Tiger Mother is back with a new theory...

[LucyStoner]

Me, too.

 

Let's make some stuff up and sells millions of books. :hurray:

 

Maybe we'll even get a tacky reality show on TLC.

That's the dream.

[Catwoman]

Huh...I'm one of the chosen. So get out of the way of my giant superiority complex, everybody. Or is it my inferiority complex? Which one am I supposed to have? :D

I don't know, but whichever one you have, I think it's pretty obvious that it'll be way better than whichever one I have. ;)

 

So you're buying TigerMom's book, right? :D

 

I stand in awe of you, The Chosen One.

[Lucy in Australia]

She & her husband appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur.  I would say that there are a number of other cultures that  have her "special" way of producing prodigies (hey look, new tongue-twister!) and I'm thinking specifically of ex-communist block countries.  There are a number of ways to get "results" and fear is certainly one of them.

[Lisbeth]

I think impulse control is huge when it comes to success...delaying gratification, planning, etc. I think news articles like to sensationalize her work. I read Tiger Mom and agreed with about 75% of it, and was horrified by the other 25%… I will reserve judgement, but wow, I can see this being a huge controversy. I see her idea here being about cultural superiority, not racial or class superiority.

 

 

 

[Jenny in Florida]

Okay, here's the thing:

 

I read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, and I don't think the description of that book in the linked article is remotely accurate. The author of this piece seems to have completely missed a major "plot point" in the Tiger Mom book, which was that, for at least one of the two daughters, Chua's methods "failed." The parenting practices she began the book assuming would be a foolproof way to turn out highly accomplished children just plain didn't work with one of the girls. In fact, both the daughter and mom were miserable, which caused Chua to re-evaluate her approach and back off quite a bit.

 

The book is also written with a great deal of self-deprecating humor, which a lot of people who read it (or claimed to have read it, anyway) apparently missed completely.

 

Her approach to parenting isn't for me, but the content of that book is not at all what is portrayed in sensationalist pieces like this one.

 

With that understanding, I really can't get worked up about what this author has to say about the new book, because I assume the description is about as accurate as is the synopsis of the previous work.

 

I read a lot of books about education and parenting, and I've read several about why various cultural groups seem to do better academically than others. The statistics are there. And finding it interesting to discuss those statistics like grown-ups does not make one a racist.

 

It would be one thing if the thesis of this new book was that certain ethnic groups are genetically superior to others. But what it seems to be about, really, is identifying and discussing three specific character traits that the authors argue lead to achievement. Their methodology for this is to look at the groups who, on average, tend to have high percentages of successful individuals and then look at what traits, in general, those groups may have in common that might account for those successes.

 

I haven't read the book. I have no clue whether the argument holds water. However, even a little careful reading of this review and some others I found with a two-minute Google search makes it clear to me that the book is not being presented accurately in this piece.

[planner]

Way to go Chinese Mormons!?!?  

 

Seriously, this list makes me wish I had personal knowledge of some of these cultural groups so I could form my own opinion.

 

 

[Cammie]

I'm the most disappointed with her husband.  I love his writing (historical fiction) and was glad that he kept far away from the Tiger Mother hype.  In fact, I read an interview with her which said that he asked her to take much that was in the Tiger Mother book about him out of the book.  The problem is, you end up with a picture in which the mom was really the only parent which wasn't the case at all.

 

I'm going to pass on this one - not interested in contributing to her bottom line.

[Renee in NC]

Ok, I'll put on my flame retardant suit….

 

I actually like her.   :leaving:   :D

I thought the Tiger Mom book was good.  There were things in it that made me lol.  Seriously.  I think she gets a lot of negative press and a bad rap, and there are a lot of people who don't agree with her - which is fine, everyone is entitled to think what they want.  

I'm not saying I agree with everything she says.  But Idk… I just like her.

 

I'd like to read the book or original whatever that the article references.  The writers obviously dislike her, so there is a definite negative slant to it. :)

 

I like her, too.  I believe there are plenty of things that we can learn from other cultural groups.

[Renee in NC]

I read a lot of books about education and parenting, and I've read several about why various cultural groups seem to do better academically than others. The statistics are there. And finding it interesting to discuss those statistics like grown-ups does not make one a racist.

 

It would be one thing if the thesis of this new book was that certain ethnic groups are genetically superior to others. But what it seems to be about, really, is identifying and discussing three specific character traits that the authors argue lead to achievement. Their methodology for this is to look at the groups who, on average, tend to have high percentages of successful individuals and then look at what traits, in general, those groups may have in common that might account for those successes.

 

I haven't read the book. I have no clue whether the argument holds water. However, even a little careful reading of this review and some others I found with a two-minute Google search makes it clear to me that the book is not being presented accurately in this piece.

 

Yes...and for this reason I will be reading this book.

[alef]

The article came off as highly biased, sounded to me like the author was offended by not being included in one of the groups profiled.

I found the Tiger Mother book an interesting read, maybe because my own mom was something of a tiger mother. Minus the name calling. Amy Chua's definition of success in life is quite different from mine, and her tactics are mostly ones I wouldnt use, but within the framework of her apparent worldview they do make sense. I wouldn't try to judge the new book without reading it.

I'm not surprised that the book is controversial, I'm sure it was intended to be. I do expect it to have much more depth, subtlety, and humor than this article did!

[alef]

Way to go Chinese Mormons!?!?

 

Seriously, this list makes me wish I had personal knowledge of some of these cultural groups so I could form my own opinion.

My kids' Mandarin tutor is a Chinese Mormon. I can't say anything about superiority, insecurity and self control, but I will absolutely vouch for her kindness, humor, patience, and amazing ability to engage and teach kids of different ages. She has quickly become one of my favorite people in the whole world :)

[Soror]

 

It would be one thing if the thesis of this new book was that certain ethnic groups are genetically superior to others. But what it seems to be about, really, is identifying and discussing three specific character traits that the authors argue lead to achievement. Their methodology for this is to look at the groups who, on average, tend to have high percentages of successful individuals and then look at what traits, in general, those groups may have in common that might account for those successes.

 

 

Interesting. In The Millionaire Next Door he talks some about the differences in values and success rates of various ethnic groups. I thought it was especially noteworthy the groups that had a higher saving rates despite their lower incomes, making more isn't the only way to get ahead. 

[Soror]

 

It would be one thing if the thesis of this new book was that certain ethnic groups are genetically superior to others. But what it seems to be about, really, is identifying and discussing three specific character traits that the authors argue lead to achievement. Their methodology for this is to look at the groups who, on average, tend to have high percentages of successful individuals and then look at what traits, in general, those groups may have in common that might account for those successes.

 

 

Interesting. In The Millionaire Next Door he talks some about the differences in values and success rates of various ethnic groups. I thought it was especially noteworthy the groups that had a higher saving rates despite their lower incomes, making more isn't the only way to get ahead. 

[bettyandbob]

The negative stereotypes of some of the groups she's named as superior tend to be very materialistic.  

 

Maybe education is valued simply as a means to gain wealth and stuff by some people. This certainly doesn't apply to all people, but if one is going to look at stereotypes of culture groups shouldn't all aspects of the stereotype be examined. 

 

 

 

 

[planner]

My kids' Mandarin tutor is a Chinese Mormon. I can't say anything about superiority, insecurity and self control, but I will absolutely vouch for her kindness, humor, patience, and amazing ability to engage and teach kids of different ages. She has quickly become one of my favorite people in the whole world :)

 

Chinese Mormons are one group that I do actually know.  The one family I know well is absolutely lovely.

[MBM]

Academic success is great if it can be developed without physical or emotional abuse and the child desires it (that is, the child is not the parent's narcissistic object), but emotional intelligence is more important. Chua touches upon that in her book, but she is hardly the first or even expert enough to discuss it. A better person would be Dan Goleman who has summed it up fairly succinctly in his book Focus.

 

[mirth]

It's probably just as well you don't know, because Tiger Mom probably wouldn't approve. 

 

Unless it turns out that you're part Chinese, because then Tiger Mom might find you at least somewhat worthy.   :rolleyes:

Given that her parents are Filipino or grew up in the Philippines, I am not sure that she even falls into her own top echelon races.

 

Seriously, I didn't know it was possible to have strong opinions about a book that isn't even published yet.  At least Miley actually twerked on camera for all to see; we didn't react to hearsay of someone describing a photograph of her obscene gestures.

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Given that her parents are Filipino or grew up in the Philippines, I am not sure that she even falls into her own top echelon races.

 

Seriously, I didn't know it was possible to have strong opinions about a book that isn't even published yet.  At least Miley actually twerked on camera for all to see; we didn't react to hearsay of someone describing a photograph of her obscene gestures.

They immigrated to the Philippines and are ethnically Chinese.

 

But. . . she and her  husband could have easily written a book about traits for success without making it about specific cultures.  That's what bothers me, even though I obviously haven't read the book.  If she just used examples from certain cultures without making gross generalizations, I wouldn't mind.  But if she is stereotyping and categorizing entire cultures, whether it is positively or negatively, then I think she's off of the mark.  

[Dandelion]

Seriously, I didn't know it was possible to have strong opinions about a book that isn't even published yet. At least Miley actually twerked on camera for all to see; we didn't react to hearsay of someone describing a photograph of her obscene gestures.

I've been thinking the same thing throughout this entire thread. The book doesn't come out until February, so unless people posting in this thread have received advance copies somehow, chances are no one here has read it.

 

It's fine to say "I found Amy Chua's first book so disgusting that I can't imagine liking this latest book." But that's not what is happening in this thread. People are presuming to know what's actually in the book, based on one (very clearly biased) review.

[DianeW88]

Way to go Chinese Mormons!?!?  

 

Seriously, this list makes me wish I had personal knowledge of some of these cultural groups so I could form my own opinion.

 

There are more than you might think.  LOL  And according to the Tiger Mom...they're probably getting ready to take over the world.  The rest of us Mormons better step it up. :D

 

http://www.mormonsandchina.org/

 

[planner]

There are more than you might think.  LOL  And according to the Tiger Mom...they're probably getting ready to take over the world.  The rest of us Mormons better step it up. :D

 

http://www.mormonsandchina.org/

 

Oh, I know.  One only has to walk around BYU campus to realize that there are many Chinese Mormons.

[mathnerd]

About the battle hymn book:

I did not understand all the ill feeling about her first book (battle hymn). I read all the bashing and bad reviews about her as a mean mother and then a year later read her book. I found myself laughing out loud a lot when I read her book. She did not come across as a mean, cold woman with no warm and fuzzy feelings for her children to me. She came across as a very caring, very focused and very loving mom - what I also figured out was that she is tongue in cheek, uses gallows humor (not very familiar to those that are unused to it) and deliberately uses stereotypes to drive home a point. Have any of you watched minority comedians on late night cable channels? They do the exact same thing that Tiger Mom does in her book - their mainstay is racial stereotypes and they humorously talk about the atrocious treatment of people (no exceptions - they range from the disabled to old ladies to Presidents to babies to God) and get away with that because it is "comedy" and they have poetic license. I do not believe that all the mean incidents that are related in that book are 100% true - though she may have been strict and hyper focused, I believe that she may have made up some of the extreme stories there to sell books. Because, above and beyond all else, she is a very smart, very successful woman intent on creating controversies to sell books.

 

Which leads me to the new book:

I belong to one of the "chosen" groups in that book. There are no homeless people or anyone hovering on the poverty line or parents with failing students in my "chosen" community that I know of in my neighborhood. We tend to expect great things from our kids - not excluding good manners, kindness, good character, superior work ethic and also a well balanced life. So, again, what she has done is that she has taken a small part of this story and the stereotypes that go with it and spun a money making book out of it yet again. As a result, she stays relevant, she gets media coverage, she recycles her old message (of superiority of certain group/groups), she becomes more of an "expert" on successful communities and her family makes enough money to send the next 10 generations to the Ivies.

So, I will treat this book as I treat all other sensationalist books. And I will do the same as I did for her previous book - read all the reviews, analysis, bashings etc first and read the book a year later when the hype is gone.

[HS Mom in NC]

I know two Chinese Mormons.

[Jenny in Florida]

They immigrated to the Philippines and are ethnically Chinese.

 

But. . . she and her  husband could have easily written a book about traits for success without making it about specific cultures.  That's what bothers me, even though I obviously haven't read the book.  If she just used examples from certain cultures without making gross generalizations, I wouldn't mind.  But if she is stereotyping and categorizing entire cultures, whether it is positively or negatively, then I think she's off of the mark.  

 

As someone else mentioned, unless you've had access to an advance copy of the book and have read it already, I don't know that it's fair to state "she is stereotyping" at this point. She may be. I don't know, because I haven't yet read the book. But it bothers me to see people jumping on the assumption bandwagon.

 

As for "they could have," sure, they could. I could have named my kids Purple and Apron rather than the names I chose. I could have eaten carrots instead of potatoes with my lunch today. I could have decided to adopt a tabby cat rather than two black ones. I could have purchased a Chevy rather than a Scion. I made the choices I did because, for me, at that point in my life, those were the options that were most appealing or most appropriate or most interesting to me.

 

Chua and her husband have the exact same right to explore topics that interest them in the way they find most meaningful.

 

Given that each of them is a highly educated, high-achieving person who happens to come from an ethnic/cultural group frequently associated with producing exactly those kinds of individuals, I can see why the cultural aspect might be of intense interest to them, both individually and together.

 

I mean, at what point is it "too much," in terms of researching/discussing "specific cultures?" Why is it acceptable for an elementary-level social studies curriculum to include recipes for tortillas and rice and beans in the activities section of the chapter about Mexico, but not okay for Chua and her husband to write a book about how traits common to certain cultural groups might be positively associated with success?

 

I read a book a few years ago written by a pair of sisters who came from a Korean-American family. The book was about how their parents and the parents of their friends raised them to be academically successful. The sisters talked a lot about values they experienced as being common in Korean-American families and how their upbringing differed from those of their more WASP-y friends. Are those sisters racists, too?

 

I'm just pondering . . .

[Jean in Newcastle]

As someone else mentioned, unless you've had access to an advance copy of the book and have read it already, I don't know that it's fair to state "she is stereotyping" at this point. She may be. I don't know, because I haven't yet read the book. But it bothers me to see people jumping on the assumption bandwagon.

 

 

I gave two different scenarios specifically because I hadn't read the book.  One scenario was where she uses specific cultures as examples without making gross generalizations and the other scenario was where she did make gross generalizations.  I don't have a problem with one way that she could have handled the topic.  I do have a problem with the other way that she could have handled the topic - the way the article said she handled it.  But because I wasn't jumping on the assumption bandwagon, I left it as a possible scenario.  

[Amber in SJ]

If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much...

 

"If it ain't Scottish; It's Cr*p!"  - SNL

 

Amber in SJ (proud of her Scottish heritage)

[Stratford]

Sweet, I made the list!  Now I don't need to read the book!  (Theoretically, I should have this all figured out.  Then again, if she met me, she might just revise her list....)

[MBM]

The groups mentioned in the articles have a tendency to stick together and help one another. In Chicago you can find pockets in the city or suburbs that are predominantly made up of some of those particular groups. That probably plays an important role in their lives as well.

 

Also, success can mean different things to different people. According to some, the acquisition of wealth, knowledge, power and pleasure (one definition of materialism) is not all that important because they feel it does not necessarily bring long-lasting contentment, so they don't strive for those things.

 

[sewingmama]

 

 

I must admit that I LOL'd when I came to Mormon's at the end of the list... It seemed so random.

 

But then I read the three characteristics and thought.. "Dang..she has the Mormon's nailed". LOL

 

Yes I noticed she left out South Korea and Japan but I'm not suprised. None of those three countries likes to be mentioned on any list that involves one of the others. ;)

[Jenny in Florida]

Y'all know reviewers do get advance copies, right ? And that people in the industry have a pretty good idea about the content of new books months before they hit the shelves ?

 

Also, that a reviewer is entitled to call b/s on a book ? Good reviewers don't just summarize a book, they make a judgment call on it.

 

The linked review is not the only negative review this book is getting.

 

Oh, of course I understand about reviewers and advance copies. (I used to work in publishing, actually, and I have a whole shelf full of ARCs.)

 

And of course reviewers are entitled to call books as they see them. What bothered me about the reviewed linked in the OP is that the description of the same author's first book was so wildly inaccurate and sensationalized that I can't take seriously anything said about the new book. And it seems that a lot of folks here are taking the word of the reviewer about the content of the new book and assuming things about the authors' thesis and viewpoint that I suspect may not be fair.

[Jenny in Florida]

As I said earlier, it's not an outlier. There are other negative reviews out there.

 

Sure. and it may not be a good book, for whatever reason. However, I sincerely hope people do not decide against reading it because this one reviewer -- or even a few reviewers -- convince them the book says something it may not even say.

 

(Also, on the value of reviews: Remember that both Jane Eyre and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, among others, garnered mostly awful reviews upon their initial releases, based primarily on content that reviewers found objectionable. Just something to consider.)

[Jean in Newcastle]

Sure. and it may not be a good book, for whatever reason. However, I sincerely hope people choose not to read it because this one reviewer -- or even a few reviewers -- convince them the book says something it may not even say.

 

(Also, on the value of reviews: Remember that both Jane Eyre and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, among others, garnered mostly awful reviews upon their initial releases, based primarily on content that reviewers found objectionable. Just something to consider.)

You realize that most of us are discussing the premise of the book as stated, and not the quality of the book itself, right?  Because we realize that we haven't read it yet and can't evaluate it on that.  We do understand what reviews are and how they can be biased.  

[Catwoman]

(Also, on the value of reviews: Remember that both Jane Eyre and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, among others, garnered mostly awful reviews upon their initial releases, based primarily on content that reviewers found objectionable. Just something to consider.)

Well, all I know is that whenever I think of Tiger Mom, I immediately think of Charlotte Bronte & Mark Twain. :D

 

Although I guess many people would classify Tiger Mom's books as being at least somewhat fictional, so maybe there is a connection after all... ;)

[Violet Crown]

 

Addressing the question of why it might not be a good idea for Chua to explore the topic of traits supposedly common to certain cultural/racial/religious groups and how they relate to success of members of that group: I'd say, because she's an academic, and if the review is at all accurate, she's making huge potential trouble for herself down the road when some student makes a complaint about bias.

[Jenny in Florida]

You realize that most of us are discussing the premise of the book as stated, and not the quality of the book itself, right?  Because we realize that we haven't read it yet and can't evaluate it on that.  We do understand what reviews are and how they can be biased.  

 

Of course. But you're talking about the premise of the book as it has been explained in a review that is, at best, misleading regarding another book by the same author. I just don't think it's fair to judge a book, or the argument contained within it, without a whole lot more, less biased, information.

 

But, at this point, it's clear I'm not getting anywhere with this. Again, I have no investment here. I haven't read the book. I might or might not read the book eventually when it's easily available from the library. I read her previous book (which I'm willing to bet a lot of folks getting pretty agitated on this thread did not) and found it enjoyable and interesting. I don't think the premise of this new one, as I understand it from reading interviews with the author and the brief review from Publishers Weekly, is inherently objectionable or unreasonable, although it is certainly possible I would find it so if I read the book.

 

I just get uncomfortable when the pitchforks come out before a book even hits the shelves.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Of course. But you're talking about the premise of the book as it has been explained in a review that is, at best, misleading regarding another book by the same author. I just don't think it's fair to judge a book, or the argument contained within it, without a whole lot more, less biased, information.

 

But, at this point, it's clear I'm not getting anywhere with this. Again, I have no investment here. I haven't read the book. I might or might not read the book eventually when it's easily available from the library. I read her previous book (which I'm willing to bet a lot of folks getting pretty agitated on this thread did not) and found it enjoyable and interesting. I don't think the premise of this new one, as I understand it from reading interviews with the author and the brief review from Publishers Weekly, is inherently objectionable or unreasonable, although it is certainly possible I would find it so if I read the book.

 

I just get uncomfortable when the pitchforks come out before a book even hits the shelves.

I do get your point.  I may, or may not read this one.

 

I read her previous book.  I actually found it funny in a lot of parts because I know a lot of Asian (not just Chinese) moms who are what are called "education mamas" in Japan and a "Tiger Mom" by Chua.  But. . . despite recognizing the philosophy and the practice of that philosophy in real life, I also recognize how damaging it is.  

[SeaConquest]

She & her husband appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur.

I had Jed for con law and can confirm that this is decidedly so.

 

Controversy has served them well. I expect they will keep chugging along with it until the strategy is no longer lucrative for them.

[mirth]

Addressing the question of why it might not be a good idea for Chua to explore the topic of traits supposedly common to certain cultural/racial/religious groups and how they relate to success of members of that group: I'd say, because she's an academic, and if the review is at all accurate, she's making huge potential trouble for herself down the road when some student makes a complaint about bias.

But if you really are a racist, it is better to give open voice to your opinions and have others be able to identify you for reform (or ostracization) than to deny being a closet racist yet have people constantly wonder why you're such pill to select groups of people.

[Violet Crown]

But if you really are a racist, it is better to give open voice to your opinions and have others be able to identify you for reform (or ostracization) than to deny being a closet racist yet have people constantly wonder why you're such pill to select groups of people.

Not better for your department, though. That's why chairs and deans like to keep the ones with racist or sexist opinions away from real people.

[Wildiris]

After skimming the article, the Tiger mom sounds like a bigoted mom on a soap box. Sad and small minded. 

[Tohru]

LOL that she left out South Korea -  From a historical prespective, Korea is actually Chinese, according to the Chinese.  Korea branched off from China a few dynasties ago, hence the reason why Koreans call themselves Han-gook, Han coming from the Han dynsasty of China.  So maybe she left them out because it is known that Korean cultural stereotypes would fall under China. :)

 

On the otherhand, with the rapid Westernization of South Korea, South Korean's culture has changed so much that the entire nation's cultural values are materialistic, so "success" can not really be attritubted to parenting, but about following cultural norm.

 

I did enjoy her first book, even though I went into reading it thinking it was going to be awful.

[SKL]

I think she might be on to something, though.

 

Disclaimer:  I can't claim to be in any of those "superior" groups, unless you count my Jewish ancestry some generations back....

[HejKatt]

Okay, here's the thing:

 

I read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, and I don't think the description of that book in the linked article is remotely accurate.

 

I agree, I'm having difficulty reconciling my memory of the book with what the article described. Its title ("Tiger Mom: Some cultural groups are superior") and lead sentence ("Amy Chua .. published a book arguing that Chinese women are superior mothers")  are meant to draw to mind the WSJ article, "Chinese Mothers Are Superior", which caused a storm of discussion.  But it turned out the article drew mostly unflattering excerpts from the earlier half of the book and its provocative title was added by WSJ editors, not Chua. Furthermore, the WSJ article did not include from the latter part of the book, especially the turning point which Jenny described, where Chua faces her daughter's rebellion and admits her approach has failed.

 

So the NYPost article is not ringing true for me. I would have liked more info - maybe excerpts from the first half of the book, and a new misleading, provocative title.  :tongue_smilie:  Seriously,  a treatment of the data for example, which the NYPost article described as "some specious stats and anecdotal evidence".  How was it specious - insufficient sample size, failure to account for some variables? It's hard to tell.

 

ETA - I do think that Chua did some despicable acts in her book. I'm not condoning those. I'm more skeptical about the claim that she is racist, especially when the claim uses more polemic and less data than the WSJ article which was not (IMHO) a true representation. 

 

ETA #2- I did search for other reviews on Google News. But I found mostly articles that basically pointed toward the NYPost article.  Looking forward to hearing from others who have read the ARC . 

[SKL]

Racist?  How racist?  Seems like multiple "races" are included in the "awesome" list.

 

What if science someday learned that "white" people are actually dumber than some or all other races?  Do you think "white" people could ever admit that?  And, would it really be such a tragedy?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Racist?  How racist?  Seems like multiple "races" are included in the "awesome" list.

 

What if science someday learned that "white" people are actually dumber than some or all other races?  Do you think "white" people could ever admit that?  And, would it really be such a tragedy?

The fact that you have more or less melanin in your body does not change your intelligence.  To even entertain the possibility of that being true is mind-boggling.  

[mathnerd]

Racist?  How racist?  Seems like multiple "races" are included in the "awesome" list.

 

See, this was my first thought as well. Because, Dr Chua (and Dr Jed - too lazy to look up his last name) have included a whole range of races in her "awesome" list. How could that be called racist - their list includes everyone from dark to medium to light toned skin coloration and a mind boggling variety of cultures with origins in a variety of civilizations across the world. I still think that they are using race to sell books, though I find it hard to believe that she in particular is racist.

[hillfarm]

I can kind of see the rationale, if a person belongs to a group that has the overall belief that they are culturally or genetically programmed to succeed, and that same person feels as though they, personally, might be perceived as lacking by others, then that could certainly create an atmosphere of motivation to achieve and the belief that it is possible. Those two things alone could take a person a long way. They would definitely have a psychological leg up on the person who felt that people of their own culture were inferior and that others thought they were fine as they were. No motivation to change.

 

I think using race labels is just a convenient way to group populations with these similar beliefs. I have not yet read the book, but assume somewhere in there the authors conceded that racial stereotypes are not 100% accurate and that there will be some/several members that do not fall into the stereotyped beliefs. I personally have met lazy and motivated members of all the races studied in the book.

 

I agree with others that the real writing prize should go to the publicity team promoting Ms. Chua's work. They are the ones making sure everyone hears about her books and that they are discussed in places like this. They are the ones feeding the media the hyped up, sensationalized material that Is creating the buzz, not the actual content of the books themselves.

[Dandelion]

The groups analyzed in the book are not "races".  They are cultural groups which each include many races.  

 

The cultural groups discussed in the book are: Jews, Mormons, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Nigerians, Lebanese-Americans and Cuban exiles (I'm assuming the last two groups are listed as such to distinguish them from Lebanese and Cubans who remain in their home countries).

 

The premise of the book (based on the book description on Amazon) is that these eight cultural groups emphasize and encourage certain attributes that enable them to take advantage of academic/economic opportunities to a greater extent than cultural groups that do not instill these attributes.  The attributes that the authors say these cultural groups embody are a "superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control". According to the authors, this is the "Triple Package" (hence the title of the book) that is consistent among these cultural groups based on sociological/statistical data, and that has led to historically better outcomes for these groups in the U.S. as compared to other cultural groups. According to the book's description, the authors also note that these attributes are available to anyone (obviously) and they then discuss both the benefits as well as the potential negative impact when these elements are taken to the extreme.

 

Based solely on the description and the stated premise of the book, I see nothing inherently racist about it.  

 

As I stated in my first post, I'm not a fan of Amy Chua's and I don't subscribe to her parenting approach.  I have no plans to buy this book.  However, I do think cultural/sociological studies like this (assuming her newest book is true to the description given) are interesting and worthwhile. 

[HejKatt]

The groups analyzed in the book are not "races".  They are cultural groups which each include many races.  

 

The premise of the book (based on the book description on Amazon) is that these eight cultural groups emphasize and encourage certain attributes that enable them to take advantage of academic/economic opportunities to a greater extent than cultural groups that do not instill these attributes. 

I stand corrected. Thanks (to you and all PP) for the more accurate term of cultural group.

 

You also stated in much clearer terms the disconnect I see. The article uses phrases like "Chua and her husband argue.. some groups are just superior to others". This is very different from the description you posted. The former is indeed elitist, and worthy of criticism but it's not what the authors claim. 

 

I suppose I am naive, but I don't see how all this could be a publicity stunt  - sure, we are talking about the book but witness the number of people on this post who have sounded off negatively about it or its authors without having seen the product. Rather, the beneficiary seems to be the media - the early, sensationalist article gets plenty of hits and comments, and it is further cited in other articles which inflates its appearance of authority on the subject. Which is all very well, but we aren't doing ourselves a favor by retweeting their song. 

[EmilyGF]

My mom was told, while she was raising us, "You really ought to be either Jewish or Chinese," because of her parenting philosophy. I think a Jewish friend said this.

 

My sister and I went to Caltech and my brother is working on a PhD at an Ivy League.

 

Emily