World on Fire

The introduction discusses the author's aunt's murder in the Philippines. She was a rich Chinese woman who employed many poor Chinese. She didn't think much of the people she employed, and even had them live in relatively poor conditions. (Yet those were probably better conditions than they would otherwise live in.) The chauffeur one day just decided to slit her throat. (Would things have been different if she treated them better? Or were the relations just such a mess that it was inevitable?)

Many examples are provided of "dominant minorities" in parts of the world. The Chinese tend to dominate the economy in most of Southeast Asia. This creates tensions with the ethnic majorities (who often dominate politics.) There is often an uneasy truce with the political elite - they know they need the Chinese help to keep the economy going. However, when tensions boil over it is often the "poorer" Chinese that feel the brunt of the conflict. (They are the one that the common people most often see. They don't have the big advantages that the uber-wealthy have.)

The implementation of democracy and capitalism tends to increase the conflict. Democracy brings about political control by the ethnic majority. Capitalism and market liberalization tends to increase economic power of the economically dominant minority. The reforms typically raise the standard of living for everyone. However, the minority tends to show a greater improvement, leading to a greater differentiation. This creates more conflict that empowers "nationalist" type governments and increases the internal conflict. Countries like Singapore luck out because the majority is the economically dominant Chinese.

Dominant minorities have achieved their positions through a variety of means. In parts of Africa (such as Zimbabwe and South Africa) and Latin America, the descendants of colonists have a dominant position in society. The "whites" tend to have land and the historical advantages to dominate the economy. The "mixed-race" individuals tend to be mid-tier, while the "natives" are more likely to live in poverty. In same countries "race" can be fairly arbitrary, with the wealthy being considered "white", regardless of original race. Countries can sometimes view themselves as large "melting pots" where everybody is of a common race. And then, a charismatic politician can turn things around and convince the poor that they are the true natives that should wrest control of the land from the colonial powers. (Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe both come to mind here.)

In other countries, the dominant minority arose independently and often due to oppression. Lebanese dominate many African countries. They did not have the advantages of the colonial powers, but worked hard and rose in strength. Many of the Russian Oligarchs are Jewish. They were prevented from attending the best universities or rising up in the Communist hierarchy, and thus had to work hard and develop skills and ruthlessness that helped them succeed during the the fall of communism. Certain tribal groups control other countries, often using close knit connections to dominate.

The dominant minorities theory can even be extended to the world. The United States dominates the world economy. This leads to resentment in many parts of the world. (These same people that resent the US are also likely to emulate the US and purchase many American products.) People may benefit from the many American products. Education and access to media and markets have helped them to increase their living standards. However, this access has also helped them to see how far they have to go to be like Americans.

Is there a solution? Equality may appear to resolve these issues. However, people always seem to find some way to differentiate. As long as somebody seems to be doing better, there will be conflict. However, if people see a way that they can get there, the conflict may be resolved. Perhaps we just need to let everybody be king for a day.

The Triple Package

Mormons, Chinese and Nigerians all have been disproportionately successful in America due to the "triple package". This package includes, the paradoxical mixture of a superiority complex and a chip on the shoulder together with delayed gratification. The package is something that is held by and indicates success in a group. Individuals members of the group may or may not achieve success. However, as a whole, the group will have greater economic success than the population at large.

The success of the groups also seems to run contrary to common American culture. The groups tend to drive their children hard. They also tend to treat people in different ways (both within and without of the group.) These differences with American culture, help the groups to succeed, while also isolated them somewhat from the country at large.

The United States itself once had the "triple package". However, after the end of the cold war, the inferiority and the delayed gratification have faded away and the country as a whole has lacked the drive. (Luckily, there are plenty of immigrants and other subgroups willing to take the work upon themselves.) Some subgroups have also seen the package fade away. Jews have dominated many industries and academia as "outsiders" through their hard work. Today, however, they have been more closely incorporated in mainstream American culture. The degree of "new achievement" has been reduced. (However, the inherited legacy of past achievers is still present.) Some groups have had the "triple package" sucked out of them through discrimination or other areas. Slavery helped remove the group identity of the slaves and also encourage a culture of instant gratification.

While the book focuses on groups, it seems to simply identify some common characteristics for success. When people have grown up in an environment that encourages hard work and delayed gratification, they will have a greater opportunity to succeed. A family group could have the "triple package" within themselves. It would be difficult to tease out these individuals from the group at large. Is this something that people should strive for? The book is cautious with this regard. There are some downsides to the package. It does lead to a degree of isolation from mainstream culture. (However, in some sense, this is just the same as the kid that studies is "isolated" from the slackers at school - until he graduates.) The triple package also encourages success in the bounds of "known success". People can work hard to follow the direct path to the top. Society needs these people. However, it also needs the risk takers and innovators that are willing to try something different (and fail doing it.) The triple package does not encourage this. However, it can provide some basic principles and work ethic that can be beneficial for people willing to go out and do it on their own.

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance -- and Why They Fall

In Day of Empire, Amy Chua discusses defines hyperpowers and posits that it is only through tolerance that a single power can rise to dominate the world. However, it is often this very tolerance that begins to sow the seeds of the empire's fall. Through history, the mechanism of the "conquest" and definition of "tolerance" has changed, yet the successful empires all tend to be much more tolerant than their neighbors. Ancient Rome allowed any free male to become a citizen. It also left the conquered people to continue worshiping their own gods. However, Romans observed a cultural hierarchy. They esteemed Greek culture, and brought their deities into the Roman pantheon. Others were treated as barbarians and not respected. This limited tolerance helped lead to dissension. Other ancient empires also tended to succeed by being more tolerant than others. (However, they would also be ruthless in those that would not submit to their rule.)
In the modern era, Spain rose to power in part by tolerating the Jews and Muslims in their territory. They helped provide the capital to grow the kingdom and inspire the unification and voyages of exploration. However, by the time riches were coming back from the new world, Spain had been casting out its very bankers, leaving it a near bankrupt kingdom dependent on the American gold for its very survival. How might things have been different if Spain remained tolerant? Would the Aztecs and Incas been incorporated as part of the Spanish kingdom, making one of the most widespread global empires?
The Dutch were able to rise to power in the wake of Spain's fall. The Netherlands welcomed religious dissenters of all kinds. It was a capitalist heaven where anybody eager to make a buck was welcome to try. They were able to create a vast maritime network that rivaled any of the day, despite being a fraction of the size of other entities. They had a far-flung empire, yet they rarely tried to "Hollandize" the natives. (While there are huge numbers of Spanish and English speaking populations in the former colonies, the Dutch presence is isolated to a few a pockets, and those are mostly Dutch descendants.)
Britain was next in line after the Dutch. They had both the economic and military power. They would also waffle on the tolerance, often giving a degree of self rule to the colonies, but also attempting to "civilize" the natives. After Scotland bankrupted itself in failed Panamanian speculation, England brought her in the fold through tolerance and acceptance. Scots were integrated into society and hold high offices in the government. Alas, for Ireland, Catholicism proved to be too much to tolerate and could not be easily integrated. Throughout the world, the Britons thought of themselves as more civilized than their subjects. When they let their subjects retain their culture, these same subjects would respect the crown and often even aspire to adopt many aspects of the their rulers. However, when Britain would attempt to force behaviors on the subjects, insurrection and revolutions would break out. Even colonies of seemingly British subjects (like America) rebelled.
Modern powers of today have also used tolerance to come to power. The USSR tolerated the many different ethnic groups and treated everyone equal. (Then it fell as the cronyism dominated.) In China, a melting pot of many different cultures has assimilated into one "Han Chinese" population. Despite having many different spoken languages and different origins, people think of themselves as one people. The non-Han population is also tolerated (provided they respect the dictates of the country.) Indians speak multiple languages, have multiple religions and span multiple ethnic groups, yet they all live together in one big democracy. They struggle with tolerance, living well together at times, while falling victim to religious intolerance at other times. Europe is perhaps the first fully economic empire. Any country can join by meeting the appropriate economic targets. The economies are integrated and free travel and working from other member countries is tolerated. Brexit is even trying to concept of a free exit. However, despite this toleration, there is a marked intolerance of foreign foreigners (especially Muslims). They are often relegated to poor ghettos where they do not assimilate into the European culture.
Today, the United States is the primary hyperpower. On the military stage, there is no country that comes close. Economically, it continues to dominate. Much of the dominance comes on the heals of immigrants. Google was cofounded by an immigrant. Apple was cofounded by the child of an immigrant. Venture capitalism as we know it had immigrant routes. Many of the patents and innovations come from immigrants. Allowing people to come to the country and obtain citizenship is one of the most powerful forces for economic growth. However, the openness to immigrants also leads to xenophobia among those already here. They see the newcomers come and take the good jobs that they feel are rightly theirs. This could be the seeds of the destruction of the "hyperpower" as we know it.
5/7/2011, 9/5/2017

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

This book gained plenty of notoriety when an excerpt was published in the Wall Street Journal. This excerpt seemed to make its way around every parenting community, often with signs of disgust with a parenting style that seemed to border on child abuse. The book, however, is much more balanced than the excerpt would have you believe.

The author is second generation Chinese. She was raised in America in a very Chinese style by her Chinese immigrant parents. She noted that first generation immigrants tend to struggle to obtain success that their children can build upon. Their children, however, tend to slack off, leaving the third generation not achieving as much as their ancestors. She is determined not to let that happen to her children. Thus, she chooses to raise them in a very strict Chinese fashion.

She lives in an area with a small Chinese population. She is also married to a non-Chinese Jew. Thus, she tends to overcompensate in the strictness of her Chinese parenting. She demands hours per day of studying and practicing musical instruments. She demands success in everything, even down to the quality of the birthday cards that her children make for their parents. Social activities for the children are seriously limited so that they can focus on their achievements. She pushes them to great heights, and doesn't accept "no" or "I don't want to" as an answer. Her first daughter thrives in this regime. Her second daughter, however, gives her trouble.

While her second daughter ends up following most of the prescribed routines, she does so somewhat reluctantly. Eventually, while on vacation in Russia, she violently rebels. (Good thing this wasn't Nebraska or child services would have been called in.) The author relents and lets the daughter stop devoting so much time to violin. The daughter takes up tennis, and excels there. She credits the strong drive and worth ethic that her mother instilled.

One key insight she has is that tasks become "fun" only after you have devoted enough time to become good at it. Parents that let children give up too soon deprive them of the chance to get good enough to enjoy the activity.

I wonder how different the book would have been if the author had lived in Cupertino instead of New Haven. In Cupertino, Chinese-style parenting is the norm, while "western-style" parenting is the oddity. Would she have tried to out-Chinese the Chinese parents? Or would the greater community enabled her to become more complacent (or even more "western") in her parenting style. Perhaps we can have a follow up of somebody raising a child the "western way" in Cupertino.