I am not sure where this thread goes but there is no miscellaneous thread..

[Lik3]

How come there is no thread for those threads that go into religion or elsewhere? In short, how about for those that are miscellaneous like this one? Where I'm from most of the people in my hometown are either African-Americans, and whites of Northern European descent. There is not a racial or cultural divide yet I have noticed that some ethnic groups tend to do well because they assimilate.

Case in point, those of South Asian (Indian and Pakistani) descent. Is it true that people who are of South Asian descent well-off compared to other ethnicities? I have noticed the few South Asians that live in my small towns are usually well educated and thus well off.

Is it like that where you are from? I went to a university that was 99% African-American/black and two of the professors there were of Indian descent. One of them was here for many years while the other professor had a thick Indian accent. So are Americans of South Asian descent more well off? I ask this because I have never heard of a poor person here in the US who is of Indian descent, though I'm sure there are some.

It might be a stereotype because of what I also see on tv where Indian, as well as continental African Americans are often the most successful students in academic competitions and in my hometown, the Caribbean, African and Indian students are either in private schools or do well in public schools, even in a rurual area populated by people of Old British, African American, and German ancestry, which is about 90% + of the population.

 

[akmom]

I think if you have an ethnicity with a long history in a region, they will span all socioeconomic brackets. If there is an ethnicity consisting of mostly new immigrants, then they are likely to be more successful. This is because only the most successful people in their "native" country have the money and connections to travel and secure a livelihood in the new country. That success is likely to extend to several generations of their children.

On the other hand, when immigration doesn't require success, wealth or social connections (such as slavery or a market for cheap labor), then that demographic is more likely to be poor. Because they started out that way, immigrating as slaves or in pursuit of cheap labor opportunities. This socioeconomic status is also likely to extend to several generations.

I think it has more to do with a region's historical demographics than any innate qualities in an ethnic group.

 

[Lik3]

I agree. I was wondering about that. Thanks.

 

[russianorth]

Cultures who are more technologically advanced are typically more well off. Cultures and people who have the mind for invention and industry will do better.

I was having a discussion with someone about how the settlers to the USA built such a great nation but places like mexico, Africa, etc are epic failures is do to the lack of inventiveness and ability to defend themselves.

Think about this, the only reason custer lost his last stand is because he thought the gatlin guns slowed him down (look it up). Had he brought the gatlin guns that were in his arsenal it would have been a VERY different outcome. He likely would have lost almost no soldiers and the natives would have been totally wiped out.

All it takes is one piece of military tech to change the outcome of human history. Remember its only a war crime if you loose. There is no yelling, no argument, just dead people and winners. That is the lowest common denominator.

That is the reason pandering and negotiation is undignified as it is only done out of a position of weakness. You don't have to make concessions if you have the means to wipe out the other side.