Yale professors say Nigerians, Jews, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, and
others are superior to other races or cultures
Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld are
professors at Yale Law School and the authors of the (forthcoming) book “The
Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural
Groups in America,” says Nigerians, Jews, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, and others
are superior to other races or cultures. A version which appears in the New
York edition was headlined What Drives Success?
According to
them, “There are some black and Hispanic groups in America that far outperform
some white and Asian groups. Immigrants from many West Indian and African countries,
such as Jamaica, Ghana, and Haiti, are climbing America’s higher education
ladder, but perhaps the most prominent are Nigerians. Nigerians make up less
than 1 percent of the black population in the United States, yet in 2013 nearly
one-quarter of the black students at Harvard Business School were of Nigerian
ancestry; over a fourth of Nigerian-Americans have a graduate or professional
degree, as compared with only about 11 percent of whites.”
This book is a plus to Nigeria and
Nigerians and as such worth publishing. But first, let us consider the reaction
of jewamongyou
as published on his blog Are Nigerian Americans
intellectually superior?
Are Nigerian
Americans intellectually superior?
The internet is abuzz, and in an
uproar, since “Tiger Mom” released her newest book “The
Triple Package.” The headline of Salon.com
is typical:
Tiger Mom is
back with despicable new theory about racial superiority
Yale Law professor Amy Chua, who
would live in obscurity among the general public if it weren’t for her persona
as the disgustingly smug Tiger
Mom, is trolling America with yet another theory
personal rant about her cultural superiority…
In it, Chua and Rubenfeld use what
reviewer Maureen
Callahan calls “specious stats and anecdotal evidence” to argue that
Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles
and Mormons are superior to other races or cultures, and “everyone else is
contributing to the downfall of America.”
It would be interesting to see
those “specious stats” and their rebuttals – but I’ve got a hunch that all
we’ll see, from the corporate media, is rants like the above from Salon. For my
part, I figure if the corporate media becomes hysterical, and foams at the
mouth, over a book, then that book is probably worth reading. It’s tantamount
to a recommendation. But since when are Mormons, or Cuban exiles, a “race?”
If Prachi Gupta, the Salon author
above, is so convinced that there are no superior, or inferior, demographics,
then she should live her life accordingly – and buy her house in the ghetto
(where it’s cheaper) and not worry about sharing a dark alley with blacks or
Hispanics.
Are Nigerian Americans really
superior, or did Chua include them in the list in order to protect herself from
charges of “racism?” I’ve seen claims that Nigerians are “the
most educated group in America.” This is possible, since the
immigration process filters out practically all but the far right of Nigeria’s
intellectual bell curve. According to Wikipedia:
During the mid- to late-1980s, a
larger wave of Nigerians immigrated to the United States. This migration was
driven by political and economic problems exacerbated by the military regimes
of self-styled generals Ibrahim Babangida and Sani
Abacha. The most noticeable exodus occurred among professional and
middle-class Nigerians who, along with their children, took advantage of
education and employment opportunities in the United States.
Some believe that this exodus has
contributed to a “brain-drain” on Nigeria’s intellectual resources to the
detriment of its future. Since the advent of multi-party democracy in March
1999, the former Nigerian head-of-state Olusegun
Obasanjo has made numerous appeals, especially to young Nigerian
professionals in the United States, to return to Nigeria to help in its
rebuilding effort. Obasanjo’s efforts have met with mixed results, as some
potential migrants consider Nigeria’s socio-economic situation still unstable.
I’ve long argued that, with current
trends, sub-Saharan Africa is doomed to become an ever more wretched cesspool.
In a vicious cycle, the worse things get, the more desperate Africa’s
intellectuals are to flee. We see the same phenomenon, on a smaller scale, in ghettos.
Indeed, this is one argument for segregation; if responsible, and more
intelligent, blacks are forced to remain with their brethren, then they might
put an end to this social polarization. It might be possible to reverse this
descent into the abyss. Such a “black gentrification” would probably be more
palatable, and productive, than the “white gentrification” we now sometimes
see. Instead of simply driving lower-income blacks into other neighborhoods, it
might actually improve their lot where they are. Perhaps they’ll even become
less dangerous.
All this talk of “highly educated
Nigerians” needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Firstly, given the massive
corruption in Nigeria, how much does a Nigerian degree really mean? Secondly,
given the massive corruption in the U.S. (AKA “Affirmative Action”) how much
does an American degree, in black hands, really mean? Thirdly, compared to
American blacks, just about any other group will seem highly educated. Since
Nigerians look (to the untrained eye) just like American blacks, their
comparatively higher scholastic achievement will appear even more pronounced.
Fourthly, considering how desperate the Establishment (the “Cathedral”) is to
portray blacks as high achievers, all such claims are suspect. The powers that
be simply have too much of an interest in the matter for us to take their
claims at face value. If Chinese researchers also conclude that Nigerians are
“among the most educated groups in America” then I’d take those claims more
seriously.
Chua has gotten a lot of publicity
for her new book, and as they say, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
Thanks to the media uproar, I predict that her book will be a best-seller. We
can’t expect meaningful insight from the likes of Salon, but I’m hoping somebody
from the “Dark Enlightenment,” will provide some solid research on Nigerian
Americans.
main story by Credit Ji Lee
What Drives Success?
A SEEMINGLY un-American
fact about America today is that for some groups, much more than others, upward
mobility and the American dream are alive and well. It may be taboo to say it,
but certain ethnic, religious and national-origin groups are doing strikingly
better than Americans overall.
Indian-Americans
earn almost double the national figure (roughly $90,000 per year in median
household income versus $50,000). Iranian-, Lebanese- and Chinese-Americans are
also top-earners. In the last 30 years, Mormons have become leaders of
corporate America, holding top positions in many of America’s most recognizable
companies. These facts don’t make some groups “better” than others, and
material success cannot be equated with a well-lived life. But willful
blindness to facts is never a good policy.
Jewish
success is the most historically fraught and the most broad-based. Although
Jews make up only about 2 percent of the United States’ adult population, they
account for a third of the current Supreme Court; over two-thirds of Tony
Award-winning lyricists and composers; and about a third of American Nobel
laureates.
The most
comforting explanation of these facts is that they are mere artifacts of class
— rich parents passing on advantages to their children — or of immigrants
arriving in this country with high skill and education levels. Important as
these factors are, they explain only a small part of the picture.
Today’s
wealthy Mormon businessmen often started from humble origins. Although India
and China send the most immigrants to the United States through
employment-based channels, almost half of all Indian immigrants and over half
of Chinese immigrants do not enter the country under those criteria. Many are
poor and poorly educated. Comprehensive data published by the Russell Sage
Foundation in 2013 showed that the children of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese
immigrants experienced exceptional upward mobility regardless of their parents’
socioeconomic or educational background.
Take New York
City’s selective public high schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, which
are major Ivy League feeders. For the 2013 school year, Stuyvesant High School
offered admission, based solely on a standardized entrance exam, to nine black
students, 24 Hispanics, 177 whites and 620 Asians. Among the Asians of Chinese
origin, many are the children of restaurant workers and other working-class
immigrants.
Merely
stating the fact that certain groups do better than others — as measured by
income, test scores and so on — is enough to provoke a firestorm in America
today, and even charges of racism. The irony is that the facts actually debunk
racial stereotypes.
There are
some black and Hispanic groups in America that far outperform some white and
Asian groups. Immigrants from many West Indian and African countries, such as
Jamaica, Ghana, and Haiti, are climbing America’s higher education ladder, but
perhaps the most prominent are Nigerians. Nigerians make up less than 1 percent
of the black population in the United States, yet in 2013 nearly one-quarter of
the black students at Harvard Business School were of Nigerian ancestry; over a
fourth of Nigerian-Americans have a graduate or professional degree, as
compared with only about 11 percent of whites.
Cuban-Americans
in Miami rose in one generation from widespread penury to relative affluence.
By 1990, United States-born Cuban children — whose parents had arrived as
exiles, many with practically nothing — were twice as likely as non-Hispanic
whites to earn over $50,000 a year. All three Hispanic United States senators
are Cuban-Americans.
Meanwhile,
some Asian-American groups — Cambodian- and Hmong-Americans, for example — are
among the poorest in the country, as are some predominantly white communities
in central Appalachia.
MOST
fundamentally, groups rise and fall over time. The fortunes of WASP elites have
been declining for decades. In 1960, second-generation Greek-Americans
reportedly had the second-highest income of any census-tracked group. Group
success in America often tends to dissipate after two generations. Thus while
Asian-American kids overall had SAT scores 143 points above average in 2012 —
including a 63-point edge over whites — a 2005 study of over 20,000 adolescents
found that third-generation Asian-American students performed no better academically
than white students.
The fact that
groups rise and fall this way punctures the whole idea of “model minorities” or
that groups succeed because of innate, biological differences. Rather, there
are cultural forces at work.
It turns out
that for all their diversity, the strikingly successful groups in America today
share three traits that, together, propel success. The first is a superiority
complex — a deep-seated belief in their exceptionality. The second appears to
be the opposite — insecurity, a feeling that you or what you’ve done is not
good enough. The third is impulse control.
Any
individual, from any background, can have what we call this Triple Package of
traits. But research shows that some groups are instilling them more frequently
than others, and that they are enjoying greater success.
It’s odd to
think of people feeling simultaneously superior and insecure. Yet it’s
precisely this unstable combination that generates drive: a chip on the
shoulder, a goading need to prove oneself. Add impulse control — the ability to
resist temptation — and the result is people who systematically sacrifice
present gratification in pursuit of future attainment.
Ironically,
each element of the Triple Package violates a core tenet of contemporary
American thinking.
We know that
group superiority claims are specious and dangerous, yet every one of America’s
most successful groups tells itself that it’s exceptional in a deep sense.
Mormons believe they are “gods in embryo” placed on earth to lead the world to
salvation; they see themselves, in the historian Claudia L. Bushman’s words, as
“an island of morality in a sea of moral decay.” Middle East experts and many
Iranians explicitly refer to a Persian “superiority complex.” At their first
Passover Seders, most Jewish children hear that Jews are the “chosen” people;
later they may be taught that Jews are a moral people, a people of law and
intellect, a people of survivors.
That
insecurity should be a lever of success is another anathema in American
culture. Feelings of inadequacy are cause for concern or even therapy; parents
deliberately instilling insecurity in their children is almost unthinkable. Yet
insecurity runs deep in every one of America’s rising groups; and consciously
or unconsciously, they tend to instill it in their children.
A central
finding in a study of more than 5,000 immigrants’ children led by the
sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut was how frequently the kids felt “motivated to
achieve” because of an acute sense of obligation to redeem their parents’
sacrifices. Numerous studies, including in-depth field work conducted by the
Harvard sociologist Vivian S. Louie, reveal Chinese immigrant parents
frequently imposing exorbitant academic expectations on their children (“Why
only a 99?”), making them feel that “family honor” depends on their success.
Credit Ji Lee
By contrast,
white American parents have been found to be more focused on building
children’s social skills and self-esteem. There’s an ocean of difference
between “You’re amazing. Mommy and Daddy never want you to worry about a thing”
and “If you don’t do well at school, you’ll let down the family and end up a
bum on the streets.” In a study of thousands of high school students,
Asian-American students reported the lowest self-esteem of any racial group,
even as they racked up the highest grades.
Moreover,
being an outsider in a society — and America’s most successful groups are all
outsiders in one way or another — is a source of insecurity in itself.
Immigrants worry about whether they can survive in a strange land, often
communicating a sense of life’s precariousness to their children. Hence the
common credo: They can take away your home or business, but never your
education, so study harder. Newcomers and religious minorities may face
derision or hostility. Cubans fleeing to Miami after Fidel Castro’s takeover
reported seeing signs reading “No dogs, no Cubans” on apartment buildings.
During the 2012 election cycle, Mormons had to hear Mitt Romney’s clean-cut
sons described as “creepy” in the media. In combination with a superiority
complex, the feeling of being underestimated or scorned can be a powerful
motivator.
Finally,
impulse control runs against the grain of contemporary culture as well.
Countless books and feel-good movies extol the virtue of living in the here and
now, and people who control their impulses don’t live in the moment. The
dominant culture is fearful of spoiling children’s happiness with excessive
restraints or demands. By contrast, every one of America’s most successful
groups takes a very different view of childhood, inculcating habits of
discipline from a very early age — or at least they did so when they were on
the rise.
In isolation,
each of these three qualities would be insufficient. Alone, a superiority
complex is a recipe for complacency; mere insecurity could be crippling;
impulse control can produce asceticism. Only in combination do these qualities
generate drive and what Tocqueville called the “longing to rise.”
Needless to
say, high-achieving groups don’t instill these qualities in all their members.
They don’t have to. A culture producing, say, four high achievers out of 10
would attain wildly disproportionate success if the surrounding average was one
out of 20.
But this
success comes at a price. Each of the three traits has its own pathologies.
Impulse control can undercut the ability to experience beauty, tranquillity and
spontaneous joy. Insecure people feel like they’re never good enough. “I grew
up thinking that I would never, ever please my parents,” recalls the novelist
Amy Tan. “It’s a horrible feeling.” Recent studies suggest that Asian-American
youth have greater rates of stress (but, despite media reports to the contrary,
lower rates of suicide).
A superiority
complex can be even more invidious. Group supremacy claims have been a source
of oppression, war and genocide throughout history. To be sure, a group
superiority complex somehow feels less ugly when it’s used by an outsider
minority as an armor against majority prejudices and hostility, but ethnic
pride or religious zeal can turn all too easily into intolerance of its own.
Even when it
functions relatively benignly as an engine of success, the combination of these
three traits can still be imprisoning — precisely because of the kind of
success it tends to promote. Individuals striving for material success can
easily become too focused on prestige and money, too concerned with external
measures of their own worth.
It’s not easy
for minority groups in America to maintain a superiority complex. For most of
its history, America did pretty much everything a country could to impose a
narrative of inferiority on its nonwhite minorities and especially its black
population. Over and over, African-Americans have fought back against this narrative,
but its legacy persists.
Black America
is of course no one thing: “not one or ten or ten thousand things,” as the poet
and Yale professor Elizabeth Alexander has written. There are black families in
the United States occupying every possible socioeconomic position. But Sean
“Diddy” Combs — rapper, record producer and entrepreneur — undoubtedly spoke
for many when he said: “If you study black history, it’s just so negative, you
know. It’s just like, O.K., we were slaves, and then we were whipped and sprayed
with water hoses, and the civil rights movement, and we’re American gangsters.
I get motivated for us to be seen in our brilliance.”
Culture is
never all-determining. Individuals can defy the most dominant culture and write
their own scripts, as Mr. Combs himself did. They can create narratives of
pride that reject the master narratives of their society, or turn those
narratives around. In any given family, an unusually strong parent, grandparent
or even teacher can instill in children every one of the three crucial traits.
It’s just much harder when you have to do it on your own, when you can’t draw
on the cultural resources of a broader community, when you don’t have role
models or peer pressure on your side, and instead are bombarded daily with negative
images of your group in the media.
But it would
be ridiculous to suggest that the lack of an effective group superiority
complex was the cause of disproportionate African-American poverty. The true
causes barely require repeating: They include slavery, systematic
discrimination, schools that fail to teach, employers who won’t promote, single
motherhood and the fact that roughly a third of young black men in this country
are in jail, awaiting trial or on probation or parole. Nor does the lack of a
group superiority narrative prevent any given individual African-American from
succeeding. It simply creates an additional psychological and cultural hurdle
that America’s most successful groups don’t have to overcome.
At the same
time, if members of a group learn not to trust the system, if they don’t think
people like them can really make it, they will have little incentive to engage
in impulse control. Researchers at the University of Rochester recently reran
the famous marshmallow test with a new spin. Children initially subjected to a
broken promise — adults promised them a new art set to play with, but never
delivered — almost invariably “failed” the test (snatching the first
marshmallow instead of waiting 15 minutes for a promised second). By contrast,
when the adults followed through on their promise, most kids passed the test.
The same
factors that cause poverty — discrimination, prejudice, shrinking opportunity —
can sap from a group the cultural forces that propel success. Once that
happens, poverty becomes more entrenched. In these circumstances, it takes much
more grit, more drive and perhaps a more exceptional individual to break out.
Of course a
person born with the proverbial silver spoon can grow up to be wealthy without
hard work, insecurity or discipline (although to the extent a group passes on
its wealth that way, it’s likely to be headed for decline). In a society with
increasing class rigidity, parental wealth obviously contributes to the success
of the next generation.
But one
reason groups with the cultural package we’ve described have such an advantage
in the United States today lies in the very same factors that are shrinking
opportunity for so many of America’s poor. Disappearing blue-collar jobs and
greater returns to increasingly competitive higher education give a tremendous
edge to groups that disproportionately produce individuals driven, especially
at a young age, to excel and to sacrifice present satisfactions for long-term
gains.
THE good news
is that it’s not some magic gene generating these groups’ disproportionate
success. Nor is it some 5,000-year-old “education culture” that only they have
access to. Instead their success is significantly propelled by three simple
qualities open to anyone.
The way to
develop this package of qualities — not that it’s easy, or that everyone would
want to — is through grit. It requires turning the ability to work hard, to
persevere and to overcome adversity into a source of personal superiority. This
kind of superiority complex isn’t ethnically or religiously exclusive. It’s the
pride a person takes in his own strength of will.
Consider the
story of Sonia Sotomayor, who was born to struggling Puerto Rican parents. Her
father was an alcoholic, she writes in her moving autobiography, “My Beloved
World,” and her mother’s “way of coping was to avoid being at home” with him.
But Justice Sotomayor, who gave herself painful insulin shots for diabetes
starting around age 8, was “blessed” with a “stubborn perseverance.” Not
originally a top student, she did “something very unusual” in fifth grade,
approaching one of the smartest girls in the class to “ask her how to study.”
Soon she was getting top marks, and a few years later she applied to Princeton
— though her guidance counselor recommended “Catholic colleges.”
The point of
this example is not, “See, it’s easy to climb out of poverty in America.” On
the contrary, Justice Sotomayor’s story illustrates just how extraordinary a
person has to be to overcome the odds stacked against her.
But research
shows that perseverance and motivation can be taught, especially to young
children. This supports those who, like the Nobel Prize-winning economist James
J. Heckman, argue that education dollars for the underprivileged are best spent
on early childhood intervention, beginning at preschool age, when kids are most
formable.
The United
States itself was born a Triple Package nation, with an outsize belief in its
own exceptionality, a goading desire to prove itself to aristocratic Europe
(Thomas Jefferson sent a giant moose carcass to Paris to prove that America’s
animals were bigger than Europe’s) and a Puritan inheritance of impulse
control.
But
prosperity and power had their predictable effect, eroding the insecurity and
self-restraint that led to them. By 2000, all that remained was our superiority
complex, which by itself is mere swagger, fueling a culture of entitlement and
instant gratification. Thus the trials of recent years — the unwon wars, the
financial collapse, the rise of China — have, perversely, had a beneficial
effect: the return of insecurity.
Those who
talk of America’s “decline” miss this crucial point. America has always been at
its best when it has had to overcome adversity and prove its mettle on the
world stage. For better and worse, it has that opportunity again today.
Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld are
professors at Yale Law School and the authors of the forthcoming book “The
Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural
Groups in America.”
A
version of this op-ed appears in print on January 26, 2014, on page SR1 of the
New York edition with the headline: What Drives Success?. Today's
Paper|Subscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment