babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I think when people use the term "Asian", they are generally still referring to an old, arguably outdated, concept of 'race', generally based on visual observation of physical features, as opposed to actually talking in general about people from the continent of Asia (which would also include me and my ancestors). We no longer use the antiquated offensive terms but we use the same concepts, with new 'politically correct' language.
Back at McGill, there were much higher admission standards for international students. It's not surprising if on average, Asians and Americans for that matter get higher grades.
I don't agree with the excessive academic focus. I was in one of the most challenging programs there, with a two thirds failure rate. I graduated with first class honours, and I had time to participate in student government and to write (regularly) for one of the student newspapers, among other things. It's about priorities.
Like, there's a reason why this article was written about 'Asian students' and not, say, "immigrants from mainland China" or "second-generation Japanese-Canadians". Culture or even precise geographical origin are not the main identifying criteria the authors are using.
BTW, I know lots of Asians in academia, I've never noticed them to be "memorizers". Their ability to understand and to think deeply and critically is just fine.
How self-righteous do you need to be to believe that the western model of education is the one true, best model that encourages true critical thinking? It's almost like a sitcom portrayal of a racist.
If any Toronto babblers can attend, there's a community meeting tomorrow night.
To answer a couple easy questions
First Post 84 has it correct-- I got in to this on a minor point which became a thread drift. I was never defending the problems with the article-- I was resisting what I saw as a desire to see people as all the same-- that is not equality. I got in to this because I think it is an important distinction. I don't think you answer racism by saying everyone is the same culturally.
The second clarification is where the word Asian came from in this context. It is a silly word the way it is used because its meaning here is very narrow. The word Oriental was popular for some time for referring collectively to East Asian people's however that term is of course Eurocentric and therefore offensive as it means Eastern-- as in East of Europe. It came to be accepted to call them Asians. The problem is the word Asian while it technically means the people of Asia has come to mean what used to be called Oriental. Other Asians have other terms be it Middle Eastern, Central Asian, South Asian, South East Asian etc. So most people use the word Asian to mean East Asian.
I don't know: people very commonly talk about "the West", meaning Europe and the Americas. West of what? (This is a fairly trivial point, though.)
FWIW, many Asian Canadians are immigrants. (I'm reacting to the implicit dichotomy in the word "not".)
I teach at one of Canada's most culturally diverse campuses: I'd say about a third of the students are of East Asian ancestry, about a third of South Asian ancestry, and the rest are of European, Middle Eastern, or African ancestry -- with many whose ancestry is a mix of the above. My most recent upper-level class had five students all east Asian immigrants, four born in China and one born in the Phillippines. They were all wonderfully charming, hard-working, absolutely adorable students, who had a wonderful combination of academic seriousness and social grace. When I taught the course a few years before that, it again had five students, three of European ancestry, and two of South Asian ancestry. (Maybe five students is too small a sample size to make any generalizations.) Again, a wonderful group of students. The current leadership of our department's student association has two white women, three Chinese men whose accents suggest they were not born in Canada (though I've never asked), and one young man whose parents are from Trinidad and whose ancestry is mostly south Asian, but also European, east Asian and African. Again they are all wonderfully charming, hard-working, absolutely adorable students, who have a wonderful combination of academic seriousness and social grace. When I look around campus, people from different backgrounds seem to socialize very well, hanging out cross-culturally. It's funny how poorly my experience is reflected in the Maclean's article.
Another point that I think the article misses is that while the people may be different, I have heard that there is a lot of goodwill. By this I mean that there is a lot of open-mindedness on both sides-- curiosity and a willingness to get to know each other even if constant socialization is not immediate.
Among the general population there is racism but not nearly as much overtly towards Chinese as towards others. Many Chinese people I have met have remarked on the fact that they have seen no racism in Canada directed at them. By contrast, or many others racism is a constant inescapable topic because it is a visible unavoidable part of daily life.
As an editor, I will stick to a critique of the journalism. I did read the article, and yes, it is stats-light, anecdote-heavy. There are some regional statistics (ex. Vancouver population 21 per cent East Asian, UBC closer to 40 per cent) here and there, but no analysis of that. Is this proportion unusual? How do Canadian universities compare among themselves? and vs US schools?
Also, no national figures. I would guess from reading the enrolment stats offered that UBC, Waterloo and Uof T are exceptional for their enrolment patterns and demographics. Is that true? What other ethnic/demographic patterns stand out nationally? Historically?
Passing demographic trends may prove misleading. As a graduate of both McGill and Concordia, I met paranoid Anglos in the 1970s and 80s who saw steep rises in francophone enrolment and felt the nationalist Quebec government was "squeezing" or even starving the English universities, and trying to turn esp. Concordia "into French universities". Twenty years later, that scare looks goofy, given that the expanding Concordia campus has been on a non-stop building boom. Moreover, the proportion of francophone students at both Montreal institutions has steadily declined; the increase was temporary, corresponding to the rise of the French middle class. (In the case of Concordia, the completion of UQAM also meant there was suddenly a French alternative as a night-school U in many fields.)
So that bout of Anglo paranoia proved groundless. This one should, too.
The chatty and anecdotal tone of the Maclean's article also undermines serious reporting. I had a good laugh at the quote below:
... a [TO] high school senior deciding where he'd like to go, will head "either east, west or to McGill" -- unusual academic options ..
Unusual choices for Toronto HS grads?? Sheesh, that was EXACTLY my agenda 30 years ago!
On the other hand, Maclean's does put the main title in "quotes" : 'Too Asian?'; this is standard journalese for remaining at arms-length from a controversial, reported statement (ex. Obama 'too liberal'?, social benefits "too high'?). BTW, the babble thread title is wrong.
Maclean's should not be advocate for more/less of any ethnic group; but they ARE reporting on a widespread word-of-mouth Canadian student view, one which would not disappear if unreported. Au contraire.
So don't shoot the messenger.
What statistics or data tell us that this "word-of-mouth Canadian student view" is widespread? Maclean's quoted a handful of students: how do we know that their views are "widespread"?
good point; hard to judge that, survey data or opinion poll or whatever just not cited
I remember one criticism (Chantal Hebert's , I believe) of their Bonhomme cover was that they should have at least put a question mark at the end of "Most Corrupt Province". So I guess they figured this was a way of covering their asses.
My son's high school grad class was half asian and it was obvious from the groups of kids hanging together at their grad events that they were not selecting friends based on race or ethnicity. The various cliques appeared to be all pretty mixed. That is the Canada I live in not some Macleans view of the world with the US and THEM racism.
Long thread--feel free to open another!