6 ms·

The Chinese immigrated to the US at a similar time as the Irish and Italians. The more than 3 million Chinese living in the US today seem plenty well integrated

The Chinese immigrated to the US at a similar time as the Irish and Italians. The more than 3 million Chinese living in the US today seem plenty well integrated and I don’t think China and America are particular close in terms of culture.

cheeseomlit 8y ago
That's a fair point, I guess I'd make a distinction between similarity and compatibility
gowld 8y ago
And the Chinese immigrants were met with the same fierce racism that meets Hispanics and Arabs and Africans today.
- loggedinmyphone 8y ago
  Historically the Hispanic and African populations were in the US a good deal before the Chinese.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  In France the Chinese are the preferred targets of gangs (run by whom?) http://www.france24.com/en/20160908-france-chinese-community-targeted-crime-aubervilliers-protest http://www.france24.com/en/20160908-france-chinese-community...
jandrese 8y ago
And also Irish. Despite being white and christian the Irish faced considerable discrimination around the turn of the century.
- kaitai 8y ago
  As recently as 1998 I had a preacher tell my Irish Catholic friend that she still had a chance to accept Jesus and be saved. There is still a feeling that Catholics are not really Christian in some circles, and that was an important factor in justifying the discrimination you mention!
  - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
    In fairness many Catholics don't accept Protestants as Christians either.
    - skissane 8y ago
      > In fairness many Catholics don't accept Protestants as Christians either. If any Catholic actually thinks this, they must be deeply ignorant of Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, anyone baptised using water and with a Trinitarian formula is Christian. Most Protestant denominations baptise people in this way, so most baptised Protestants are Christians according to traditional Catholic theology. (And this is not something new introduced with Vatican II either, it historically dates back to the Donatist schism in 4th century North Africa.)
      - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        That's interesting but I thought the Donatist decision only applied to people who wanted to be part of the Roman Catholic church but their baptising priest had at some point lapsed. Generally Protestants don't recognize the authority of the church at all (i.e. Sola scriptura).
        skissane 8y ago
        Donatists claimed that sacraments were only valid if the priest who performed them was a faithful Christian. So if the priest was a heretic or grave sinner, the sacraments he performed were invalid. The Catholic Church declared that to be a heresy – a heretic or a sinner can still perform valid sacraments, provided the heresy doesn't involve a radically different understanding of the nature of the sacrament. So, from the viewpoint of traditional Catholic theology, Protestants are heretics, but their beliefs about baptism are close enough to the Catholic belief that their heresy doesn't invalidate their baptisms. (Different story for ordination and the eucharist, since Protestant theology on those topics is further away from Catholic theology.) Whereas, non-Trinitarian Christians, the Catholic Church views their beliefs to directly touch on what the sacrament of baptism is about, so their non-Trinitarianism invalidates their baptisms from the Catholic viewpoint.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  "Being white"'s an interesting phrase to use, because I don't think Irish (or Italians at a different point) were considered white at the time they were being discriminated against here. It shows how much whiteness is socially constructed.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    They were considered white. (Italians and Greeks weren't though)
    - cjbprime 8y ago
      Hm, it's easy to find credible claims that they weren't, e.g. https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/when-irish-immigrants-werent-considered-white.htm https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/when-iri...
      - jandrese 8y ago
        The racists of the day were apparently quite progressive. They couldn't even see the color of the person's skin. It's almost like race is more of a social construct than a biological one.
        loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        Or more accurately, that racism is a social construct.
magduf 8y ago
The Chinese immigrants were not (and still are not) particularly religious, and certainly didn't have a religion that promoted extremism and placed them at odds with the existing inhabitants. Other Asian immigrants in the US were also either not religious, or (like with Koreans and Filipinos) adopted the same religion as the dominant culture. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is religion.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > and certainly didn't have a religion that promoted extremism Lets cut through the code words then and have a direct counterexample to what you're trying to say. Nigerians are primarily Muslims. They are also highly educated and among the most entrepreneurial immigrants to the USA. And while there's a "Nigerian prince" joke every now and then, they really are doing relatively well in the USA. Like, "better than Asians" with regards to college education statistics. https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-m... Nigerians are basically the perfect counterexample to the "Religion" (aka: Islam) problem that is so often brought up. High rates of college completion, high rates of business / entrepreneurs, high-rates of integration. Overall, clearly net-positive to the USA. > Other Asian immigrants in the US were also either not religious, or (like with Koreans and Filipinos) adopted the same religion as the dominant culture. What about Indians? Who are usually either Hindu or Muslim? Indians are also highly educated and start a large number of businesses. I'm personally Catholic. I'd obviously prefer it if immigrants would come with the same Religion as me, but the statistics are in. Nigerians, Indians, and a whole host of other immigrants kind of do perfectly fine in America. There's no need for them to be Christian or otherwise "mainstream". Indeed, bringing in immigrants on the basis of religion is severely anti-American IMO. America is certainly big enough to sustain Hindu, Muslims, and other religious groups. Especially if those people are coming in highly-skilled, highly educated, and overall are a benefit to our society.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Ok, then what is the problem then? It's not racism; Nigerians are a lot darker than Arabs. Maybe it's a cultural problem, combined with religion: you never hear of Nigerian Muslims committing terrorist acts in the West. Islam is a big, big religion, and Muslims from some cultures simply don't have any kind of bad reputation (I'm thinking Malaysia here), while others certainly do. So maybe it is religion, just not the whole religion, but rather particular sects. All Christians are not like the Pentecostals or the Mormons, and similarly all Muslims are not the same.

cheeseomlit 8y ago

That's a fair point, I guess I'd make a distinction between similarity and compatibility

gowld 8y ago

And the Chinese immigrants were met with the same fierce racism that meets Hispanics and Arabs and Africans today.

loggedinmyphone 8y ago
Historically the Hispanic and African populations were in the US a good deal before the Chinese.
raverbashing 8y ago
In France the Chinese are the preferred targets of gangs (run by whom?) http://www.france24.com/en/20160908-france-chinese-community-targeted-crime-aubervilliers-protest http://www.france24.com/en/20160908-france-chinese-community...

jandrese 8y ago

And also Irish. Despite being white and christian the Irish faced considerable discrimination around the turn of the century.

kaitai 8y ago
As recently as 1998 I had a preacher tell my Irish Catholic friend that she still had a chance to accept Jesus and be saved. There is still a feeling that Catholics are not really Christian in some circles, and that was an important factor in justifying the discrimination you mention!
- loggedinmyphone 8y ago
  In fairness many Catholics don't accept Protestants as Christians either.
  - skissane 8y ago
    > In fairness many Catholics don't accept Protestants as Christians either. If any Catholic actually thinks this, they must be deeply ignorant of Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, anyone baptised using water and with a Trinitarian formula is Christian. Most Protestant denominations baptise people in this way, so most baptised Protestants are Christians according to traditional Catholic theology. (And this is not something new introduced with Vatican II either, it historically dates back to the Donatist schism in 4th century North Africa.)
    - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
      That's interesting but I thought the Donatist decision only applied to people who wanted to be part of the Roman Catholic church but their baptising priest had at some point lapsed. Generally Protestants don't recognize the authority of the church at all (i.e. Sola scriptura).
      - skissane 8y ago
        Donatists claimed that sacraments were only valid if the priest who performed them was a faithful Christian. So if the priest was a heretic or grave sinner, the sacraments he performed were invalid. The Catholic Church declared that to be a heresy – a heretic or a sinner can still perform valid sacraments, provided the heresy doesn't involve a radically different understanding of the nature of the sacrament. So, from the viewpoint of traditional Catholic theology, Protestants are heretics, but their beliefs about baptism are close enough to the Catholic belief that their heresy doesn't invalidate their baptisms. (Different story for ordination and the eucharist, since Protestant theology on those topics is further away from Catholic theology.) Whereas, non-Trinitarian Christians, the Catholic Church views their beliefs to directly touch on what the sacrament of baptism is about, so their non-Trinitarianism invalidates their baptisms from the Catholic viewpoint.
cjbprime 8y ago
"Being white"'s an interesting phrase to use, because I don't think Irish (or Italians at a different point) were considered white at the time they were being discriminated against here. It shows how much whiteness is socially constructed.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  They were considered white. (Italians and Greeks weren't though)
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    Hm, it's easy to find credible claims that they weren't, e.g. https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/when-irish-immigrants-werent-considered-white.htm https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/when-iri...
    - jandrese 8y ago
      The racists of the day were apparently quite progressive. They couldn't even see the color of the person's skin. It's almost like race is more of a social construct than a biological one.
      - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        Or more accurately, that racism is a social construct.

magduf 8y ago

The Chinese immigrants were not (and still are not) particularly religious, and certainly didn't have a religion that promoted extremism and placed them at odds with the existing inhabitants. Other Asian immigrants in the US were also either not religious, or (like with Koreans and Filipinos) adopted the same religion as the dominant culture. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is religion.

dragontamer 8y ago
> and certainly didn't have a religion that promoted extremism Lets cut through the code words then and have a direct counterexample to what you're trying to say. Nigerians are primarily Muslims. They are also highly educated and among the most entrepreneurial immigrants to the USA. And while there's a "Nigerian prince" joke every now and then, they really are doing relatively well in the USA. Like, "better than Asians" with regards to college education statistics. https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-m... Nigerians are basically the perfect counterexample to the "Religion" (aka: Islam) problem that is so often brought up. High rates of college completion, high rates of business / entrepreneurs, high-rates of integration. Overall, clearly net-positive to the USA. > Other Asian immigrants in the US were also either not religious, or (like with Koreans and Filipinos) adopted the same religion as the dominant culture. What about Indians? Who are usually either Hindu or Muslim? Indians are also highly educated and start a large number of businesses. I'm personally Catholic. I'd obviously prefer it if immigrants would come with the same Religion as me, but the statistics are in. Nigerians, Indians, and a whole host of other immigrants kind of do perfectly fine in America. There's no need for them to be Christian or otherwise "mainstream". Indeed, bringing in immigrants on the basis of religion is severely anti-American IMO. America is certainly big enough to sustain Hindu, Muslims, and other religious groups. Especially if those people are coming in highly-skilled, highly educated, and overall are a benefit to our society.
- magduf 8y ago
  Ok, then what is the problem then? It's not racism; Nigerians are a lot darker than Arabs. Maybe it's a cultural problem, combined with religion: you never hear of Nigerian Muslims committing terrorist acts in the West. Islam is a big, big religion, and Muslims from some cultures simply don't have any kind of bad reputation (I'm thinking Malaysia here), while others certainly do. So maybe it is religion, just not the whole religion, but rather particular sects. All Christians are not like the Pentecostals or the Mormons, and similarly all Muslims are not the same.