Asians not tribal?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:19.

According to John Ray it is a “grave misconception” to believe that Asian cultures are tribal.

Asians, John believes, do not show preference according to ethnicity, but will reciprocate any favours shown to them on an individual basis. As John himself puts it,

“I am not remotely of their tribe. They do not treat me well because of my tribe. They treat me as an individual and treat me unusually well because I treat them well.”

This, no doubt, is a comforting thought for John. It means that he can support mass Asian immigration but not worry that he might be discriminated against by the newer Asian population. He will continue to be treated well according to his individual merits.

I don’t think this is a realistic view. Let me illustrate my point with some recent events in Sydney. In Sydney there is a local council called Fairfield City. It covers the suburb of Fairfield and the largely Vietnamese suburb of Cabramatta.

A councillor, Laurie White, noted that there was an extraordinary discrepancy in the number of parking infringements issued between the two suburbs. In Fairfield, there were only 300 infringement notices handed out last year for parking in loading zones. In Vietnamese Cabramatta there were 2,441.

Laurie White then suggested that some Cabramatta residents couldn’t read the parking signs and that council should investigate writing some of the signs in Asian languages.

The result? On A Current Affair tonight I saw footage of a Vietnamese demonstration against Laurie White. It’s hard to estimate the number of demonstrators, but it seemed to be well over 100 - perhaps even several hundred.

The demonstrators were as confident in playing the race card as the best hustling efforts of Jesse Jackson in the US. Laurie White was denounced as a racist or a fascist. “We’re not going to take such slurs on us” was the common theme of those interviewed. There were loud demands for Laurie White to resign.

Not a single Vietnamese interviewed showed even a flicker of self-doubt. There was no humour about it. No interest in why the parking infringement rates were so high in Cabramatta. The defence of “us” was so complete it simply went without question.

Even for me, this came across as unsettling, and I am not so innocent on these matters as most Anglo-Australians.

If the Vietnamese in Cabramatta are willing to organise on such a small matter, what would happen if larger issues were at stake?

This is so different to what Australians are used to. If an Asian were to make not just a minor criticism, but even a great insult toward us, it would not lead to demonstrations.

I recall once participating in a debate at Melbourne University on the issue of multiculturalism. In my comments I used the phrase “Australian culture”. Two young Asian men then responded by suggesting that there was no Australian culture. The Australians in the audience did not raise howls of protest when these comments were made (though some quietly thanked me later when I did protest).

Is it then really a “grave misconception” to believe that Asians will act tribally? The Vietnamese in Cabramatta certainly have, to a degree which Australians are unused to, and perhaps will have to adapt to as areas of Asian settlement increase.

Tags: Australian Politics

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:02 | #

All people are heavily influenced by and, in their dealings in the wider world, operate through the agency of their tribal or ethnic interests. There is no choice involved here - the interests are firmly rooted in our genes.

In this regard people are not individuals but members of an ethny. It makes no difference to what degree those people consider themselves liberal or even libertarian. They are subject to ethnic genetic interest. It is not a preference.

So why do so many Euros deny the pull of their own racial interests and strive to be “different” or “individual” or “free” or “more fully human”? What is the special problem with owning up to sharing something vital with another person much like oneself? Why, essentially, do some white people (and no others) cross the racial Rubicon to “give to” or “feel for” or “exercise their humanity towards” complete aliens? Why, for God’s sake? What’s the big deal with aliens?

That is the million dollar question. If we could answer that we could change our self-destructive behaviours and alter the destiny of the West overnight.

I have tried, with mixed results I feel, to crack the issue open here. I would greatly appreciate some insights from other MRers on this most mysterious but important of subjects.

Posted by Andrew on Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:54 | #

I remember a few years ago, a Journalist had done an exposé on the Chinese as a race, and the one thing that stood out was the mere fact than in all tribal instances that there was a strong response, not to trust others that are different to them, they saw foreigners as demon’s, obviously this is not a genetic disposition, but a cultural thing inculcated for a few hundred years, but the effects now days compounded by Post Modern Aptitudes and White Man Guilt repression , unfounded by the new “Elite thieves of wealth and power” have created a paradox in human cognitive ability and perhaps Cultural and tribal beliefs all over the world to garnish support for their Agendas. Deconstruct the hardest enemy, White Man, who is Epistemologically advanced than other races and more capable of Objective Reasoning, that is the real threat to these Elites.
People who tinker and adjust, twig, and turn a few knobs in social engineering to benefit them selves at everyone else’s expense, Karl Marx had the same Idea, and he was a fat ass unemployable fool until he died, so are the rest of these fat ass unemployable idiots still need an income, so they will find ways to take yours. The new breed of “Thieves” Take your money and your Nation and make you feel good about it. Hmmmm.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:49 | #

As long as we’re sharing anecdotes about Asian ethnocentrism:

In late 1999 I took a consulting position with Hewlett-Packard’s largest R&D investment, nearly a half-billion in risk capital, in recent times: The E-Speak project. I did so on condition that I be allowed to pursue my career-long research into relational foundations of information systems, which was related to E-Speak’s stated goals.

When I actually sat down to do the hard work, I required the advice of a 70 year old PhD from Harvard (who had gotten his intellectual moorings from Baird College) with very specific expertise in the area. I requisitioned his consulting fee. That’s when I was approached by an Indian co-worker and told that I could not hire this person but that I could hire as many H-1b or L-1 visa holders from India as I wished. In case anyone doesn’t see the profound “irony” of this: The H-1b and L-1 visas are, by law, limited to cases where a specific skill is required that is not avaiable from available domestic talent.

I handed in my resignation and rather than accepting my resignation I was granted my requisition.

Most of the managers of the project were from India and one of them even warned me at one point that India was “a sleeping giant” which could defeat the US. He was being paid $300/hour—for what I never could figure out.

I can say this: That $500M went a long way toward creating the “cognitive elite” of the US since almost all of those Indians were able to hold onto their jobs during the crushing wave of layoffs that wiped out long-time US-born employees of HP—and by successfully weathering the storm were able to have their tuitions paid as they acquired advanced degrees in business and law.

But guys like John Jay Ray can merely snigger at stories like this. They aren’t about to lose their real estate holdings—or are they?

Posted by jonjayray on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:14 | #

Mark misquotes me. What I actually said in my post of 15th was:

“As anybody who really knows Asians will be aware, Asian culture is a culture of reciprocity. Like everybody else, they do like it best if you come from their own language group but that fades into insignificance if there is an exchange of favours involved”

In other words, group loyalty DOES exist among them but it can easily be trumped by something else that is more important to them. And that trump is simply our own golden rule

And don’t forget that all ethnics are egged on by our Left to see themselves as victims. What you saw was as much the result of Leftist white-anting as anything else

Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:33 | #

If asians pursue antimerit policies at such high levels of technology, they will turn those departments into backwaters, and the main currents will flow well away from them. We are, though, seeing enough of it, that the rate of significant breakthroughs has been reduced to preindustrial levels in many fields. The overall prodiversity regime, which dates to 1971 in the US, imposes quotas, and allows mass importation of asians. Now Europe has pulled way ahead of America, in terms of scientific publishing. Australia, which is similarly open to Asians, has a scientific publication rate per million, similar to Japan and the US, but not to the top countries of Europe. A merit system needs to place enormously more emphasis on verbal IQ and English language abilities, relative to other IQ and nonverbal abilities. Ethnic nepotistic asians can easily take over departments, and exclude those with a better chance of coming up with the breakthroughs, without which a ruinous stagnation sets in.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:26 | #

In other words, group loyalty DOES exist among them but it can easily be trumped by something else that is more important to them. And that trump is simply our own golden rule

I don’t think you can support this assertion John. I don’t think you’re capable of perceiving the line between reciprocity and being outmaneuvered, either.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:29 | #

Obviously collectivism outcompetes individualism, and I don’t think you’re honest enough to admit that.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:38 | #

I should also point out that you’ve as much as admitted we’re right. You’ve admitted non-whites are playing the game as collectives and that whites are playing it as individuals, and you’re reduced to asserting that somehow magically individualism will win.

What you’re saying is that non-white collectives can operate under “reciprocity” when necessary, and collectism the rest of the time, and somehow that’ll all wash out in our favor.

That’s preposterous. It’s absurd. It’s a recipe for “what’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine.”

Somehow, your assurances that “reciprocity” favoring aggressive collectives is to our good ring hollow in my ears.

Thanks for making it so clear, for once.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:48 | #

It’s nice to finally have John figured out to my satisfaction. He believes what he does because he wants to; that’s the beginning and the end of it as far as I can tell.

Of course we all do this to one extent or another, but John does so as a first principle.

This doesn’t settle why he wants to believe as he does, but it does settle the odds he’ll ever see reason.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:51 | #

It also settles why his modus operandi has been analogous to that of a theist defending his belief as logical.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:40 | #

Arguing in good faith about genetics with those subject to the “logical fallacies” of “political correctness” is frequently akin to arguing with the bee in the following passage from “The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior of their hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, ‘...a major difficulty in the parasite’s life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and “encourages” it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host… One of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee being left to die’ (Croll 1966).”

Posted by Calvin on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:59 | #

If Asians were so brilliant Asia would have a problem with European immigration and not vice versa. Why do these people come to countries inhabited by intellectually retarded racists? They need us. We don’t need them. John Ray is trying to spare the blushes of the White race by maintaining that our new masters will be “nice” to us, some of us are still willing to fight for the right to be who we are and how we wish to remain.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:15 | #

India is a sleeping giant - sleeping dwarf more like! Its only our self inflicted weakness that allows them to flex their muscles.

We know who the real sleeping giants are - the European nations.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:07 | #

How about consanguinity, GW? Very high in Africa, south Asia, Indochina and even significantly higher than nothern Europeans in the Han Chinese. Europe shows a greater progression from north to south, with Italian and Spanish rates rates purportedly at 5-20% compared to less than 1% in the UK.

If Sailer is correct, race is extended family with some inbreeding, the greater the blood relationship the greater the consciousness.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:15 | #

GW:
So why do so many Euros [...]

A big part of the answer is that white tribal identity (foisted on us by hostiles and traitors) is antitribalism.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:04 | #

In other words, group loyalty DOES exist among them but it can easily be trumped by something else that is more important to them. And that trump is simply our own golden rule….

You have failed to support this claim—even anecdotally. The examples of favorable interactions with members of other tribes are examples of “trade”, not the trumping of tribalism. Trade benefits the tribe!