A] it imposes uniform ideals/values upon all members of a particular group

while at the same time saying

B] that most members of this group were able to climb the socio-economic ladder because of the intellectual capital they’d brought from their countries of origin

So in rejecting one imposition/generalization another one is imposed. Can [B] be taken for granted? And for [B] to be of any use in analysis yet another generalization is used this time wrt the dominant culture and its practitioners who hold up the ‘model minority myth’.

The model minority myth looks over…

What are those opportunities? If they come at a price there’s a problem – if not economic it’s worth looking into. We can get hard work out of the way as we agree it is universal.

Let’s see. What can “model minority myth” mean? That the so called model minority -does not present a single model rather several ‘little models’ OR -presents a single model not worth ‘modelling after’ because it does not lead to the expected reward

The “model” in model minority refers to an ideal, a role model. Someone to look at as an example of how to be. A model minority is an individual or group from a minority community who personif(y)(ies) certain ideals vis. work ethic, social status, etc., and whom the dominant culture holds up as an example of how all minorities should be/behave. The idea is that all minorities, if they work hard enough, should be able to be like this model minority.

It is a myth because:

-it imposes uniform ideals/values upon all members of a particular group -it ignores the fact that most members of this group were able to climb the socio-economic ladder because of the intellectual capital they’d brought from their countries of origin

shiva (#50:

Why do I work hard? My parents told me so, and it helps me get ahead. I am not sure if any benign construct/process informs people otherwise.

I don’t think there’s a parent in the world who doesn’t tell his/her child to work hard. The model minority myth looks over the fact that some parents can’t provide the same opportunities to their children as other parents can.

Pardon me if I posted as Shruti – entirely my fault – careless of me not to review before I hit Post. #59 of course is me.

May we continue the discussion?

Let’s see. What can “model minority myth” mean?

That the so called model minority

-does not present a single model rather several ‘little models’ OR -presents a single model not worth ‘modelling after’ because it does not lead to the expected reward

I noticed how you are just not able to contextualize, imagine and accept the possibility of certain things that desi Americans like Sahej, Madurai and myself know exist…

That shouldn’t be a problem if you have an “operational definition” of the idea. Madurai tried providing one that wasn’t useful. There could be a number of reasons why some people can’t contextualize, imagine and accept Shouldn’t that be of interest to anyone coming from a field of study with a great deal of scholarship? Maybe the ‘model minority myth’ is a myth? And what use is a theory if it settles all questions once and for all? Theories aren’t interesting unless they raise questions. And what are those laws that institutionalize the isms?

I can understand the criticism that my terms are too pretentiously academic for a general blog discussion (like sometimes I just don’t get Razib’s scientific explanations), but Spike Lee’s film is critical about racial dynamics in the United States, particularly post-9/11. I’m not claiming to be an authority on it, but my academic training has always had a focus on critical race and gender theory, so I’m just accustomed to using it in discussing the implications of minority representations in U.S. society (on which I have as much authority as any person has on the geopolitical area that she/he was raised). Plus, my use of definite terms serves to indicate that the issues I’ve brought up are systemic and significant enough to warrant the great amount of scholarship that has gone into their theorization.

Have you considered the possibility that you were forming a steretype of the identity of the group your boss belongs to? For all you know the boss may have had good reasons not to look for certain abilities (the job may not have required it and such like). Assuming that the boss generalized to make a hire is itself a generalization about bosses and the boss’s group. Identity politics and polemic serves no purpose because at first it creates a permanent set of groups and then clothes these groups with some fixed abilities and attitudes. This is absolutely out of place in a fast changing society.

I worked for the computing center in my college, and at some point we were understaffed, so our boss asked us to recommend students to staff the labs. The next week I brought along my Bangladeshi friend who didn’t know a damn thing more about computers than most of the people who used the labs. For the record, the rest of us working there did know a good bit about the hardware/software in the labs, and most of the students using the labs didn’t.

My boss took one look at him, asked him a few questions that didn’t at all reveal my friend’s knowledge of computers, and hired him on the spot. Clearly, this worked in favor of the Brown, and against anyone non-Brown who’d been recommended and who had better qualifications.