3 ms·

Writer says it was due to Americans being less racist towards Asians, but says nothing as to why Americans became less racist. Seems chicken vs. egg to me.

dbg31415 10y ago
Read the whole article and came away thinking, "Ok so what was the argument?" Yeah, your comment sums it up perfectly.
matpru 10y ago
The author does suggests a possible explanation here: > Hilger found some evidence that there were underlying differences in skill. Between Asians and African Americans with the same amount of schooling, African Americans tended to achieve lower scores on military enlistment tests during the 1940s.
- newswriter99 10y ago
  But that contradicts his premise.
trustfundbaby 10y ago
This very closely related article explains it better why https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/?utm_term=.cb4479a6206f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-r...) Those claims really start to stick in the 1940s, when the nation was gearing up for global war. American leaders started to worry about the consequences of their domestic racial discrimination policies. They were concerned it would get in the way of forging alliances with other people abroad. That really motivated American leaders and the American people to work on race relations. During World War II, lawmakers thought that Chinese exclusion made for bad diplomacy. So Congress decided to overturn Chinese exclusion as a goodwill gesture to China, who was America’s Pacific ally. With the beginning of the Cold War, American policymakers became really attentive to putting their best image out into the world. They were very interested in winning hearts and minds in Asia. Japan is a very good example. Japan lost the war and the United States took charge of reconstructing Japan in its own image as a rising democratic, capitalist country. And because Japan became such an important ally, that was the moment when Japanese exclusion laws could finally be overturned, which happened in 1952. Again, people in Congress worried that if we left these laws on the books, it would endanger a billion hearts and minds in the Far East
neutralid 10y ago
Author may be somewhat right but probably not in the way intended. Discrimination tends to be more effective in areas that lack competition. The article itself states that Asians started to own more businesses due to discriminatory practices. With discriminatory laws were relaxed, Asians on average may have put themselves in a more competitive position (through education/training) than whites and blacks. So, with increased competition, white executives may have had to pay equal otherwise risk losing an asset to their competition. Consequently, with more competition, Americans may appear to be less racist towards Asians. Discrimination apparently still exists with the disparity in terms of executive positions when comparing equivalent levels of education. There's less competition at the very top where who you know with money likely counts more than technical skill, i.e. paying for CEO's rolodex.

dbg31415 10y ago

Read the whole article and came away thinking, "Ok so what was the argument?" Yeah, your comment sums it up perfectly.

matpru 10y ago

The author does suggests a possible explanation here: > Hilger found some evidence that there were underlying differences in skill. Between Asians and African Americans with the same amount of schooling, African Americans tended to achieve lower scores on military enlistment tests during the 1940s.

newswriter99 10y ago
But that contradicts his premise.

trustfundbaby 10y ago

This very closely related article explains it better why https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/?utm_term=.cb4479a6206f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-r...) Those claims really start to stick in the 1940s, when the nation was gearing up for global war. American leaders started to worry about the consequences of their domestic racial discrimination policies. They were concerned it would get in the way of forging alliances with other people abroad. That really motivated American leaders and the American people to work on race relations. During World War II, lawmakers thought that Chinese exclusion made for bad diplomacy. So Congress decided to overturn Chinese exclusion as a goodwill gesture to China, who was America’s Pacific ally. With the beginning of the Cold War, American policymakers became really attentive to putting their best image out into the world. They were very interested in winning hearts and minds in Asia. Japan is a very good example. Japan lost the war and the United States took charge of reconstructing Japan in its own image as a rising democratic, capitalist country. And because Japan became such an important ally, that was the moment when Japanese exclusion laws could finally be overturned, which happened in 1952. Again, people in Congress worried that if we left these laws on the books, it would endanger a billion hearts and minds in the Far East

neutralid 10y ago

Author may be somewhat right but probably not in the way intended. Discrimination tends to be more effective in areas that lack competition. The article itself states that Asians started to own more businesses due to discriminatory practices. With discriminatory laws were relaxed, Asians on average may have put themselves in a more competitive position (through education/training) than whites and blacks. So, with increased competition, white executives may have had to pay equal otherwise risk losing an asset to their competition. Consequently, with more competition, Americans may appear to be less racist towards Asians. Discrimination apparently still exists with the disparity in terms of executive positions when comparing equivalent levels of education. There's less competition at the very top where who you know with money likely counts more than technical skill, i.e. paying for CEO's rolodex.