My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
184 comments:
Steve, thanks for the comment on income and religions. But you should cover this breaking news story -- I see an analogy here. The killer whales repeatedly showed their true nature, but people kept risking their lives to interact with the whales. Similarly, muslim immigrants continue to do violent things over and over again but the west just can't resist allowing more and more muslim immigration.
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) -- A trainer at SeaWorld Orlando died Wednesday after a killer whale attacked her in front of a horrified audience.
Orange County Fire Rescue spokesman John Mulhall said paramedics were called to the Shamu Stadium at the theme park resort where they found a worker who could not be revived.
Park guest Victoria Biniak told WKMG-TV that the trainer had just finished explaining to the audience the show they were about to see.
Biniak told the station the whale suddenly came up from the water, grabbed the trainer around the waist and "thrashed her all around" to the point the trainer's shoe fell off.
"He was thrashing her around pretty good," Biniak said. "It was violent."
The guests were asked to leave and the park was closed.
There have been several previous attacks on whale trainers at SeaWorld parks.
In Nov. 2006, trainer Kenneth Peters, 39, was bitten and held underwater several times by a 7,000-pound killer whale during a show at SeaWorld's San Diego park. He escaped with a broken foot. The 17-foot-long orca who attacked him was the dominant female of SeaWorld San Diego's seven killer whales. She had attacked Peters two other times, in 1993 and 1999.
In 2004, another whale at the company's San Antonio park tried to hit one of the trainers and attempted to bite him. He also escaped.
It would be interesting to know whether there are still affluence distinctions among mainline white Protestants, such as Episcopalian v. Methodist.
Yes! Who owns the shoes, who has the stock portfolio, etc.
"A Methodist is a Baptist with shoes; a Presbyterian is a Methodist with a car; and an Episcopalian is a Presbyterian with a stock portfolio."
Hooray! If all the blacks convert to Judaism, our race problems will be solved!
I would like to see those above $100,000 divided into
1. those making from 100,000 to 500,000
2. those making 500,000 to 1 million.
3. those making 1 million to 10 million.
4. those making 10 million to 30 million.
5. those making 30 million to 60 million.
6. those making 60 million to 100 million
7. those making beyond 100 million.
I'll bet Jews will beat Hindus as the categories go higher.
Very cool. (On a 15.4" laptop though I can only imagine what difficulty the netbook folks are going to have with viewing this.)
Like you said, there's not much news there but something worth noting is that I've seen statistics claiming that Hindus have a higher average per capita income than Jews. The graph doesn't do the math for us but it's indicated by the lower poverty level among Hindus.
The lower levels among Mormons is somewhat surprising to me but in truth I think that each of these graphs need to come with a booklet of explanations that correct our preconceived notions about what's going on.
For example:
What percentage of Mormons in the US are Hispanic or Native Americans?
What percentage of genetic Jews won't identify themselves as Jewish when asked for their religion? (Often I won't, for example.) Also, what percentage of people who DID identify as Jews are actually converts to Judaism who became Jewish BECAUSE of their success in industries where (Reform) Judaism is popular, such as in Hollywood? I realize that this would fulfill the actual requirement of being "Jewish" by religious persuasion but they certainly wouldn't be who most viewers of this graph would generally think of when they think of Jews.
And are non-successful people of Hindu descent in America less likely to consider themselves Hindu? What percentage of Muslims cease to identify as Muslims when they're financially successful and no longer live in Muslim communities?
My point here isn't to say that graphs like these or poll findings don't usually offer useful information only that they're often very open to being misinterpreted by the ignorant who don't realize how much they don't know.
The recent poll findings (from about a week ago) that somewhere about 75% of Americans supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military while only about 50% supported allowing homosexuals to serve openly was a case in point. What made the discrepancy even starker was that both of these findings were from the exact same people polled in the very same poll.
People (such as Steve and probably about half of his readers) who are aware of these unknowns have a pretty good idea as to how to properly read a graph and know what needs to be taken with how many grains of salt. Your average Joe however is likely to misunderstand large scale data drastically and come away from this graph believing that the country is run by Hindus and Jews, not recognizing (among other things) that - combined - these two religioethnic make up approximately 3% of the population and thus their income isn't all too considerable. (Not to mention the fact that wealth is a more important indicator of hegemony than income and that this graph doesn't actually deal with that issue which, if it did, would likely still have practitioners of Judaism rather high but would likely have Hindus placed a few rungs down.)
The Jewish income is going to decline quite severely. The wealthy 'typical' types of American Jews are either not having kids or having kids with gentiles, while the devout but poor sects are breeding at rates on par with the most fertile nations in the world. (and the Amish for that matter)
Side note: Many reside in a poor ghetto of welfare families in Brooklyn... (Borough Park) yet it's one of the safest if not safest neighborhood in the city. Poverty causes crime amirite?
Re: Hindus
Indians qualify for a huge number of government giveaways.
Such as: near-zero interest Small Business Administration subsidized loans, Small Disadvantaged Minority status for government contracts, 8(a), as well as "diversity set-asides" for large corporations, etc.
How much does this help their incomes?
"mainline' protestant churches.. umm lumping baptists and episcopal s together?/
methodist- traditionally middle class and prespyterians and EC
Though I would imagine that the mainline, particularly episcopal churches have wained considerably, since they have been on a self destructive path since the 60s.
Re: Jews, a high percent live in NY city or the DC area, where incomes are higher overall...of course they also have more education, etc.
What's the deal with Jainists? I've seen some far-out numbers on their percentage of the Indian economy...here it is:
"Though the Jains form only 0.42% of the population of India, their contribution to the exchequer by way of income tax is an astounding 24% of the total tax collected...The 2001 census states that Jains are India's most literate community "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
I'm shocked.
The phrase 'earn like Episcopalians, vote like Puerto Ricans' is brought to mind. If this graph is true, Episcopalians aren't keeping up their half of the bargain.
The 14% of Jews making less than $30k are grad students.
Rather unwieldy? Yow! That has to be the worst graph I've ever seen. A histogram arranged as a pie, too large for the browser to hold in one screen.
I wonder how much Jehovah's Witness have in their 401k's.
Notice that while Jews slightly edge them out in the $100k+ range, Hindus come out on top on average.
In other words: BROWN PEOPLE ARE THE RICHEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA! Within one generation, a group of brown-skinned people from an extremely poor country have come to America and prospered more than any other group in this country.
Steve,
What kind of voting pattern do Hindus have in the US?
Good's graphics usually suck. They're stuck with a 1980s notion of information design: take very basic data and make it look cute. Cute meaning unnecessarily elaborate and distracting.
Too bad, because other outlets, even MSM, are producing beautiful, information-rich infographics and data visualizations.
Someone has been reading their Edward Tufte.
I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?
I thought Voodoo would come out on top.
Catholics and the Unaffiliated most resemble the national income breakdown (total difference of 5%). As a Catholic, I'll attribute that to "best representing the common man" and therefore common sense... which I'll argue is a plus on the basis that common sense holds a prima facie benefit of the doubt.
Clearly the unaffiliated folks are just Catholics who haven't been confirmed and baptized yet. Categorically mirroring arbitrarily-bracketed average-income distribution in the U.S. = Truth!
Remember: Jews are the Most Oppressed People Ever. The graph proves it. And Hindus are close behind.
Is there any explanation for the fact that two of the whiniest ethnic groups in the country - the two most certain of how awful they have it - are the two richest?
Time for WASPs to start to whine.
Take a look at some UK figures :
Ethnicity and religious affiliation.
The numbers in the sample are not large enough to give a very detailed breakdown of wealth
by ethnicity (of the household reference person) or of the spread within each ethnic group.
However, there are considerable differences in median total wealth between ethnic groups,
part of which will reflect differences in age structure:
For White British households, median total wealth is £221,000.
For Indian households it is £204,000.
For Pakistani households it is £97,000.
For other Asian Households it is £50,000.
For Black Caribbean households it is £76,000.
For Black African households it is £21,000.
For Bangladeshi households it is £15,000
Sample numbers are also too small to give much detail of differences by religious affiliation of household reference person, but again there are considerable differences in median total
wealth between groups:
For households with a Jewish household reference person it is £422,000.
For Sikh households it is £229,000.
For Christian households it is £223,000.
For Hindu households it is £206,000.
For Muslim households it is £42,000.
For those with any other religion it is £161,000.
For those with no religious affi liation it is £138,000.
Hindus have similar voting patterns to the Jews.
Re: The UK - after 400 years in India, they welcomed into their own country "South Asians" with limited social capital and below median intelligence (including the very worst of Kashmiri and Bangladeshi Muslims).
I think they knew better, but couldnt get over their biases against the cunning Hindu and favor towards the noble Muslim!
They lucked out when Idi Amin kicked out the Ugandan Gujaratis.
"I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?"
My impression is that Indian immigration to the US is biased in favor of elites.
I also agree that Jewish income can be expected to drop like a stone over the next couple generations as the American Jewish population becomes increasingly Orthodox.
Hindus and other Asians come out on top because they're principally LEGAL immigrants who've been selected for their potential for positive contribution.
Regarding Hindus, the Indians who end up in USA are usually the cream of the crop. Right from birth, the sole aim for an upper middle - upper class Indian is to move to USA, and the ones that have the talent and drive usually do. Unlike other ethnic/religious groups, you won't find too many poor lower class Indian families in the US. Sure, a great number of Indians/Hindus are extremely bright and hard working, but these numbers reflect only the upper layers of excellence among Hindus (I think I read on your blog that these are mostly upper caste Hindus).
At a quick glance, Mormons seem to be among the more "evenly spaced" -- in other words, the groupings are all about the same size. Goes along with this old column of Steve's
Inequality: The Immigration Dimension
where he cites Utah as the "most equal" state.
Pew says that as of 2009, 86% of US Mormons are white and 7% are Latino.
Pew Forum article
I take it this is household income? I wonder what percentage of Hindu families have a stay-at-home mom, vs. Evangelical or Mormon families. I just have no idea. The few Jewish families I know are two income families.
Off topic: Goldman is betting against Greek securities it created.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/business/global/25swaps.html?hp
Taking from one religion, giving to another.
Is this household or personal income? There's a huge difference -- two-income households can easily reach $100K with two ordinary middle-class jobs, while only a small minority of individuals earn $100K+. Household income is also of course heavily influenced by the likelihood of marriage.
If it's personal income, the Jewish and Hindu stats are pretty incredible. (I suspect it's household income, though).
Within one generation, a group of brown-skinned people from an extremely poor country have come to America and prospered more than any other group in this country.
Yeah, it's amazing, they're working their way up the ladder, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, ....
Oh wait, they are actually coming over here directly into jobs paying six figures, jobs which ought to be done by Americans but for corporate Americas obsessive desire to hire "brown-skinned people".
A graph is worth a thousand words of dissembling.
Your average Joe however is likely to misunderstand large scale data drastically and come away from this graph believing that the country is run by Hindus and Jews
Thank you so much for your concern Mnuez, but I think the average Joes aren't in any danger of believing their country is run by Hindus. In fact I'd venture to guess that they understand that the only reason Hindu income appears so high on that graph is because the ones who are here now represent the cream who, surprise surprise, prefer to live amongst average Joes rather than their fellow Hindus. Of course that last bit about living preferences also applies to Jews.
I'm interested to know which groups cannot be compared to killer whales and make it past Komment Kontrol. But I've already got a pretty good idea.
It's graphs like this that make the argument for tables. A simple table with religious affiliation on the y-axis (the row header) and the income categories on the x-axis (the column header), with the % within each group in the remaining cells, would have been a vast improvement.
My theory is that Hindus in the US are highly self-selected for wealth, intelligence and ambition. Unlike the case with Mexico, it is hard for dumb/poor/lazy people to find their way from India to here. And there is not yet a big enough native-born Hindu population to have created a significant pool of assimilated Hindu yoofs.
Are asians the new Jews - hah. I could have told you that 20 years ago. I guess all that studying has finally paid off.
It will be interesting to see how much jewish dominance declines as first generation is replaced by second generation. It's no secret that the typical person raised in middle class suburbia doesn't have the same fire in the belly as someone raised in a one bedroom apartment in brooklyn with their brothers and sisters. And the talent of second generation Hollywood isn't exactly awe inspiring.
Where do most asians show up on that graph? Buddhist? Catholic? Non-affiliated? That would be interesting data to see.
Re: Jews, a high percent live in NY city or the DC area, where incomes are higher overall...of course they also have more education, etc.
Most NE Asians and SE Asian Indians are even more clustered in a few urban areas than Jews. Indians also have a higher degree of education than Jews, albeit due to very selective immigration.
Average incomes largely only tell us who are the (upper)middle class schmos who do most of the real work in society.
More important would be net asset with those at the very tail having hugely disproportion influence on shaping our society.
"I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?"
Extremely selective immigration. Plus the fact that most (at least in America) are Brahmins. They keep saying caste doesn't make a difference once they're out of the Indian culture, but most of the successfull Hindus in America are Brahmins.
Dude
It's income by religion--why plural?
"I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?"
They weren't so poor to start with. Hindus who get to this country come from families able to afford education and relocation. I don't know how much "minority" giveaways contributed to their gains. Why well educated, well heeled Hindus should come here already doing well, and get "minority" giveaways while native born americans have had the economic base of the US sold out from under them is one of the great insanities of the 20th century. It's a great crime drama (I'm actually referring the American CEO and politician sell-outs as the criminals; predatory wall street "immigrants" are just opportunists): whodunnit, why, and who benefits.
Given the penchant of Asians in general (Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, etc.) to under report their income and/or receive a significant portion of their earnings in under-the-table cash, I wonder if their relative affluence is perhaps even greater than reported. Quite a number work in family owned or ethnically-run businesses where practices only minimally conform to white U.S. standards.
Mnuez, I find your comment somewhat ambiguous. Yes, wealth (as opposed to income) is a better indicator of hegemony, but neither that nor population share (such as your combined Jewish/Indian rate of 3%) correlates directly. I am a Christian of Jewish ancestry, and I remember my father quoting misleading statistics about what percentage of newspapers nationally were actually owned by Jews, in order to disprove the "myth" of undue Jewish influence on the press/media. Perhaps someone could create a sort of sliding scale, percentage of a particular ethnic/racial/religious group engaged in punditry or financial manipulation as opposed to military service or firefighter. Might prove illuminating.
In other words: BROWN PEOPLE ARE THE RICHEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA! Within one generation, a group of brown-skinned people from an extremely poor country have come to America and prospered more than any other group in this country.
Not to rain on your parade, but you realize that Delhi slumdogs and illiterate Gujrati villagers do not tend to make their way to this Wilderness of North America, right?
But they DO make up the majority of BROWN PEOPLE. It's called selective immigration son.
I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?
Several reasons.
1. Hindus come from high civilization like the Chinese. If most Asian Indians are poor slobs, the merchant class and brahmin class have a long history of enterprise and learning.
2. Under British rule, the hindu elite became Westernized. For most learned Hindus, English is almost their first language.
3. Brits used Hindus as businessmen all over Asia and Africa. So, Hindus learned the way of world business.
4. Until the 1990s, India was ruled by a socialist government, which means a lot of well-educated people had little chance of success in India. So, they moved abroad to Europe and America.
5. Two waves of Hindus arrived in America. One wave came directly from India as college students and professionals. They succeeded as doctors, professors, engineers, etc.
The other wave came indirectly through the middle east or Africa. Hindus kicked out of Africa--by Idi Amin and the like--settled in the West. These hindus tend to succeed at business, such as 7-11 and gas stations.
6. Hindus are clever and have a sense of humor. There was always something kind of Groucho Marx Jewish in Gandhi and his cohorts. If most East Asians are known for their earnestness, Hindus are full of irony. Crack a joke about Chinese, and they get offended. Crack a joke about hindus, he laughs at the joke and then cracks one about you, and you laugh along too.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:c6zJKHS595wJ:www.drthchowdary.net/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D430+asian+indian+diaspora+africa+professional+silicon+valley+millionaires&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESidPXkLvXDxlSIeM13Gv8xv7HnxYjkImqOaJ4wFhLtxZRjOkhXU6zN2wzGAaKTyZYMzQwh5w2rZwVr94UL6Mx799tAgFPFN4ACW3UHgb-KOBFFm1UQpnSTECMZMiEjAVgXBlKPq&sig=AHIEtbTqIdHKg507nuVVMEIDWjsSA922-A
Not to rain on your parade, but you realize that Delhi slumdogs and illiterate Gujrati villagers do not tend to make their way to this Wilderness of North America, right?
But they DO make up the majority of BROWN PEOPLE. It's called selective immigration son.
Sure, pops. And to put it a little indelicately, American Jews are high-performing because a lot of the not-so-high-performing Jews were stranded back in East Europe where they got to take a nice carbon-monoxide shower. And American blacks probably underperform in large part because richer, smarter, more successful Africans did not tend to make the ideal cotton-picking slave laborers. So there you go.
I'm Methodist and I grew up in a Methodist Church. I never realized this before, but I have an easier time dating Protestant girls than Catholic girls. This is even true for girls with a lot of, ahem, dating experience. Why is that?
It got me thinking: is there a difference between the behavior of a Catholic person and a Protestant person? If I had to generalize, it seems like Protestants are more willing to be independent whereas Catholics need family and friends. As a result Catholics maybe more considerate of what other people think, but I don't know.
The elites in the British Empire were so blinded by their distrust for upper caste Hindus that they grew a certain fondness for Muslims and did everything they could to engender separate and preferential treatment for them (see Churchill's hatred of "cunning Brahmins").
And they payback is that they had the poor sense to bring the Muslim populations of Kashmir and Bangladesh to settle in the country.
The exception - the ones that bring the British Asian profile up, are the East African Gujaratis, who controlled the economy of Uganda before Idi Amin booted them out and who regularly score higher on the O and A levels than do the whites.
If they got Hindu engineers, like America did, I guarantee you they wouldnt have the problems they do with their subcontinental immigrants.
"these two religioethnic [jews and hindus] make up approximately 3% of the population and thus their income isn't all too considerable."
Hmm Mnuez, perhaps it's more informative for the average schmoe to know that Jews, who are 2% of the population, make up about 1/3 of the Forbe's list of the richest 400 Americans. Surely this does have implications for government policy?
Sure, pops. And to put it a little indelicately, American Jews are high-performing because a lot of the not-so-high-performing Jews were stranded back in East Europe where they got to take a nice carbon-monoxide shower. And American blacks probably underperform in large part because richer, smarter, more successful Africans did not tend to make the ideal cotton-picking slave laborers. So there you go
If you're a BROWN PERSON, you're not exactly doing good for your people's intellectual reputation by pitching that theory there. Or to put it in terms you may understand, your analogy failzzz.
You see, jews are successful wherever they may be, whether it's America, Europe, or Israel. The same is true of blacks, except in reverse. It's only when we get to BROWN PEOPLE that there is a huuuge gap between the 1 billion stuck in the subcontinent and the couple million here in the US. It's called selective immigration son, and you should be glad that you're its beneficiary.
Lots of Hindus are Engineers making $100k or Doctors making $300k or small businessmen making $500k. Until recently Hindus had the glass ceiling effect. But the glass ceiling is slowly being shattered and in the CEO / Investment banker types making more than $1million, there are a lot of Hindus
Some of the Merchant castes of Rajasthan and Gujurat are Jains
The same merchant castes have lots of Hindus too and there is a lot of intermarriage
Greg, Chinese were eligible for these contracts and in 1980, the Patels ( about 20% of Hindus in USA ) lobbied and got Indians classified as Asians to get these contracts . The Chinese businessmen strongly opposed to sharing the trough with Indians
In most cases this special funding is simply icing on the cake
Most Hindu small businessmen raise money from the caste network
Noah, lots of Indians are poor but lots of Indians are super rich too
2 out of the top 10 richest men in the world are Hindus - Mukesh Ambani and Laxmi Mittal, both worth $19 bil
It is estimated that Indian businessmen have $14 trillion in Swiss banks
Indian businessmen tend to cheat the tax man and hide their wealth, and the parallel economy is more than the official economy
mnuez said - And are non-successful people of Hindu descent in America less likely to consider themselves Hindu?
The poorer Hindus need the help of the caste network even more and declaring themselves non-Hindu will cause expulsion from the caste network
Some of poorer Patels work for free as volunteers in the Patel temples so that they catch the eye of the temple officials who then recommend them for a loan or grant from the wealthier Patels
Richard.A, most Hindus consider the Republican party as hostile to Hindus and as the party of Christian missionaries trying to convert Hindus.
Republicans also boycott Hindu functions, whereas Democrats show up at every Hindu function and thereby get most Hindu votes
I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?
Because they dominate the American computer industry. All aspects of it, really, though I've noticed that they seem to be exceptionally over-represented in the database field.
We also import lots of Hindu engineers of different sorts. I believe the chief engineer for the MTA in New York is a Hindu Indian.
Virtually all of these jobs pay in the six figures.
Anon wrote - I'm surprised that Hindu is so high in the top bracket. Any reason for this?
--
Anyone who followed SAT scores since 1990, would know that Hindu Americans very nearly are at jewish levels in the SAT
Mark, could you clarify your comment on Hindus as the whiniest people
IMHO, Hindus are the invisible people
Sat Sitter, only about 25% of Hindus in USA are brahmins, about 25% from merchant castes, another 30% from landlord castes ( upper peasantry )
A big reason for the Hindu income level is that most Hindus in US to some extent follow caste rules
No unwed mothers
No Divorce
No fathers abandoning kids
Respect to teachers and education
Low crime
and this helps to avoid poverty
They keep saying caste doesn't make a difference once they're out of the Indian culture, but most of the successfull Hindus in America are Brahmins.
BS. The most common Indian-American surnames are Patel and Singh, which are non-Brahmin and tend to be middle caste. Gupta, Shah, Reddy, Agrawal, and Kumar are also pretty common. None of those is Brahmin either. Overwhelming majority of the IA population is definitely non-Brahmin, but maybe 15-25% are in the Brahmin category.
I'm a Hindu in America and I can tell you that Hindus score high for the following reasons:
1.) Lots of doctors, engineers, IT guys, and people with Master's degrees.
2.) Even less educated Indians tend to prosper as motel, gas station, restaurant, or convenience store owners.
3.) Hindus are more likely to live in married households with adult children. So perhaps that makes a difference too.
Some of are under the impression that Hindu migration is highly selective. This is true, but the Hindu and Sikh migrants to the UK are not that selective. Sikh migration is especially non-selective, as many of the Sikhs came from rural villages and about 1/4th of UK Sikhs are even untouchables. Yet, if you take a look at the stats, both Hindus and SIkhs are doing really well. Sikhs are almost as socioeconomically successful as whites and the Hindus, mainly Gujaratis, are even more successful. Today Indian kids in the UK, mainly Sikhs and Hindus, are outperforming the whites economically and very much so academically.
In Singapore, the descendants of laborers from Tamil Nadu state (Southern India), among whom one third were untouchables, are almost as economically successful as the Chinese-Singaporeans - and Singapore is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Check the stats if you disbelieve me...
A lot of you people seem to get off to low Indian IQ scores, but the success of the diaspora should make you people pause for a second. Perhaps Indian aren't the dimwits you think they are....
Honestly, if you want to know, Indians succeed for the following reasons:
1.) High level of diligence and persistence.
2.) Strong/controlling/supportive families.
3.) Deeply imbedded social striver mentality and desire for upward mobility.
4.) Thriftiness.
The mean IQ value of Indians is probably lower than that of Europeans and some of the East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, southeast Chinese), but the low 80s values are preposterous. Realistically, a mean IQ of 92 seems about right for the Indians.
When you combine the Indian family and work ethic with a 92 IQ, you get a moderately successful community in the UK. When you combine more like a 110 IQ with the Indian family and work ethic, you get the Indian-American community.
US 2007 census survey, ACS
% with college education
$ median family annual income
White 29%, $54K
Black 17%, $34K
Hispanic 13%, $42K
Chinese 52%, $78K
Korean 53%, $53K
Japanese 47%, $66K
Asian Indian, 68%, $84K
Bangladeshi, 42%, $42K
Pakistani, 57%, $58K
Indian households are typically larger and often have multiple male income earners (as a thrifty way of saving on rent).
I actually believe on per capita basis they actually have lower incomes than the national average. I'm not sure about narrowing this down specifically for Hindus though.
http://www.aapimsr.org/
Although Asian Indians constitute less than 1 percent of the population of the United States, they constitute 10-12 percent of the student body in medical schools in the U.S.
Republicans also boycott Hindu functions, whereas Democrats show up at every Hindu function and thereby get most Hindu votes
There are no "Hindu votes" to speak of. The vast majority of them came here over the last decade to work in the computer industry and are here on visas or green cards.
If the GOP was smart (ha ha) they'd try to make sure those jobs went to white Americans, the sort of people who vote Republican. Instead they eagerly vote to bring in workers from abroad to take these plum jobs.
http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/admissions_ratios_and_us_med.htm
Probability of US High School graduate entering Medical School
Indian = 1 in 22
Chinese = 1 in 60
White = 1 in 214
Black = 1 in 422 with quota
Hispanic = 1 in 750 with quota
The majority of Hindus in the US are vysas.
The phd types are mostly Brahmins.
Has Steve Sailer ever delved into Harvard's Ethnic Power Relations Dataverse? Is it up his alley?
The largely peasant derived Sikh population outscore whites on the O levels in the UK.
Hindus are generally not socially or fiscally liberal, can be shockingly racist, casteist and politically incorrect, but vote Democrat because they don't like the evangelical Christianity at the heart of the Republican party.
Bobby Jindal is viewed as a sellout because he became a Catholic.
When you combine the Indian family and work ethic with a 92 IQ, you get a moderately successful community in the UK. When you combine more like a 110 IQ with the Indian family and work ethic, you get the Indian-American community.
No. The "Indian-American community" in America is largely first generation. They do well because they come here directly into good jobs. And they get those good jobs because corporate America wants a brown minority they can give good jobs to, not because there is any shortage of Americans who could do the same work.
Blacks and Hispanics are out for obvious reasons. Indians are the "smart brown people" which white American liberals have been pining for for decades.
I am an American born citizen and software engineer. I work with a lot of Hindus, some Chinese, Russians, Eastern Europeans and a few Americans.
My experience with Hindus is a mixed bag. Some are highly intelligent, some not. But all seem a bit arrogant. Perhaps it's a cultural thing.
Hindus have swamped the US software job market (thanks to the H1B visas that companies claim they need due to not being able to find qualified Americans *who will work for lower wages*).
Yes they have a great work ethic, but there is something about them that I can't quite put my finger on.
How can you have such a huge impoverished nation and at the same time have so many successful people?
I'm surprised at the people in this thread who:
1) are surprised that Hindus do well financially. Looked at colleges lately?
2) claim that affirmative action is the reason that Hindus succeed. The average MCAT score of Hindus who get into medical is higher than Whites. We're held to a higher standard. There are too many of us in medicine.
3) claim that most of us came over with a bunch of money. My parents, like most Indians, came over with little actual capital but with a lot of cultural capital. My grandmother dropped out of school at age 12.
4) believe that most of us are upper caste. My people are a merchant caste, two rungs lower than the Brahmins.
Selective immigration likely accounts for a large portion of Indian-American success, but does not explain it fully, IMO. There's an underrated reason why IAs are rich:
In most successful ethnicities, the educated end of the curve does well - doctors, engineers, etc. What sets Indians apart, IMO, is the fact that the uneducated end of the curve does well too. People who didn't graduate college come to the US, open a business like a motel or Subway, save like crazy, and acquire more businesses, and end up rich, sometimes richer than the doctors and engineers. That's why IAs do so well as a group.
I want to emphasize the saving part, something Americans have no skill at (see credit, debt, etc). The typical Indian family, if they own a motel, will never live outside the motel, but will live in the motel and will staff the hotel desk 24/7 for years on end. They'll save >80% of net receipts (Do "native" Americans even save 10% of net income?). Compound that a few years, and they can buy another motel or even a bigger motel, and on and on. They save like their lives depend on it, and are very good businessmen.
Of course, the children of the uneducated immigrants will rise up the professional ladder. I'm the first person in my family to go to medical school, and you'd be hard pressed to find a hospital in America these days without a Dr. Patel.
In the UK, the largely peasant derived South Asian population supplies 25% of medical students and are only 5% of the population.
Really, you guys need to get it out of your head that Indians can't compete. The evidence demonstrates that when placed alongside whites and East Asians, Indians, even low caste villagers, have no problem keeping up economically and academically.
Indian Sikhs in the UK, by the way, are in their 3rd and 4th generations. Starting as peasant origin factory laborers, they are now middle class. Not highly successful or super educated, but they haven't fallen into the underclass or underperformed relative to the natives. They also seem to have low rates of social problems (crime, illegitimacy, divorce, incarceration, etc.) They constitute a model minority. Of all groups, Sikhs also have the highest percentage of homeowners.
I would tend to agree that Indians save their money really well, work long hours, capitalize on their opportunities, and maintain strong/dominating family ties. That, much more than IQ, has a lot of to with why they succeed when given opportunities.
I will concede that India presently is a poor country and perhaps Indians, as a group, are lacking in some skill sets that are neccessary to produce a dynamic first world economy. My guess is that the skills neccessary to build a first world economy may not completely overlap with the skills neccessary to succeed in a first world economy. Indians are likely much higher in the latter than the former. Fortunately for Indians, in this increasingly global economy, first world job opportunities will continue to flow to countries with low cost, highly diligent, education-focused work forces. That should spread a lot of prosperity into India.
Honestly, if you want to know, Indians succeed for the following reasons: 1.) High level of diligence and persistence. 2.) Strong/controlling/supportive families. 3.) Deeply imbedded social striver mentality and desire for upward mobility. 4.) Thriftiness. - Mr. T
The effect of selective migration, in America especially, is huge, but I partly agree with Mr. T on this one. We underestimate the effect cultural changes have had on white Americans over the last 5 decades, especially on white Christian Americans. You cannot attribute the rapid rise in out-of-wedlock births to a decline in white IQ, for example, because there was no such decline. Americans have gotten soft because that's what the culture says it's cool to be. Minority groups with strong family structures don't buy into this bullshit, but majority white Americans do.
The dumb Hollywood culture is more seductive for whites because all its stars are white.
It also can't hurt to belong to - all else being equal - a minority group that has a majority to define itself against.
It's interesting how this blog suddenly gets swamped with Indians when the subject arises, which isn't to say that I as a reader don't value their input.
The typical Indian family, if they own a motel, will never live outside the motel, but will live in the motel and will staff the hotel desk 24/7 for years on end.
Which presents a problem for American men, who have to attract (and eventually marry) American women, who aren't attracted to that lifestyle, who want to be able to fit in, live in a normal house with neighbors, and take a vacation every once in a while. You can call the white Americans spoiled, except that would be to forget that for the Indian woman who has left one of the poorest countries on earth, now to live in the richest for the rest of her life is a permanent vacation.
White, native-born Americans certainly need to be hungrier than we are, but we will never be able to compete against that.
Everyone is focused on Indian Americans. What is the surprise? We seem to have a lot of highly educated Indians and the Indian community is not terribly large.
What surprised me most was the Orthodox Christians. I am assuming most of these are Greek, but I don't know the split among Greek, Serbian and Russian, etc.
I just did not expect Greeks to be that high. Maybe I am prejudiced by the profligates in their home country. Maybe that's why a lot of you can't get past the success of Hindus in America.
Anon wrote - There are no "Hindu votes" to speak of.
There are also no Jewish votes to speak of
But there is plenty of Hindu money, funding the 400 members of Congress on the India caucus
Hindus also make up 15% of tenured professors a elite business schools in the US and are disproportionately represented at the MD and above level at Wall Street firms.
Re: The UK. How come the peasant-derived Sikhs outperform whites in the UK, but their neighbors (and not too genetically different) peasant-derived Kashmiris Muslims, are significantly underperforming the whites?
Indian women are good at math and go into high paying jobs like Engineering , whereas American women are math-phobic and do degrees in non-math and less paying fields
"I will concede that India presently is a poor country and perhaps Indians, as a group, are lacking in some skill sets that are neccessary to produce a dynamic first world economy. My guess is that the skills neccessary to build a first world economy may not completely overlap with the skills neccessary to succeed in a first world economy. Indians are likely much higher in the latter than the former. Fortunately for Indians, in this increasingly global economy, first world job opportunities will continue to flow to countries with low cost, highly diligent, education-focused work forces. That should spread a lot of prosperity into India."
So what you're saying is, Indians are incapable of creating, of their own efforts, a First World economy, but they can, oh, boy, yes, they can, EXPLOIT a First World economy when they get the chance?
In 1998 the BBC was getting terribly upset at the awful discrimination against Asians applying to med school.
"Asians applying to study medicine are more likely to be rejected than other students."
To be exact, "while one third of all applications for medical school places are from Asians, they represent only one fifth of those accepted".
Given that Asians were approximately 4% of the population at the time, the real story would have been that they were applying at 8 times the rate of the natives, rather than that they were "only" being accepted at 5 times the rate.
A little portrait of Indian upward mobility here.
I'm surprised at the people in this thread who:
claim that affirmative action is the reason that Hindus succeed.
I'm surprised that you're surprised. As an Indian, will you start lobbying Congress to strip Indians of their "oppressed minority" status?
For the recond, I would not say that affirmative action is the entire reason why Indians succeed, once they get here. Many are reasonably intelligent and hard-working. But their coming here in the first place is largely a function of "affirmative action" - the desire of white liberal Americans for smart brown people.
Contrary to the garbage you hear from American employers, there is no skill shortage in this country which warrants importing Indians, or anybody else.
Minority groups with strong family structures don't buy into this bullshit, but majority white Americans do.
Yes. Captain Aubrey, I'd say that Indians are much more controlled by their families and group norms. Whearas other races (whites, blacks, Latinos, etc.) are probably somewhat more individualistic and thus more susceptible to rancid cultural influences.
America really is the land of opportunity. You people like to obsess on the IQ issue, but really you don't need a high IQ to make it here. Just a supportive family, a willigness to follow the rules, and a decent work ethic. Which is why even less educated, and perhaps lower IQ, Sikh and Indo-Carribean immigrants tend to do okay for themselves in the U.S.
It is shocking that the average IQ would be 92 for a diaspora that seems to overperform wildly.
Viewing an earlier post from a "Smart Fraction" angle helps explain some of the differences between Asian immigrant group performance in the US.
Let's look at what the US population of various Asian groups are relative to their home countries. This explains, in part, how selective the immigration has been from various countries. Add in the following factors:
(1) Wealth and development of home country (better opportunities in 1st world Japan are going to keep the cognitive elites home vs the elites fleeing poor Bangladesh or corrupt and until recently socialist India)
(2) Distance and ease of immigration to the US due to trade and long established ethnic communities (far easier to immigrate from China vs India or Pakistan)
(3) Era of immigration (Japanese immigrants were largely poor southern farmers from pre-WWII Japan vs many cognative elites from India)
US 2007 census survey, ACS
% with college education
$ median family annual income
+ us pop/native country pop=%
White 29%, $54K
Black 17%, $34K
Hispanic 13%, $42K
Bangladeshi, 42%, $42K
57k/157m=0.036%
Pakistani, 57%, $58K
204k/167m=0.12%
Asian Indian, 68%, $84K
2.77m/1.18b=0.23%
Chinese 52%, $78K
3.53m/1.33b=0.27%
Japanese 47%, $66K
1.22m/127m=0.96%
Korean 53%, $53K
1.56m/49m=3.2%
For example, the relative unselective Koreans have immigrated at 1,400% the rate of India relative to home country populations (LA is the largest Korean city outside Seoul) and at89,000% the rate of Bangladesh.
It's clear that the SE Asian immigrants to the US are subjected to a much higer selective filter for IQ, education, wealth, drive, or family connections related to these factors than Koreans or Japanese.
The Chinese averages are brought down by the massive underclass of Chinese immigrants that have been brought into the US for menial labor (mines, cane fields, laundry, restaurants, etc) for over a century. Walk through any urban Chinatown and realize that no equiv exists (yet) for masses of underclass SE Asia.
This is not to take away from the accomplishments of SE Asians (and Indians in particular), but to add a little perspective.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American#Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_American#Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Most_populous_nations
The high income earnings of Indian Americans are almost entirely because of selective migration. Check the U.S. census Data, the Indian population in the U.S. was almost statistically insignificant prior to 1980 and it was only after then that a surge of immigrants from India arrived. Immigration from India consists mostly of an English literate college educated elite (along with their families) basically two standard deviations above their domestic norm (literally, the English literate college educated population is around 2% of their population). Contrast this to say Mexico where the only qualifier for getting into the U.S. is being physically fit enough to jump the border.
Indian émigré populations outside of English speaking developed nations have not been particularly exceptional. In the Americas; Suriname, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago have plurality Indian populations where they constitute the largest ethnic groups. None of them are exactly economically notable and all exhibit the usual third world poverty. Trinidad and Tobago not as much since it is a Latin American petro-state where Natural Gas exports to the U.S. makes up most of the economy.
Indian immigrants to the Gulf States (UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait) are basically a caricature of the social divisions within India itself. Small insulated English speaking professional elite outnumbered by a legion of low-paid low-skilled day laborers that the Arabs treat like cattle.
The situation in Asia is a little more complex. Mauritius is a predominantly Indian populated country that is "relatively" prosperous. It benefits because it has a small population and serves as a major business off-shoring destination for India and Africa as well. In Fiji the Indian's are much wealthier on average than the native Polynesian Fijians though the country as a whole remains desperately poor. In Malaysia, the schism in Indian performance again is demonstrated as they are primarily relegated to an underclass status thanks to active Malay government enforced discrimination but still retain elements of a small professional elite.
Singapore is a unique case because it demonstrates one of the widest socio-economic rifts within Indian populations as well as the impact of selective immigration. Prior to the 80's, the Indian population was significantly under-performing compared to the national (Chinese) average. However, since then the Indian population of Singapore has witnessed a profound demographic shift away from its Tamil origins to a more diverse one. The ethnic Indian average per capita incomes in Singapore are now higher than the Chinese while the median is lower. Did the Indians become that much smarter in a single generation? Sort of. Singapore opened itself just like the U.S. has to highly selective immigration of Indian elites from India but to an even greater degree relative to its own population. Now approximately a quarter of Indians in Singapore are professional expatriates as opposed to the native Tamil Indians. There is a massive educational gap between the two population clusters with nearly 60% of the new Indian's already possessing college degrees (and good jobs waiting for them) while only around 15% of the original majority Indian population possess the same. Averaging the figures out results in figures slightly higher than the Chinese average but this is one of those cases where the analogy of Bill Gates walking into a bar and making everyone millionaires fits.
Basically the socio-economic performance of Indian in the world is highly dependent of their original caste/class classifications within India itself. Even Indian immigration in English language western countries is not uniform. They perform best in the U.S. because America imported their best and brightest. Canada's Indian population is actually under performing in comparison to the white mean because their immigration standards were not as high as America's.
Mr. T and Capt. should agree that Indians curry those reasons for success.
All -
Indians do so well because, under Ronald Reagan, Indians receive a special minority protected status. Hasidic Jews also receive the same protected status. This means they can qualify for deep discounts on things like SBA loans, government contracts, etc. And since the greatest cost of any business is the cost of credit that makes all the difference.
If a White American wants to start a motel, he has to go to a bank and pay a retail 6% interest rate or more plus collateralize his house. He makes almost nothing because the cost of credit, taxes, and competition wipes away his profit margin. Given these barriers, the White American does not bother starting a business.
On the other hand, if a Hindu wants to start a motel, he goes to the Small Business Administration and applies for a loan. The SBA sees that the Hindu is a privileged class, so he gets a loan somewhere below the Federal Funds rate. He also gets very generous payment terms, like being able to miss X-number of payments per year without getting his funds cut off or without getting a lousy credit rating. Thanks to the US government, the Hindu needs to do nothing but collect an operating profit. Thus, the Hindu becomes a successful “business man” and a “model minority”, all thanks to the American taxpayer.
If this sounds far-retched, then, ask yourselves, how do people who come off the boat, with no money, no skills, no understanding of the language, etc., how do they get the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the credit rating to start a motel or any other business? Does the math really add up? Do you really think a person with nothing but a manual labor education, no capital, and a whole family in tow can somehow just “rise-up” and build a business?
It’s absurd on its face.
The reason why Indians do well in America while India itself is a largely dirt-poor country is because Indians are parasites. The parasitic Indian has nothing left to steal from his host (India) but there is plenty to steal from the new host (America). That is why they are successful in business in America.
What about professional class success? Once Indians ensconce themselves in a profession, they make it a habit of hiring their friends, relatives, or simply other Hindus. That is why IT departments, engineering departments, medicine, etc., and others are staffed by Indians. It’s because of nepotism and nativism. If these people were getting these positions on merit, then we would not have had such a noticeable drop in the quality of these disciplines. The output of STEM industries is of much lower quality today then it was in the past because of the expansion of Hindus in these areas.
From the statement of George LaNoue, Hearings, Committee on Small Business, US House of Representatives, 104th Congress
September 18, 1996
GEORGE R. LaNOUE; JOHN C. SULLIVAN, ESQ.
Presumptions for Preferences: The Small Business Administration's Decisions on Groups Entitled to Affirmative Action
...
Chapter on Asian Indians
"The first petition prepared under the new guidelines was submitted on
30 June 1981 by Jan Pillai, a professor at Temple University School of Law on behalf of NAAAID, the National Association of Americans of Asian Indian Descent. The petition claimed "no ethnic community in this nation struggles so hard as the Asian Indians to overcome the social
and economic disadvantages stemming from their culture, religion, and ethnic origin" but its focus was on a statistical comparison of the status of businesses owned by Asian Indians to other groups, particularly other Asian groups. Various tables based on census data were constructed. Although they showed that Asian Indian-owned businesses were small in number and in gross receipts, they did not demonstrate relative disadvantage. For example, the petition showed that Asian Indians owned .07 percent of the nation's businesses and received .05 percent of the total receipts, but the census recorded that they were only .02 percent of the population. Among minority businesses, Asian Indian-owned businesses were 1.27 percent of the total but received 1.39 percent of the receipts.
None of these statistics is very meaningful, however, without an understanding of relative population size and immigration patterns, which the petition did not discuss. Due to restriction on immigration from the Indian subcontinent, Asian Indians were among the newest of all immigrant
groups to the United States and had arrived much later than the other larger Asian groups: Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, and to some extent Koreans. In 1946, for example, there were only 1.500 Asian Indians in the United States. The timing of the immigration obviously affects the age and size of businesses that a group owns, but it may not affect the relative wealth of a group. By 1990, Asian Indians had grown to
815,447 and were relatively one of the best-educated and most prosperous groups in the country. In 1980, the percentage of college graduates and managers or professionals among Asian Indians was 52 percent and 49 percent, respectively, while for all Americans it was 16 percent and 23 percent. The median family income of Asian Indians was 20 percent higher than the typical American family. None of these statistics was mentioned by Professor Pillai and there is no indication the SBA ever sought them from the census.
...
Read the whole thing.
http://www.archive.org/details/proposedreformof00unit
Once Indians ensconce themselves in a profession, they make it a habit of hiring their friends, relatives, or simply other Hindus. That is why IT departments, engineering departments, medicine, etc., and others are staffed by Indians. It’s because of nepotism and nativism.
Yes, I've seen this in action myself. And they can get away with it because it's not illegal to discriminate against white people in America. In fact, it's rather encouraged.
As with all other aspects of immigration, the immigrants are not the real problem. The real problem is the American political class and its loathing of white Americans.
My feeling is that the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees will eventually outperform the whites in Canada. The children of recent immigrants are probably already outperforming them due to the high educational status of the parents. The British Columbia Jat Sikhs are not - and may never, though they will come close, once the feudal values exert less of a grip on them.
The performance of each Indian diaspora depends on the caste and caste linked IQ and behavior of each group
In Caribbean and Fiji, north Indian agricultural workers with IQ = 85 - 90
In UK, upper peasantry like Patels and Jat Sikhs , IQ = 92 - 97,
In US, about 60% upper castes with IQ of 112, per Princeton new immigrant survey
Regarding small business loans, this was a pork barrel project to aid blacks then hispanics then chinese . Indians were late comers to the feed lot, and only certain Indians like Patels benefit from this. Most Indians dont benefit from this scam and dont care if this and every other affirmative action boondoggle is scrapped.
Anyways among all minorities, Indian businessmen seem to be most proficient in making use of every loophole
Truther,
Indians have benefit of the caste network and can even get zero percent loans from the caste network
The wife works instead of shopping at malls , the teenage kids work instead of fornicating
Regarding Small business loans, Chinese, Koreans and every other non-white gets them and yes it is unfair, but lay the blame on white liberals who started this
From wiki
Historical GDP of India as percentage of world GDP
--
AD-1, India = 33% of world GDP
AD-1000 = 29%
AD-1500 = 25%
AD-1600 = 23%
AD-1700 = 24%
Colonialism started 1760
AD-1820 = 16%
AD-1870 = 12%
AD-1913 = 7%
AD-1950 = 4%
Socialism ended 1991
AD-1998 = 5%
I really would like to see some hard data how much the SBA loans are given to Indian immigrants and other immigrants
IMHO, it is icing on the cake, and the bulk of the money comes from the caste network
Forbes 400 list of wealthiest America - 2007
--
Amar Bose, Kavitark Ram Shriram ( Google ), Bharat Desai ( Syntel ), Vinod Khosla
__
Forbes 400 list of wealthiest in America 2009
Bharat Desai, Kavitark Ram Shriram, Romesh Wadhwani, Vinod Khosla
--
I can detect any trace of SBA loans or Nepotism
-
The 4 Richest Indians in the world,
Mukesh Ambani, Laxmi Mittal, Anil Ambani, Sunil Mittal,
All made their money in India except for Laxmi Mittal who made it in Kazakstan and Indonesia, no parasitism on the west
Colonialism killed the historically strong Indian economy. The British did not let Indian businessman industrialize. Why would they, when they had the largest captive "free market" in the world?
"I really would like to see some hard data how much the SBA loans are given to Indian immigrants and other immigrants"
The percentage is irrelevant. If the law classifies an Indian (or a Chinese or a Korean) as a Disadvantaged Minority, then the option of tapping into a Federal Treasury credit line remains to boost any business.
What, you are going to tell me the CIK's are too prideful to take free money.
But there is plenty of Hindu money, funding the 400 members of Congress on the India caucus
Many of them are also heavily tied-in with AIPAC.
Colonialism killed the historically strong Indian economy. The British did not let Indian businessman industrialize. Why would they, when they had the largest captive "free market" in the world?
So what? Colonialism also was kicked out of China, Taiwan and Korea about the same as India. Japan and Germany were laid to waste by WWII. Korea was cut in 2 and largely reduced to rubble several years after Indian independence. All rebounded economically much faster than India.
From wiki
Historical GDP of India as percentage of world GDP
--
AD-1, India = 33% of world GDP
AD-1000 = 29%
AD-1500 = 25%
AD-1600 = 23%
AD-1700 = 24%
Colonialism started 1760
AD-1820 = 16%
AD-1870 = 12%
AD-1913 = 7%
AD-1950 = 4%
Socialism ended 1991
AD-1998 = 5%
The dated figures are highly speculative and thought by some experts to be grossly inflated.
Mnuez just wants to make sure that everyone understands that Jews don't have any power in America and that statistics showing that they are extremely wealthy are misleading. Got it?
Also, let's not limit it to loans. Remember, this also includes federal contracting. So, even if the Indian community is relying on so called "caste network" loans, they still have the advantage in Federal contracting.
So what you're saying is, Indians are incapable of creating, of their own efforts, a First World economy, but they can, oh, boy, yes, they can, EXPLOIT a First World economy when they get the chance?
Exploit? Working hard, following the rules, educating oneself, and applying for jobs is not exploitation. If Westerners are not hardworking and persistent enough to educate themselves and provide their countries with a high quality workforce, the blame falls on them. Not some poor Bombay slum dweller that aspires for his son to educate himself and move up the economic ladder. America really is the land of opportunity. If the people have gotten lazy and spoiled to the point where they can't even pursue higher education, don't take it out on diligent brown folk. If whites really are higher than Indians in IQ, then it truly is astonishing that Indians can keep pace so well.
Re: The UK. How come the peasant-derived Sikhs outperform whites in the UK, but their neighbors (and not too genetically different) peasant-derived Kashmiris Muslims, are significantly underperforming the whites
Cousin marriage. Also, Islam promotes IQ-lowering dysgenic breeding and isolates Muslims from British society. I would add that Sikhs, as a group, are really hardworking and family oriented folks. Not intellectual at all, but they really can work....
If you ever get a chance, drive up to Vancouver British Columbia in Canada. Lots of less educated Sikh immigrants have been able to build monster-sized houses in the southside suburbs by working long hours, saving their money, and living in large extended families. Vancouver Sikhs unfortunately tend to be somewhat boorish and stridently anti-intellectual, but are materially prosperous. Once again, Indian family system and work ethic can compensate for lower IQ....
Yeah, Indian-Americans are selected to some extent and that makes a difference. What about British Sikhs and Tamil Singaporeans? They're not selected and they still managed their way into the middle class. Both of those populations include a lot of untouchables, who come from the bottom of Indian society.
Indian émigré populations outside of English speaking developed nations have not been particularly exceptional.
I think the skills and traits neccessary to build a highly developed society may be different from those required to succeed in one. I suppose the Indian masses may not be that high in overall human capital (different story for the cognitive and business elite), but they are really hardworking and have that supportive family network. Put in Trinidad and Fiji, they may not be able to turn those countries into first world countries, though they dominate the private sectors of those countries and have respectably modest economic success. Put in the U.S., however, I bet you they can work long hours, save their money, and climb the ladder.
One problem with Fiji and those Carribean countries is that they are politically dominated by indigenous people or Africans, who've demonstrated irresponsible leadership. In Indian-dominated Marutius, things are pretty good. Marutius is no Switzerland, but it's a decent enough place to live.
Perhaps you can elaborate more on the Indians of Singapore.
The reason why Indians do well in America while India itself is a largely dirt-poor country is because Indians are parasites.
Since when did parasites have the lowest welfare usage of all ethnic groups in the country?
By the way, the Gujaratis in England own a lot of the corner shops. In America, the Gujaratis own Motels. With or without affirmative action, they are more than capable of doing just fine.
Colonialism also was kicked out of China, Taiwan and Korea about the same as India. Japan and Germany were laid to waste by WWII. Korea was cut in 2 and largely reduced to rubble several years after Indian independence. All rebounded economically much faster than India.
You ever heard of socialism, buddy? Also, China suffered for a long time. Think the Chinese are low IQ?
"AD-1, India = 33% of world GDP
AD-1000 = 29%"
Before industrialization the whole world had the same GDP per capita. Everyone was poor.
If you had 1/3 of the world's population then you had 1/3 of the world's GDP. India at some points in history had 1/3 of the world's population so it had 1/3 of the world's economy.
Now that the world is industrialized, it's a whole different ball game and those ancient GDP numbers can't be applied to the present.
Hey Jim Clark that was a first rate post.
Indian participants. Why is it that Punjabi people seem most interested in migrating?
Where do most asians show up on that graph? Buddhist? Catholic? Non-affiliated? That would be interesting data to see.
In my area, most ethnic Chinese seem to be evangelicals. Other Asian ethnicities don't seem to be present in any significant number, AFAIK.
I really would like to see some hard data how much the SBA loans are given to Indian immigrants and other immigrants
That's not all that important. What is important is that Indians count as oppressed minorities" for purposes of US racial bean counting. So if you can staff you IT department with all Indians, you get all sorts of PC brownie points. Diversity!
Then, to add insult to injury, the rest of us have to listen to Indians brag about how they got these jobs because they are so smart and hard-working!
Colonialism killed the historically strong Indian economy. The British did not let Indian businessman industrialize.
Would India have been industrializing - have wanted to industrialize? had even known what "industrialization" was? - had the British not been around?
Historical GDP of India as percentage of world GDP...AD-1, India = 33% of world GDP...Colonialism started 1760 AD-1820 = 16%
The implication being that somehow colonialism was repsonsible for India's decline? There was something else going on during that period, too - the industrial revolution. As the value of Western output increased, and as Western New World colonies really started to produce - in some cases in competition with India - inevitably the relative value of India's output fell.
What I find interesting, though not surprising, is the attitude that India's successes are its own, while its failures are the fault of everyone. Like the British. "Damn those nasty British, who had the temerity to colonize us, and keep us down!" Except to ask why it was possible that a few pasty white folks from a tiny island on the other side of the world were able to do so in the first place? And why did India remain a colony for long after 13 much closer colonies, which became the United States, had squarely beaten the British?
A few of the Indians here - and I can't blame them - are tooting the horns of successful Indians like Lakshmi Mittal. Well I have said this before, but Indians comprise 1/6th of the world's population. Assuming that, overall, they're of average intelligence then you would expect to have a fair number of successful Indians on the planet - there are more Indians in the world than there are whites of European descent, after all. That smart successful Indians leave the home country to profit from their talents in mmuch richer lands isn't surprising at all.
Congratulations to the Indians who have succeeded in the Anglosphere. You have definitely worked hard and have many admirable traits.
However, put yourself in the position of the locals who built the system. Yes, they probably don't have the fire and desire of earlier generations, but is that a reason that they should be pushed aside like yesterday's news?
How would Indians react if foreigners came and settled in their country? Watch the following BBC report to see how residents of Mumbai are treating immigrants from other parts of India. Gee, I wonder how they would treat immigrants from other parts of the world?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8504245.stm
Indian participants. Why is it that Punjabi people seem most interested in migrating?
1.) Punjabis were among the first to establish large diaspora communities in the US, UK, and Canada. So migrating and joining relatives and kinsmen is a tradition for many of them. It's also a lot easier to leave when you know people that can help you leave, loan you money, settle you when you arrive West, etc.
2.) Punjab brings in a lot of lower cost labor from the other northern states, so unemployment runs high.
Before industrialization the whole world had the same GDP per capita. Everyone was poor.
There were differences in relative terms, though they were small in absolute terms.
Also, India has been at the top of the civilizational ladder for the past few thousand years. Maybe you could explain that away buddy....
Truther - would the glass ceiling, the old-boy-network, the closed country clubs where business deals are made also count as nepotism and Nativism
Regarding Sikhs, in India, the Jat sikhs are considered a low IQ group and there is a whole genre of Dumb Sardarji ( Sikh ) jokes, but they are very hard working blue collar workers
Regarding hard working Patels, in Sunnyvale, there is an Indian take out eatery called Bh***a, opened 13 years ago. The owner, his wife and 2 teenage kids were barely literate in English. His wife did the cooking no fancy mall shopping. The 2 kids also worked 20 hours a week after school, no fornicating or cheerleading and the whole family ate the left-overs and became successful after about 5 years
In my caste in India it is a disgrace not to get into Engineering or Medical college, despite severe Affirmative action discrimination
Transplant to the west, and it is easy to get into Medical and Engineering colleges and much easier to get into 2nd tier Engineering colleges
Failing which some useful degree like accounting
Very few Indians will do fluff majors in college unlike the NAMs or Whites and this translates into higher salary
How the funding from the caste network works
If there is a promising member of the extended family, he / she will be helped by zero interest loans and grants, the understanding being, if they strike it big, they have to fund other members of the extended family
It is sort of like venture capital
Truther you say that Hasidic jews also receive the SBA benefits
Do other jews also take advantage of the SBA directly or indirectly by using NAM front men
Suppression of Indian capitalists during colonial rule
The Birlas had been long time british collaborators even funding the China-opium wars
GD Birla, wanted to set up his Jute factory, with the wartime profits.It wasnt easy to break the stronghold of scottish monopoly in Jute industry. Everytime, GD brought some land to start the factory, the Scotts brought the land around it and denied him access to the road.He finally managed to quitely buy a land along the hoogly river, but transport charges, specially river traffic were raised in an attempt to stop Indian intrusion into what had been a British Preserve. Under the influence of Scotts, Imperial bank charged him high interest rates for his loan for the machinery.
Next, the monopolists persuaded the machine makers in Britain to quote prohibitely high prices for machine, the cost of Jute factory balloned and the project became unviable.In despair he almost gave up. He agreed to sell the factory to Andrew Yule, his largest competitor. When GD walked into Yule's office, the Scottish manger chided himi for having the audacity to start a Jute mill. Stung, GD instantly withdrew his offer and decided to go ahead with the project
Its not true that there weren't differences in per capita output before the British prohibited the industrialization of India. One should read Late Victorian Holocausts and Angus Maddison's accounts of the global economy to get an alternative perspective on the Gregory Clark's of the world. Actually, Chinese economists are doing a lot of work on their own on this - as yet untranslated.
The major historical event of the twenteith century was the end of colonialism - that is becoming all too clear in the 21st century. Who took all the money? China!
Forbes 400 list of wealthiest in America 2009...Bharat Desai, Kavitark Ram Shriram, Romesh Wadhwani, Vinod Khosla...I can['t] detect any trace of SBA loans or Nepotism
Bharat Desai arrived in the United States with a degree from the Indian Institute of Technology (Mumbai), the preeminent campus of IIT. He made his money from Syntel, a company specializing in - drumroll, please - technology outsourcing...to India, of course.
Ram Shriram arrived in the United Statesa with a degree from the University of Madras, which is also the alma mater of 2 of India's Nobel Prize winners. He earned his money from his involvement in Google.
Wadhwani also arrived in the US with a IIT Mumbai degree and also made his money in software.
Khosla arrived with an engineering degree from IIT Delhi and made his money as a tech venture capitalist.
Indians are now 1% of the US population and, shockingly, 1% of the Forbes 400 members.
What are the odds that immigrants like these, the cream of the crop from a country of over a billion people, arriving in their new country with degrees from the best universities in their native country in hand, will wind up billionaires?
A lot better than even, I assure you. A helluva lot better.
Captain Jack,
Since 1990, Hindu children, raised in the US have closely matched the jews in SAT and that translates into high paying jobs just on merit alone
Steve, you had an article on Botach Tactical where you linked to a document showing Hasidic Jews have favorable government contractor treatment.
Do you still have that link?
"What are the odds that immigrants like these, the cream of the crop from a country of over a billion people, arriving in their new country with degrees from the best universities in their native country in hand, will wind up billionaires?"
And, really, how do we know that SBA-favorable loans weren't involved? There are lots of people graduating from the top of their class at MIT who are not starting tech firms. What's the difference? Well, obviously, all of these people come from families in India with money. Once you have money, it's easy to make more of it.
If there's a lesson that Indians can offer lower income white and NAMS, it would be to work harder and form stronger families. Those are the main building blocks of success among the Indian diaspora communities. Selective migration playes a major role too in the success of US-based Indians, but even UK and Singapore Indians are performing decently well. Even if you believe Indians are lower in IQ and less capable of building advanced industrial nations, it would erroneous to lump them in with NAMs, as Phillip Rushton does.
Captain, Indians are recent immigrant group. Give them time and you'll see more Indian-American billionaires. Remember, making a billion dollars takes a lot of time (sometimes multiple generations) and requires generating a lot of business relationships with high networth individuals. I will tell you that there is a strong overrepresentation of young Indians in Wall Street and venture capital, which suggests a lot of IAs will get very rich down the line. Really, Indians are in a very good position in the U.S. and doesn't surprise me that about half of them are making 100K a year. Give them more time and more will move from the $100-200K a year to multimillion $/yr territory.
No question there is pro-white discrimination in med school admissions. At a prominent med school on the east coast, during a session for a group of select students who qualified for an interview, the dean looked around and said "oh my, I can't have too many Indians in the class!"
The bottom line is that white people don't study science. The y need affirmative action. They have become a rentier community getting fat and happy relying on the cognitive elites of other countries, who do the real work, while they sit back and major in women's studies.
Nice work, if you can git it!
"The mean IQ value of Indians is probably lower than that of Europeans and some of the East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, southeast Chinese), but the low 80s values are preposterous. Realistically, a mean IQ of 92 seems about right for the Indians."
This is the third time here I've seen a comment about Chinese intelligence limited to people from the south.
As a Chinese person, I find this idea crazy.
We Chinese have long assumed that the Yangtze River Delta (central) area is the smartest. The Shanghai municipality of 20 million people has an average GDP per capita of $10,000+ (nominal, not some inflated ppp figures). Shanghai was only allowed to open up or liberalize in 1991 since it was considered too valuable for experimentation. The Shanghai you see was built in 19 years. You must really want to believe something if you think that region has an average IQ below 92.
By the way, the Gujaratis in England own a lot of the corner shops. In America, the Gujaratis own Motels. With or without affirmative action, they are more than capable of doing just fine.
You're missing the central point: immigration policy is itself an affirmative action program -- affirmative action in citizenship, if you will. Without this affirmative action program, the Gujaratis would have no success in the UK or the US.
Meanwhile back in Gujurat India,
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_gujarat-economy-grows-twice-as-fast-as-india-s_1353534
*There is no economic slowdown in Gujarat. According to a government report, in 2009-10 the state registered 12.99% Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) growth,
*India’s likely GDP growth in 2009-10 is 7.2%. As for Gujarat, encouraged by its GSDP, the state now plans to achieve 14% and 15% growth in 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
*The state's economy at current prices has recorded an annualised growth rate of 15.04 % for the past six years (2004-05 to 2009-10), one of the highest in the country.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_non-resident-gujaratis-come-home-for-good_1205047
Non resident Gujaratis come home for good
Find security with better opportunities and business ventures here
Ashish Parikh was born and brought up in the US, but often made trips to India - returns to India for good
I really expect the emigration of Gujuratis to stop
*Narendra Modi, Gujurat Chief Minister, has produced a 15% growth rate for several years
*Stamped out corruption
*Stamped out lawlessness and Jihadis
*Improved infrastructure
Indians have controlled Guyana for at least two decades now. It has remained impoverished relative to its neighbors (Venezuela and Columbia) and individual Indo-Guyanese seem to be in a hurry to flee the country which they control economically and politically (Guyana having one of the highest net emigration rates in the Western Hemisphere).
Ben Tillman, that may have been said for the poor English settlers that went to Australia, North America, and Canada. All of which, by the way, were inhabited by other groups at the time.
If you resent the success of Indians so much, maybe your ethnicity should just work harder and push your own kids a little bit more in school so they can beat the brown kids. This is a competitive global economy and the youth of America, if they want to stay at the top, need to work and study harder. International relations majors are no substitute for good engineers and technicians. If Americans continue to study pointless topics, or just not study or work (in the case of NAMs), expect a lot more outsourcing of blue and white collar jobs to the east.
I'll give you that white/Jewish Americans seem to produce a lot of people that have really good ability for leadership, management, innovation, and organization building. An astounding number of the world's great companies are American (Microsoft, Dell, Intel, Cisco, Goldman, Boeing, etc.). So is the world's financial capital (Wall Street), entertainment capital (Hollywood), and techology capital (Silicon Valley). So obviously, on some level, whites and Jewish folks have something special going for them. On raw talent, IQ, and ability, you guys have been given enough assets to compete.
In the past, all those above companies and areas had to create jobs in America. So lots of less industrious, uneducated people got hired by default and were paid a lot of money for simple tasks. Now, due to better communications and travel, manufacturing and intellectual work can be sent to where the largest pools of the most skilled and technically proficient are living. A lot of Americans grew up in easier times and think that their kid can have it as easy as they did. This is wrong attitude. If yall don't push the pedal to the metal, it won't be American kids designing the chips or building the jets of the future....
Neither Chinese nor Indians are any smarter or talented, on average, but they have much more seriousness toward life than your ethnicity. As for the NAMs of the US and EU, they are really, really screwed.
Guyana and Trinidad are controlled by "big man" Africans. To the extent there is any civility - it is provided by Indians, who are raped and murdered by Africans on a regular basis, becuase they have hard-won money and businesses. On the other hand, the Africans are good athletes and helped Trinidad qualify for the world cup in soccer.
BTW, as with Singapore (where the Indians are probably smarter on average, than the Chinese now), the Indo-Trini IQ is rising thank s to recent higher IQ Indians settling there.
Thanks to natural gas, Trini's GDP is about $18,000 a year.
Check out this report from the BBC on immigration problems in Mumbai. It seems the locals are upset about mass immigration to their city. The immigrants are not foreigners, they are from a different part of India. If they react this way to their fellow Indians, how would they react to non-Indians.
I guess they are lucky we in the West are not so discriminating.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8504245.stm
I probably shouldn't be, but I'm once again surprised at the overtly racialist comments on this blog. It's one thing to believe that IQ, genes, and culture matter. It's entirely another thing to cheer for whites simply because they're whites.
Observation: Blacks suffer from social delinquency. They're more likely to focus on the short term than whites, emphasize education less, save less money, have poor work ethic, and are much more likely to be on welfare.
Racialist: White America needs to be protected.
Obervation: Compared to Indian-Americans, Whites are more likely to focus on the short term, emphasize education less, save less money, have poor work ethic, and are much more likely to be on welfare.
Racialist: White America needs to be protected.
Is this a blog that looks at issues with the view that IQ, genes, and culture matter?
Or is this merely a pro-whitey blog?
Indians have controlled Guyana for at least two decades now.
You mean Indians have controlled the prime ministerhip for two decades which is not the same thing as controlling the state since blacks dominate government jobs. Guyana could be a successful country if Indians dominated government and business as they do in Mauritius. Guyana may never be a successful country due to the racial animosity and tension between Indians and blacks.
Felix has no clue on what he babbles about.
Most US Indians are not Brahmins not even close, yes Brahmins are overrepresented but nowhere near being a majority of Indians in US.
He also might want to look up the case of the Sikh farmers in Yuba city, these were people who came to Cali 100 years ago from the villages of Punjab when India was still a British colony, yet today many of them are wealthy land owners with big farms.
Also funny how "extremely selective immigration" doesn't seem to apply to other immigrant groups like the Russians.
Indians also do quiet well in the UK & Canada where immigration restrictions were more lax.
So what you're saying is, Indians are incapable of creating, of their own efforts, a First World economy, but they can, oh, boy, yes, they can, EXPLOIT a First World economy when they get the chance?
Very few civilizations have created a first world economy. There's really been only one to create a lasting advanced economy: the Anglosphere. Everyone else either failed miserably or copied the Anglosphere model. For that, I have deep respect for Anglosphere institutions: the rule of law, skepticism of power, property rights, laissez-faire, separation of powers, etc.
So by your standard, everyone not of Anglo-Saxon origin is simiilarly "exploiting" America: Italians, Greeks, Scandinavians, Irish, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, etc. I bet you're not pure Anglo, so you yourself are an exploiter.
What I believe is that India as a country is unable to create a first world economy for the same reasons pretty much everyone else fails at creating a first world economy, and if it wants to, it has to copy the Anglosphere model, which it started doing in the early 1990s.
However, Indians who immigrate to the US are able to thrive in Anglosphere institutions. Others, including blacks, most Hispanics, and many whites don't.
As far as "exploit"....please. Look up the word. There are many more whites on welfare sucking on govt teats than Indians (Are there any Indians on welfare?). Indians have created wealth in this country.
This is ridiculous. I've tried to submit two comments to this thread and both appear to have been rejected. Neither of them were outlandish, racist or in any way out of order given the nature of this blog and other users' comments.
AD-1, India = 33% of world GDP
AD-1000 = 29%
AD-1500 = 25%
AD-1600 = 23%
AD-1700 = 24%
Colonialism started 1760
Muslim colonialism of India started well before 1760.
"Is this a blog that looks at issues with the view that IQ, genes, and culture matter?
Or is this merely a pro-whitey blog?"
I don't know if you get it Sport; A and B are conflated like wind and hurricanes.
"Guyana could be a successful country if Indians dominated government and business as they do in Mauritius. "
Mauritius is 5% French and Chinese. French have management jobs and Chinese control the retail sector.
The problem with whit folks is that their social structure has entirely collapsed.
Stable families outperform single-head households.
Legitimate children outperform illegitimate ones.
The white divorce rate is sky high, and here are some of the reasons:
1. Enlightenment values emphasize the free will of the individual over the family. This eroded familial relations and necessitated widespread welfare states.
2. Western marriages are based on a flawed cultural notion of romantic love, which is a short-order, oxytocin induced phenomenon that passes out of ones system quickly. It rarely sets the mental conditions necessary to make a long term partnership work.
3.Feminism gave women unparalleled freedom, which contributes to the high divorce rate, and a "me and my needs" attitude - there are potential Madame Bovary's in every suburban cul-de-sac!
This movement, and the "we can do anything" attitude also destroyed white demographics.
To top it off, white liberals destroyed the black family structure.
Western culture contained the own seeds of its decline all along.
"Neither Chinese nor Indians are any smarter or talented, on average, but they have much more seriousness toward life than your ethnicity."
This is why there is so much hostility towards Indians. They brag a lot. They make outlandish claims. Maybe they brag the most of any major group.
Here the comment author concedes (as if being generous) that Indians are not smarter than Europeans. There's a lot of delusions of grandeur.
You do not need to emulate the Anglosphere to be a successful economy. in fact, successful economies that rejected the advice of the Anglosphere and its institutions (like the IMF) that rejected its advice have done far better than those who heeded it (like China) which was told to democratize, devalue its currency, and privatize.
It did none of those things and prospered. The most dynamic enterprises in China are state owned.
Latin America and Russia listened to everything the Anglosphere said. And look where that got em!
Hasidic jews were given SBA by Reagan in 1982 and lots of non-hasidic jews have classified themselves as hasidic and gotten low interest loans
The French colonized Maurutius and established themselves as the business and political elite. Even generations later, they are benefiting from family control of their larger businesses and connections.
The French colonized Maurutius and established themselves as the business and political elite.
Give me a break buddy. The French colonized much of west africa as well, and many stayed behind until the 70s and 80s. Algeria was a department of the French Republic - all to no avail when it came to long term prosperity.
The French were the very worst of colonizers. Replace the Indians with Africans in Mauritius ( and all the money funnelled there as a tax haven by Indian multinationals) and see where we wind up.
White Christians with a 26% unwed mothers cannot compete economically against Hindus with 0.1% unwed mothers
I probably shouldn't be, but I'm once again surprised at the overtly racialist comments on this blog. It's one thing to believe that IQ, genes, and culture matter. It's entirely another thing to cheer for whites simply because they're whites.
--
Patel,
Well, for one thing, as Pat Buchanan said, America is not 'a job fair, welfare office, or a flop house for the rest of the world'...
So yes, we must care for our fellow Whites, regardless of their socio-economic status, since they are our fellow countryman.
Not everyone in any nation was meant to be a white-collar professional, and we must make sure that all Americans have a decent chance in partaking in the national wealth of the country.
This is the ultimate travesty of 'globalism' (globaloney), since it only cares about catering to the so-called 'elites' of the world rather than the hard-working, decent folk -- without which there would be no 'elites'.
Ultimately I think what seperates European societies from the others is that Europeans, at least historically up until rather recently, cared for their common folk and their less-fortunate, whereas amongst the putative 'elites' of India, China and 'Latin' America (especially India) -- they simply look at those lower on the social totem pole as simply non-human.
This is the main reason why European societies have had way more egalitarian economies and cultures ... hence far more stable and attractive societies than the rest of the world (perhaps excluding Japan).
*BTW, in my opinion, you exaggerate the amount of welfare (read *resources*) 'Whitey' gets, and how much welfare Indians get -- since just getting in to America with all the economic benefits 'our' government gives you guys is a 'welfare program' in and of itself.
It's one thing to believe that IQ, genes, and culture matter. It's entirely another thing to cheer for whites simply because they're whites.
It's called self-interest. If you reject the concept, you may send me the contents of your bank account, and have your future paychecks direct-deposited into my account.
Thanks so much!
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2007/09/02/170095/1907-bellingham-mob-forced-east.html
1907 Bellingham mob forced East Indian workers from town
Competition for jobs fueled racist rhetoric
East Indian laborers developed a good reputation, said John Wunder, a history professor at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln who has studied the anti-Asian movement in the American West.
“The Indians were in good demand because they were known for their work excellence,” he said. “They were bright and they were coming from India — many of them could speak English.”
The physical treatment the men received was matched by the excoriation East Indians got in the popular press as a threat to Bellingham’s economic and social fabric. They’d work for much less money than white men, it was feared, undercutting their wages. They were so different, with their dark skin, turbaned heads and vegetarian diets, it was editorialized, that they could never contribute to American society.
Many of the East Indian workmen’s homes were ransacked in their absence. The police said the mob took bank books, cash and several hundred dollars’ worth of gold jewelry. A mill owner said one of his East Indian workmen lost $200 in photography equipment
A few days after the riots against East Indians, the City Council issued its report on the matter. “Hindus,” they found, were mostly “peaceful and quiet” in Bellingham.
But in keeping with the racial rhetoric of the day, the council found that their manner of living was “demoralizing to family ties, and thus lowers not only the economic, but also the moral standards of the white workman.”
The French didn't experience long term prosperity in Algeria because they fled after a violent civil war. In Mauritius, the races relate much better, so the French stayed.
White egalitarianism never applied much to Native Americans, Latins, or blacks.
If Northern and Western European whites have succeeded in nation and economy building, I would credit their high capacity for innovation and their strong ability to build solid institutions (ie nations, governments, administrative agencies, corporations, banks, mlitaries). Other groups don't seem to match up nearly as well in these respects, except the Japanese. IQ is also somewhat factor, but remember that there are other groups with lots of high IQ people and less dynamism than the Westerners.
Just because whites can build strong economies and countries doesn't mean they have the best work ethic, the most thrift, or strongest family structures. The Indians and East Asias, who toiled under strenuous economic conditions and rigid social orders for countless generations, are probably higher in these traits. The more free wheeling, individualistic, and chaotic conditions in the West probably selected less for these traits. The Japanese, Koreans, and a sizable proportio of Chinese (especially southern) and Indians are also comptitive in IQ.
This is why some of the economies, or pockets of economies (in the case of China and India), in the east can compete with the West when they emulate Westerners. It's also why Indian and Asian immigrants can do very well when they get here, even if they are weaker on a societal level.
The West has a lot to be proud of (as do India and China if you consider their last few thousand years of history), but no group was selected to be the best (or worst) at everything.
Even us 81 IQ Indians can succeed every once in a while :)
I have proof.
Check out the link below. It is the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations that states the following:
(a) The purpose of this part is to set forth regulations for determination of group eligibility for MBDA assistance.
(b) In order to be eligible to receive assistance from MBDA funded organizations, a concern must be a minority business enterprise. A minority business enterprise is a business enterprise that is owned or controlled by one or more socially or economically disadvantaged persons. Executive Order 11625 designates Blacks, Puerto-Ricans, Spanish-speaking Americans, American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts as persons who are socially or economically disadvantaged and thus eligible for MBDA assistance. Other groups designated are listed below in paragraph (c). The purpose of this regulation is to provide guidance to groups not previously designated as eligible for assistance who believe they are entitled to formal designation as “socially or economically disadvantage” under the Executive Order. Upon adequate showing by representatives of the group that the group is, as a whole, socially or economically disadvantaged the group will be so designated and its members will be eligible for MBDA assistance. Designation under Executive Order 11625 establishes eligibility status only for MBDA funded programs. It will not establish eligibility for any other Federal or Federally funded program.
(c) In addition to those listed in E.O. 11625, members of the following groups have been designated as eligible to receive assistance: Hasidic Jews, Asian Pacific Americans, and Asian Indians.
There you have it: our model minorities are receiving federal assistance in their businesses.
oops... for got the link:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8fa855e624caf4f85aa878a80941cbbc&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:3.1.5.7.1&idno=15
"and a sizable proportio of Chinese (especially southern)"
The notion that it's southern Chinese people who are the smartest has this Chinaman scratching his head. How did you possibly come to that conclusion?
Here's what I posted earlier in response to someone who figured the rest of China had an average IQ below 92.
"We Chinese have long assumed that the Yangtze River Delta (central) area is the smartest. The Shanghai municipality of 20 million people has an average GDP per capita of $10,000+ (nominal, not some inflated ppp figures). Shanghai was only allowed to open up or liberalize in 1991 since it was considered too valuable for experimentation. The Shanghai you see was built in 19 years. You must really want to believe something if you think that region has an average IQ below 92."
Shanghai was settled primarily by the people from Zhejiang and Canton province, but it attracted a lot of other entrpranuerial people and gentry from throughout urban China. There were northern laborers that settled Shanghai, but they were significantly poorer than the more business oriented southerners. They tended to clump in the slums and were a bit frowned on by their southern brethren.
I wouldn't neccessarily say that the rest of China has a lower IQ than the south, but it does seem like southerners are the most economically and academically competitive. That doesn't mean they're smarter, but they seem to have done pretty well historically and continue to do quite nicely in the private sector economy.
To find out the real mean IQ for China or India would take some exhaustive and comprehensive research. Both countries are too diverse and large to generalize too much.
I probably shouldn't be, but I'm once again surprised at the overtly racialist comments on this blog. It's one thing to believe that IQ, genes, and culture matter. It's entirely another thing to cheer for whites simply because they're whites.
An Indian has the audacity to complain about other peoples racialism? Indians are some of the most unabashed racialists I've ever encountered. Indian success in America stems in large part from their determination to advance one anothers interests. They're like dark-skinned Jews in this respect.
If there's a lesson that Indians can offer lower income white and NAMS, it would be to work harder and form stronger families.
I'm a lower-income white. In fact I'm unemployed. I have a computer science degree which is not worth the paper its printed on because only Indians can work in the American computer biz. Any helpful advice for me? Maybe I can emmigrate to India and find people there eager to give me a good job?
I'm a lower-income white. In fact I'm unemployed. I have a computer science degree which is not worth the paper its printed on because only Indians can work in the American computer biz. Any helpful advice for me? Maybe I can emmigrate to India and find people there eager to give me a good job?
Offer something more than the Indian. Get more training. Think about other fields you can go into. Don't think all your book-learnin' is done just because you've graduated college. Be entrepreneurial. Always be adaptive. Always be improving your skills.
Indian parents and extended family fund education until post graduate
So no problem paying for Law school, MBA or Med school and no college debt
Indian kids dont have to work for pocket money and there are no dating expenses and can just focus on education
Due to caste issues, most Indians dont advance other Indians and have strong regional and caste issues
Lord Cranworth on Indian traders outcompeting European traders in colonial Africa
Is the Indian a better trader or better
worker than his European competitor ? Certainly not ;
it could not be contended that he is by his staunchest
adherent. Why, then, does he undersell him ?
Because, as the saying is, he can live on the smell
of an oil-rag. Because he eats food that the Euro-
pean could not touch. Because he lives in sanitary
conditions under which no English farmer would
dream of keeping his pigs.
There are over 10 million illegals from Bangladesh in India. If you migrate there and get a job, nobody will stop you.
By the way, who runs the software companies that do the hiring? Indians or whites?
Indians are fragmented enough by caste, language, and religion that they have very little cohesion as a group. To the extent they are advancing, it's because the American government and businesses want them.
"Shanghai was settled primarily by the people from Zhejiang and Canton province"
How is a very densely crowded city of tens of millions "primarily" settled by people from 1200km away?
"There were northern laborers that settled Shanghai, but they were significantly poorer than the more business oriented southerners. They tended to clump in the slums and were a bit frowned on by their southern brethren."
Nonsense. There is no such thing as a North China slum in Shanghai. Northern Chinese migrate to Northern Chinese cities.
"Indian parents and extended family fund education until post graduate
So no problem paying for Law school, MBA or Med school and no college debt
Indian kids dont have to work for pocket money and there are no dating expenses and can just focus on education
Due to caste issues, most Indians dont advance other Indians and have strong regional and caste issues"
And they get the money to do this from where? From their government subsidized motel businesses?
Well you obviously need to read up about Shanghai then. If you care to read up, you will find out that the early settlers were overwhelmingly from Zhejiang and Canton. Mainly this is because that's where the entrapranuers lived. Once these businessmen settled in Shanghai, there was quite of bit of chain migration from the villages of origin.
Northerners migrated to Shanghai, as it was a city of international trade and commerce. Unfortunately for them, not having much in the way of business skills, they turned into cheap labor for northern entrapranuers.
I am Indian myself and have worked with people from many parts of the world. I do not believe Indians are more intelligent and creative compared to Whites or East Asians (a few Indians are).
I think we are firstly more CUNNING (the Chinese and some Southern European display this trait too), we have stronger family values, we have a strong status conciseness (Indians love to show status to each other and status matters on marriage) hence the greater drive, we have seen poverty back home and thus are more driven to make sacrifices to ensure a bright future. When the big burly Whites play football, we study or save and start a business (and play a little Cricket on the side).
But in raw intelligence I do not think on average we can compete with Whites or East Asians.
Family is the secret ingredient to the success of Indians. All these Indian-owned motels, gas stations, convenience stores, and franchises thrive because of the willigness of Indian families to provide free labor. All those Indian kids in medical and law school are getting all their tuition and living expenses paid by mom and dad, who will later bring in a bride or groom from the homeland or the local Indian community. All those Indian guys that can work 70 hrs a week at Microsoft are there because the wife and family will tolerate it if it means success for the family....
Indians are tireless workers too and will put in 60-80 hours of hard labor a week, living without any luxuries or vacations, to be successful. In South Africa, the whites placed restrictions on where Indian businessmen could operate, out of a concern that white storeowners couldn't compete against the thriftier and more industrious Indians.
Unfortunately the Indian masses probably aren't too high in human capital or IQ, so that makes Indians a lot less dynamic than they could be and also hurts India's national competitiveness.
My guess is that a lot of the comments here could probably could also apply to China, which supposedly isn't very dynamic either outside the mercantile southeastern coast....
I can see a lot of commenting here who seem to belong on the left side of the bell curve.
To these folks I must tell them this – the global elite (almost entirely of European Descent) has made a decision that open economies are the way to go to ensure greater wealth production for the greatest good in the long term. The side effect of which is that now previously isolated populations are now competing with each other. As with any restructure of this scale, there will be economic losers. These economic losers – usually from the left side of bell curve who can no longer compete – are appealing to an old archaic sense of group solidarity. They need to learn that this is no different from their much hated affirmative action programs for the NAMS.
Guys – the world has changed – adapt or perish. The smart and the rich of your own kind don’t care about you and the smarter of my kind never cared about me either (caste system anyone?). Stop whining and act like men. Its always been about the survival of the fittest.
@Lord Cranworth on Indian traders outcompeting European traders in colonial Africa
Indian diamond traders - mostly Jains - have schooled Azkhenazi diamond traders in both Antwerp and New York - and they are living rather well, thank you very much.
On the whole it is true that Indian traders outeprformed white traders in Africa.
"These economic losers – usually from the left side of bell curve who can no longer compete – are appealing to an old archaic sense of group solidarity. They need to learn that this is no different from their much hated affirmative action programs for the NAMS."
How many times do I need to do this? Indians are competing on the basis of an affirmative action program: they are labeled by the government as a disadvantaged minority. Go back to my previous posts and you will see where I provide a link to the very government regulations that allow this.
Take advantage all you want, but realize that you are as successful as you are courtesy of the American taxpayer, not by any effort of your own. You've deluded yourselves into thinking that you're a self-made people just because you are not as dysfunctional as blacks and hispanics. The reality is that you are no better than these people. You are just another class of parasite. And since you are parasites, there is nothing wrong with appealing to "group solidarity" or any other method to simply get rid of your unearned privileges.
You ridiculous appeals to "strong families" is absurd because the math does not add up. "Strong families" do not cause money to appear.
Sure, right now, we are at war with the elite and the other very evil people running the government. Their time will end. And so will yours. You will be sent packing back to your country just like you were kicked out of Africa.
Hahaha....The perils of commenting on the internet, I should have listened to myself.
Dear Truth(er) – Yes you must be correct – all the private sector Indian origin hires must be getting paid because obviously the private industry loves the Indians and running its own corporate Indian welfare program. Capitalism & Affirmative Action at its best!! I reckon you must be on to something there – obviously you have come to this conclusion after extensive research and analysis. You should share this knowledge with the rest of the world (and no I don’t mean by posting links on the internet).
Some life advice for you – Hey you like your people – great, good on you, I admire European achievements too. However the combinations of anonymous name calling and illogical drivel only hurt your cause – in fact it will drive away the kind of people you like and can help you - intelligent whites (maybe some non-whites too if you allow them?)
No more commenting from me – because my first comment has been confirmed – nothing to learn here anymore!
Cheers!
How many times do I need to do this? Indians are competing on the basis of an affirmative action program: they are labeled by the government as a disadvantaged minority. Go back to my previous posts and you will see where I provide a link to the very government regulations that allow this.
Keep believing this. You've obviously never been near the higher echelons of society like medicine, law, engineering, or finance.
Strong families do cause money to show up. Strong families can work at motels and gas stations for 12 hrs a day, 365 days a year, 30 years straight. They can support a child through law and medical school. Most importantly, they can invest in the intellectual/entrpranuerial/academic potential of the brightest family member and then reap the dividends. Family is a mechanism for creating wealth, just like a corporation.
Indians get no affirmative action in Wall Street, corporate American, IT, or medicine. They do get small business loans, but I'm skeptical that makes as much a difference as you claim. Remember, Gujaratis in UK and East Africa have been able to beat out white businessmen/traders without any affirmative action.
Deny it all you want, but large sections of India's population are likely harder working, stronger in family, and more bourgeois (ie money, status, eduation, middle class oriented) than the average white European. This is true today and was true back when whites restricted East Indian traders/store keepers in South and East Africa.
That doesn't make Indians superior or better. Some might even argue that work-life balance loving Westerners have a better approach to life. I think the issue we are arguing is whether or not Indians are capable of fairly competing with whites and Asians in an open and fair society. The answer seems to be yes. Indians are not the delinquents that you perceive them to be and more than capable of participating productively in a technologically advanced, industrial economy.
I don't think anyone has argued Indian superiority in intellect or society-building either. The argument has always been that Indians get ahead through their industriousness, family, and culture. If Indians are lacking in IQ or human capital, they can (very much on an individual/familial level, and a little bit on the societal level) compensate on the basis of other factors. That's in stark contrast to other NAMS, who don't seem to be able to overcome their disadvantages in IQ and human capital.
I would also add that India has a long history of advanced civilization and has done well in some sectors (ie technolgy, nuclear weapons, satellites). This indicates that even if Indians are not quite where Westerners are in natural ability, they're hardly the retards that you perceive.
As for Indian-Americans, they are fairly smart due to the selectiveness of immigration. Their family/work ethic/culture boost them and their children a lot, but they have quite a bit going on in raw intellect too. You don't get hired by Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Cisco, and SanFrancisco State Medical School merely on the basis of hard work and education. You've got to have something really good going on intellectually, which Indian-Americans and large pockets of India's population do. Even if the population mean of India isn't that high, there are enough people and enough variance that India can produce a large number (though perhaps not a large proportion) of bright people. Please stop demeaning smart/capable people and judge them as individuals.
After Indians were sent packing from East Africa, much of the private sector collapsed. Today, in markets where Indian stores once stood, there are vacant and boarded up buildings or flop houses. If you want, let's send you there on a fact finding mission and you can report back. You think black Africans are better off because they can't buy low cost consumer items, food, and accessories? You think Africans are better off when job-creating and high-spending entrapranuers leave for England?
To our Indian American friends commenting on this thread keep this in mind; a lot of the negativity being expressed here has more to do with immigration in general and not some specific anti-Indian bias.
Ask yourself how any nation in the world would react to a massive demographic change. Most nations don't have problems with small amounts of immigrants, but they do have problems with mass immigration, whether legal or illegal, that threatens to change the racial and ethnic makeup of their homeland.
Even Indians in Mumbai appear to discriminate against other Indians who immigrate to their city. So please don't hold White Americans to a different standard.
America has gone through this before. Southern and Eastern Europeans and the Irish were scrutinized by the the WASPs. So don't think you are being singled out, others have gone through this before.
The point to keep in mind is that America is being radically changed in a relatively short period of time and the people weren't consulted on whether or not they wanted such changes. Bilingualism, affirmative action and the rest of the claptrap associated with multiculturalism are being heaped onto this nation without much regard for how the natives feel. Frankly, the fact that there has not been major violent outbursts against the newcomers surprises and pleases me. I don't know of many other nations where such changes could occur without massive violence.
I doubt Indians, Chinese or Mexicans would sit by idly as their share of their nations' population dropped. Yet that is what you are expecting from us.
The demographic shift in USA is mainly due to illegal Hispanic aliens
Most legal immigrants from other countries post 1965, also seem sub-par and seems to be lax interpretation of the immigration law
The immigration lottery was benefited by NAMs mainly
The reason Indians cause so much angst is because outsourcing and offshoring, hits at the white upper-middle class
Almost every white collar job that does not need a local physical presence is at risk of outsourcing to India
I also submit that this angst is exacerbated by religion, if Catholic Filipinos were so successful there would be a lot less resentment
Report: Indian-owned U.S. businesses generate highest income
By Ela Dutt, News India-Times, 13 March 2009.
Indian immigrants rank third in number among immigrant-owned businesses, behind those of Mexican and Korean origin, according to a report released by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. But Indian immigrant business owners score the highest in terms of income generated
Immigrant business owners are generating $67 billion of the $577 billion in U.S. business income, as estimated from 2000 U.S. Census data.
Of the total 1,436,410 immigrant business owners, immigrants from Mexico own 255,300 businesses or 2.22 percent. Those of Korean descent number 90,280 or .78 percent. Those of Indian descent own 60,210 or .52 percent
The report shows that of the total of approx¬imately $67 billion income generated by immi¬grant owned business, owners of Indian descent generated nearly $5 billion, with each owner making an average of $83,023, the highest among all owners from any other country and higher than businesses owned by the U.S.-born.
--
There is also the issue of cognitive dissonance among white Americans on losing out to Hindu Americans. This goes against everything they have learned in terms of race and religion ( through missionaries )
Nothing they have read in school or seen on TV prepares them for this competition at the highest end of the job spectrum
The media has been negligent in this issue.
If Hindu Americans had been Janitors, like Hispanics, it could be digested
You know, I don't think too many contemporary people resent Indian-Americans. It's just on the HBD blogsphere where I see a lot of resentment. Likely because HBD attracts a lot of racialists and displaced IT workers. Also, many believe in the r-K Rushton/Lynn/IQ theory that puts Europeans (and some Asians) at the top, but now dark skinned people from a hot weather climate seem to be pretty capable of doing as well as Europeans and East Asians. There goes the theory for them.
There is also the issue of cognitive dissonance among white Americans on losing out to Hindu Americans. This goes against everything they have learned in terms of race and religion ( through missionaries )
Nothing they have read in school or seen on TV prepares them for this competition at the highest end of the job spectrum
The media has been negligent in this issue.
If Hindu Americans had been Janitors, like Hispanics, it could be digested
I suppose the notion that dark skinned people could come out of obscure poverty and be performing so well in the first world (Singapore, UK, US, Canada, Hong Kong, etc.) might come as a shock to anyone acquainted with 19th/early 20th century racial theories. One problem is that those theories were created by people that were ideologues, not impartial observers.
Besides, despite what was written about white supremacy, the West (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) passed anti-Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Indian) immigration laws due to the immense competition that Asian laborers gave to white laborers. Mostly the resentment was against the East Asians, but the small number of Indian laborers attracted a lot of resentment in Vancouver BC and Bellingham Washington. In South Africa, the whites once again passed immigration laws restricting the trading activities of the more competitive Indian traders. I'm not going to argue if any one these laws were right or wrong, but it makes you think. At some level, even back then, there was some realization that theories of white supremacy weren't completely congruent with reality.
In today's world of immigration, quick and easy travel, global communication, and outsourcing, this has become a lot more apparent. It's not that anything changed, but it's now revealed what Western leaders, missionaries, and academics told the people wasn't true. It's like coming out of a pleasant dream and realizing the world is much more competitive than you could've ever realized.
I've had many East Asians express their surprise at the large presence of Indians in software to me. They weren't rude, but they did seem shocked at some level. I think they, moreso than even Westerners, are confounded. What they see with their eyes is not what they were taught growing up either, but, being less politically correct, they are more open in their feelings.
Personally, as an Indian, I'm shocked that others are so shocked. From what I've known of our population, there is a very strong willigness to work hard, pursue money and status, keep out of trouble, let the family pressure and support you, educat the children, and just get ahead. I will concede that maybe a lot of the less educated masses may not be that intellectual, but the Indians I've known, both of educated and non-educated backgrounds, always struck me as being able to keep pace with other groups.
I would still concede that Westerners, on a societal/national level, tend to do the best, but, on an individual level, Indians are industrious enough to not be left far behind.
Guys – the world has changed – adapt or perish. The smart and the rich of your own kind don’t care about you and the smarter of my kind never cared about me either (caste system anyone?). Stop whining and act like men. Its always been about the survival of the fittest.
Yes, this is why India is a backwater compared to the West.
And the only one 'whining' here is you, friend.
Just because your people have accepted oppression and a degrading lifestyle doesn't mean that White folks are going to do it and 'drink the Kool Aid'.
Deal with it, and make your backward countries better than coming here and living off ours.
How many times do I need to do this? Indians are competing on the basis of an affirmative action program: they are labeled by the government as a disadvantaged minority. Go back to my previous posts and you will see where I provide a link to the very government regulations that allow this. -- Truth(er)
Don't forget about the H1-B Visa Program -- one of the greatest affirmative action programs ever devised.
Nothing they have read in school or seen on TV prepares them for this competition at the highest end of the job spectrum
The media has been negligent in this issue.
Makes me think of a rather appropriate quote for this occasion -
~
The True Proletarian
The true hallmark of the proletarian is neither poverty nor humble birth but a consciousness–and the resentment which this consciousness inspires–of being disinherited from his ancestral place in Society and being unwanted in a community which is his rightful home…’
…and this subjective proletarianism is not incompatible with the possession of material assets….”
Arnold Toynbee
“A Study of History” Vol. V
El Caudillo, thanks to outsourcing and offshoring, Indians can suck away high end jobs even while staying in India
H1B is no more needed
The economist Jagdish Bhagwati estimates that 50 million white collar jobs with annual salary of $20k in India, with total salary of $1 Trillion can be easily offshored
Basically he says that 33% of all white collar jobs in the west will go to India
Thanks to the greed of white CEOs
Supporters of Narendra Modi ought to shut up and stop posting comments on western websites. Indian americans have worked hard to erode the image of Indians as backward but the supporters of Modi are hell bent on bringing it back.
And leave the field for supporters of the Nehru-Gandhis? India is deservedly seen as backward and a cesspool because of what the upper castes led by the Nehru-Gandhis have done. Backward caste men like Modi are not the ones who spent on nuclear weapons while keeping most children out of school, nor were it backward caste people like Modi who allowed leaded fuel to poison a generation after the effects of lead poisoning were understood and it was not the backward castes who chose to repress the merchant castes in the name of socialism.
Most educated Indians and most Indian Americans are ashamed and embarrassed that he is the leader of an Indian state.
Modi was re-elected with 49% of the vote 2007, while Manmohan Singh got 36% for his re-election in 2009. Unless you can provide a cite, I'd say your statement is not true.
what u r missing is 50 year long so called positive biased against upper caste everywhere from schools to colleges to entrance exams even for conveyances the non upper castes are paid . this discrimination will obviously drive a hard working man to abroad.
hindus doesn't prefer average joe more than fellow hindus etc. in india with huge reservations for non upper casters as much as as 50 percent in entrance exams for top colleges to govt jobs and hell even in promotions. the migration is only inevitable
Post a Comment