Politics & Stuff

[Spike 12,049]

9 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

We were just talking about stats not necessarily giving the whole picture, and it's true here as well. Because I was reading just yesterday that if you include homicides as well, then only 0.3% of those killed are by Muslims even though Muslims are 1% of the population. I'll try to find the source for you, I think it was Pew or something...

You're exactly right. Even the pollsters can obfuscate the stats. 'Well that wasn't a terrorist act, but this one is'.. What do they count the Tsarnaev Brothers? As both? Because they were definitely Caucasoid Muslims. Is Time only counting crimes perpetrated by American citizens?

If you read the Time article and then the source the give (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/#americas-layered-defenses), there is clearly a discrepancy. Time speaks of 'white right wing extremists' v 'jihadists' but their source is 'left wing v right wing v jihadist'. Then if you read further Time states that Jihadists have killed 26 people but their source claims 94. Tsk, tsk, just a little detective work (a click of a bloody mouse!) and their story falls apart.

[Fernando 6,376]

2 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Yes, because vandalism and hate crimes against a group of people for whom they are are the exact same thing....

But forget that for a second, the two are not related and can be discussed separately. So why are you trying to change the subject from the record threats against Jewish centers when it was YOU who posted it in the first place? 

What do you make of it? Do you have an opinion on what we should do to prevent the extreme right from targeting Jewish people for their beliefs? Or was the intention of posting it just to hype up fear without getting into reasons and how it can be prevented?

 

EDIT: Also, I know that English might not be your first language, but are you really this unable to form your own ideas regarding politics? I genuinely don't remember you ever making a coherent point without resorting either to some crazy 'prophecy' video or an article from some fringe website.

The extreme right from targeting Jewish people is not a new thing. It's a recurring thing that has been happening for ages. 

How we can prevent it? Well if rule the world I would move all the Jews to Israel, and kick out the Palestinian and give them a land in America like we did with Native American. 

Because no matter where the Jews are they are always targeted. America, Europe, etc etc

But that's not a nonfictional solution, so I would say that more then likely not much will be done. If anything the government will recommend more surveillance. 

These groups will be targeted, kinda like what Trump said for certain Mosque and such where he wanted to keep surveillance. 

I think that is what more then likely will happen in this scenario. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,408]

11 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

rFree speech and giving someone a platform are complete different things. Everyone has a right for free speech, within it's known limits. But no one has a right to get a platform to spread their ideas. 

When you legitimize fascists by allowing them to fearmonger and play on insecurities, then you're conceding that the human rights and even personhood of entire groups of people is up for debate. Call me a radical, but I don't think whether or not Jews ought to be considered people should be up for debate!

That's your opinion, but  saying 'everyone has a right to free speech, but...'' is the thin end of the wedge and is fascism by the back door. Of course everything should be up for debate, no exceptions. Hide it underground and it's asking for trouble.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

5 minutes ago, Spike said:

You're exactly right. Even the pollsters can obfuscate the stats. 'Well that wasn't a terrorist act, but this one is'.. What do they count the Tsarnaev Brothers? As both? Because they were definitely Caucasoid Muslims. Is Time only counting crimes perpetrated by American citizens?

If you read the Time article and then the source the give (https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/#americas-layered-defenses), there is clearly a discrepancy. Time speaks of 'white right wing extremists' v 'jihadists' but their source is 'left wing v right wing v jihadist'. Then if you read further Time states that Jihadists have killed 26 people but their source claims 94. Tsk, tsk, just a little detective work (a click of a bloody mouse!) and their story falls apart.

Hmm, I think the 68 difference is probably the Pulse shooting, which again may be counted as jihadist or not depending on who's counting.

 

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

The extreme right from targeting Jewish people is not a new thing. It's a recurring thing that has been happening for ages. 

How we can prevent it? Well if rule the world I would move all the Jews to Israel, and kick out the Palestinian and give them a land in America like we did with Native American. 

Because no matter where the Jews are they are always targeted. America, Europe, etc etc

But that's not a nonfictional solution, so I would say that more then likely not much will be done. If anything the government will recommend more surveillance. 

These groups will be targeted, kinda like what Trump said for certain Mosque and such where he wanted to keep surveillance. 

I think that is what more then likely will happen in this scenario. 

Or we could try something a bit less obvious like battling antisemitism and preaching equality and tolerance....

 

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

That's your opinion, but  saying 'everyone has a right to free speech, but...'' is the thin end of the wedge and is fascism by the back door. Of course everything should be up for debate, no exceptions. Hide it underground and it's asking for trouble.

That sounds like the title of the worst porno ever made!  

Free speech, like any other form of freedom, cannot be absolute. You can't have the right to walk into a crowded night club and yell "Fire" and watch people trample each other. That's a limitation on freedom of speech. So is libel, direct threats of violence..etc.

The problem with having everything up for debate is that it ultimately boils down to the liberal notion of "market place of ideas" which just like the capitalist notion of "free market" ends up tilted in the favor of the fuckers with the most money and power. Both require first and foremost to funtion as theorized an informed 'consumer' which you cannot realistically have because of the advertisement industry and corporate owned media. 

That's not say that we should abandon debate and democracy. It just means that there are things, namely civil and human rights, that we cannot afford to leave up for debate.

To give a practical example: Is the government and army in Myanmar right to ethnically cleans tens of thousands of minority Muslims in Rohinga because a majority of its citizens want them ethnically cleansed? If you believe that everything should be up for debate, including whether or not to ethnically cleanse regions, and you believe in democracy, then the Myanmar government is not only right but even has an obligation to fulfill the will of the majority of its people and continue to do what is threatening to become a full blown genocide against Rohinyans. 

[Spike 12,049]

Do people actually mean 'Fascism' when they speak of 'Fascism' or do they mean 'Totalitariansim' and 'Dictatorship''?

[Fernando 6,376]

37 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Or we could try something a bit less obvious like battling antisemitism and preaching equality and tolerance....

But what happens when those that preach equality and tolerance are not tolerant to your views and beliefs? 

 

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,408]

1 hour ago, CHOULO19 said:

You can't have the right to walk into a crowded night club and yell "Fire" and watch people trample each other.

That's the example restrainers of free speech often use, and is way off. Anyone who does that would be prosecuted for incitement- there are laws in place, as with threats of violence etc.

What we are talking about here is political viewpoints, however distasteful Once you try to suppress because you don't like Nazism or Islam or Zionism, then it is used to curtail all sorts, leading to totalitarianism or fascism.

1 hour ago, CHOULO19 said:

Is the government and army in Myanmar right to ethnically cleans tens of thousands of minority Muslims in Rohinga because a majority of its citizens want them ethnically cleansed? If you believe that everything should be up for debate, including whether or not to ethnically cleanse regions, and you believe in democracy, then the Myanmar government is not only right but even has an obligation to fulfill the will of the majority of its people and continue to do what is threatening to become a full blown genocide against Rohinyans

That solution is up to the people of Myanmar to sort out. Of course ethnically cleansing is wrong, but these situations come about exactly because of the suppression of free speech-in this case by the Myananar govt and also through practising religions like Islam. Its suppression central, a steam caldron waiting to blow through lack of communication and intransigence, hence extreme results -like when a husband and wife wont discuss all their problems -resulting in divorce, affairs, murder....

To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, if you refuse to let your views be challenged they become like prejudices that you are incapable of defending or articulating. When you reject free speech you lose the opportunity to defeat ideas you dislike and propound your own. You trade changing the world for throwing things at it.

[Peace. 4,352]

22 hours ago, kmk108 said:

Great points in your last few posts on this.

The trouble I have is getting past his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Time will tell how far this goes. We'll see if the EO is expanded or cut back soon.

We may be "at war with Islam" or (preferably to me) Radical Islamists, but that doesn't mean we need to demonize Muslims. White people don't want to be associated with Dylan Roof or the other white terrorists.

 

    I do perfectly understand very well the trouble you — or that any American — can have regarding Trump’s rhetoric. Since you are yourself an American I am not sure whether you have the insight to realize that, but as a person extern to your society I can tell you that American's — just as the whole Anglo-Saxon world's — discours is wrapped into heavy layers of political correctness. In this regard, it is only « normal » that Trump’s bluntness is unsettling for U.S. citizens.

    Of course white people don’t want to be compared with Dylan Roof — just as they do not want to be compared with Hitler or the so fantasied « nazis ». This is the problem in our occidentals societies : you cannot express freely your opinions as anytime you deviate from the religiously imposed official discours — a discours that benefit the monopolistic class, i.e. very few of us —, you are associated to the darkest hours of our history. This is social control at its utmost ! This is by the way the very for which modern « democracies » have outlived most dictatures out there : civilians are policing civilians themselves (what happened at Berkeley is the perfect illustration) ; at the contrary, to control civilians through military forces might gives you a better direct power, yet it also gives you less room for manœuvre (for instance, it is very difficult for China to attack even the weakest of its neighbors because it cannot afford any « faux pas » since it cannot put the blame on Bush, or Obama, or Trump and then change its leader).

    This is why you and the overwhelming majority of people just cannot take the plunge and point to the root of the problem : islam. And the more the situation goes on, the more people have even trouble to identify them as « radical » muslims and would rather use poorly thought excuses such as « he was oppressed » or that they are « manics » — and even that they are not muslims. Do we really believe that wars are won by downgrading our enemies, by considering them just as some nutcases in the wild and by disregarding their motivations and what they have to say ? Do you picture your country in 1941, after seeing the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, to say « oh, they are not real Japanese — real Japanese do not kill. They are just lunatics. Let's stay cozily at home ».

 

    I know that this issue (that is the our problems with islam) is a very sensible one. So to illustrate it, I will take a few examples coming from our very societies.

•     I am pretty sure you are aware of the situation in Congo where occidentals big companies are exploiting Africans (a lot of times they are only kids) in order to have a cheap access to cobalt and do a lot of profit by selling us smartphones. Well, if I ask you who are the culprit, you will most certainly answer that it is those big companies — and you would be right. Yet would those firms exploit young Africans if us Occidentals would not need cobalt — or even better, if we refused to buy it ? Of course not. In that sense I am also culprit because I have a computer and a smartphone ; you are also culprit because you have a computer and a smartphone. The only difference between those companies and us is that they are the minority and they are active and we "the people" are the majority and are passive. At the end of the day, it stems from our societies and from our way of life.

•     Another example are the numerous wars and political destabilizations that Western countries have perpetrated over the world. Once again if we quickly look at it, there are what, a few thousands of people at best that have an active role in those (I mean those who takes the decision, not the militaries on the ground) ? Yet as the previous case, it also stem from our societies. I mean, look — had Obama run for the presidential for a third time, he would have been elected despite having bombed seven countries (the very same on which Trump declared a ban). It is the case for you Americans but it is also the case for us French : who voted for someone that destroyed Libya to then vote for someone who destabilized Syria. All in all, despite our relative « innocence », what our governments are doing is just a product of our societies.

 

    Well, I am aware that my analogies have their own limitations and that they are not the sharpest — I am very far away from having the same fluency in English that I do in French. What I am trying to show you is that we cannot understand what our governments and companies are doing by dissociating them context — this is us and our societies. And this is the same thing with islamic violence throughout the muslim world but also in our western societies.

    With have to understand — and most special to accept — that everything come in a bundle, the good things just as the bad things. Well in truth we know it, at least when it comes to us. The two issues I raised above are known by a lot of people amongst us ; we are a lot to condemn this actions and there are even people that take proud in indulging self-blaming. And even though our protests are inefficient as the system we ourselves built is very hard to escape, we are aware of it and we are saying it (it is a first step although clearly not sufficient).

    Now it is time for us to come out of our bubble — which is in fact not very different from our « we will civilize the world » 19th century bubble — and accept that other people are like us. We do not have the monopoly over the Original Sin and they are not some kind of poor and innocent creatures unable to do any wrongs. Yes the problem of the muslim terrorists stems from islam and therefore islam is the root of the problem — those countless terrorists are not shooting « God save the Queen » but « Allah Akbar ».

    That is true. We cannot act as if both of disconnected or as if it was a lunatic minority. There is Al-Qā’Idah, Al-Qā’Idah in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qā’Idah in the Maghreb, the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Sham (AQ in Syria), Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah, Al-Shabbaab, those in the Caucase/Russia (I do not remember their name), etc, etc… In terms of numbers and geography, the problem is real and huge. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected in Egypt, in Tunisia they have a lot of support, etc… We can no longer close our eyes and act as if everything was fine — and have to start to call a cat a cat.

    Does holding such a discours mean to demonize all of the muslims ? Does it equates to believe that all of them have a knife between the teeth and are only awaiting to slice our throat ? No, absolutely no. This is a ridiculous idea and in fact we come back to the problem I was referring to in the start of my comment. We cannot hold any discussion without our opinion being dramatically radicalized by people. The majority of muslim are normal people like you and me — the problem is that there is a strong minority who are very bad people.

    Does holding such a discours mean to demonize all of the muslims ? Does it equates to believe that all of them have a knife between the teeth and are only awaiting to slice our throat ? No, absolutely no. This is a ridiculous idea and in fact we come back to the problem I was referring to in the start of my comment. We cannot hold any discussion without our opinion being dramatically radicalized by people. The majority of muslim are normal people like you and me — the problem is that there is a strong minority who are very bad people.

    But you know, I am not even advocating to impose them to change their culture. If islam is an ideology that suits them, good for them — and this is okay for me. This is their culture, their civilization, their community and their countries, they do want they want. However this is hugely problematic when you have millions of muslims in Europe ! And especially when you have an increasingly number of jihadists that come from these muslims community settled in Europe that kills European citizens in the name of Islam (plus the foreigners). This is a huge problem, we cannot allow that. And in that respect, they have to do something to dramatically reform their islam if they want our hospitality. In addition, 700 « french » jihadists went to Syria, 700 ! And for each one of them theta wen there, how many could not and how many did not have the courage ? It only goes on to show the extent of the problem ; and what will we do when those war veteran come back from their jihad ?

    We have to understand that Islam is an ideology which is utterly intolerant towards pagans, jews, christians, etc… — basically any kind of religion which is not islam. Bad news, we westerners are fitting this description. And even within itself their is high intolerance towards those who are not practicing it the right way (shi’a muslims). This is without even mentioning it does not held women in high estime. And even though most of muslims are not adhering into those intolerant views, a lot of them are too happy to put them into execution — those latter being legitimized by their book (and it is sometimes very hard to not say they are right if we take their book as postulat).

    Regarding the intolerance contained within the koran and the inherent dangerousness of this ideology, I do not ask you to believe me. Read that book for yourself. You should also download some magazines published by Al-Qā’Idah (in the Arabian Peninsula) and the IS and compare those with what is written in the koran. You will see that their « radical » ideology does not come from nowhere. But yet again, I encourage to do it by yourself.

    Moreover, trivial things such as eating only halal meat comes or putting an islamic blanket over women comes hand in hand with going into jihād against those « infidels swine » — it is in the very same book. If you are still perplex, here is an example. Before the years 2000s, in France there were next to no women wearing the islamic veil, and for the few of them who did, it was only covering the head (with nice colors and textiles !), it was discreet — and guess what was also very scarce ? Islamic terrorist attacks !!!! Today, there is a fucking lot of women that wear the islamic veil, but not the discreet and colored one — the integral and black one. Sometimes when I walk in some neighborhoods (I am not even talking about the « banlieue », but intramuros Parisian neighborhoods), I do wonder if I did not have mistakenly ended up in Al-Raqqa… Once again, guess what has become more common in France ? Islamic terrorist attacks.

 

 

    To conclude my long comment, I wish to stress the fact that the debate is not about saying we are the good and they are the bad nor about demonizing all muslims. However and it is undeniable — you just have to look what happens in the out there — we have a problem with islam and islam has a problem with us. Moreover this is not something new as it has been the case ever since islam came into existence centuries ago.

    And from this situation we have to learn a few things : (i) destabilizing muslims countries is not a very clever things to do as every time bad things happen (the IS is the perfect illustration) ; (ii) proximity between islam and western societies usually means a lot of tensions between the two civilizations ; (iii) islam is not compatible with western societies ; (iv) the contrary is also true so we should stop to try to impose them our way of life ; …

    … (v) if we want to tackle efficiently the terrorism problem, we should start to call a cat a cat and talk about the root of the « radical » islam, that is the « moderate » islam — until then, we should not be surprised if an Occidental president has an « anti-muslim » rhetoric and takes, he too, « radical » politic and military actions.

 

 

    P.S. Once again, as I know that my comment will be undoublty be misinterpreted, I want to stress that I am not saying they are bad people while us are the supreme good. Islam is a dangerous ideology for us westerners because it is inherently intolerant against us (we will go to hell, we are sinners, blabla, « Allah is surely an enemy to the infidels [i.e. us] », blablabla) — that is, for *us*. If muslims are muslims since ten centuries ago, this is probably because this is what is suitting them the most — and this is perfectly fine to me as I do understand that having different civilizations/people implies having different ideologies and different way of life. Yet we have to understand that a forced and "imposed" cohabitation in close proximity as it is the case today does not work neither for them nor for us. Not everyone is meant to co-exist, we just have to accept it.

    P.S.2. diversity + proximity usually means conflicts (to not say wars).

    P.S.3. There is probably a lot of typo mistakes, but this comment box is the pain in a ass when it comes to write long comments and especially to check them !

[Peace. 4,352]

12 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

They believe in some crazy things, but I think the Anti white stuff seems to be outsider Malcolm/Louis teachings. Their original leader, Elijah Muhammed, was on record for respecting all races. He even described the original prophet of Islam, Muhammed, as a white Arab, and the original founder of the Nation of Islam, Fard Muhammed, was a White guy named Wallace ford from Portland

It is not surprising in the slightest. Actually it seems that a lot of Arabs in the past considered themselves as white people. And now you are saying it, I believe that I have also encountered in some book a 13th century or so muslim saying the same thing (regarding their Prophet)... Unfortunately I have not my book at proximity to give you the reference.

And by the way, a lot of them are just as white as Europeans, if not more for some of them (especially those who live around the Mediterranean sea) !!

[Peace. 4,352]

5 hours ago, Spike said:

Do people actually mean 'Fascism' when they speak of 'Fascism' or do they mean 'Totalitariansim' and 'Dictatorship''?

    People are (over) mentioning notions such as « Fascism » and « Nazism » without fully understanding what they are talking about (that is if they understand anything at all). These are big words that sound nice and that have the advantage to confer their users the upper moral ground and which are very cool to bring up.

    However, using them outside their historical context make these notions irrelevant and trying forcibly to use them in order to describe present political systems is meaningless.

    By the way, if we do really insist to use these terms to describe today's reality, people would be very surprised with the results (i.e. who would be the "nazi" and who would be the "fascist").

P.S. oops, sorry for the triple comment, I did not realize..

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,742]

2 hours ago, Peace. said:

It is not surprising in the slightest. Actually it seems that a lot of Arabs in the past considered themselves as white people. And now you are saying it, I believe that I have also encountered in some book a 13th century or so muslim saying the same thing (regarding their Prophet)... Unfortunately I have not my book at proximity to give you the reference.

And by the way, a lot of them are just as white as Europeans, if not more for some of them (especially those who live around the Mediterranean sea) !!

 

Arabs were white,socially, in America until 9/11. Even on many census forms they are still labeled as such.

 

In the 20th century when America sought to keep Asians out, A Syrian took his case before many courts to be classified as White. He won.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_v._United_States

 

Nobody wants to be Asian. Its a curse in the west.

[Spike 12,049]

12 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

 

Arabs were white,socially, in America until 9/11. Even on many census forms they are still labeled as such.

 

In the 20th century when America sought to keep Asians out, A Syrian took his case before many courts to be classified as White. He won.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_v._United_States

 

Nobody wants to be Asian. Its a curse in the west.

Yeah, what a curse.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/asian-americans-lead-all-others-in-household-income/

[CHOULO19 24,332]

19 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

That solution is up to the people of Myanmar to sort out. Of course ethnically cleansing is wrong, but these situations come about exactly because of the suppression of free speech-in this case by the Myananar govt and also through practising religions like Islam. Its suppression central, a steam caldron waiting to blow through lack of communication and intransigence, hence extreme results -like when a husband and wife wont discuss all their problems -resulting in divorce, affairs, murder....

To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, if you refuse to let your views be challenged they become like prejudices that you are incapable of defending or articulating. When you reject free speech you lose the opportunity to defeat ideas you dislike and propound your own. You trade changing the world for throwing things at it.

Wait, so yes??  

I'll get to the other stuff, but are you really saying that the ongoing genocide in Myanmar is okay because most of the citizens there support it? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Saying that everyone should equally have their basic human and civil rights is not a political view that you can debate, it's a minimum requirement to any modern society. In fact those are the very fundamentals for any system that can function through political debate. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,408]

1 hour ago, CHOULO19 said:

Wait, so yes??  

I'll get to the other stuff, but are you really saying that the ongoing genocide in Myanmar is okay because most of the citizens there support it? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Saying that everyone should equally have their basic human and civil rights is not a political view that you can debate, it's a minimum requirement to any modern society. In fact those are the very fundamentals for any system that can function through political debate. 

I am tooo drunk to reply afret our fantastic victory. Free speech for everyone

[Fulham Broadway 16,408]

17 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Saying that everyone should equally have their basic human and civil rights is not a political view that you can debate, it's a minimum requirement to any modern society. In fact those are the very fundamentals for any system that can function through political debate. 

This is accepted generally Muslims in Myanmar is a fairly separate issue, and a tenuous link to Free Speech. The Myanmar example isn't really to do with free speech, more a totalitarian regime that has given a smidgen of 'democracy' to a view that the government are in favour of.

If we're going to use Islam, then the millions that are 'born' into it, but not allowed to question or leave would be more important regarding free speech. Trapped for life in an unquestionable set of absolutes, a cult that cannot be scrutinised or questioned in any rational way without fear of being ostracised, abused,  or often murdered. The 'harm' principle of free speech initially set up as money for lawyers ( libel, intellectual property) has now been hijacked, so that any 'offensive'  shit on social media is a 'crime'. The right to be offensive is fundamental -I may not like what you say, but defend your right to say it.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

30 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

This is accepted generally Muslims in Myanmar is a fairly separate issue, and a tenuous link to Free Speech. The Myanmar example isn't really to do with free speech, more a totalitarian regime that has given a smidgen of 'democracy' to a view that the government are in favour of.

If we're going to use Islam, then the millions that are 'born' into it, but not allowed to question or leave would be more important regarding free speech. Trapped for life in an unquestionable set of absolutes, a cult that cannot be scrutinised or questioned in any rational way without fear of being ostracised, abused,  or often murdered. The 'harm' principle of free speech initially set up as money for lawyers ( libel, intellectual property) has now been hijacked, so that any 'offensive'  shit on social media is a 'crime'. The right to be offensive is fundamental -I may not like what you say, but defend your right to say it.

Sorry but I REALLY don't understand the point you are trying to make. So let's retrace what we were saying and you tell me what I'm missing:

- You said that everything is up for debate.

-I said No, equal civil and human rights for everyone are not debatable. Meaning that even if a majority think that a group of people should have less rights than others the state cannot take away those people's rights.

Myanmar was one example. It is an example of how discrimination can be legalized if you make human and civil rights debatable. Same with slavery, LGBT rights...etc. If human and civil rights are up for debate then minorities every where are screwed. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,742]

19 hours ago, Spike said:

Yeah, what a curse.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/asian-americans-lead-all-others-in-household-income/

Thats consumerism thinking. You are turning into a 100% American my dear Spike

 

It changes nothing of the stigma of being an Asian in this country though. From the Bamboo ceiling to media representation its not something anyone would willingly sign up for. There is a reason Arabs, who are 100% from Asia, always sought to seek a distinction in terms of representation from Asia. There is also a reason they were granted as such during the Chinese Exclusion act(which, not surprisingly, kept out other east Asians who were not Chinese).

 

The Income thing is completely based on the fact that Asian Households are larger than other households in terms of working adults. Much easier to average higher with 3 working than 2.Poverty wise the picture is bleak.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/data-shows-duality-asian-america-high-income-high-poverty-n190031

 

This is also with having to score higher on standardized tests to get into comparable universities and professional schools. Arabs want no part in this hell

[kmk108 1,186]

There's also the cultural factor. East Asian cultures tend to value long-term decision making over short term, and that includes finances. It's where the "frugal Asian" comes from.