SnooRevelations979

SnooRevelations979 t1_j7xexli wrote

Vietnam was under suzerainty of China for a long time, and Singapore is majority Chinese. In the rest of Southeast Asia, the Chinese are a minority -- they often been called the Jews of the area -- and Confucianism doesn't have much pull. (Most Malay Chinese are Hokkien, not Han, btw, but Han Chinese was a made up ethnicity anyway. Nonetheless, my point holds: there is no singular Asian culture.

And back to the original topic, it seems you are comparing Asian immigrants and their children's performance in school and our own city's largely Black student body. Even if it held as a counterpoint to what I originally wrote (which it doesn't), do you really think that's a fair comparison? Koreans are traditionally neck and neck with Greeks as being the most educated immigrants. The first wave of Vietnamese immigrants -- largely Catholic mandarins attached to the allied South Vietnamese government -- did much better academically than the second wave (the less affluent).

But, more importantly, with the exception of refugees (Vietnamese, Lao, Khmer), Asian immigrants have already gone through a self-selection equivalent to being admitted to a magnet school by the very act if immigrating and had the wealth to get here. (Note that the population of China is far less educated than our own.) Your comparing this filterd population with a broader population who was denied education of any sort and their labor stolen for 200 years, and then had another century of Apartheid, before being economically isolated in "freedom"?

Please. Let me know when you've found those poor, high-performing schools, btw.

0

SnooRevelations979 t1_j7rlocd wrote

Sure, the Nordics tax the rich at high levels. But the Nordics also tax everyone else at high levels, too. While the former may be politically doable, the second is not.

And while taxation is one of the reasons Nordic countries are middle class, it's also because until relatively recently they were quite homogenous. And their taxation and welfare systems enjoy broad approval. (In fact, right-wing parties don't even focus on them.) They also don't have the federated government we do.

So, your solution is about realistic as mine.

4

SnooRevelations979 t1_j7n2gfj wrote

I should also add that the term "progressive" has a lot of baggage that modern progressives seem pretty unaware of.

A hundred years ago, progressives were indeed advocating for public health (which largely accounts for our doubled lifespan in that time), and more equal income distribution. But they were also generally eugenicists.

1

SnooRevelations979 t1_j7n1eax wrote

To me, while I share a lot of values with progressives, they seem to be most interested in gestures and who is gesturing. They also don't seem to have tons of interest in local governance and its prosaic details (fire department, police, trash clean up, etc.) or the role of local government vis-a-vis state and federal government. They are more interested in signaling on national issues. There's also an underlying tide of evangelicalism that I don't subscribe to.

I'm a liberal because I believe there's a huge role for government to help people get out of poverty and protect rights, including the rights of minorities. But, in most cases, that is role of higher levels of government, not the government of a poor shrinking city.

6

SnooRevelations979 t1_j72h8ip wrote

Part of it is that there's a focus on sexy progressive initiatives rather than making basic services more efficient.

I'm a liberal, but believe redressing wealth inequality, etc. is the responsibility of the state and especially federal governments. Local governments can't do much about it. Their job is to address basic services and make an environment that's conducive to investors, including you and me.

8