Let's clear up one misunderstanding. To the UK user at least

"Oriental" = Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc
"Asian" = Indian, Pakistani, etc
"Arabic" = a hell of a large grouping curiously not often including Jewish whatever geneticists tell us. Personally I'd put Egypt in there and not in "African".
"Semitic" = Jewish, and for some reason not including the stock of Israel's neighbours who are genetically similar but religiously different
"Eastern Meditteranean" = a swathe from Greece down to Isreal
"Eastern European" = Russian, Latvian, Estonian
"Slavic" - hardly used
No convenient referent for Malay or Australasian indigenous peoples, or indeed quite a bunch of mid-pacific peoples


Oh, and yes, "Doughnut" is the original English spelling because those tasties are made of dough.


Now onto some of Azizi's thoughts:

"Yet, I'm wondering if one key difference between African Americans {those who were enslaved} and Asian Americans, was that Asian Americans had strong racial/ethnic identities, and ties to a motherland/homeland while African Americans did not."

My first reaction was to doubt the postulate, but then it occurred to me that the normal practices of slaveowners would have destabilised family units and so preculded after as little a period as one generation any significant handing down of black cultures and languages and traditions of origin. So that's a possible factor, but then we maybe need to ask what it is about Oriental cultures (bear in mind that the Koreans are much discriminated against by the Japanese, and so it goes on) that might provide a rung on the ladder to success.

Then, what might be a rung, but statistically a smaller one, for Asians?

If we accept "Confucian and related ethical systems, which emphasize obedience to authority, and the primacy of family, education, and government" what provides a similar set of virtues for Asians? One might try for Buddhism, but it isn't the ony religion and I am not aware of any evidence separating the achievement rates of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims. Bear in mind too that the Indian caste system can be pretty horrifying.



"It seems to me that having a strong sense of self, strong historical and cultural memories of greatness and maintaining on some level ties with a home country would strengthen the spirit and resolve of people who were facing racism and discrimination.

I'm also wondering if having those ties and memories innoculated Asians against accepting the myth of Asian inferiority that White Americans believed. I think that this is a critical difference between African Americans and Asian Americans.

For a very long time in our history in the USA and the rest of the Americans, most Black people believed that we were inferior to White people, and to all other people for that matter. I don't think that most Asians believed that."

Well allowing for the confusion between Orientals (who are I think those that Azizi means by Asians at that stage), would it be consistent to try to put a thiery in place for Asians? I am not a scholar on their history but surely the last really prestigious empire in India was the period of the Mughal emperors, who were supplanted by teh Mahrajahs who were conquered by the British (Afghanistan excepted). They then suffered a period when they wer told systematically that ther culture was worthless and that they were inferior to the white man, until the "Jewel in the Crown" was lost. So maybe that repossession of India (despite its later schism from Pakistan) provides a platform for a sense of self-worth.



"Unfortunately, I think that some African Americans still believe that they are intellectually inferior to White people and other people." I don't know. The vast majority of my students at one of the universities I teach at are African or Arabic and I don't see that in the Africans. When I was studying Engineering it was an act of faith for us that the Shell scholars there were usually a lot cleverer than us.



"Having a positive group identity is an important part of self-esteem." Yes

"In my opinion, that is what many Black people have been lacking for a long time." I'd have guessed that that ended in the late 60s with the Black Power movement.

"One way that Black Americans have achieved at least a positive group identity is the adoption of the group name "African American". This group name re-affirms our connection with the continent of Africa and even on a surface level helps us to feel connected to the glories of traditional African cultures {by traditional African cultures I include Egypt, but also include Ethiopia, ancient Sudan, ancient Ethiopia, ancient Ghana, Mali, Songhay, and other kingdoms..." I'd have to quibble a bit. I wouldn't put Egypt in there. Hell, Egypt was one of the great protagonists of the slave trade, real movers and shakers in that, and to my eye the culture is not very "African". But there are so many African cultures from the Bushmen to the Masai warrior that I wonder about the catch-all.

"As I've noted, much of the connection that African Americans have with traditional Africa is very surface. But it is a beginning on the long road to feeling good about your people and your self.
I think that Asians and other peoples who always had this connection to their history and cultures may not realize how blessed they were and are because this was never taken away from them as a consequence of Europe and America's form of chattel slavery."

I think others have been dehumanised by colonialism and other oppression too. The native South Americans starting with the Spaniards - or maybe before, the tribes extinguished by the Incas. The East Indies by the Dutch. Australasia by the British and India by the British too. I am not at all sure that there was truly a common form of slavery between Europe and America (indeed maybe not across all America), and the larger point is that slavery has been a part of human culture from time immemorial until recently. It might be as Azizi suggests but I think one would need to look at tables of achievement and see if one could formulate a suitable trigger for most cases before buying into the theory.

Alternatively one could re-read the late unlamented Professor Eysenck and start suggesting that some races are more intelligent than others. Statistically some are taller, some are fatter, some have less resistance to alcohol, some get sickle cell anaemia while some don't, and some tolerate heat better than others while others tolerate the cold so in theory it might be possible (unpalatable though it seems) that some are more intelligent than others. But to the best of my recollection the last time Eysenck did run the argument he went down in flames big-time.

I suspect that relative achievment is cultural not innate. But I can't put my finger on what the cultural plus points are. They'd need to be identified across a range of cultures to build a theory. Sticking two fingers (or one if that is your culture) up at the power structure doesn't usually work.