Quanyu Huang’s new book, “The Hybrid Tiger: Secrets of the Extraordinary Success of Asian-American Kids,” may sound like yet another flogging for hapless Western parents, but it’s not.The same issue has another review:
You can’t blame American mothers for still smarting from Amy Chua’s best-selling 2011 book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.” In breathtaking and bold calligraphic strokes, she laid out her argument: American parents overindulge their children, allowing them sleepovers, video games and laughable extracurricular activities like playing Villager Number Six in the school play, as they collect trophies for being themselves in a self-esteem-centered culture. By contrast, Chinese parents strictly limit television, video games and socializing, accept no grades but A’s and insist on several hours a day of violin and piano practice, regardless of their children’s complaints. As a result, Chinese-parented kids play Carnegie Hall at 14, get perfect scores in science and math, and gain early admission to Harvard while their floundering American counterparts wonder what on earth hit them. ...
Triumphantly, the Chinese predicted that in 20 years China would lead the world in science and technology, and America would sink like Atlantis, a conclusion horrified American delegates agreed with. But no. Even today, while Chinese students still excel in test-taking, China has yet to produce a single Nobel Prize winner in the sciences or a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (although, of course, American computer parts are made in China).
Parenthood as we know it — predicated on the unconditional exaltation of our children — is no more than 70 years old, and it has gone through radical readjustments over the past two generations. As children went from helping on the farm to being the focus of relentless cosseting, they shifted “from being our employees to our bosses,” Jennifer Senior observes in her trenchant and engrossing first book, “All Joy and No Fun: The Paradox of Modern Parenthood.” Senior, a contributing editor at New York magazine, examines what it means to be a parent, through interviews with a handful of families who are neither typical nor extraordinary. ...The review says the new Tiger mom book is boring, and you can get the gist of it from reading the freely available synopsis.
Senior quotes the sociologist Viviana A. Zelizer, who describes today’s children as “economically worthless but emotionally priceless.” Senior explains: “Every debate we have had about the role of parents — whether they should be laissez-faire or interventionist ‘Tiger Moms,’ attachment-oriented or partial to the rigors of tough love — can be traced back to the paring down of mothers’ and fathers’ traditional roles.”
I don't think that there is any proof that any of these parenting philosophies are better than any other. I have my preferences, but I believe that parents should be able to use their own judgment.
Other reviews more directly accused racism. The London Daily Mail:
She gained notoriety in 2011 as the uncompromising 'Tiger Mom' - boastful that Chinese mothers make better parents and ultimately have more successful children.From Salon mag:
Now though, Amy Chau [sic, should be Chua], 51, has inspired the fury of the public on Twitter with her new controversial theory that some races and religions are just superior to everyone else.
Dubbed 'simply racist' by one commentor on Twitter, another pulled no punches and called her a 'full blown eugenics pushing racist!'
Yale Law professor Amy Chua, who would live in obscurity among the general public if it weren’t for her persona as the disgustingly smug Tiger Mom, is trolling America with yet anotherFrom Time mag:
theorypersonal rant about her cultural superiority. Two years after releasing “The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” a great step-by-step manual for parents who want to systematically weed out any genuine interest or passion for life that their children might innately have, Chua is releasing a book co-written with fellow Yale professor and husband Jed Rubenfeld called, “The Triple Package.”
In it, Chua and Rubenfeld use what reviewer Maureen Callahan calls “specious stats and anecdotal evidence” to argue that Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons are superior to other races or cultures, and “everyone else is contributing to the downfall of America.”
“The Triple Package” is not evidence of a “new racism.” It’s the same old garbage, in a slightly different, Ivy League-endorsed disguise.I agree that it is not new racism. Chinese and Jews have been preoccupied with racial issues for all of recorded issues. For example:
In the 20th century, the social and cultural critic Lu Xun commented that, "throughout the ages, Chinese have had only two ways of looking at foreigners, up to them as superior beings or down on them as wild animals."And Jews play identity politics more than any other group. Just google it for details, if you want.
Update: Here is a current example of a prominent Jewish US Senator (Chuck Schumer) making racist arguments to support Jewish identity politics.
It's hard to believe that you're talking about other people being preoccupied with racial issues. It's what you,re all about.
I rarely talk about racial issues, compared to liberal news media like the NY Times or MSNBC.
Take a look at your blog and what you discuss. There is no comparison.
The best you can do is to keep citing Kevin MacDonald, the neo nazi, holocaust denier ? The guy who's politics you've claimed to not be familiar with ? Please...
If Schumer was misquoted, please let me know. MacDonald is not a neo nazi or a holocaust denier, as far as I know. If you have any proof that he is, then please post it.
I've posted evidence that MacDonald has been used as an expert holocaust denier on your blog comments before,and his association with neo nazis. You just keep ignoring such facts and repeating falsehoods later on.
Search your bog if you actually care.
First you say MacDonald is a neo nazi, and then you allege an association with neo nazis. Which is it? Maybe you think that anyone who criticizes Schumer is a neo nazi. At any rate, you are apparently not contesting what MacDonald said about Schumer here. You are just name-calling.
He is supported by neo nazis. He is a holocaust denier. You aren't contesting that are you ? I don't care what he says about Schummer. He says that he doesn't like Jews. Why does it matter what he says about Jews ? I know how he feels about them and what influences his opinion.
I do contest your claim that MacDonald is a holocaust denier, and that he has anything to do with neo nazis. I have offered to let you post evidence, and you have not. Obviously you have some sort of personal hatred against him, and you try to slander him with name-calling and no evidence.
I quote Democrats who hate Republicans, and Republicans who hate Democrats. If MacDonald does not like Jews, that is his business. I note that you have no criticism of the substance of what MacDonald says.
I have posted a lot of evidence. Search your blog . You are the one ignoring evidence. I've posted some of it more than once. You ignore what you don't like or want to admit.
I checked the archives, and I did find some anonymous posts with some silly name-calling. Was that you? There was no substantive criticism of MacDonald. There were a couple of professors who did not like MacDonald but they did not publish any scholarly criticism, and in one case, the professor admitted that he did not even read what MacDonald wrote. In no case did anyone even allege that MacDonald was a neo nazi or a holocaust denier.
Even if some of MacDonald's work on evolutionary psychology gets proven wrong, I don't know what that has to do with this blog.
His colleagues call him a neo nazi and he testified in defense of a holocaust denier. What do you know ? You've claimed that you're not familiar with his politics, right ? Were you luing about that ? Do you know his politics or not ?
More name-calling. I guess you have no substantive comments.
You claimed that you didn't know about his politics right ? Ingues it was another one of your lies. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that you lie.
More name-calling. No content.
Post a Comment