4 ms·

>From the little research I did, Bangladeshi-Americans have higher educational attainment and household incomes than the median. America has always had ethnic n

>From the little research I did, Bangladeshi-Americans have higher educational attainment and household incomes than the median. America has always had ethnic neighborhoods - German/China/Korea/Japantowns, little Italys. What's the issue? Some people have problems with other people's skin color.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
rayiner 11mo ago
The key difference between Scandinavian enclaves in Minnesota and Little Bangladesh isn't "skin color." It's order versus disorder. First world versus third world. Humans aren't just differently colored blank slates.
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  You’re spot on, people are confusing economics and cultural assimilation concerns with racism. I don’t believe you’re racist (based on your comments), you’re just pointing out a loophole that allows mass migration via a skilled worker visa program (whether intentional or not) of a cohort of immigrant who might experience challenges assimilating into their target country culture. Culture isn’t magic land, it’s people, and their social values and norms. Are mass migrants via family reunification assimilating and adopting the culture of their new home? That’s an important question for those offering residency and potentially a path to citizenship. Very similar to why many European countries are offering economic migrants a return path to their country of origin when social and economic integration has failed.
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    Here’s a secret: Not only am I ethnically Bangladeshi, I enjoy Bangladeshis! I enjoy weddings where the aunties harass the couple about immediately having kids. I live 10 minutes from my parents and subject my Anglo wife to elaborate and overbearing family obligations and face saving rituals. Seeing Anglos with adult children waiting for grandkids that will never come genuinely fills me with existential dread. That is an entirely different consideration, however, than the economic and social effects of immigration of people like me in sufficient numbers to culturally reshape parts of America.
    - flag_fagger 11mo ago
      [dead]
  - triceratops 11mo ago
    > Are mass migrants via family reunification assimilating and adopting the culture of their new home? America has traditionally been excellent at assimilating migrants. Probably best in the world. I don't know why you're suddenly having doubts.
    - toomuchtodo 11mo ago
      "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results." And who is going to guarantee favorable outcomes and results? "America has traditionally been excellent at..." is load bearing considering current state and forward looking projections. I have doubts because the country and its governance is stumbling towards failure.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 11mo ago
      Is your first sentence true? If you think so--how do you explain the cultural differences between different parts of the U.S. with different immigration histories? I can't help but notice that Minnesota (heavy Scandinavian influence) and Massachusetts (heavy Puritan Anglo influence) are clean, low in corruption, and orderly, while New Jersey and New York (heavy southern Italian influence) are significantly less so--a characteristic that they share with contemporary southern Italy (e.g, Sicily). It's also worth pointing out that the social infrastructure for assimilation that existed in the early 20th century has since been destroyed. Italians immigrated to a country where there was strong pressure to abandon their foreign culture and assimilate into Anglo norms, attitudes, and customs. Assimilation was also facilitated by restrictive immigration laws adopted in 1921, which dropped the foreign-born population from 15% to under 5% by 1970. Even then, the evidence we have is that assimilation only worked about halfway: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... To this day, differences in social attitudes between European countries show up in U.S. descendants of immigrants from those countries: https://cis.org/Richwine/Still-More-Evidence-Cultural-Persistence https://cis.org/Richwine/Still-More-Evidence-Cultural-Persis... ("For example, in Europe, Norwegians are more trusting than Germans, who are themselves more trusting than Italians. Despite over a century passing since their peak period of immigration, those three ancestral groups order themselves the same way in the United States: Norwegian-Americans are more trusting than German-Americans, who in turn are more trusting than Italian-Americans.").
- triceratops 11mo ago
  Scandinavia is peaceful and prosperous today. Was it like that when those enclaves formed? I haven't been to any Little Bangladeshes personally. What kinds of disorder exist there?

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

rayiner 11mo ago

The key difference between Scandinavian enclaves in Minnesota and Little Bangladesh isn't "skin color." It's order versus disorder. First world versus third world. Humans aren't just differently colored blank slates.

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
You’re spot on, people are confusing economics and cultural assimilation concerns with racism. I don’t believe you’re racist (based on your comments), you’re just pointing out a loophole that allows mass migration via a skilled worker visa program (whether intentional or not) of a cohort of immigrant who might experience challenges assimilating into their target country culture. Culture isn’t magic land, it’s people, and their social values and norms. Are mass migrants via family reunification assimilating and adopting the culture of their new home? That’s an important question for those offering residency and potentially a path to citizenship. Very similar to why many European countries are offering economic migrants a return path to their country of origin when social and economic integration has failed.
- rayiner 11mo ago
  Here’s a secret: Not only am I ethnically Bangladeshi, I enjoy Bangladeshis! I enjoy weddings where the aunties harass the couple about immediately having kids. I live 10 minutes from my parents and subject my Anglo wife to elaborate and overbearing family obligations and face saving rituals. Seeing Anglos with adult children waiting for grandkids that will never come genuinely fills me with existential dread. That is an entirely different consideration, however, than the economic and social effects of immigration of people like me in sufficient numbers to culturally reshape parts of America.
  - flag_fagger 11mo ago
    [dead]
- triceratops 11mo ago
  > Are mass migrants via family reunification assimilating and adopting the culture of their new home? America has traditionally been excellent at assimilating migrants. Probably best in the world. I don't know why you're suddenly having doubts.
  - toomuchtodo 11mo ago
    "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results." And who is going to guarantee favorable outcomes and results? "America has traditionally been excellent at..." is load bearing considering current state and forward looking projections. I have doubts because the country and its governance is stumbling towards failure.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    Is your first sentence true? If you think so--how do you explain the cultural differences between different parts of the U.S. with different immigration histories? I can't help but notice that Minnesota (heavy Scandinavian influence) and Massachusetts (heavy Puritan Anglo influence) are clean, low in corruption, and orderly, while New Jersey and New York (heavy southern Italian influence) are significantly less so--a characteristic that they share with contemporary southern Italy (e.g, Sicily). It's also worth pointing out that the social infrastructure for assimilation that existed in the early 20th century has since been destroyed. Italians immigrated to a country where there was strong pressure to abandon their foreign culture and assimilate into Anglo norms, attitudes, and customs. Assimilation was also facilitated by restrictive immigration laws adopted in 1921, which dropped the foreign-born population from 15% to under 5% by 1970. Even then, the evidence we have is that assimilation only worked about halfway: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... To this day, differences in social attitudes between European countries show up in U.S. descendants of immigrants from those countries: https://cis.org/Richwine/Still-More-Evidence-Cultural-Persistence https://cis.org/Richwine/Still-More-Evidence-Cultural-Persis... ("For example, in Europe, Norwegians are more trusting than Germans, who are themselves more trusting than Italians. Despite over a century passing since their peak period of immigration, those three ancestral groups order themselves the same way in the United States: Norwegian-Americans are more trusting than German-Americans, who in turn are more trusting than Italian-Americans.").
triceratops 11mo ago
Scandinavia is peaceful and prosperous today. Was it like that when those enclaves formed? I haven't been to any Little Bangladeshes personally. What kinds of disorder exist there?