Well duh. But that’s not the point. Experts often disagree in their conclusions, but we weren’t arguing about conclusions, but rather the methods used to reach them. That is what you and Kimstu spent so much time telling me I was wrong about. You implied I was crazy to ask the exact same question that the author answers in the quote. The answer doesn’t matter, it’s the fact he considers it a legitimate, significant issue that demonstrates I was right all along.
Uh not, what it was was that it was considered an important issue by the right wing and mistaken centrist sources of info. As it was not from a scientific paper the whole thing was analogous to setting up a straw man. As in not really a scientific item and just a controversial opinion.
As for other more valid criticism of one alleged factor used at times by CRT scholars that was published on a law journal; as I pointed in a different thread, a lot of the effort against CRT looks now like creationists thinking that once it is demonstrated that Punctuated Equilibrium is falsified then the whole theory of evolution will be falsified…
Even the researchers trying to do that don’t think that then evolution will be falsified. As it was clear from the researcher knocking down a bit one of the ideas from professor Bell.
It does not work that way either.
This thread is 662 posts long and if the only thing I knew about CRT was from it, for all I would know it’s a kind of bear.
Well, just check the earlier posts about the definitions already cited.
As the thread did go, it is clear that the definition should include that CRT is not just about race, but that it also has been used and applied by other minorities, not just blacks and not just about race, but that it is a framework that looks at the reasons and recommends ways to counter systemic injustices coming from a majority group to a minority one. This was demonstrated by already cited researchers that looked at injustices that China commits to the Uighur or the Rwandan conflict among the Tutsi and the Hutu.
What it has to be noted always: It is clear that there is a lot of weaponized ignorance coming from right wing sources of info that has convinced many white conservative political critters to ban the teaching of this as it was a big deal before. Forgetting that there are such things as the Streisand effect.
No, it’s actually a kind of television.
Who said it was?
As per mod instructions, I’m not getting into what is clearly a school debate with you.
It’s already been shown that it isn’t.
“Some exceptions” is a very odd way of looking at some of the foundational texts of the whole field…
I’m neither Black nor White. I’m, in fact, quite a bit Asian. I understand it just fine.
Some Asian success. You’re still doing it.
I could cite Bangladeshis instead, if you like. Or Bhutanese. Or Cambodians Or some strata of Filipinos.
No, examining how minorities are treated is what it’s all about. That includes minorities within minorities. But you do show your hand by dismissing whole ethnicities and their lived experience as inconvenient “anecdote”.
“Some Asians have high educational attainment rates” is not the model minority myth.
I contributed quite a few of those posts and know less than when I started.
I am unsure what point you are trying to make by bringing up Bangladeshis etc. The fact some ethnicities are doing better than others suggests that culture and/or the circumstances that brought them to the US play a big part in success.
The point @damuriajashi was trying to dodge by dismissing the Hmong as “anecdotes”
Yes, this is not a thing anyone disputes.
Which is…?
Apart from all the people who say it’s victim blaming or something.
That “Asian success” is only true for a subset of Asians. That the experience of other Asians is real, and not just “anecdote”. That the idea that “Asians” are monolithically anything is part of the myth.
“All the people” who I’m sure you’re going to be citing any moment now 
What difference does that make? ‘Asian’ isn’t a sensible category anyway, it lumps together a vast number of people, from totally different countries, who have pretty much nothing in common.
Remember this?
Not nothing, but yes, looks like you found that acorn…
I remember a complete lack of the word Asian there…
As the last posts from you showed, it is more likely that you are upset that things are more complicated than the simpleton way the right wing media or conservative politicians try to paint this.
Part of the myth about Chinese immigrants to the US is that they were uniquely interested in education–and that, as a corollary, other groups are at fault for their low standardized test scores because of their inferior culture.
The necessary historical context is that, starting in the latter half of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were encouraged, and the racial stereotypes became that Asian students were really good. Asian kids in school faced these stereotypes, and it affected them, just as Black students were affected by the stereotypes about them, and White students were affected by the stereotypes about them.
Sure: if you want to demonstrate that some subset of immigrants from certain areas of Asia emphasize academic success to their children more than some other subset of Americans, that’s fine, evidence is evidence. But if you stop there with your analysis–if you leave out, for example, the ways in which Black academic success has been systematically undercut, or the ways in which self-selected immigrant groups are different from socially-constructed racial groups, or the ways in which stereotypes influence academic outcomes–then you have an incomplete analysis.
I think about a local high school that was a state leader in several areas: championship band programs, most masters degrees among teaching staff of any school in the state, etc. It was an all-Black school until integration, at which point it was shut down so that the Black kids could start going to the formerly all-White school. White teachers’ jobs were preserved preferentially over Black teachers’ jobs. Around the same time, the Black business district was razed in an “urban renewal” program, and several Black neighborhoods were condemned in order to put a freeway through the middle of town.
If you’re analyzing student success without bringing in the historical context, if you’re just like, “THIS GROUP HAS A BETTER CULTURE,” I’m gonna suspect you have a reason for the elision.
mispost.
Banning a discussion of education? In a discussion about crt? Wow.
But this is about model minorities and how offended people seem to be that there are actually successful minority groups out there.|
No, it hasn’t. The exceptions you point out prove the rule. The application of the principles of CRT to the chinese uighars is not evidence that crt is not mostly 2 dimensional.
Data does not require unanimity of results. It’s like you are immune to data.
Filipinos have the second highest average income among asians, does this mean that every single filipino is affluent? Of course not. But neither is every white person and yet you support policies that assume that white people are more affluent than black people.
BTW, how many Bhutanese are there in america as a percentage of asians? less than 20,000.
Bhutanese Americans - Wikipedia.
Bangladeshi? About 200,000.
Cambodians? 330,000
You are pointing to a tiny sliver of the asian american population and saying “See not all asians…” No single statement can accurately describe every single asian but as a group, they are more academically successful. Particularly asian immigrants and asians from confucian cultures.
An exception proves a rule. A pile of them makes the rule a joke.
How do you know what policies I support when, based on other threads here, you have no idea who I actually am.
“…soon you’re talking real money!”
So, as a group, are Nobel Laureates. Which is nice…
Why does it have to be one or the other? I’m tired of people presenting some oversimplified viewpoint and demanding we ignore all the factors that don’t fit their theory.
I think the second part is something that white people add to either shame blacks or to accuse asians of racism. Asians don’t think blacks value education less than we do. We think that EVERYONE values education less that we do. By far the largest group that asians have displaced in competitive schools are white kids. The disparity between whites and blacks cannot be explained by the disparity between asians and anyone else.
The necessary historical context is also that asians were already a model minority. White supremacists didn’t create asian success they used it to try and disguise the fact that racism is the cause of much of the black white disparity.
This subset of asians from confucian countries accounts for the majority of asian americans.
If you add indian american (the most affluent well educated asian american group that is in fact pretty self selected), filipino american, (the second most affluent asian amercan group, which is also largely self selected), and pakistani americans, you have covered over 95% of asians.
I don’t see why we have to bring black academic success into a discussion about asian academic success unless you think one has something to do with the other?
YOu can suspect all you want but if youa re going to call every attempt to point out differences in culture as the source of disparities in outcome, you are simply ignoring evidence because it offends your sensibilities. Aren’t you?