3 ms·

We're in agreement. Work hard, advance your interests, and take the big wigs down a peg when you're good and strong. All the groups you mention (in a US context

We're in agreement. Work hard, advance your interests, and take the big wigs down a peg when you're good and strong. All the groups you mention (in a US context) did this and it worked out both for them and for everyone else (except the slaveholding planter/Yankee trader classes who used to run the country, and are now basically extinct -- though not completely so).

rayiner 4y ago
None of those groups achieved their upward mobility by “organizing” to “make society more just,” as you stated. They didn’t socialize their kids to focus on their own luck or lack thereof and turn to advantaged groups for help, as the Vox article advocates. Indeed, Cubans and Vietnamese stood with the advantaged groups as staunch allies against communism. Chinese and other Asians have historically been apolitical—much to the frustration of social justice organizers. Jewish people have long allied themselves with social justice politics, as have affluent, educated Asians since 2000, but mainly social justice for other people. They act in the model of the “allies in the advantaged groups,” not in the model of disadvantaged groups organizing to pursue their own interests. But when it comes to socializing their own kids, however, it’s typically bootstraps and personal responsibility.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Again, I think we're in agreement. Chinese-Americans built themselves from being one step above chattel slaves to some of the wealthiest and most influential people in society. Penniless Jews from the shtetls of Europe have done the same. Ditto for Mormons, who were actively hunted by the U.S. Government. All of these groups "organized" by creating independent networks of power and influence. This is what organizing is. We might associate the word with things like ACORN or unionization drives, but those movements are essentially trying to do the same thing that these groups have done. If there is some nuance of difference between our views, I don't have the energy or interest to find out what it is. Have a good day.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I agree, but when Vox talks about "organizing" they mean ACORN.
- tptacek 4y ago
  This is such a weird argument, given the history of the previous century was largely defined by two huge decades-long organizing efforts. It makes sense if your definition of success is, exclusively, "proportional representation among CEOs and K&E partners". But if your definition includes "not having children work 7 day weeks" and "outlawing de jure segregation", not so much. We're exposed to a lot more small-bore organizing today, largely because of the media environment, probably also a fair bit because we've shifted virtually every adult in the country onto a college track. There's lots of ineffective organizing to dunk on. But talking down the entire concept of organizing? That seems wildly false.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    My definition of success is group identity become decoupled from economic deprivation. Vietnamese went from being one of the poorest groups in the country in the 1980 census to having median incomes comparable to whites. Obviously I'm not denying that political participation never works. But Obamacare or child labor laws are society-wide improvements. I'm talking specifically about disadvantaged groups organizing as a way out of their disadvantaged predicament. On that front, organizing has had limited success. For example, you mention eliminating de jure segregation, which was obviously great. But black-white income gaps are pretty much the same today as in 1965.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      This argument only makes sense if you ignore the status quo ante of the civil rights movement, or of the labor movement. Which is the one sentence response I should have written originally.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        The civil rights movement was obviously important for black Americans. But it also arose from, and in response to, economic and historical circumstances specific to them. De jure segregation didn’t arise out of ordinary racism or xenophobia. It arose out of an effort to resist the integration of a formerly enslaved minority. It has only incidental relevance to minorities of immigrant origin. Countries like Canada that never had slavery or segregation or an organized civil rights movement ended up in the same place as america with respect to Chinese or Vietnamese immigrants.

rayiner 4y ago

None of those groups achieved their upward mobility by “organizing” to “make society more just,” as you stated. They didn’t socialize their kids to focus on their own luck or lack thereof and turn to advantaged groups for help, as the Vox article advocates. Indeed, Cubans and Vietnamese stood with the advantaged groups as staunch allies against communism. Chinese and other Asians have historically been apolitical—much to the frustration of social justice organizers. Jewish people have long allied themselves with social justice politics, as have affluent, educated Asians since 2000, but mainly social justice for other people. They act in the model of the “allies in the advantaged groups,” not in the model of disadvantaged groups organizing to pursue their own interests. But when it comes to socializing their own kids, however, it’s typically bootstraps and personal responsibility.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
Again, I think we're in agreement. Chinese-Americans built themselves from being one step above chattel slaves to some of the wealthiest and most influential people in society. Penniless Jews from the shtetls of Europe have done the same. Ditto for Mormons, who were actively hunted by the U.S. Government. All of these groups "organized" by creating independent networks of power and influence. This is what organizing is. We might associate the word with things like ACORN or unionization drives, but those movements are essentially trying to do the same thing that these groups have done. If there is some nuance of difference between our views, I don't have the energy or interest to find out what it is. Have a good day.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I agree, but when Vox talks about "organizing" they mean ACORN.
tptacek 4y ago
This is such a weird argument, given the history of the previous century was largely defined by two huge decades-long organizing efforts. It makes sense if your definition of success is, exclusively, "proportional representation among CEOs and K&E partners". But if your definition includes "not having children work 7 day weeks" and "outlawing de jure segregation", not so much. We're exposed to a lot more small-bore organizing today, largely because of the media environment, probably also a fair bit because we've shifted virtually every adult in the country onto a college track. There's lots of ineffective organizing to dunk on. But talking down the entire concept of organizing? That seems wildly false.
- rayiner 4y ago
  My definition of success is group identity become decoupled from economic deprivation. Vietnamese went from being one of the poorest groups in the country in the 1980 census to having median incomes comparable to whites. Obviously I'm not denying that political participation never works. But Obamacare or child labor laws are society-wide improvements. I'm talking specifically about disadvantaged groups organizing as a way out of their disadvantaged predicament. On that front, organizing has had limited success. For example, you mention eliminating de jure segregation, which was obviously great. But black-white income gaps are pretty much the same today as in 1965.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    This argument only makes sense if you ignore the status quo ante of the civil rights movement, or of the labor movement. Which is the one sentence response I should have written originally.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      The civil rights movement was obviously important for black Americans. But it also arose from, and in response to, economic and historical circumstances specific to them. De jure segregation didn’t arise out of ordinary racism or xenophobia. It arose out of an effort to resist the integration of a formerly enslaved minority. It has only incidental relevance to minorities of immigrant origin. Countries like Canada that never had slavery or segregation or an organized civil rights movement ended up in the same place as america with respect to Chinese or Vietnamese immigrants.