were born with musical talent, then I'd want to go into a musical field.  If I'm good at science and math, I'd do well to choose a STEM career.  If I find myself with an aptitude for linguistic skills, I would be well advised to go into something that required communication (law, literature, politics, acting, public speaking).

Privileges are external.  They are in the world around us that affect us and are in no way connected to what we do except in how we make use of them.  I really don't get the hair products argument, but I guess I'm just not that much into hair.  But if it is so, then, yes, that could be considered a privilege.  Although, I don't see how that would contribute to anyone's success in any meaningful way.  And the other question is: Is it racial?

Racial privilege would then have to be an advantage that is offered to those of a particular race that is not available to those of other races.  If you really have a different definition of racial privilege, then consider two things: 1) Are you being consistent?  2) Do you honestly believe it is what most people are talking about when they talk about "privilege"?

Privileges can be present because we're LDS, because we were born rich, because of many things that are about our culture we grew up in or the one we choose.  These are things we can change by our choices.  But it is only racial privilege when it is specifically targeted because of those physical characteristics which come from our race.  That is something we cannot change.  Therefore, it is only unjust if it is racial privilege.

If we go with my definition, then what example can anyone truly give that indicates any privilege that is race based that any race, not just Caucasians have?  How have I been denied these because I was Asian?

I challenge anyone to name something that is truly based on our Physical characteristics that applies to whites, but not to Asians on a nationwide (or even statewide) level that is a systematic (not just individual) application.  And in that sense, there is no white privilege without also claiming Asian privilege.  So, why the inconsistency?

Edited July 15, 2016 by Guest

[SpiritDragon]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I thought you were bowing out of the conversation.

Here is where I'm coming from:  I really don't care if anyone is racist.  Just don't harm anyone because of race.  I just get really confused by inconsistency.  i.e.: It's ok to think whites succeed because of race but not Asians.

1) We are all born a certain way because of a combination of our bodies and our spirits.  That combination makes us who we are and how we will react and interact with our world.

2) As we grow we have other inputs, society (including parents, teachers, media, government, etc.) disease, chance, God, etc.  This impacts both our bodies and our spirits.  The combination of body, spirit, and inputs make us who we are today and whom we will become.

 The only things we are justified in attributing to race are the truly racial characteristics which are those which can pass two tests:

1) Are they definitely physical in nature (based on our DNA) that cannot be changed?
2) Characteristics which are:

.....a) Overwhelmingly frequent in one particular race.
.....b) Conspicuously rare in other races.

To attribute any characteristics that do not pass these two tests is looking at a race with "race colored" glasses -- or more commonly -- racist.  By that definition, one satisfies the criteria whether your assumption is positive or negative.  But the negative ones tend to be more offensive.  Yet, to believe the positive labels are also looking through race-colored glasses.

When you essentially said that Asians are smarter than other races, that is essentially Asian supremacy talk.  Why?  While intelligence can be connected to brain functionality (clearly a physical trait) can you honestly say that Asians are overwhelmingly smarter than other races?  No.  Can you say high intelligence is conspicuously missing from other races? No.  It doesn't pass either test.  PLENTY of highly intelligent people are found in ALL races.  And I've certainly come across my share of low intelligence Asians as well.

So many people have a preconceived notion about Asians being smart because of Hollywood more than anything else.  But to you it was so much a fact of life that you didn't even question it.

When you say Asians are short that is a statistical fact.  Not only is the average much shorter than other races, but the percentage of exceptions to the rule are very low.  Not only that, it is a physical trait that one cannot change. "Who among you can add a cubit to his stature?"  Yes, this is a racial characteristic.

When you say Blacks are taller... not really.  Yes, the NBA attracts the greatest of the outliers.  But compare tall blacks with Scandanavians and Polynesians.  If you take out the NBA type exceptions, they are not really taller than several other races.

Blacks are found committing more crimes than other races.  So, blacks are inherently crimminals?  Nyet!  There is much that contributes to the current statistics.  But I see no evidence that it is based in their DNA.  Instead I blame it on culture both theirs and that of those around them.

"Jews make great lawyers and accountants" so goes the conventional wisdom.  Really?  Do Jews have a corner market on legal and arithmetic genes?  Hardly.  But those who go to a Yeshiva go through intensive study of the Torah.  The logic courses, the cross referencing skills, the memorization, etc. all lend tremendously to legal skills.  Thousands of years of legal arguments have been refined in the Yeshiva.  The rest of us have a few centuries of legal history.  No, it is not a racial trait.  The study of the Torah also includes gematria on a level that it is almost a game to them.  These traits that seem so common among Jews are not rooted in their DNA, but in their culture.

Asians do better in academics because most Asians in America place a high value on education, both their own and that of their children.  So, they learn more and are more versed especially in STEM type subjects.  Is it in the DNA?  No.  It is in the cultural values that most Asians bring with them from their country of origin.

But, but, but, culture is part of what defines a race!  An argument could be made.  But I don't buy it.  Race is something you can't change.  Culture is something you can both choose and change.  Race is that same thing no matter how many skin lighteners or tanning salons, or bottles of peroxide you utilize.  But culture is a choice.  Whether that is a culture of a nation, a family, or a culture of ONE.

NOW THAT I'VE DEFINED MY POSITION ON RACE, WHAT ABOUT PRIVILEGE? There is a difference between having strengths vs privileges.

Each individual will have strengths and weaknesses.  It always pays to play to your strengths.  Let the Lord help us with our weaknesses.  If I were born with tremendous physical aptitude, I might want to choose a career field that would make use of that -- athletics, military, law enforcement, or security.  If I were born with musical talent, then I'd want to go into a musical field.  If I'm good at science and math, I'd do well to choose a STEM career.  If I find myself with an aptitude for linguistic skills, I would be well advised to go into something that required communication (law, literature, politics, acting, public speaking).

Privileges are external.  They are in the world around us that affect us and are in no way connected to what we do except in how we make use of them.  I really don't get the hair products argument, but I guess I'm just not that much into hair.  But if it is so, then, yes, that could be considered a privilege.  Although, I don't see how that would contribute to anyone's success in any meaningful way.  And the other question is: Is it racial?

Racial privilege would then have to be an advantage that is offered to those of a particular race that is not available to those of other races.  If you really have a different definition of racial privilege, then consider two things: 1) Are you being consistent?  2) Do you honestly believe it is what most people are talking about when they talk about "privilege"?

Privileges can be present because we're LDS, because we were born rich, because of many things that are about our culture we grew up in or the one we choose.  These are things we can change by our choices.  But it is only racial privilege when it is specifically targeted because of those physical characteristics which come from our race.  That is something we cannot change.  Therefore, it is only unjust if it is racial privilege.

If we go with my definition, then what example can anyone truly give that indicates any privilege that is race based that any race, not just Caucasians have?  How have I been denied these because I was Asian?

I challenge anyone to name something that is truly based on our Physical characteristics that applies to whites, but not to Asians on a nationwide (or even statewide) level that is a systematic (not just individual) application.  And in that sense, there is no white privilege without also claiming Asian privilege.  So, why the inconsistency?

Well said - a little long to read, but sometimes it takes quite a few words to articulate a point. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[SpiritDragon]

On 7/15/2016 at 8:41 PM, Carborendum said:

I challenge anyone to name something that is truly based on our Physical characteristics that applies to whites, but not to Asians on a nationwide (or even statewide) level that is a systematic (not just individual) application.  And in that sense, there is no white privilege without also claiming Asian privilege.  So, why the inconsistency?

I'd dare say the inconsistency kicks in because the Asian privilege notion doesn't fit the narrative of the oppressive white christian. sort of like down-playing the role of indentured servants (essentially slaves) who're white in American history. Only the oppressed black slave piece fits the narrative that the academicians who censor history and the leftist media want told. My goodness during the second world war we rounded up the Japanese and sent them to POW camps, but they moved on (quickly - within the same generation) and are not the welfare class crying for handouts from those who work because of the wrongs done to their great great grandparents. Clearly they had the cultural spirit to work hard and move past what was done. Other cultures (not races) haven't been able to let go of the past and encourage laziness as a way of life.This culture of laziness may be more prevalent in certain races, but as for your qualifiers - I agree it is cultural not racial.