The Most Successful Ethnic Group in the U.S. May Surprise You

Ozy Magazine ^ | Jun 2018 | Molly Fosco

[aquila48]

“What the author of this article accomplished, bare-faced lies of omission, is fairly standard for the journalistic profession”

There’s nothing nowadays you can take at face value - everybody seems to be pushing an agenda.

Gaslighting is the new sport.

[Jamestown1630]

I’m wondering about your ‘immigrant-refugee’ dichotomy.

I seem to recall lots of ‘refugees’ from Viet Nam who have become outstanding citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon

[mikeIII]

Unlike immigrants, who choose to come here, refugees are brought in by the host country, which is then responsible for their relocation, resettlement and well-being. They can’t be deported. Immigrants can be.

The Muslim refugees happen to misuse this privilege the world over. I don’t know of any Vietnamese (or any other group) misusing this status, either.

[Jamestown1630]

Well, in my response to you, I was concerned with *words*.

When you post on this very thin and limited medium, nobody knows who you are or what’s in your heart - or even what’s in your mind. They can only figure your meaning by parsing your WORDS.

When we use words here, it’s important to know exactly what they mean and how they may be interpreted - if we want the meaning that we wish to express to be understood as fully as possible.

I’ve known ‘refugees’ from all over the world - East, Middle East, South America, Africa. They all have different stories; and as a designation of a PERSON, refugee doesn’t indicate to me any particular ethnic group or any set of privileges that such may enjoy. (When Hurricane Katrina hit, and the US news reporters referred to people escaping the devastation as ‘refugees’, some of the Black people I work with resented that the term was used. They didn’t really understand the meaning of it, either.)

And I’m sure we have some Muslim ‘refugees’ here who have NOT abused the ‘privileges, while others of other ethnicity certainly HAVE done so.

[aquila48]

“Or maybe the ‘bell curve’ only really reflects environment and nurture.”

Or maybe you’re in denial. You just have to believe your lying eyes.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You probably met French people who grew up in more metropolitan areas. My aunt used to travel to Paris frequently and always said, ‘They hate Americans’.

The French definitely have some ‘attitude’; but the people out in the country are very different from the more so-called ‘sophisticated’ ones. We’ve seen posts here on FR about French people still honoring, today, the American servicemen who aided them in WWII.

We went to Normandy to see the sights, went on a tour. Basically, what happened was that Hitler - in his megalomaniac way - threw the dice and hurled everything he could into the months-long (as it turned out) Battle of Normandy. That meant that the Allies (and the British and Canadians supplied a big percentage of the troops in the landing) had a rough go of it for a while. But, what with thee allies' logistical base and their personnel advantage (over the troops Hitler had the ability to send to Normandy) and what with Ultra reading Hitler's mail, the upshot was that the battle ended up with the Germans’ armor and equipment almost all lost, and 100K remaining German troops running the gauntlet of the Falaise Gap - a 1 km wide passage past Allied troops and tanks holding the high ground on both sides, over a distance to 10 km. Although half of them made it out, 40% surrendered - because 10% did neither.

That meant that, suddenly, German resistance to Allied movement from Falaise to Paris evaporated. Not enough other German forces could get there soon enough to contest the Allied advance on Paris. So the modest remaining German garrison pretty soon pulled up stakes and vamoosed. So the people of Normandy lived through a struggle from June into August, with lots of sacrifice. And even though the Allies used carpet bombing, and thereby inflicted serious civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction, the people of Normandy appreciated - albeit with understandable conflict of emotions - the sacrifice entailed in the Allied effort which drove the Germans out of Normandy. The experience of Parisians was quite different - Allied soldiers, without having had to fight for Paris itself, were themselves sort of occupiers. Quite different occupiers, of course, but still an influx of unelected foreigners with guns and authority.

So now Normandy is a patriotic tourist destination for Americans, British, and Canadians especially. And the locals honor the people that the tourists are there to honor.

[Jamestown1630]

Thanks for that detailed explanation of something I’ve perceived but all the reasons for which I didn’t fully understand.

No matter how often I see the film footage of the men coming out of the boats and wading toward the beach, I remain in awe of the courage, tenacity, and faith of the young men of that generation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abk0mhu4a-g

[Thank You Rush]

I appreciate that information - thank you. We usually are treated to a rehash of the history of the battle(s) at Normandy but this was new to me.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Thanks for that detailed explanation of something I’ve perceived but all the reasons for which I didn’t fully understand.

Yeah, that was never anything like clear to me until our trip this May.

No matter how often I see the film footage of the men coming out of the boats and wading toward the beach, I remain in awe of the courage, tenacity, and faith of the young men of that generation.

There were two British and one Canadian “beach” (they actually landed in a seaside town, some of them), plus Omaha, Pont du Hoc, and Utah beaches. Omaha beach was close to one of the Allied (British, I think) beaches. And there, practically everything that could have gone wrong, did. As in, no naval bombardment of the defenses there occurred, and although heavy bombers “targeted” them, their orders were so strongly biased against the possibility of a friendly fire disaster that their bombardment didn’t affect the beach defense - or probably any defensive position. In that respect, they shoulda stood in bed. And, as the planners knew perfectly well, Omaha beach was the easiest to defend, with a high bank close to the beach perfect for machine gun emplacements that you couldn’t necessarily see and target. The division which landed there got chewed up so bad that it never was worth much thereafter. It was unfortunate that the landing craft sailors were competent navigators; that division was right where it planned to go. The lodgment occurred on the left, where the First Division was (barely) able to make a way into the rear of that bank - and were able to roll up the German position from there.

Utah beach was on the right of the entire landing attack, and there a lot went right - including the fact that the landing craft came in at the “wrong” place. They landed exactly where the Army planners had wanted - but the Navy thought it wouldn’t be possible to get there. Fortunately, they were wrong, and the sailors who accidentally landed there were “wrong,” too. There the bombardment of the defenses was well executed by Martin Maruder medium bombers flying at uncomfortably low altitude. And, incidentally, the session of “Band of Brothers” on D-Day dramatized an operation by E Company against three German artillery pieces behind Utah Beach. We were taken to the site of that famous small-unit action, and met the son of the French farmer who was there that day (and who got wounded by a gunshot).

Incidentally, Normandy is a dairy farming area, and their domestic cows were entirely unafraid of humans. So soldiers - of any nationality - skulking in the hedgerows had to shoot any cows who might notice them, and - curious - walk over towards them and betray their position.

As you know, weather on June 6 was so marginal that Eisenhower agonized over the decision to launch that day. The effect of weather on airborne units was significant - the armada of C-47s was so huge that when the visibility got bad pilots were terrified of having midair collisions. So they tended to scatter. Another problem was that that many C-47s made so much noise that Germans in Normandy could not help thinking that something was up. So the AA was on the alert. And The there weren’t that many C-47s available to drop all the paratroops in the one trip. So the AA was ready when they came back with the second load.

The combination of weather and effective AA - and C-47 pilots unused to being shot at - caused the paratroopers to be scattered all over Normandy. And one effect of that was that the Germans couldn’t make sense of the reports of paratroopers all over the place. A couple of paratroopers stumbled onto the staff car of the German officer in charge of Normandy defense - stopped it, and killed the general. They got valuable intel from his papers, too - but they were afoot in the middle of Normandy, they knew not where, and it took days to get the documents to Intelligence.

Our tour guide - who had a Master’s degree in History - asserted that parachutists were an obsolete concept in 1944 - that the cost of training special airborne units was higher than the cost of gliders - even single - use gliders - and when a glider landed, a cohesive military unit debarked. Gliders would be released at higher altitudes than paratroopers, and would tend to be able to navigate towards the objective. OTOH paratroopers were usually scattered - and at least somewhat disoriented - when they landed.

[Jamestown1630]

Thanks again.

This must have weighed very heavily on Eisenhower’s mind - ordering it knowing that so many would die, and then living with the knowledge of that for the rest of his life.

Sometimes men have to make decisions like that, and keep Faith that they are acting for what is Right, and that God will aid them.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This must have weighed very heavily on Eisenhower’s mind - ordering it knowing that so many would die

Eisenhower famously composed a statement, never released, announcing that the invasion had failed, and taking responsibility for the decision to go.

Dale Carnegie, author famously of How to Win Friends and Influence People, also wrote How to Stop Worrying and Start Living. In that book, he recommended Eisenhower's procedure. Which amounted to figuring out what was the worst thing that could happen, and accept that it was going to happen. Because when you just worry, you act like the worst is unbearable. Being realistic about what was the worst result is the best way to control worry. So goes the theory, anyway.

[Jamestown1630]

I would disagree with the notion that someone should ‘accept’ that the worst WILL happen.

In a position like Eisenhower’s, I can see preparing a statement; he had duties on the physical plane - and nobody really ever *knows* how things will go.

But ‘accepting’ the negative, in one’s personal mind, is opening the door to it.

Within ourselves, for the best chance at the best outcome, we have to accept and expect only the Best.

‘Imagination is a great Nation’, as my old Granny always said :-)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The point is not to be pessimistic - the point is to control pessimism.

There you are, you have thrown the dice - and events are out of your hands. At that point, all you can do is worry - and you need to control the worry. So figure out exactly what you are worrying about - what’s the worst that can happen - and live with that. Then when events turn out better than the worst case - which will almost always be the case - you are happy and able to carry on. Otherwise you look at the hole rather than the donut.

[M1903A1]

Many of the ambitious ones leave because the moment one of them becomes visibly successful in Africa, everybody even remotely related to them shows up with their hands out. And according to tribal custom, you have to accommodate them, even if to your personal detriment.

[Jamestown1630]

I understand.