The Minority on the Pedestal

Today's underdog: Asian-Americans

The other. He sits in the shadows, defined not by what he is, but by what he isn’t. He is stuck in the shadows, limited to a lightless existence in the corners of our society. But what if he rises? What if he climbs, slowly and tirelessly, out of the shadows, revealing his true colors in the light of all our society has to offer?

What do you know about the other and the other’s rise? The other refers to the group of people who don’t fit into the mold of common society, the other group of people in society. This link shows us who may be classified as the other, and one such group is who we will look at today: Asian-Americans. Today, we associate Asian-Americans with success, but it hasn’t always been so. Asian-Americans have a history with persecution, as this NPR article discusses in brief. That Asian-Americans used to be part of the other is clear, but is it as clear that Asian-Americans have risen out of the shadows of persecution? It appears so. The Pew article referenced in the article mentioned above demonstrates the success of Asian-Americans, who lead the country in education, income, and work ethic. So it seems safe to say that the once persecuted minority group of Asian-Americans has achieved success. An underdog has won. But before we can declare that Asian-Americans have left the position of being in the other, we must examine another term.

The term model minority refers to a minority who has achieved wider success than other minorities. Asian-Americans are often referred to as the model minority, especially when considering stats like the Pew article’s. But this model minority mindset is a myth. This article explores how we need to explore more telling stats. Asian-Americans are underrepresented in political careers and placing them as a model minority essentially keeps them as an other, just one on a different end of the spectrum. Many Asian-Americans have risen out of the shadows. But Asian-Americans are still the other, just a different kind. Has this underdog really won?

There is another area of exploration pertinent to our discussion: forced vs. selected immigration. These aren’t technical terms, just ones I have dubbed for our sake. We can think of forced immigration as immigration that occurs when home conditions become unbearable and emigration is the only path to survival. Selected immigration on the other hand is much more like moving, a person leaving the country of birth for any number of reasons, but not explicitly for survival. Given this division, can we identify differences in a group of immigrants based on which category the group falls into? Unfortunately, here the internet proves to have a limit, but we can postulate. Isn’t it reasonable to say a group of immigrants who, for the most part, chose to immigrate into the U.S. are more likely to be motivated to achieve success than a group forced into coming to the U.S.? Perhaps this could explain why it seems, as a group, Asian-Americans have achieved more success.

Given that the underdog status of Asian-Americans is questionable, as is the perceived success, I will limit my evaluation of how underdogs win and keep it general. The major step required for a member of the other to achieve success is to redefine the other’s image. Unfortunately, this is no easy task. But in beating the expectations and breaking the stereotypes, a member of the other can ensure that that image is changed to better reflect the truth. This point can be broadened by changing “redefine image” to “challenge expectations”. If a basketball team, for example, was an underdog, playing in a manner inconsistent with a losing or underdog team could ensure success. Not living up to the predefined image can ensure winning. So whether you are the other or some other person, consider what you want your image to be, because the choice has the potential to define your future.

A Stool for Standing

Today's underdog: Activists 

Margaret Mead, a cultural anthropologist who passed away in the '70s, once said, "never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." Indeed activism is at its core a small group of concerned individuals banding together in a common quest of changing the status quo. Now, what makes these individuals underdogs is in how their small base manages to garner widespread change. Since activism is such a wide category, let's consider a few examples within one genre, documentary. I have chosen documentary simply because there is a wide array of subject matter and the impact of the activism is easier to identify than many other forms of activism.


The first documentary filmmaker who comes to my mind is Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock, an ordinary documentary film maker, gained fame with his film Supersize Me. In exposing the health risks of McDonald's and other fast food restaurants, Spurlock changed the world. McDonald's took the "supersize" option off of the menu days before the release of the movie and added more healthy options. And some argue that the movie inspired many other health movements, most notably Michelle Obama's. Spurlock relied upon a low budget film to actually affect change. Spurlock was the underdog, and won.

Next on my list is Michael Moore. Moore grew up an ordinary life, born to blue-collar workers in Flint, Michigan. But as Moore made several documentaries, his humble roots became insignificant as his work affected great change. Moore's films, from Bowling for Columbine to Sicko to Capitalism: A Love Story, expose many uncomfortable aspects of our society and suggest a plan of action. While controversial, his films always generate buzz and thus generate a high potential for change. Moore is an underdog, given his attacks on establishment and his humble roots, and he is winning.

To keep this post short, I'll conclude with a third example. That third example is Louie Psihoyos. Another man of humble roots, born to an immigrant escaping communist occupation of his homeland, Psihoyos gained a reputation for great photos. After his experience with National Geographic (as a photographer), Psihoyos decided he wanted to create change in the world. The release of The Cove accomplished this goal. Starring another dedicated activist, Ric O'Barry, the film, directed by Psihoyos, has had a profound impact. This article says that the film may have even caused the total cessation of the annual dolphin slaughter focused on in the movie. Rather than killers arriving this past September, Japanese cameras came ready to roll. Here once again, an underdog took on large powers, this time even breaking the law, and won.


So how do activists manage to win? They usually target a large establishment who has superior resources and can knock the activists down. Activists are usually very small in number. And they often come from humble roots. So how do they win? One key way is dedication, an attribute that in some form or another we have seen effective now in all cases explored in this blog. Dedication ensures perseverance in the face of failure and large walls blocking the path. Another key way an activist wins is by telling the story in such a way as to garner support. By telling the story the "right" way, an activist can create large support despite a small base. This idea of story spinning as a method for success was also seen in the election example explored here, which demonstrates that this method of winning may be a common method. Finally, activists win by taking risks. The risks taken by the participants in The Cove were immense, including imprisonment and injury. Moore's risks were more related to his image, but still potentially threatening. And Spurlock took risks to his own personal health. By taking a risk, an activist can take a top dog by surprise and knock him down from his pedestal, ensuring success.

Trapped

Today’s underdog: Pakistan

Pakistan is in trouble. This is a fact. Pakistan is in trouble because Pakistan is in the “bottom billion”. Coined by Paul Collier in The Bottom Billion, the term “bottom billion” refers to the lowest one billion people in the world, whose countries are the only ones left who haven’t developed or aren’t developing. Collier identifies four traps that help characterize why these nations are stuck in the bottom billion: conflict, landlocked, natural resource, and bad governance. How does Pakistan fit into these traps?

Collier argues that a landlocked nation is dependent on its neighbors for exporting its goods, and if there are bad neighbors, those goods may be too expensive to export--the landlocked trap. Pakistan is not in this trap, because while Pakistan is surrounded by bad neighbors in Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan has access to the sea. The natural resource trap, which refers to inadequate control of large quantities of resources leading to economic woes, is also absent for Pakistan. Pakistan has fewer resources than those nations in the trap like the Democratic Republic of Congo (world resources), and better control of the resources it does have.

But Pakistan is in other traps. First, Pakistan is in the trap of bad governance, or poor leadership resulting in economic stagnation or decline. Consider the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment from the World Bank, the same index Collier uses. Most of the areas examined by the index place Pakistan in the middle of the scale. But, speaking generally, these values have declined over the last seven years. And two numbers are particularly low: gender equality (2 out of 6) and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (2.5). Let’s consider the same index, but for Chad, a nation Collier identifies to be in the trap, in order to get a good comparison. The ratings are lower for Chad than Pakistan, but not by a large margin. And when we consider the fact that Pakistan’ economic growth from 2005-2008 has largely ceased, it is hard to argue in favor of Pakistan’s government. In fact, in this blog post, Professor Ashfaque Khan blames the decline largely on Pakistan’s government being unprepared to deal with the global financial crisis beginning in 2008. Based on this observation and the data presented, Pakistan is in the bad governance trap.

Finally, Pakistan and the conflict trap. The conflict trap asserts that a nation with inner conflict is likely to have continued conflict, and that conflict, specifically civil war, can cost upwards of $64 billion. Well, has Pakistan had conflict or coups? Here is a great resource that gives a summary on major Pakistani conflicts and coups. As the size of the list may imply, Pakistan has definitely had conflict. In fact, there have been two military coups, one in 1977 and another in 1999. There has also been civil conflict, and several incidents of fighting between India and Pakistan. Finally, Pakistan has had several conflicts with terrorist organizations (namely Al Qaeda) and the Taliban. With all this conflict, it’d be hard to say Pakistan wasn’t in the conflict trap. The military still has significant political influence and another coup is not out of reason. Ethnic tensions are still high and conflict with India is always possible. The conflict trap clearly limits Pakistan’s potential. Furthermore, the military coups have created worse governance through corruption and autocracy, reinforcing Pakistan’s other trap. The two traps also play into a sort of loop, bad governance ensuring limited effectiveness of conflict prevention, and conflict, namely coups, making bad governance worse.

These facts lend us to the conclusion that Pakistan is an underdog. Pakistan’s two traps not only ensure poor economic production and violence, but the two also reinforce each other, making it even harder for Pakistan to “win” and achieve economic and political success. So how can Pakistan win as the underdog? And how long will it take?

The Louder Shot

Today's underdog: The 13 colonies (maybe?)


The shot heard ‘round the world. It launched a war for the ages and, for 13 colonies, was the start of the quest for independence. The Revolutionary War (for a refresher, check out this link) changed the world and provides an incredible case study about the underdog. While I will begin by exploring how the Americans were the underdog in the Revolutionary War, using some information from this Smithsonian resource, I will also explore the other side, looking at how the British may have actually been the underdog. But first, the typical story.


The British army numbered 42,000 professional soldiers, and in addition, employed 30,000 German soldiers (considered some of the best in the world). The navy numbered 270 ships. The American army numbered 230,000 untrained men, but only 20,000 were fighting at any one time, and the navy numbered just 27. Furthermore, the British army was far better supplied. The British had a prospering empire with a large economy, while America was barely a nation. For most, this information would indicate that America was clearly the underdog.

Let’s look at the other side of the argument, though, with some information provided from this outline and this resource. First of all, the American side had superior leadership, with leaders like George Washington (for more info on Washington see here). And the United States garnered the support of the French, eliminating the British naval and military size advantage. And while Britain had a better trained army, it was fighting far from home. The colonials were fighting a defensive war, using guerilla tactics (for which the traditional British soldiers had not been trained) and knowledge of the land to gain an edge. In fact, over 70% of these defensive wars are won by the defender, like the United States, as explored by Ivan Arreguín-Toft in this report, mentioned in the first post of my blog (Arreguín-Toft refers to defensive wars as “asymmetrical conflicts”). So is it fair to consider the Americans the underdog, when the British were equally, if not more, challenged, and statistically, the United States had better odds? It seems Britain may have been the true underdog.

While I have made the case for Britain, this is a blog about how the underdog wins, and given that Britain lost, I’d like to evaluate how America won and consider the colonists the underdog (though I will come back to Britain). Are there any similarities in how Turkey has succeeded (see earlier blog post) and how America won? The two reasons for success identified with Turkey were a strong national identity and a departure from the norm. To a large extent, this holds true in this example. If we change “strong national identity” to “strong cause”, then we can see clearly how the American side had an advantage. By creating a strong cause, and thus a strong motivation for fighting, the Americans ensured victory. And the second reason, “departure from the norm” also holds true in the Revolutionary War. The Americans used guerilla warfare and knowledge of the geography, as mentioned, to wreak havoc on the British. This was a very unusual type of warfare during the time period and a definite departure from the normal fighting style. The two methods, strong cause and a departure from the norm, seem to hold true and thus hold merit, which we will have to continue to explore in depth in the next weeks.


To end, let’s come back to the point about Britain as an underdog. Unfortunately, no conclusive decision can be made as to which side was truly the underdog. This reveals the difficulty in labeling someone as an underdog; the decision is subjective. And perhaps this reveals that there is a difference between the perceived underdog (the United States) and the statistical underdog (Britain). Thus, the underdog isn’t always as he seems. I’ll keep these points in mind as we examine other shots heard ‘round the world in upcoming weeks.

President Obama and the Tortoise

Today's underdog: President Obama

If President Barack Obama were a college basketball team, he’d be Butler. If he were an animal, he’d be the tortoise. The list goes on, but your sake and mine, I will come to my point. President Barack Obama has become the underdog, partly due to his own actions and partly due the trends of history.

In this article, Tom Cohen supports the argument that Obama is casting himself as an underdog. President Obama’s campaign team argued Obama was the underdog entering the first debate, President Obama was very confrontational in the last debate, and over the past month, Obama has been campaigning hard, including a 48 hour road trip. Cohen labels all these actions as underdog behavior. An interesting statistic also points to Barack Obama as an underdog. In this article from the PAX Americana Institute, it is illustrated that only Ronald Reagan has won reelection when unemployment is above 7%. Based on this information, I feel I can declare Barack Obama an underdog.

Before considering if this Obama strategy will keep him in the White House, we need some more information. In Jonathan Smucker’s recent blog post titled “Underdog vs. Winning Team Impulses”, Smucker evaluates how we like to cheer for the underdog, but at the same time, we like to be on the winning team. This is further supported by several studies referenced in a Slate article by Daniel Engber. We want an underdog who also has potential to win. In other words, as Engber emphasizes, if the underdog truly has no chance to win, then we won’t root for that underdog. Let’s examine two hypothetical teams, as Engber does. Team X is half as likely to win as team Y (odds 2 to 1), but team X’s win would be two times as enjoyable as team Y’s (gratification 1 to 2). If we care about ability to win and gratification of win (being an underdog), the two numbers identified, then neither teams holds an advantage among neutrals. Engber also points to studies that show people will view an underdog’s odds more favorably than “experts” identify them to be. So, in the example given, team X may now be only two thirds as likely to win (as opposed to half as likely), with the same amount of gratification, simply because people wish to make the underdog more capable of winning. Now, team Y’s advantage over odds is smaller than team X’s advantage over gratification. Team X, overall, has the bigger advantage.

That said, let’s apply the information to the election. Barack Obama has championed himself as an underdog. Therefore, he has indicated his odds of winning are worse than Mitt Romney’s. However, when we consider some chances, like Intrade’s, Obama has over a 60% chance of winning. Consider Engber’s simplified characteristics. If Obama’s odds according to voters are better than Romney’s (assuming this is what Intrade is showing us), and the gratification of him winning is greater (because of being an underdog), then Obama holds the voter advantage. Of course, this is an oversimplification, and we cannot now know if it will work. But if it does indeed work, we learn that to win as an underdog you should increase perceived advantage without losing potential gratification, or, in other words, look stronger but still be as fun to watch win. Furthermore, it seems the Obama campaign team took a step similar to one taken by Turkey, as explored in the last blog post. The team departed from the norm in proclaiming themselves underdogs.

Will becoming the tortoise allow the President to beat the hare, Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney even the hare? Or is it more like the President and the tortoise racing a cheetah? Or is Romney the tortoise? After the election, we may be able to add the tortoise to the likes of Turkey on our list of the winning underdogs. But maybe the hare will come, too.

Turkey and Gravy

Today's underdog: Turkey (the country)


Name an underdog. Name another. Keep going. Now, how many of those underdogs were people or teams? Personally, if I named the first five underdogs that came to my mind, all would be people or sports teams. But this doesn’t give fair consideration to the underdogs that can’t be classified into these two categories. So, who can be an underdog?

Dictionary definitions yield some information. Merriam-Webster defines an underdog as “a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest” (underdog). Though vague, the definition does imply that an underdog should be a person or team, since “loser” is used to describe a person or team in our vernacular, as is a “contest”. So does this definition allow today’s underdog, Turkey, to really be an underdog?

Perhaps, it would help to use an analogy in order to think of a country as a person. A talk show and a talk show host could be underdogs (like Oprah and her former show). A talk show host like Oprah has overcome adversity. And a talk show may be placed on a poor TV channel, yet achieve success. So what if we think of Turkey as this underdog? Turkey’s people, policies, and success (economic and political) can be compared to the show’s producers, style and content, and profits. Success despite neighboring crises is like being on a bad channel. If this TV show and host is an underdog, and Turkey can be related to a show and host like this, then by extension, Turkey can be considered an underdog.

So then let’s examine what makes Turkey an underdog, keeping in mind this analogy of a talk show. To start, Turkey comes from a region in which many nations are struggling. Here's a map of the region (thanks, Google Maps):

The highest PPP (Purchase Power Parity) ranking of those neighbors (specifically Egypt, Greece, Syria, Libya, Bulgaria, and Georgia) is 27 by Egypt, with the others much lower (courtesy of CIA Factbook). Furthermore, these nations are facing political chaos, too. There’s a civil war in Syria, a recent revolution in Egypt, and widespread protests in Greece. This region is the bad TV channel. Turkey has faced adversity, but succeeded in this underdog role. The GDP ranking for the nation is 17. There is a stable democracy. And Turkey has continued to succeed in the current economic recession. So if Turkey overcame the odds, how did they do it?

To keep this from becoming a heavy academic journal, I’ve identified what I believe to be the two biggest reasons for Turkey’s victories, based on this paper from the University of Michigan.

1)    Strong National Identity - After World War I, the struggling Ottoman Empire officially collapsed, forming several new nations. The Turks were left without a land to call their own. The Turks fought the Sultan and external nations for their independence, forming Turkey in 1923 as a republic. This strong national identity has encouraged stability and cohesion in Turkey, producers who see eye to eye.

2)    Departure from the Norm – After establishing independence as a republic, Turkey continued to pursue reforms. For one, Turkey used legislation to create a Turkish state and not a religious one, separating church and state, a large departure from the Ottoman Empire. Turkey also pursued economic reforms, bringing about industrialization. Turkey departed from the norm to prosper with the right policies or the show's form and content.

Turkey is clearly an underdog, like a talk show or talk show host. And with the two points above as a guide, we have an idea on how Turkey achieved success. But are these ideas applicable to other underdogs or do they just apply to Turkey? Is this how underdogs win? Or are these ideas gravy, tasty only with the right meal?

A Handshake

Most conversations with someone new begin with a handshake and an introduction. So I will begin this blog in a similar way. My name is Austin Bream and I am an underdog. Throughout my life I have found myself to be a longshot more frequently than a favorite. In sports, my flailing limbs leave me the last pick in most drafts. Occasionally, though, I manage to surprise everyone, myself included, with a spectacular diving catch for a football or a three point swoosh with a basketball. I have also been a winning underdog in other areas. After school (I’m a high school senior), I lead two different clubs, Project Earth and Cosmic Ray Club. While one is an environmental club and the other a muon research club, the two do share a commonality; both clubs are underdogs. They are small and, to many, insignificant. But overcoming the odds seems to be my clubs’ motto, and here too underdogs win, as I have restored prairies with Project Earth and published a research report with Cosmic Ray Club. The fact that underdogs can and do win fascinates me, but also makes me wonder if such wins are only exceptions.

The numbers, however, suggest that underdogs beat the favorites quite frequently. Over the past 200 years, more than 70% of wars with heavy favorites have been won by the underdog, according to a report by Ivan Arreguín-Toft titled “How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetrical Conflict”. It seems, at least with wars, the exception is actually the favorite winning. But is this true in other areas, like in singing and politics? What about in sports? And when an underdog wins, how is that victory accomplished?

In this blog, I will explore these questions and discover the ways in which underdogs win, from how the US hockey team of the 1980 Winter Olympics beat the Soviets to how the United States won the Revolutionary War. I think we all want to know how we, in the days we spend as underdogs, can achieve victory, and this blog’s goal is to find out. One resource I will use to frame this blog is an article called “How David Beat Goliath”, in which Malcolm Gladwell attempts to explain underdogs’ victories. He explores how using an unconventional approach allows many underdogs to overcome the odds and win. This blog will evaluate Gladwell’s claim in depth and determine if his idea can be applied to a diverse field of underdogs. To get a true understanding, I will choose a different underdog and a different field to analyze every week, looking for the ways in which these underdogs win.

Everyone is an underdog at least once in their life. And in those moments where the magic eight ball says no, it’s nice to know there is some hope. This is a blog about that hope and how that hope can be transformed into concrete steps to achieving victory. This is a blog about how underdogs win, and how you can win too.