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?