6 ms·

Notes of a native tiger son: it's a weird time to be Asian-American

68 points by nitefly 16y ago

knowtheory 16y ago
Oliver Wang is totally right on this. But i'm slightly more ambivalent than he is on the subject. What Chua wrote did hit a resonant note in American cultural stereotypes, and that's bad, BUT, i don't think it invalidates Chua's points particularly either. Chua's approach is a particular style of child rearing, but her own piece was so filled with nebulous caveats, that i found it hard to believe that anything she particularly said was rooted in being Chinese. The real problem in the end, i guess, is just that she was an Asian woman saying these things. Not that she's got some of the overbearing qualities shared by strict mothers everywhere.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - garply 16y ago
    What Romanization system is that? It looks like Cai to me.
    - knowtheory 16y ago
      what'd i miss? i didn't see it before it was deleted :( (also i just noticed i misspelled Amy Chua's name 3 times)
- sethg 16y ago
  I’m putting a lot more trust in responses to Chua, from other Asian-Americans talking about their own experiences, than in Chua herself. Once the WSJ op-ed became That Thing On The Internet Everyone Was Talking About, she started walking back, saying that the WSJ quoted fragments of her book out of context. Then she told a newspaper columnist “I’m an unreliable narrator”, saying that the book as a whole was an exaggeration. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/apop011311.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1BGR62v6z http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/...) So... what is really going on with Chua and her kids, not to mention her husband? About all I can safely infer is that the woman has, as they say, Issues.
  - knowtheory 16y ago
    Perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough. I don't think Chua's initial excerpt actually said anything meaningful. It was like some sort of bizarre Rorschach test, that said very little, and upset a lot of people. My point is, having read it the first time, i too went through the "yeah this kind of describes my childhood" thing, and then looked back at the claims, together with her caveats and noticed that there was precisely nothing one could take away from her article, except that it was an anecdote about her family, and how other people think she's a horrible person. There was no generalizable information in her piece, and thus it was ultimately sort of an inconsequential, and self-satisfying fluff piece. What does amaze me, is the amount of time and effort dedicated to discussing her and what she's said. Given that i don't think the substance of her comments was worthy of such discussion, all i can figure is that she is controversial because of who she is and the style of the comments.
    - sethg 16y ago
      I think the original op-ed spoke on both a logical and emotional level. On the logical level, as you say, the caveats pretty much cancelled out any substantive arguments. On the emotional level, there was an overwhelming message of you Western slackers, if you do not browbeat your children into being #1 the way we Chinese do, your children will die homeless and penniless and ten pounds overweight. And the emotional message strikes some pretty tender nerves for those millions who either are status-anxious about how their children will end up (think of all those upper-class New York parents angling to get their toddlers into The Right Preschool), or who was raised by someone with that kind of anxiety.
  - frossie 16y ago
    she started walking back, saying that the WSJ quoted fragments of her book out of context I haven't read the book, but I have seen evidence that the WSJ extracts were highly selective. In fact in the Guardian piece below, in which her children are also quoted, it says that she completely changed her approach when she realised the effect that it had. Her daughter is quoted as saying: "The other day, I messed up a math test. I texted my mom that I got an A- and she replied, 'Who cares! Mummy loves u!'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy-chua-tiger-mother-interview?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy-chua-... [Edit for those who don't want to read the linked article: The Guardian piece casts the book as a confessionary "these are the things I did because I thought they were right and boy, it just made my kids miserable so I stopped" rather than the WSJ-implied tone of "this is the way I raised my kids and you wussy Westerners should do it like this or be squashed"]
blahedo 16y ago
This observation hit me like a two-by-four: "The Immigration Act of 1965... created preference categories for science, math and engineering-trained immigrants to come over. [Asian countries] were producing a surplus of college-educated adults but lacked a sufficiently developed domestic economy to adequately absorb them. The 1965 Immigration Act, in trying to bolster America's own domestic needs, inadvertently helped absorb that surplus [and] influenced the American perception that Asians were somehow naturally gifted in math and science because there was a disproportionate number of immigrants coming from Asia with those skills."
- jimmybot 16y ago
  Contrast that with for 60 years before that, we had this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act Later extended to cover all Asian immigrants. There was certainly demand to emigrate to the US, but it was forbidden. This act alone I think goes a long, long way to explaining why Asian Americans are a fairly recent phenomenon and "weird" to American culture.
  - bhoung 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy Just to let you know, you're not alone there as a country.
- OasisG 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at, but do you mind expounding on your thoughts previous to discovering this information?
  - blahedo 16y ago
    Previously, my somewhat-nebulous thoughts on this were: there's definitely a math/sci stereotype about Asians; don't read too much into stereotypes; but Asians really are disproportionately represented among the math/sci fields; what on earth would explain it if not a genetic and/or cultural bias? >cognitive dissonance< As I said, nebulous; I hadn't really pursued the line of thought very far, just tangentially as it came up elsewhere. I hadn't known about the 1965 Act, and its existence and the above analysis just instantly explained so much so well and without reference to Asians somehow being magically different; just that the math/sci trait had been selected for within the Asian-American population. Not that it rules out other explanations. But it's so blindingly obvious (in retrospect :) that the Act would have some effect along these lines, that Occam's Razor raises the bar for other explanations by a lot.
noname123 16y ago
I've thought a lot about this subject. I have come to conclusion that asian parents hating comes from internalized self-hatred of being yellow and yet at the same, being unable to express one's Asian values in a Western society. Almost everything against the Asian parents are against how their values are different from typical "American" parents: strict vs. lenient, off-putting vs. dotting. "I have to sit at home doing SAT practice sets and violin lessons while other kids are going to Chemical Romance concerts." A lot of anger comes from if my parents didn't prevent me from doing X (electric guitar) or forced me to do Y (volin), I could have been Z (football quarterback/rockstar/kissing the prom queen). These reasons may be true, but it's irresponsible to put all your shortcomings on your parents and it's dangerous because I know people who are in their late 20's, 30's long after they have moved out their parents house still playing the blame game. On the other hand, American culture is so different than Asian culture and no matter how Americanized you get, you still have some Asian influences. For instance, when I'm out with my Asian friends, we interact like we are kindergarten teachers, always very attentive to others' egos and emotions whereas with my American friends, we interact like we are in prison, joking and bustin' each other balls and never showing vulnerabilities. Sometimes I get frustrated at the "games" you have to play chasing American chicks or "bromance," where you have to put a "confidence" facade instead of expressing yourself as is. But I have come to accept Asian parents for what they are. I'm grateful for what mine has taught me and not grateful for their old ingrained concepts that runs counterproductive to living in a Western society. But one thing is constant always however, you can't teach old dogs new tricks. I could bang my head against the wall to try to explain to my parents American values and they won't understand (because maybe I myself and really anyone else don't even comprehend what American values are). But it's more practical and beneficial for me to accept responsibility for my own issues and work on them myself.
- lookACamel 16y ago
  >whereas with my American friends, we interact like we are in prison, joking and bustin' each other balls and never showing vulnerabilities. I catch your drift but that's not a very good analogy. I seriously doubt prison is like hanging out with friends.
  - 16y ago
jamesjyu 16y ago
This piece definitely hit home for me, a 2nd generation Asian American. As a kid in the 90s, I remember talking to an older friend about future career advice. I mentioned acting or dancing as possible paths for Asian Americans. He scoffed, telling me that the only place for Asians in American pop culture was in martial art films. Out of all the memories, that particular conversation stuck with me for years. My father's immigration to the states was squarely in line with the Immigration Act of 1965. He was at the top of his class (and really, the country) in Taiwan, and came to study for his PhD at Yale. I grew up in a household not too far off from Chua's advice. There are pros and cons to this way of parenting (I won't go into all of those). What I know for sure is that emulating it to a T is bad. The most dangerous aspect of the Chua-way of parenting isn't the borderline academic abuse: it's the blindness to opportunities. Sharply focusing on math and science, and then aiming to get into an "old" profession like being a doctor or lawyer, prevents the child from ever exploring or even considering other possibilities. Growing up, I really didn't consider other career opportunities besides getting a PhD like my dad and pursuing an electrical engineering career. I have since deviated from that path, but it took me a long time and a halfway pursued PhD. Now I'm happily doing web development and design for my job, a longtime hobby of mine ever since childhood. I have always wondered what would have happened if my parents had let me explore outside of the usual math and science career paths. Maybe I would have jumped into web development earlier and more seriously. Or, maybe I would have been a dancer or chef. The possibilities I could have explored in college, but didn't because of guilt, still keeps me up at night. In the end, I did finally find my passion and am pursuing it full time. But, I know a lot of my Asian peers who are now stuck in a career choice that was thrust upon them by their parents. And now they can't, or don't have enough motivation to get out. I have no idea what tactic I will use to parent my own children someday. But I know for sure that I will let my child explore career choices outside of my own, and to let them mold their own career path.
- dkarl 16y ago
  Sharply focusing on math and science, and then aiming to get into an "old" profession like being a doctor or lawyer, prevents the child from ever exploring or even considering other possibilities. That's exactly the point. They fear that their children will pursue one of those other possibilities the way you or I would fear our children becoming drug addicts. I don't think it's restricted to East Asians; it seems consistent among recent immigrants. I mentioned to a friend from Iran that I had high LSAT scores and could have gone to law school -- I didn't even say a good law school -- and she was astonished. To her, the higher income and prestige of being a lawyer was decisive; it was bizarre that I chose a lower-paid path that resulted in me existing beneath lawyers in the social pecking order. How could I choose to make less money, live in a smaller house in a less posh neighborhood, drive a cheaper car, and go on less lavish vacations? High-paid professions with stable demand and high, meritocratic barriers to entry are ideal vehicles for recent immigrants, whether they want to ensure their class (if they come from an upper class in a society where falling out of the upper class is catastrophic) or their financial security (if they come from a country where economic existence is precarious and subject to great disruptions.) Upper-middle-class Americans are a little weird in that we are just as obsessed with class as anyone else, yet we often subordinate class to lifestyle factors when choosing a career. In fact, unlike upper-class, lower-class, or most other middle-class Americans, we are stuck in a kind of catch-22 where it is considered gauche to show concern for maintaining or improving our class status. We also sacrifice security, but I don't think it is conscious: we just can't viscerally comprehend economic insecurity. To my friend, I shrugged and said, "I wouldn't have enjoyed being a lawyer. I might as well choose a career I enjoy. After all, no one is starving." I never had any artistic or musical interests, so my blasé attitude toward class was never tested by the prospect of a sub-middle-class career, but I never questioned it when it came to opportunities to move up. Doctor, lawyer, meh, doesn't sound fun. That attitude horrifies many immigrant parents.
stcredzero 16y ago
As a result, throughout my childhood—and most of my adulthood—we mostly contended with a slim parade of different, sometimes contradictory, caricatures: lotus blossoms and dragon ladies, math nerds and martial artists, refugees and gang-bangers. Ad nauseum. The amount of presumption that I have to deal with from strangers on a regular basis is still disturbing. Such interactions only comprise a small fraction of the total, but a modern urban setting is sufficiently populated to generate a regular supply. No, I look nothing like Jackie Chan. Please don't treat me like someone wearing a costume at Disney World. I'm not a cartoon and I'm not your instant Asian friend. Yes, I was born here. English is my first language. I know next to nothing about martial arts. I'm not bad but still not that good at math. No, I don't think I'm better than you, I don't need to be shown up, you're not making the world a more beautiful and better place by doing that. (Still, all of those are better than the instant Asian=target of abuse idiots or the weird psycho-sexual vibes from certain kinds of middle-aged white guys.) I observe the little dance that people go through when they get to know each other. I notice the little verbal and non-verbal signals being passed and being noticed. I'd really like to notice more of those transactions and stop wondering about their relative lack coincident with these big globs of presumption coming out of nowhere.
- slashclee 16y ago
  And, no, I am NOT related to Bruce Lee.
- sudont 16y ago
  "The amount of presumption that I have to deal with from strangers on a regular basis " Seriously? Where the hell do you live, Georgia? But, I suppose being white I don't see it. And that psycho-sexual thing is called a "rice queen." Uh, fyi, I guess.
  - brianmwang 16y ago
    It still happens even in major metropolitan centers like NYC. I still vividly recall being gawked over by a crowd of extremely rowdy girls on Halloween day, having "Look, it's Jackie Chan!" thrown at me. They were pretty much shrieking about it and on the subway, no less. Nothing to do but have to actually listen to that nonsense. It shocked and sickened me for a while. Granted, the girls in question seemed to be from generally poorer, low-education areas. That still doesn't excuse it in my book though.
doron 16y ago
Following the media frenzy that is the aftermath of Chua's article i cannot help but feel that there is a larger macro narrative at play here. There is no doubt, the article struck a nerve for many Asian-Americans, some of which try to either validate the way they grew up or the understandable resentment of others who feel cheated from some vocation that didn't materialize because of the Math/Violin issue. Then there is this large group of what seems to be largely white who either figured there was something there for the upbringing of their children, and those who cry abuse. As I was raised in another country, this conversation, whether of Asian origin or Caucasian, strikes me as a genuine american cultural phenomena. There is an anxiety here about children and the way they are brought up and educated that is unmatched anywhere else that i have seen. This discussion and the discussion of yesterday about the treatment of all males as defacto criminals in their approach to children, feeds from the same root, that strikes me at times as some kind of hysterical episode.
anonymous246 16y ago
Anybody want to weigh in on why Asians give their kids Western first names in the US? Why don't they use Chinese first names? Why don't they change their last names also? Serious question.
- cglee 16y ago
  Several reasons: - a lot of Asian families are Christian, so they get Christian names - racism and discrimination. "li guo" just isn't as cool as "pierre" - there's no real great way to spell a lot of Asian names, so might as well just adopt a Western name - many Asian children have an Asian name and a Westerner name. Both are valid aliases for the person.
  - democracy 16y ago
    Racism is not an issue here, since the last name is still Asian, I guess. A friend of mine from China said the main reason is that some Chinese names are hard to pronounce for an English-speaker. Also other Asian nations (Indians, for examle) seem to leave their names as is, and also give Indian names to kids, I am just wondering, is it something Chinese specific?
    - tastybites 16y ago
      Racism isn't the issue - discrimination is. "Richard Kim" means I grew up in America and will have no problem talking to you. "Han Yong Kim" means you're going to have trouble communicating with me in the workplace.
  - tobtoh 16y ago
    Also, many people have trouble pronouncing foreign names particularly those that don't come from an english background. Much easier to give your western name than watch someone mangle pronouncing your name several times and still get it wrong.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- 16y ago
miloshasan 16y ago
The author points out something he may not have even intended: that parenting might not matter at all, despite the raging discussions about which parenting style is better. In fact, lots of research on twins and adopted children suggests that parenting matters very little in shaping a child's personality and skills, while biology and peer groups matter a lot. Identical twins turn out quite similar regardless of whether they grow up in the same family, while adopted siblings are as different as any random people. (Check "How the Mind Works" by Pinker for a great overview.) People have a hard time accepting this, since most would like to believe that they have a power to shape their children, but this does not make it any less true. > the Immigration Act of 1965... didn't just abolish racial quotas, it also created preference categories for science, math and engineering-trained immigrants to come over. Ah, so Asian immigrants to the US are far from an unbiased sample of their original populations! This explains a lot more than bitter fights over parenting.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  This is an argument that is hard to convey convincingly in a comment, but for those who are curious (including those who call "BS"), I recommend reading: _The Blank Slate_ by Steven Pinker
- cubix 16y ago
  I have a hard time accepting it because there is significant evidence to the contrary: http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the-evidence-tell-us/ http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the-evi...
  - miloshasan 16y ago
    From what I could tell, the links you posted are no evidence to the contrary. First, child abuse is beyond what most would call "parenting"; that term is mostly applied to things like strictness with respect to school homework, video games, pressure to choose certain careers, etc. My argument was that those of us that care about giving their children the best should not sweat too much over where precisely to draw the lines, because the effect of these decisions on the child's personality and life outcome is minimal. Second, it is very possible that the same genes that increase the chance of a person being a child abuser also increase the chance of their child being, say, an alcoholic or criminal.

68 points by nitefly 16y ago

Oliver Wang is totally right on this. But i'm slightly more ambivalent than he is on the subject. What Chua wrote did hit a resonant note in American cultural stereotypes, and that's bad, BUT, i don't think it invalidates Chua's points particularly either. Chua's approach is a particular style of child rearing, but her own piece was so filled with nebulous caveats, that i found it hard to believe that anything she particularly said was rooted in being Chinese. The real problem in the end, i guess, is just that she was an Asian woman saying these things. Not that she's got some of the overbearing qualities shared by strict mothers everywhere.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- garply 16y ago
  What Romanization system is that? It looks like Cai to me.
  - knowtheory 16y ago
    what'd i miss? i didn't see it before it was deleted :( (also i just noticed i misspelled Amy Chua's name 3 times)
sethg 16y ago
I’m putting a lot more trust in responses to Chua, from other Asian-Americans talking about their own experiences, than in Chua herself. Once the WSJ op-ed became That Thing On The Internet Everyone Was Talking About, she started walking back, saying that the WSJ quoted fragments of her book out of context. Then she told a newspaper columnist “I’m an unreliable narrator”, saying that the book as a whole was an exaggeration. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/apop011311.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1BGR62v6z http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/13/...) So... what is really going on with Chua and her kids, not to mention her husband? About all I can safely infer is that the woman has, as they say, Issues.
- knowtheory 16y ago
  Perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough. I don't think Chua's initial excerpt actually said anything meaningful. It was like some sort of bizarre Rorschach test, that said very little, and upset a lot of people. My point is, having read it the first time, i too went through the "yeah this kind of describes my childhood" thing, and then looked back at the claims, together with her caveats and noticed that there was precisely nothing one could take away from her article, except that it was an anecdote about her family, and how other people think she's a horrible person. There was no generalizable information in her piece, and thus it was ultimately sort of an inconsequential, and self-satisfying fluff piece. What does amaze me, is the amount of time and effort dedicated to discussing her and what she's said. Given that i don't think the substance of her comments was worthy of such discussion, all i can figure is that she is controversial because of who she is and the style of the comments.
  - sethg 16y ago
    I think the original op-ed spoke on both a logical and emotional level. On the logical level, as you say, the caveats pretty much cancelled out any substantive arguments. On the emotional level, there was an overwhelming message of you Western slackers, if you do not browbeat your children into being #1 the way we Chinese do, your children will die homeless and penniless and ten pounds overweight. And the emotional message strikes some pretty tender nerves for those millions who either are status-anxious about how their children will end up (think of all those upper-class New York parents angling to get their toddlers into The Right Preschool), or who was raised by someone with that kind of anxiety.
- frossie 16y ago
  she started walking back, saying that the WSJ quoted fragments of her book out of context I haven't read the book, but I have seen evidence that the WSJ extracts were highly selective. In fact in the Guardian piece below, in which her children are also quoted, it says that she completely changed her approach when she realised the effect that it had. Her daughter is quoted as saying: "The other day, I messed up a math test. I texted my mom that I got an A- and she replied, 'Who cares! Mummy loves u!'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy-chua-tiger-mother-interview?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy-chua-... [Edit for those who don't want to read the linked article: The Guardian piece casts the book as a confessionary "these are the things I did because I thought they were right and boy, it just made my kids miserable so I stopped" rather than the WSJ-implied tone of "this is the way I raised my kids and you wussy Westerners should do it like this or be squashed"]

blahedo 16y ago

This observation hit me like a two-by-four: "The Immigration Act of 1965... created preference categories for science, math and engineering-trained immigrants to come over. [Asian countries] were producing a surplus of college-educated adults but lacked a sufficiently developed domestic economy to adequately absorb them. The 1965 Immigration Act, in trying to bolster America's own domestic needs, inadvertently helped absorb that surplus [and] influenced the American perception that Asians were somehow naturally gifted in math and science because there was a disproportionate number of immigrants coming from Asia with those skills."

jimmybot 16y ago
Contrast that with for 60 years before that, we had this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act Later extended to cover all Asian immigrants. There was certainly demand to emigrate to the US, but it was forbidden. This act alone I think goes a long, long way to explaining why Asian Americans are a fairly recent phenomenon and "weird" to American culture.
- bhoung 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy Just to let you know, you're not alone there as a country.
OasisG 16y ago
I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at, but do you mind expounding on your thoughts previous to discovering this information?
- blahedo 16y ago
  Previously, my somewhat-nebulous thoughts on this were: there's definitely a math/sci stereotype about Asians; don't read too much into stereotypes; but Asians really are disproportionately represented among the math/sci fields; what on earth would explain it if not a genetic and/or cultural bias? >cognitive dissonance< As I said, nebulous; I hadn't really pursued the line of thought very far, just tangentially as it came up elsewhere. I hadn't known about the 1965 Act, and its existence and the above analysis just instantly explained so much so well and without reference to Asians somehow being magically different; just that the math/sci trait had been selected for within the Asian-American population. Not that it rules out other explanations. But it's so blindingly obvious (in retrospect :) that the Act would have some effect along these lines, that Occam's Razor raises the bar for other explanations by a lot.

noname123 16y ago

I've thought a lot about this subject. I have come to conclusion that asian parents hating comes from internalized self-hatred of being yellow and yet at the same, being unable to express one's Asian values in a Western society. Almost everything against the Asian parents are against how their values are different from typical "American" parents: strict vs. lenient, off-putting vs. dotting. "I have to sit at home doing SAT practice sets and violin lessons while other kids are going to Chemical Romance concerts." A lot of anger comes from if my parents didn't prevent me from doing X (electric guitar) or forced me to do Y (volin), I could have been Z (football quarterback/rockstar/kissing the prom queen). These reasons may be true, but it's irresponsible to put all your shortcomings on your parents and it's dangerous because I know people who are in their late 20's, 30's long after they have moved out their parents house still playing the blame game. On the other hand, American culture is so different than Asian culture and no matter how Americanized you get, you still have some Asian influences. For instance, when I'm out with my Asian friends, we interact like we are kindergarten teachers, always very attentive to others' egos and emotions whereas with my American friends, we interact like we are in prison, joking and bustin' each other balls and never showing vulnerabilities. Sometimes I get frustrated at the "games" you have to play chasing American chicks or "bromance," where you have to put a "confidence" facade instead of expressing yourself as is. But I have come to accept Asian parents for what they are. I'm grateful for what mine has taught me and not grateful for their old ingrained concepts that runs counterproductive to living in a Western society. But one thing is constant always however, you can't teach old dogs new tricks. I could bang my head against the wall to try to explain to my parents American values and they won't understand (because maybe I myself and really anyone else don't even comprehend what American values are). But it's more practical and beneficial for me to accept responsibility for my own issues and work on them myself.

lookACamel 16y ago
>whereas with my American friends, we interact like we are in prison, joking and bustin' each other balls and never showing vulnerabilities. I catch your drift but that's not a very good analogy. I seriously doubt prison is like hanging out with friends.
- 16y ago

jamesjyu 16y ago

This piece definitely hit home for me, a 2nd generation Asian American. As a kid in the 90s, I remember talking to an older friend about future career advice. I mentioned acting or dancing as possible paths for Asian Americans. He scoffed, telling me that the only place for Asians in American pop culture was in martial art films. Out of all the memories, that particular conversation stuck with me for years. My father's immigration to the states was squarely in line with the Immigration Act of 1965. He was at the top of his class (and really, the country) in Taiwan, and came to study for his PhD at Yale. I grew up in a household not too far off from Chua's advice. There are pros and cons to this way of parenting (I won't go into all of those). What I know for sure is that emulating it to a T is bad. The most dangerous aspect of the Chua-way of parenting isn't the borderline academic abuse: it's the blindness to opportunities. Sharply focusing on math and science, and then aiming to get into an "old" profession like being a doctor or lawyer, prevents the child from ever exploring or even considering other possibilities. Growing up, I really didn't consider other career opportunities besides getting a PhD like my dad and pursuing an electrical engineering career. I have since deviated from that path, but it took me a long time and a halfway pursued PhD. Now I'm happily doing web development and design for my job, a longtime hobby of mine ever since childhood. I have always wondered what would have happened if my parents had let me explore outside of the usual math and science career paths. Maybe I would have jumped into web development earlier and more seriously. Or, maybe I would have been a dancer or chef. The possibilities I could have explored in college, but didn't because of guilt, still keeps me up at night. In the end, I did finally find my passion and am pursuing it full time. But, I know a lot of my Asian peers who are now stuck in a career choice that was thrust upon them by their parents. And now they can't, or don't have enough motivation to get out. I have no idea what tactic I will use to parent my own children someday. But I know for sure that I will let my child explore career choices outside of my own, and to let them mold their own career path.

dkarl 16y ago
Sharply focusing on math and science, and then aiming to get into an "old" profession like being a doctor or lawyer, prevents the child from ever exploring or even considering other possibilities. That's exactly the point. They fear that their children will pursue one of those other possibilities the way you or I would fear our children becoming drug addicts. I don't think it's restricted to East Asians; it seems consistent among recent immigrants. I mentioned to a friend from Iran that I had high LSAT scores and could have gone to law school -- I didn't even say a good law school -- and she was astonished. To her, the higher income and prestige of being a lawyer was decisive; it was bizarre that I chose a lower-paid path that resulted in me existing beneath lawyers in the social pecking order. How could I choose to make less money, live in a smaller house in a less posh neighborhood, drive a cheaper car, and go on less lavish vacations? High-paid professions with stable demand and high, meritocratic barriers to entry are ideal vehicles for recent immigrants, whether they want to ensure their class (if they come from an upper class in a society where falling out of the upper class is catastrophic) or their financial security (if they come from a country where economic existence is precarious and subject to great disruptions.) Upper-middle-class Americans are a little weird in that we are just as obsessed with class as anyone else, yet we often subordinate class to lifestyle factors when choosing a career. In fact, unlike upper-class, lower-class, or most other middle-class Americans, we are stuck in a kind of catch-22 where it is considered gauche to show concern for maintaining or improving our class status. We also sacrifice security, but I don't think it is conscious: we just can't viscerally comprehend economic insecurity. To my friend, I shrugged and said, "I wouldn't have enjoyed being a lawyer. I might as well choose a career I enjoy. After all, no one is starving." I never had any artistic or musical interests, so my blasé attitude toward class was never tested by the prospect of a sub-middle-class career, but I never questioned it when it came to opportunities to move up. Doctor, lawyer, meh, doesn't sound fun. That attitude horrifies many immigrant parents.

stcredzero 16y ago

As a result, throughout my childhood—and most of my adulthood—we mostly contended with a slim parade of different, sometimes contradictory, caricatures: lotus blossoms and dragon ladies, math nerds and martial artists, refugees and gang-bangers. Ad nauseum. The amount of presumption that I have to deal with from strangers on a regular basis is still disturbing. Such interactions only comprise a small fraction of the total, but a modern urban setting is sufficiently populated to generate a regular supply. No, I look nothing like Jackie Chan. Please don't treat me like someone wearing a costume at Disney World. I'm not a cartoon and I'm not your instant Asian friend. Yes, I was born here. English is my first language. I know next to nothing about martial arts. I'm not bad but still not that good at math. No, I don't think I'm better than you, I don't need to be shown up, you're not making the world a more beautiful and better place by doing that. (Still, all of those are better than the instant Asian=target of abuse idiots or the weird psycho-sexual vibes from certain kinds of middle-aged white guys.) I observe the little dance that people go through when they get to know each other. I notice the little verbal and non-verbal signals being passed and being noticed. I'd really like to notice more of those transactions and stop wondering about their relative lack coincident with these big globs of presumption coming out of nowhere.

slashclee 16y ago
And, no, I am NOT related to Bruce Lee.
sudont 16y ago
"The amount of presumption that I have to deal with from strangers on a regular basis " Seriously? Where the hell do you live, Georgia? But, I suppose being white I don't see it. And that psycho-sexual thing is called a "rice queen." Uh, fyi, I guess.
- brianmwang 16y ago
  It still happens even in major metropolitan centers like NYC. I still vividly recall being gawked over by a crowd of extremely rowdy girls on Halloween day, having "Look, it's Jackie Chan!" thrown at me. They were pretty much shrieking about it and on the subway, no less. Nothing to do but have to actually listen to that nonsense. It shocked and sickened me for a while. Granted, the girls in question seemed to be from generally poorer, low-education areas. That still doesn't excuse it in my book though.

doron 16y ago

Following the media frenzy that is the aftermath of Chua's article i cannot help but feel that there is a larger macro narrative at play here. There is no doubt, the article struck a nerve for many Asian-Americans, some of which try to either validate the way they grew up or the understandable resentment of others who feel cheated from some vocation that didn't materialize because of the Math/Violin issue. Then there is this large group of what seems to be largely white who either figured there was something there for the upbringing of their children, and those who cry abuse. As I was raised in another country, this conversation, whether of Asian origin or Caucasian, strikes me as a genuine american cultural phenomena. There is an anxiety here about children and the way they are brought up and educated that is unmatched anywhere else that i have seen. This discussion and the discussion of yesterday about the treatment of all males as defacto criminals in their approach to children, feeds from the same root, that strikes me at times as some kind of hysterical episode.

anonymous246 16y ago

Anybody want to weigh in on why Asians give their kids Western first names in the US? Why don't they use Chinese first names? Why don't they change their last names also? Serious question.

cglee 16y ago
Several reasons: - a lot of Asian families are Christian, so they get Christian names - racism and discrimination. "li guo" just isn't as cool as "pierre" - there's no real great way to spell a lot of Asian names, so might as well just adopt a Western name - many Asian children have an Asian name and a Westerner name. Both are valid aliases for the person.
- democracy 16y ago
  Racism is not an issue here, since the last name is still Asian, I guess. A friend of mine from China said the main reason is that some Chinese names are hard to pronounce for an English-speaker. Also other Asian nations (Indians, for examle) seem to leave their names as is, and also give Indian names to kids, I am just wondering, is it something Chinese specific?
  - tastybites 16y ago
    Racism isn't the issue - discrimination is. "Richard Kim" means I grew up in America and will have no problem talking to you. "Han Yong Kim" means you're going to have trouble communicating with me in the workplace.
- tobtoh 16y ago
  Also, many people have trouble pronouncing foreign names particularly those that don't come from an english background. Much easier to give your western name than watch someone mangle pronouncing your name several times and still get it wrong.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
16y ago

miloshasan 16y ago

The author points out something he may not have even intended: that parenting might not matter at all, despite the raging discussions about which parenting style is better. In fact, lots of research on twins and adopted children suggests that parenting matters very little in shaping a child's personality and skills, while biology and peer groups matter a lot. Identical twins turn out quite similar regardless of whether they grow up in the same family, while adopted siblings are as different as any random people. (Check "How the Mind Works" by Pinker for a great overview.) People have a hard time accepting this, since most would like to believe that they have a power to shape their children, but this does not make it any less true. > the Immigration Act of 1965... didn't just abolish racial quotas, it also created preference categories for science, math and engineering-trained immigrants to come over. Ah, so Asian immigrants to the US are far from an unbiased sample of their original populations! This explains a lot more than bitter fights over parenting.

MikeCapone 16y ago
This is an argument that is hard to convey convincingly in a comment, but for those who are curious (including those who call "BS"), I recommend reading: _The Blank Slate_ by Steven Pinker
cubix 16y ago
I have a hard time accepting it because there is significant evidence to the contrary: http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the-evidence-tell-us/ http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the-evi...
- miloshasan 16y ago
  From what I could tell, the links you posted are no evidence to the contrary. First, child abuse is beyond what most would call "parenting"; that term is mostly applied to things like strictness with respect to school homework, video games, pressure to choose certain careers, etc. My argument was that those of us that care about giving their children the best should not sweat too much over where precisely to draw the lines, because the effect of these decisions on the child's personality and life outcome is minimal. Second, it is very possible that the same genes that increase the chance of a person being a child abuser also increase the chance of their child being, say, an alcoholic or criminal.