Are positive stereotypes bad?

That’s the question I found myself considering after reading about a mini-controversy over a new Randy Newman song called “Korean Parents.” The song praises the academic achievements of Korean students, and gives a lot of the credit to their parents– hence the song’s title. After crooning about the problems of underperforming public schools and dangerous neighborhoods, Newman offers a solution:

We got the answer
A product guaranteed to satisfy

Korean parents for sale
You say you need a little discipline
Someone to whip you into shape
They’ll be strict but they’ll be fair

Look at the numbers
That’s all I ask
Who’s at the head of every class?
You really think they’re smarter than you are
They just work their ass off
Their parents make them do it.

Remember the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry declares that he “loves Chinese women”? When Elaine points out that attitude might be “a little racist,” Jerry asks, “If I like their race, how can that be racist?” This song is in a similar vein.

Now, keep in mind that Randy Newman is a satirist and this isn’t meant to be a serious song. But in this video in which Newman defends the song, he seems to imply that its lyrics contains at least a kernel of truth. In a recent Slate write-up of the song, Jeff Chang wrote that the song “skillfully whipsaws between condescension and flattery, packages shortcuts as lifesavers, fears as hopes.” The song works as satire because its narrator is sort of an earnest doofus, which is a character Newman has previously channeled in songs like “Short People” and “Political Science.”

So are positive stereotype bad? Well, it’s obvious that many people are uncomfortable with making any kind of generalization about a large group of people. Given some of the world’s more embarrassing and shameful episodes, this impulse to treat people as people is probably a healthy one. Seeing people as merely representatives of certain ethnic groups is (and should be) automatically suspect. But our hesitancy to make generalizations can also prevent us from asking important, serious questions, like why do, say, Korean and Indian students seem to excel in school when others are left behind? What are their parents doing that others’ are not?

So what say you, Gadling faithful? Are all stereotypes, even positive ones, to be avoided? Or do some stereotypes serve a purpose in helping us think more clearly about the world?

And, hey, back to the all-important Seinfeld question: is declaring your love for Chinese women a little racist?

Naked hiker vows to keep hiking in the buff honoring Germany’s nudist roots

There are some people who are determined to not wear clothes in the great outdoors. There are the people who do naked rock climbing, people who hang out on a nude beach (or play volleyball in the buff on a beach like those I saw once in Greece), people who sky dive nude, dance in the nude, go on cruises in the nude, and, like this German guy I read about, people who prefer to hike in nothing but a good pair of shoes.

Even jail time is not dissuading this German fellow from his naked hiking habits, according this Reuters article. This fellow was put in jail for ten days for in the buff walkabouts, but has vowed that he will continue to hit the trails without clothes even though it is against the law. Perhaps he sees a double standard? Hiking in the nude breaks Germany’s indecency laws, although nude beaching it is okay in designated areas.

Interestingly, Germany has a German Nudist Association which is part of the German Sports Association. Nudism can be traced back to Germany as a way to be healthier, so the association fits the idea of fitness. This membership has created an increase in nude hiking love. Nude jogging also has a following, but loping along in just socks and running shoes also lands a fine.

In a way, one could say that if there are nude beaches there could be nude forests and nude mountains for those who like to scale cliffs. Whatever they do, I hope they’re using a decent sunscreen.

To save weight, airline removes life vests

In an attempt to cut as much weight as possible from their aircraft, Jazz Airlines, a subsidiary of Air Canada, recently decided to pull all life vests from their aircraft. Now, in the unlikely event of a water landing, passengers will be advised to use their floating seat cushions for buoyancy.

Will this affect the safety of the passengers? Well, purely from the flotation standpoint, life vests have an advantage in that they don’t need to be held onto, which can be tough to do when you’re in ice-cold Canadian water. They also help the passenger’s body face upward, out of the water versus the opposite position that holding a seat cushion would require (an article on TheStar has better diagrams). But government regulators don’t require one or the other.

How much do these life vests weigh? About a half kilogram. For the seventy five people that might be on this Jazz aircraft, that’s a total of thirty-eight kilograms or about eighty three pounds per flight.

It seems to me that there’s enough swing in the passenger and luggage loads such that the weight shouldn’t make much of a difference. Suppose a men’s rugby club books a dozen tickets instead of a middle school girl’s gymnastics team. Each one of those guys could weigh three times as much as the girl. What do you do about that?
Sure, many domestic airlines no longer have life vests, but for the eighty pounds of weight saved, is it really worth the drama and customer disgust?

10 tips for smarter flying


5 steps to smarter packing

Talking Travel with global development researcher Chris Blattman

Besides being a professor at Yale and an expert on poverty and global development, Chris Blattman is widely-traveled and maintains an insightful and entertaining blog. Recently I asked Chris a couple questions related to the ethics of traveling in the developing world, and what the average person can do to reduce poverty.

1. These days, more and more people are combining vacations with volunteering. They might pay a fee to live with a host family, work in an orphanage or on a farm, and return home feeling quite good about where they’ve been and what they’ve done. But do these “volunteering vacations” really do anything to improve the lives of people in the host countries?

I call it “development tourism” and I’ve had an ongoing debate on its merits with blog readers. Most of all I think we should recognize that the short volunteering vacation probably does more for us than the recipient. Development tourism has value, most of all because it expands a visitor’s appreciation for life in a poor country. But we should not fool ourselves into believing that we can have much “impact” in just a few days or weeks. Neither should we convince ourselves this is the best use of charitable funds; the cost of the travel alone could find better uses. Plus, it’s not as though there is a shortage of semi-skilled labor in poor countries ready to dig wells and build homes (more cheaply too).

I say, let’s call these what they are: experiential vacations– better than splurges in tropical resorts, but not quite impactful. The distance from development tourist to the true do-gooder is not that far, however. To make the leap, I usually recommend four options: go for weeks (or months) rather than days; go with the intent to learn, not to “save” anyone; don’t displace the local private sector with your work; and identify a local community organization and continue to raise money for them when home. Sending children to school is a fine idea. But helping families or community organizations to set up income-generating activities (a small poultry or piggery operation, a grinding mill, a brick-baking outfit) is inexpensive yet can generate a stream of income for years of school fees.

2. What’s your take on the ethics of visiting so-called “rogue” states– places like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and the like? Are travelers helping the local populations or are they inadvertently supporting oppressive regimes?

It’s difficult for me to see how one supports an oppressive regime through holiday travel. Tacit approval? Not likely. Generating income for a corrupt government? The amount is probably miniscule, and if anything supports the local private sector and a civil society far more. Should either die, the fates of these countries’ citizens can only get worse. Besides, any miniscule harm seems likely to be countered by the exposure you give citizens to a freedom fry-eating foreigner, and the changed impressions you bring back with you to your own country. What are we to do? Leave these countries to meet only the oil and mining executives, foreign mercenaries, and Coke bottlers?

3. Billions of dollars pour into Sub-Saharan Africa every year, but the problems there seem as intractable as ever. Is this the fault of corrupt governments, profligate NGOs, or is this simply not enough money?

In twenty years, I may write a book on the subject, and it will still be inadequate, despite three decades of soul-searching and study.

I usually like to make three points, however. First, at the height of the industrial revolution in the US and Europe, per capita economic growth was never more than one or two percent per year. For most countries in most of history, development was and is slow business. And Africa has been decolonized for a mere half century. The high-octane growth in China and South Korea are the exceptions, not the rule. If we maintain four or five percent growth in Africa, as many nations have accomplished in the last decade, then incomes will double every 15 or 20 years. That’s not a bad goal.

Two, the difference between a poor country (say, $2000 per head) and a middle income one (say, $12000 per head) is simple: one has a manufacturing sector and one does not. Something like forty percent of Kenya’s GDP comes from the 5 percent of the workforce: those in light and medium industry. That sector is crucial. Most African nations won’t have a self-sustaining education and health system until they build some sort of industrial tax base. What’s needed to get there? Reliable roads and electricity are a start. Reducing the red tape faced by business can help too. But realistically, I believe real wages in Asia will probably have to rise before it becomes profitable to produce in Africa. The faster China and India get rich, the sooner we’ll see a transformation in Africa. In the meantime, preferential trade and tax treatment by the US and Europe for African goods could help foster industry and technology transfer. So could aid directed to developing commodity processing facilities and other programs that take raw material extraction upstream.

Last, stability matters. Roller coaster aid flows, commodity prices, trade privileges, capital investment, and political instability derail growth episodes before gains can be solidified. Thinking less about levels of assistance and more about volatility is not a bad start. Especially when capricious donor countries add to the ups and downs.

In the end, the debate about too much or too little foreign aid is, in my view, still too detached from reality. Most of the people writing about it have never lived in a developing country for more than a few weeks at a time, rarely leave the capital when they do, and almost never talk to businessmen. I am guilty of this myself sometimes.

4. Finally, I always advise travelers that the best way to improve the lives of the world’s poor is to visit them and spend money. Is it as simple as that? Is there anything else for the traveler who’s concerned about poverty to do?

On a two-week trip to a foreign country, it’s best to keep your goals modest. Actually, make that microscopic. Realistically, any good you achieve beyond supporting the tourist industry will be purely accidental. I suppose you could seek resorts and hotels that support rather than emasculate the local workers, but that’s not an easy thing to find out. Try the development tourism tips above. But I always like to encourage people to consider a sea change: dedicate yourself to a year, a decade, or even a lifetime of learning and effort to end poverty. There are few more rewarding ways to live your life.

Be sure to check out Chris’ blog here.

Stephen Colbert’s tour of the Cantons of America

I’ve been waiting for an excuse to slip a Colbert Report video clip here, and this is my chance. Stephen Colbert has had a running joke about how horribly backwards the various cities/villages/”incorporated outhouses” of Canton are in the states.

He first started by taking a jab at Canton, Ohio, which caused a media brouhaha. While “apologizing,” he happened to insult Canton, Georgia, and then the ones in Kansas, Texas, South Dakota, etc.

Here’s a clip from last night’s show.