Talk:Model minority

Claims

Claims such as "this is regularly used for racialist comparisons between minority groups" need to be sourced and attributed please.

Recent Addition

The following was recently added to the article:

Asians are often found to be one standard deviation about the IQ of the general population. Furthermore, Asians are often found to be good at understanding, analyzing and remembering or applying patterns. These findings are disputed.

Where is the source for this? These statements seem to emphasize that the "model minority" stereotype is true. Simply putting that these "findings are disputed" does not make it NPOV. I feel this edit should be removed unless a source can be found. — J3ff 11:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not just those statements, but the whole passage attempts to provide a theory for the genesis of the stereotype with no source or support. It also has an air of illiteracy about it which should be edited out in any case. Demi 11:16, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

When you say "whole passage", do you mean the paragraph the quotes were taken from or the whole section "As applied in the United States"? —

J3ff 11:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean the paragraph, introduced by As large numbers of people ... and concluding with the statements you call out above. -- Demi 20:25, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article is terrible. I don't really have an interest in improving it. However, I did insert the sentences about the IQ and pattern-recognition abilities of Asians. This comes from data in the controversial books, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The Bell Curve. This is why I said that these findings are disputed. I included this because I thought it would add a different theory. That said, the above average IQ of Asians isn't really what is disputed - rather, it is the validity of IQ tests themselves. However, I do not mean to debate this controversy here. (Just so you know, I'm not Asian, and I'm not trying to promote any ideas of racial/genetic superiority.) I merely wanted to add another theory to the article. Edit at will. mat334 | talk 17:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed up the non-NPOV paragraph. Unless someone has an objection, I'll remove the NPOV tag. --Rikurzhen 04:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me — J3ff 08:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removed ridiculous ethnocentric bias. removed "enormous" and "very hard" in describing the work-ethic of ALL asians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.227.107 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

"Despite studies that suggest whites, on average, have higher IQs than blacks, Gargi Bhattacharyya, Liz Ison and Maud Blair have found in their study that IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and elsewhere are virtually non-existent." Reference for this? I could not find this work anywhere. I found several works by these authors but none that touched upon IQ and none that claimed that IQ differences were "virtually non-existent." All studies MUST have a reference.

Large reworking of article

I attempted to streamline the article and, among a number of other changes, removed the following sentences:

• "The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese from immigrating to the United States."

Already have enough examples, and barring Chinese immigration doesn't decrease chances Asian Americans would be successful.

• "The 1965 Immigration Act removed national origin based quotas."

unneccessary detail for this article; should be in an article on discrimination against Asian Americans

• "of which 92% (or over 1.1 billion) are of the dominant Han ethnic group"

Unless the article needs to specify a difference in performance between Hans and non Hans, "Chinese" encompasses both.

• "Furthermore, during the course of almost all of China's history, until the Communist regime began liberalising its economic policies in 1978, over 90% of China's people lived in horribly impoverished conditions."

Already encompassed in saying that they were poor - beyond that this detail is not relevant.

How do the changes look? Best, --Nectarflowed 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other model minorities?

-Are there any other model minorities out there worth mentioning in the article?

I'm not sure. I've only heard the term "model minority" in reference to Asian Americans. — J3ff 18:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it also applied to Indian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and Persian-Americans, and in an historical sense to Jewish-Americans prior to assimilation. But it is most often used in reference to Asian-Americans of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent.

The term model minority was first applied to german americans before the onset of WWI, the fact that Germans were so well respected in American society is one of the reasons that Wilson decided to stay out of the war for so long

Response:

Jewish-Americans aren't a "model minority" to the extent that Asian-Americans are. Their large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration: many of these students come from relatively wealthy backgrounds.

Indian-Americans certainly have model status. A factor similar to Asians is self-selection: with millions of candidates for immigration and limited admission to America, those that are successful tend to be superior in some way to their less-successful peers.

RE: [Jewish-Americans'] large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration [making them less of a 'model minority'].

Any racial minority group seems to meet the requirements of being considered a 'model minority group' through a high degree of success measured in factors such as income, education, IQ, and crime rate. A history of discrimination may also influence inclusion. Jewish-Americans meet these requirements*, though (as pointed out above) Jewish-Americans are assimilated. (*See Race_and_intelligence) --Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jews were restricted from most of the prestigious schools in the United States for the early part of the 20th century by an informal Jewish quota. This was a time when Jewish Americans had below average wealth, but Jews were very overrepresented in institutions like the City University of New York. I think you will find that most of the Jewish American generation that can afford to send their children to exclusive east coast schools came from average backgrounds, but were considerably more likely to attend college than other Americans.--Pharos 03:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "model minority" as applied to Jewish Americans is not referring to today's highly assimilated US Jewish population, but to the immigrants and their children of the early 20th century.

On a Related Note:

Whoever wrote this article originally, and to some extent those who edited it later, seem to continually be forgetting that "Asian American" includes those of South Asian descent (Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.), and South Asians make up a large majority of "Asian Americans." Although the terms "Indian American," "Pakistani American" etc. do exist, South Asians are still "Asian Americans." This article probably needs to be worked with a little so it is not centered so much on those of East Asian, and also include those of South Asian descent.

There is a bit. Check the fourth paragraph under "Self-selective immigration". It makes sense to lump together East Asians and South Asians in that section. I'm not sure why South Asians are not as represented in US media as East Asians, but the article is probably reflective of that. ViewFromNowhere 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

East Asia refers to China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Southeast Asian is from Burma to Vietnam to Indonesia. South Asia referse to the Indian Subcontinent. Being politically correct, by the USA goverment, being Asian means you are from any of these countries. Thus, Indian-Americans are included in the "model-minority" status. In fact, I saw an Asian census, and Indian-Americans are at par with Japanese-Americans in wealth.

Response: You have absolutely no grounds for claiming that Jewish-Americans "aren't a model minority to the same extent that Asian-Americans are." Firstly, you have no clear standards defined for what's 'more model' and what's 'less model'-- frankly, I think your standards are simply that Asian-Americans are YOUR role model, so case closed. Secondly, your comment that "Their large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration: many of these students come from relatively wealthy backgrounds," smacks of typical anti-semitic rhetoric, that is, "The Jews have all the money." You must be an east coaster going off of personal expereince, because east coast schools had nothing to do with this conversation, but since I am an east coaster, I will retort that Asian-Americans are usually doing pretty ok there financially, themselves, and you know why? For the same reason that many Jews are: THEY WORK HARD AND PUT A HIGH PRIORITY ON EDUCATION. You have absolutely no right to claim that Asian-Americans do this any more than Jews. Finally, this idea that you are carrying through, of Asian-Americans coming to this country harder-off while Jews just walked in all financially set, is COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. The majority of Jews in this country arrived within the last century, and the majority of them were peasants fleeing the Cossacks, or the French, or the Itallians, or the Germans, and they got off the boat at Ellis Island with $1.75 in their pockets, not knowing English, and having no idea what they were going to do now that they couldn't be a fishmonger anymore. The majority of Asian-Americans, however, came here with a good bit more education, and a specific idea of what they were coming to the states for, ie. left after the cultural revolution to come to the States and get their college education here. The demographics are completely different, and here's why. The political climate that sent the majority of Jews to America was one in which the elites were well off and the nonelites were being persecuted. The poltical climate that sent the majority of Asians to America was a politcal climate in which the nonelites were accepted and the elites of society, ie doctors, lawyers, professors, anyone with soft hands or who planned on having soft hands in the future, was persecuted. So I would argue that Asians came here doing pretty good, frankly, and they're well-represented in "exclusive east coast schools", as well as wonderful schools throughout the country, as are Jews. Frankly, I think this whole discussion is ridiculous; I'm Jewish and, my entire life, my best friends have been Asian. There is a reason for this, and that is because we operate on a level moral and intellectual playing field. My point in writing this is not to compete for "who's more model"; I'm not saying that Jews are more model than Asians, I'm just saying Asians aren't more model than Jews. And the sooner we we realize that we're equally 'model' than the sooner we can start learning from one another.

re: --Nectarflowed 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC

You stated that numerical restrictions on Asian immigration to America were irrelevent; I disagree vigorously. Consider this: where are new immigrants likely to find adapting to a new country the most easy? Answer: within a group of their national/ethnic peers. So, Asian-American immigrants would have a far easier time after immigration if larger numbers of their group were present in established communities.

I believe you're referring to my mention above of my removal of the sentence:

• "The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese from immigrating to the United States."

The dynamic you describe sounds possible. I think though that this topic is currently dealt with adequately in the section Model_minority#History_of_discrimination, and going into too detailed history there is beyond what is needed for this article's purpose.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-selecting immigration?

If you buy this theory, does it mean people who stayed in India, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand ... are more likely to be less intelligent? It isn't too convincing. -- Toytoy 10:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it means that those who have who have succeeded in relocated themselves halfway around the world are more likely to be "driven" individuals, and may also be more likely to succeed in education and work life.--Pharos 04:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• No. Those that stayed include the wealthy and intelligent that are better off in their native country, who benefit from a more classist system, etc. ViewFromNowhere 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making the flawed assumption that the actual group possessing power and wealth in those countries completely corresponds to the entire segment of the population that may fairly be regarded as intelligent. Please read up on the history of the grossly inequitable class structures in China and Japan, where a tiny percentage of the population traditionally controlled all the power and wealth while more than 90% toiled in abject poverty. This situation changed in Japan only after 1900 when it started developing a lot of heavy industry, and in China only after 1980 thanks to the economic liberalization under Deng Xiaoping. The books of Edwin Reischauer and John King Fairbank are the usual place to start. Also see the work of Barrington Moore, Jr. --Coolcaesar 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that intelligence is the sole cause of wealth. I think it's the other way around. Wealth allows you to be better educated, which corresponds to "intelligence" as defined as the ability to perform well on intelligence tests. ViewFromNowhere 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is slightly overexaggerated, the extent of the self-selection bias at least. But nonetheless it's something to consider. 01:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This idea of "self selection" is semantically misleading and should be retitled. If this section is referring to the phenomena of recent immigrants entering with higher levels of education otherwise colloquially referred to as the "brain drain;" the section misinterprets the causality. The 2nd paragraph seemingly brings the conversation back into an area that coincides with what is regularly taught by Asian American Studies academics. The early history sections are total assumptions and without serious citation (published works) should be removed. This history presents the idea that immigration, while small was possible, and these small numbers of smart wealthy merchant's progeny would account for the later model minority status.Dezertfx21 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Model Minority Myth

I've never heard of Model Minority used in a good way academically. In fact, it is usually called a myth, not a serious idea. See Gary Okihiro's Is Yellow Black or White for an example of motivations behind its use.--BlueSunRed 17:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Myth

This article seems to be an apology for this myth, not an objective, sophisticated exploration of the history of the concept, nor of those who reject the concept. I cannot believe that the "Genetic factors in racial disparities" section is even taken seriously; even the studies which claim to establish a link between "race" and "intelligence" (the criteria for establishing both are highly contested and amorphous) have serious methodological flaws, and have not been taken seriously in most academic circles. Was Rush Limbaugh the author of this article? [User:Musica -ed.]

Hi Musica. Half of this article is devoted to history and criticism. You are welcome to add more. The race and intelligence section of this article functions as a synopsis of the issues dealt with in race and intelligence as they relate to this article topic. Your statements are addressed in that article and its subarticles. (use the signature button to leave your username) --Nectarflowed ^T 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with the overall viewpoint, this is a very biased article that reads more like an op-ed than an encyclopedia entry. The part about "and, OF COURSE, the Chinese Exclusion Act" as if your average layperson is going to know what that is especially gives it away and in no way belongs in an encyclopedia. And like other people pointed out, the near-total exclusion of other model minorities makes it even more biased. My suggestion, however, is not to rewrite it, but to re-title it "Asian-Americans and the Model Minority Myth" or "...and the Model Minority Phenomenon". That would make rewriting it ten times easier. I'm willing to bet the author was the president of their college's Asian-American club - not that that's bad or anything.

Oh yeah, and that section titled "Partly Genetic Explanation" is ridiculous. It needs to be made clear that only a few people feel that way and that their viewpoint is not taken seriously by the wider scientific community (or the sane American community for that matter). The person who wrote how J. Rushton and Hernstein/Murray or largely discredited - their discussion post on this matter should be cut and pasted there. I would do it, but then that whole section needs to be reorganized.

Perhaps the part of this article, about Asian Americans, should include some detail about the specific Asian American groups? Like, this article mentions the high academic rates, but I last read that groups such as Vietnamese Americans have below average academic (college student percentage, etc) rates. Maybe this could help explain the "myth" part - because of lack of detail and specifics when talking about Asian Americans. Peoplesunionpro 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling the phenomenon a myth is ridiculously POV. [User-Balrog.]

Effects of affirmative action on Asian Americans

" A 2005 Princeton study showed Asians (not whites) bear nearly 80% of the cost of affirmative action in college admissions. Nearly four out of every five spots given to blacks and Hispanics in an affirmative-action regime would go to Asians in a purely merit-based system. [1]

The average cost or benefit of college affirmative action in terms of SAT points (on 1600-point scale) is as follows: [2]

• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: −50
• Recruited Athletes: +200
• "Legacies" (children of alumni): +160"

Besides the obvious agenda pushing I'm concerned if this discussion should even be included under this subject. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This point appears to be on one of the repurcussions of Asian American's high level of achievement, which seems to be germane to this article. Noting affirmative action's effects on different races doesn't itself seem to be POV pushing.--Nectar ^T 22:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The two issues do definitely have a relation. One argument for affirmative action (although far from the only one) is: "the proportion of students at the top institutions should be roughly equal to their proportion in the population". This argument would imply that groups that are overrepresented, as is the case with "model minorities", should be discriminated against in admissions, in favor of those who are underrepresented. --Delirium 06:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It does have a relation, as it is directly related to the stereotype 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dilbert comic

[Copied from User_talk:J3ff#Dilbert_comic ]

Fair use images of this sort need to be explicitly discussed in the text if they are going to be used in this way. See WP:FU. I removed it because it seems largely irrelevant to the place it was put, and the discussion of whether or not Indians were a model minority was an almost insubstantial part of the article. If someone were to write up a section on Indians as model minorities, on how this is reflected sometimes in the U.S. with certain stereotypes, and mention that the character in Dilbert is an example of this, then I could imagine it being in the article without question. --Fastfission 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nigerian Americans

Excuse me, just for blacks here, but shouldn't Nigerian Americans be included in this as well? After all, they are the (read) TOP educated group (foreign born or not) in the United States http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ancestry/table_01.txt. They have academic records comparable to Asians and Indians (I'm separating Indians because Indians aren't racially Asian). So just for the sake of kicking the "Asians are genetically hardwired to academically succeed and blacks are genetically hardwired to be on the bottom of the social barrel" theory in the balls, please?

That's an interesting table. Of the selected ancestries included, Nigerians, Iranians, and Egyptians look pretty tied, with the Iranians and Egyptians exceeding the Nigerians in total percentage with a college degree or higher, though the Nigerians are .3% ahead in graduate degrees or higher. I notice three ancestries that should probably be compared are not included in their comparison (Ashkenazi, Chinese, and Japanese). Chinese and Japanese have higher mean IQ's than other asian ethnicities, so the total Asian rate of education may underestimate the rate of these groups.

To respond to your question, small groups (50,000) that are mainly in the U.S. under special circumstances, such as highly skilled employment or advanced education, seem to be not be directly relevant to this article, which looks at social groups. Sampling the top 50,000 of any social group (Nigeria has a pop of 130 million) would produce very high figures. --Nectar 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But he said Nigerian Americans, not Nigerians. Asians as a whole are also poor, illiterate, etc. - what percentage of Chinese people in China can read? You'll be surprised. Also, I seem to remember reading a while back that Caribbean and African blacks, after the initial establishment phase, have average income levels not just higher than "American blacks" but than the average US income overall. It was brought up in the "slavery as a root cause of underachievement" refution (since Caribbean blacks are likewise ancestors of slaves). Adam Mathias 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The text above and the link refer to Nigerian Americans. Even East Asians in China are thought to have mean IQs higher than the European mean. Richard Lynn does a meta-analysis of 101 studies of East Asians' IQ in a book of his to be published this year. That's an interesting thought regarding Caribbean blacks.. that'd be interesting to get data on that.--Nectar 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You made a good point Adam Mathias. Now Nectar, hon, be very cautious of Richard Lynn's figures, whether they are in Asia, Europe, or Africa (especially Africa). I've glanced at his non-peer reviewed book, and judging from a pure scientific validity standpoint, it's the worst book I've ever read. His figures for European countries are massaged and manipulated, the same goes for Asia and Africa, in some instances he is actually contradicted by his own research. Example, in one study alone there were five erros, in one fucking study. The largest study on Asian Americans (cited by James R. Flynn) failed to find the fabled "Asian intellectual superiority" over whites, also, there's a page by Dienekes Pontikos called "Greek IQ" which espouses the same theory, and points out that when Processing Speed is taken into account, Asians do not exceed whites in terms of g. Look it up. Peace.

IQ scores, literacy rates (where China and Mexico tie), etc. show not much. This article is not about biological differences in intelligence. It doesn't matter how poor and destitute and illiterate and if you say so unintelligent Xians are in Xland, it matters whether they are a real or perceived (and of course we should elaborate in the article about that) so-called "model minority" in the country in which they are a minority, that is, in that country, they achieve "success" at rates above other minorities or above the average or above the majority. That is, model minority does not imply model majority. In fact, few countries have model majorities. In America, Chinese are considered above-average in education, etc. Go find an American in China and you'll see he's the cream of the crop too. Surprise surprise, people who have the wherewithall, motivation, means, and education to make it in another culture may often appear "superior". Of course, this effect lessens as the barriers lessen, meaning that Mexicans you meet in Germany will be more educated than the average German or American, but Turks you meet will be less. In the USA, Mexicans are not considered a model minority, but Turks are way above in their education levels. Because of the natural selection created by barriers to getting here. Here at university (in the USA), me and my roommate even have a rule to describe the phenomenon we see in our fellow students: the poorer (and farther) the country they're from, the richer they are. Which is why the Mexicans clean the bathrooms, and the (one or two) Bhutanese study computer engineering. Is it IQ? Unlikely, since races are not even pure in the first place. All that matters for this article is the perception. In the US, Nigerians and Senegalese may be. In France and Italy, they are boat people. A minority by definition is a minority not in the earth (aren't we all) but in some country. Adam Mathias 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A meta-analysis of previously peer-reviewed research doesn't need to be peer-reviewed before publication if review occurs afterwards. It doesn't seem likely that 100 studies identifying a trend all have transcription errors in the same direction, and Dienekes doesn't make that claim. Lynn discusses some possible confounding factors in studies of cognitive ability in Asians,[3] for example, that they are known to tend to be late maturers compared to the ethnic groups in relation to which they're being tested. --Nectar 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Because race is a social construction and changes over time, the stereotype of the model minority presents a racism dressed up in nice clothes." This is a debatable point, and it seems to me that this artocle should get a NPOV flag, and an editing.

I was about to mention that and it turns out not only did you already mention it, but you put it on the bottom of the page where it's easy to find... Anyway, I agree. "Race is a social construction" is something that a lot of people don't accept, and the article has no business assuming it as fact. Ken Arromdee 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any talk of IQ only works to discredit any conversation on this subject. As stated above the model minority can only be objectivly approached assuming social constructions of race thereby allowing us to focus on the socio-economic ramifications and begin to unpack the limits of this stereotype. However I would argue that this is not the job of an encyclopedia, and instead more readings should be offered instead given this aritcles disputed nature.Dezertfx21 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

98% of China's youth and college age people are literate; don't try and justify anything with "gut feeling" research, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.227.107 (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Asians really have high IQ. There are pseudoscience of why Asians have lower processing speed. There is a thesis that defends it: http://www.ifw-kiel.de/VRCent/DEGIT/paper/degit_11/C011_063.pdf

It says physical movement times are slower in Asians processing speed is higher.

Thus, I turn to the Jensen Box. Jensen created a simple test of information processing speed that has been widely used by psychologists interested in intelligence testing. The Jensen box has a home button and between 1 and 8 buttons with lights. Initially, all of the buttons with lights are turned off. When one of the buttons with lights turns on, the test subject takes her finger off the home button and presses the lighted button as quickly as possible. One might expect this skill to be uncorrelated with IQ, but in fact button-pressing speed (known as reaction time) is correlated by an average of –0.35 (Jensen (1998), 204). The correlation is greater (in absolute value) when there are more buttons to choose from.

Again, one might believe that this correlation simply results from social norms and acculturation: People who try harder on IQ tests might also be people who try harder on button-pressing tests. But if that is the case, it is difficult to explain the following fact: The correlation between reaction time and IQ derives almost entirely from the speed with which one lifts one’s finger from the home button (a measure known as decision time). There is little if any correlation between movement time (the time between finger removal and the time when the lighted button is depressed) and IQ (Jensen (1998), 211-214, 230-231, 242). If reaction time were simply a result of “trying harder,” one would expect both decision time and movement time to be correlated with IQ. And according to a massive psychology literature summarized in Jensen (1998), it is decision time, not movement time, that has a robust correlation with cognitive ability however measured.

Unfreeride 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Africans don't migrate to  the US much but they do go to Europe very often. In Europe African Immigrants do just as well as African Immigrants in the US despite larger numbers. Asians such as Chinese make up less of Europe than These immigrants but do not do as well. I believe Nectar is incorrect.YVNP 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article on model minority glorifies something with an underlying negative connotation. It provides many references in support of this myth as in talking about genetics and so forth, but fails to take into consideration the negative side of such a label. Therefore, the article seems to be gravely imbalanced in its neutrality.--Ryz05 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah despite the improvement over the appalling state of the article a year ago, there are parts that just give me a laugh and go "some nerd wrote this". I removed the, to paraphrase, "white people have a wider pool to choose from hence lower scores" for its ridiculousness. However, upon reconsideration, maybe I should keep it in for the time being. It would be a big immediate flag that there is something fishy going onHeaven's knight 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I worked tirelessly for months to provide the negative side of the stereotype in balance with the theories on its truthfulness. Someone has obviously gone through and deleted everything that's not glorifying of the stereotype. This is a terrible, terrible article now and I believe it should be completely scrapped and begun again. It's been manipulated to such an extent that I don't think anyone could ever make complete sense of it again without massive, massive edits. Starting from scratch would be much easier. arobotar 1:43, 20 May 2006

I don't want to scrap it. Maybe you can link to one of previous versions when it was good, and we can re-incorporate those parts? ViewFromNowhere 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

modelminority.com

Should this link [4] be included in the External Links section? Most of the articles on modelminority.com seem to be about irrelevant stuff, but this particular article seems to have some merit, prima facie. ViewFromNowhere 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It does look like it has some good references. The default stance would probably disqualify the link on the grounds that the author and site of publication don't meet notability requirements (unless it can be shown otherwise). However, looking at the article on it's own merits, I think statements such as the following disqualify it from being linked to from a reference work: "The rhetorical power of this widely accepted stereotype was not lost on the Reagan administration, which had grown uncomfortable with the societal progress minorities had made under affirmative action and sought to eliminate legal and governmental remedies for diffuse but systematic racial discrimination in the private sector."--Nectar 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, could you explain your comments? I don't understand how notability requirements apply here, or why POV is grounds for disqualification. Instead, one could argue that it should be included on the grounds of WP:CSB. --Wzhao553 06:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that site appears to have been referenced in some academic articles, and one article at least even refers to that article.ctrl f stereotype Looks good for inclusion.--Nectar 08:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research. --Wzhao553 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Self selection

The article mentions the self selection aspect and the immigration of various Asian groups but in a quick read through, fails to discuss the issues surrounding blacks, specifically that they have mostly descended from those who were brought to the US and enslaved. While this may seem obvious to many, it's easily possible there will be people less familiar with US history who might not recognised this. Nil Einne 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Asian American section

Hi! I was working on the Model Minority section of Stereotypes of Asians and came across these related articles:

• Bill Sing, "'Model Minority' Resentments Spawn Anti-Asian-American Insults and Violence," Los Angeles Times 31 February 1989, p. 12.
• Greg Toppo, "'Model' Asian student called a myth ; Middle-class status may be a better gauge of classroom success," USA Today, 10 December 2002, p. 11.
• Benjamin Pimentel, "Model minority image is a hurdle, Asian Americans feel left out of mainstream," San Francisco Chronicle, 5 August 2001, p.25.
• "What 'Model Minority' Doesn't Tell," Chicago Tribune, 3 January 1998, p.18.
• Ronald Takaki, "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority," The New York Times, 16 June 1990, p. 21.
• Felicia R. Lee, "'Model Minority' Label Taxes Asian Youths," New York Times, 20 March 1990, pages B1 & B4.

which I thought were very good. These are only a handful of a whole slew of articles about the innacuracies and usually damaging effects of the Model Minority myth. Hope you find them useful! --Drenched 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Culture Section

• This section requires some major reworking. While I support a section on Culture for explaining why AsAm are the model minority, the current writing reflects none of the work done by academics on the subject and the last sentence, “Many Asian Americans will say that a not-so intelligent person who works diligently in his or her studies will surpass one who is naturally gifted…” is written in a way that borders on furthering racist stereotyping. (I felt like editing in Confucius Say…)
  • A responsible explanation of culture would break the discussion into two commonly understood theories centered on culture: Folk theories of success or Cultural models of success, AND Relative Functionalism. Both theories look at a specific phenomena within the MMM regarding AsAm educational success.
  • The limits of a cultural explanation for MMM occur when we consider the heterogeneity of AsAm. Since there is no monolithic AsAm culture, and because attempts to define “traditional Asian culture” are complicated by acculturation/enculturation factors the use of culture as a predictor of success becomes problematic. However given the frequency of this sort of explanation amongst the population for any generalized behavior of a minority group, it is important to address.

Citation: (APA style)

• Kim, E.Y. (1993). Career choice among second-generation Korean Americans: Reflections of cultural model of success.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 224-248

• Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920

Dezertfx21 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup or scrapped and rewritten

"Asian Americans are labeled as model minorities because they have not been as much of a "threat" to the U.S. political establishment as blacks, due to a smaller population and less political advocacy. This label seeks to suppress potential political activism through euphemistic complements."

who the hell wrote this? Obviously someone not very happy with the label. regardless, it's bias as hell, and thus I'm removing the sentence. I haven't been able to proof-read this whole article, but I am sure that this article is full of tidbits like these. thus, I think that we should Either perform some heavy cleanup on this page, or scrap it and rewrite it entirely. Stevo D 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this statement cannot be presented as a "fact". It should however, be left in as a theory. I have personally seen many white supremacists and conservatives use the model minority stereotype as a way of attacking African-Americans. ie, "if Asians can come here and succeed, why can't blacks succeed?". I also find it very interesting that you are suggesting a complete re-write or deletion of this article as you have tried to do the same thing with the "Asian Stereotypes" article. In that article, you presented contradictory arguments for deletion. At first, you criticized the article for having too many stereotype categories. Then when the community decided to remove one of the redundant categories, you complained about the deletion. I don't know if you are just playing at being a professional contrarian or what, but the more stuff of yours I read, the less and less I am inclined to believe that you are operating in good faith.OneViewHere 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Minorities?

This is a racist page. What makes Asians minorities? They are actually the most populous racial group in all the world, why are Americans so politically correct? Crud3w4re 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this point is so obvious that no one felt it needed to be articulated: This article refers to Asians living in places other than Asia. It's primarily referring to Asians in America specifically. And as Asians make up 3% of the US population, they can indeed be called a "minority".OneViewHere 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's POV. Then shouldn't Italians be considered a minority? It's irrelevent. This whole "minority" thing is racism. Crud3w4re 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what makes blacks minority?

Asians model minorities?

For an article so long and based 95% on asians I find it hard to believe that all that came from 3 sources and I only see two quotes in the whole article. I'm no demographer but aren't jews more well of in general than asians. Even if that is not so why is the article so asian oriented. They have 1 billion in china 130 million in japan 200 million in indonesia 80 million in the philpines and vietnam and laos, isn't it by chance going to dictate that of all those people from their trying to come to america it is going to be the smart ones not the illerate stupid ones who can't read or write?Even if asians are smarter than the rest of us can I ask why this article is so american oriented? In Toronto Canada all the poorest communities are made up of fresh of the boat asians (indians and chinese) so I don't see how they are model minorities especialy when so much of them steal and are on the news every day for running illegal things like grow ops, prostitution rings, illegal distribution of movies etc.

The reason this article is so "Asian oriented" is because the term "model minority" is most often used in reference to Asians. (Asians in America specifically) Also, you seem to be completely missing the entire point of the article, which is that the term "model minority" is a *stereotype*. OneViewHere 23:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Exclusion Act

I don't get what the 100 Chinese per year is taken from. Actually, I happen to have a copy of the 2001 version of the US　Immigration and Naturalization service in front of me. Unfortunately, it'll only give me the numbers for decades. However, it should like like this

1871-80： 123,201 1881-90: 61,711 1891-1900: 14,799 1901-10: 20,605 1911-20: 21,278 1921-30: 29,907 1931-40: 4,928 1941-50: 16,709 1951-60: 9,657 1961-70: 34,764 1971-80: 124,326

(Taiwan included from 1957)

Even in the decade with the smallest number of immigrants, it's almost 500 people a year.

Citation request

"The majority of welfare recipients have always been white"

Citation, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk • contribs)

Done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

East Asian societies: imaginary group

"Cultural factors are thought to be part of the reason why Asian Americans are successful in the United States. East Asian societies themselves, in general, will often place more resources and emphasis on education."

There is no such thing as an ""East Asian society", or culture. For example, Japan and Mongolia have very little in common. In fact, Chinese and Vietnamese have a lot more in common, despite the fact that Vietnam is not an East Asian country. And Mongols don't place heavy emphasis on education. Holding education in high esteem is from Confucian roots, and countries that have been heavy influenced by this include: Vietnam, Korea, Japan, China (and maybe Singapore).

"Chinese and Vietnamese have a lot more in common" O rly?

I see the "East Asian culture" thing as non-existent and an attempt to deny the Confucian influence. This might be due to the fact that Vietnamese, although influenced by Confucianism, has not succeeded as well in the US as other immigrants from Confucian countries. I won't claim to know the reason for this, but in other countries, (see "Vietnamese Norwegian) the Vietnamese do pretty well, despite being refugees and coming to the country with close to no resources.

I suggest we change the above section to say Confucian society, not East Asian society. Tridungvo 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "East Asian society", it says "East Asian societies", as in multiple and distinct societies. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it is more important that immigrants are from Confucian countries, than that the countries they come from lie in East Asia. Statements like the one in the article will stereotype East Asians vs. say Southeast Asians, when in fact some countries in Southeast Asia (Singapore or Vietnam) place more emphasis on education than for example Mongolia. Then the article tries to make up by saying "Similar cultural tendencies and values are found in South and Southeast Asian families, whose children similarly face extra pressure by parents to succeed in school and to achieve high-ranked jobs". This is not true of the South and Southeast Asian in general. In fact Indian Americans come from the upper classes of their country.

The articly is trying to seperate Singaporeans and Vietnamese away from Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, although poorly disguised. What all these countries have in common is their Confucian influence, which may explain their high achievemnts in international Olympics in math, physics and chemistry. The illusionary seperation of East Asia vs the rest is also evident in the article's claim about IQ scores. China's IQ is in fact 100, and Mongolia's IQ is estimated at 98. Singapore's IQ is at 100. Vietnam's IQ has not been taken, though I doubt it is lower than Mongolia's. Please see the Confucian vs. non-Confucian difference, and not the East Asian vs. non-East Asian difference. Tridungvo 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is going on here. It's like asian supremacy hidden behind the title of model minority. I can understand that a minority would deviate from the majority as they are the minority. Asian people have different values thus what thay focus on would tend to be better. One thing I don't get is that these minorities came about by immigration to places that have it better. For example I could say that the model majority are the white people. They gave the midas touch to Hong Kong Shanghai and Singapore. Everywhere else in Asia they didn't influence tends not to be that great and places like Australia, NZ and the US which they started seem to flourish. This is not my opinion of white superiority but the logic involved is identical saying that asian people are superior in a white environment.218.166.45.67 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me further add this fight to achieve superiority as a minority iis biased. Maybe black people may not compete with asians in the iq game, but they aren't as studious. Compare the highest salaries in america of blacks and asians and you'll find the pro athletes and entertainers have the most lucricative salaries and which minority wins in these areas? . Going down a bit the asians win the middle class as they have better middle class jobs. The middle class has higher numbers than the upper thus the average is higher. Speaking of racial values the writers of this article are predominantly asian and for the large part talking about IQ and education. The topic of low crime fits in with the book ut the comparison of IQ's and genetic factors is taboo for a model citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.45.67 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article says "Asians" but from the context it can be seen that it is really talking about Orientals. Be aware that Asia goes further west and south than China.

It is also from an almost totally American perspective. — Chameleon 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use the term Pacific Islander as "Oriental" is as offensive as the N-word among African Americans. Pacific Islanders are not rugs or a specialty food section, which is what Oriental refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.91.83 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is very biased. The article criticizes African immigrants and downplays their success while ignoring the problems in the Asian stereotypes. If it is worth mentioning that there are white African immigrants than it is worth mentioning that Indian immigrants form a large portion of Asian immigrants and the acheivement of Asians would be much lower without them. Persian Americans should also not be considered models because they have small numbers(If the page on them is right. YVNP (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions the bachelor degree rate but not the associate degree rate. This is misleading because the pdf shows only 20.5% have an aa degree. This seems to be an attempt to imply Asians have more academic success at the lower levels than they do. The comparison to blacks is unnecessary and is unsourced. I see wikipedia wants to overlook this one. :/YVNP (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And where did 1 out of 4 Asian college students graduating from elite universitites come from? original research of course. That number needs removal because it is a synthesis to convince people. Also why is there no mention of the iq average. That would be most important here.YVNP (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A wikiwarrior is born every minute

This starting to suffer from synthesis, censorship and plain bias. Semi protection neededYVNP (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

complete hogwash on "ethnicity"

It is reference to race, not "ethnicity". Seems someone tied to claim ethnicity so they could reference jews or some such, who are not "model minorities" becuase they are not a racial minority. Very clever, but nonetheless wrong.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagged

This article has been tagged for bias along with original and unwarranted claimsYVNP (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Little edit

I deleted "(especially in Great Britain)" as nowhere in Britain refers to Asians of any stripe as 'Asian country'-Americans. Not being in America and that. 77.102.174.175 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

White South Africans

"Another example of negatively viewed success is whites in southern Africa. Under colonialism, whites continued to cling onto power in nations such as Zimbabwe and South Africa long after world opinion had turned against white rule. However, not all of their success can be attributed to their monopoly on power. According to the University of the Western Cape [3], in South Africa over the period 1995-2000, average black incomes dropped 19% and average white incomes rose 15%. Given that there was a black-led government in power for the whole of this period, it is difficult to substantiate an argument saying they got this wealth by anything other than merit alone." This statement is not entirely true and is highly misleading. We all know that government don't make changes in days they take years to implement substantiative changes. In fact the BBC article that is cited makes it quite clear that why whites in South Africa are rich and the black are per capita poorer "Waged employment is vital to poor households in South Africa, partly because colonial land-grabbing and apartheid destroyed the black farming economy in order to create a cheap labour force." Thus it becomes quite clear that the white government in SA stole the land of blacks gave it whites thus leaving them w/o means to make any money which created a group of people who had to work for wages below what they otherwise would have. It also explicity states that whites destroyed the native South Africaners economy. Luckly the South Africans people are very forgiving and chose not to reditribute the wealth that most whites got through stealing, in fact if I recall correctly Mbeki BEE failed to pass into law http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2763131.stm "The South African government failed to push through legislation on black economic empowerment last year"

In fact the article cited above by the bbc directly contradicts the non-cited source "'The government will lay greatest stress on black economic empowerment that is associated with growth, development and enterprise development and not merely redistribution of existing wealth'"

I'm not saying this should not be in the article but it should defintely take into consideration the major problems I point out. Also coming from a country that was dominated by Nazis I have somewhat a problem of the portrayl of white south africans as a model minority. As the article made claer above "Waged employment is vital to poor households in South Africa, partly because colonial land-grabbing and apartheid destroyed the black farming economy", thus much of white south african wealth is based on theft that comes from dominating another people. I don't know if this is really a model minority. If we were talking about whites in China I'd definitely agree that as a model minority, but we don't know how much of the wealth white africans have obtained through business skill and how much they have attained by simply being part of an army who took over another country. This country went from colonisation to apartheid- where black people had their land taken from them and given away to white people for free- if the situation where vice versa I couldn't imagine anyone suggesting blacks as a model minority.