Passage Discussion

[sissixz]

Well, something really awkward,
I cannot understand one sentence in this passage.

Line 17-24: Although the persistence of community is stressed by the authors, their emphasis in the book could just as easily have been on the high degree of assimilation to the Japanese American population in the late twentieth century, which F and O believe is demonstrated by the high levels of education...

could someone tell me what on earth does this one mean? She want to stress assimilation or endurance of community??

Thanks!!

[chike_eze]

My Abstract Interpretation:

Although "PC" is stressed by the authors, the authors' emphasis could also be taken to center on "AJ". Furthermore, F and O believe author's evidence "HLE" supports emphasis on "AJ"

My guess is that "PC" and "AJ" contradict each other, or "PC" and "AJ" oppose each other in some way, yet the authors stress "PC" but also seem to emphasize "AJ"?

PC = Persistence of Community
AJ = Assimilation to the Japanese American population
HLE = High levels of Education

[chike_eze]

My guess is that "PC" and "AJ" contradict each other, or "PC" and "AJ" oppose each other in some way, yet the authors stress "PC" but also seem to emphasize "AJ"?

Okay, I just read the passage and answered the questions. Took me longer than 10 minutes I can tell you that.

I had to pause at the section you highlighted and read it once over. It didn't fully connect till I came to the conclusion of the passage, where I realized that the author did not agree with F and O 's reasoning. In the section you highlighted, I think he is trying to point out inconsistencies in the evidence F and O used to support their conclusion, that "the Japanese American community persisted... because of a strong preexisting sense of peoplehood (line 44)"

I can imagine the author saying, "These fools-- F and O, don't they see that their argument is weak?"...

"Okay-- so, they are saying that Japanese identity persisted in spite of American culture, but aren't they are also saying that the japanese culture was highly influenced by the American culture? And therefore, that Japanese culture changed quite a bit from what it once was? This argument is a load of B$!$"

I think the author of the passage attempts to weaken "F & O" 's argument in the section you highlighted. At least that's what I think... What do you think??

[sissixz]

Well, I have to say, your explanation is remarkable.

When I did this passage, due to time restriction, I just passed the highlighted sentence when I felt uneasy.

But while I reviewed it, I found out I still cannot get it. Then after your post, I reread this passage again, GREAT! The last paragraph helps a lot.

It seems that the author accused F and O of their poor reasoning, their data could prove persistence, as well as assimilation, But they just concluded a distinct community sense out of nowhere.

I see why I got bogged down in these lines.

However, I hate those strange sentence which I cannot see through at the first sight. And when I got this feeling that I cannot understand some part, I started to doubt the others. This one is really an annoyance.

Thanks, chike_eze!

[aileenann]

Agreed - great explanation chike_eze

[chike_eze]

Well, I have to say, your explanation is remarkable.

...
It seems that the author accused F and O of their poor reasoning, their data could prove persistence, as well as assimilation, But they just concluded a distinct community sense out of nowhere.

I see why I got bogged down in these lines.

However, I hate those strange sentence which I cannot see through at the first sight. And when I got this feeling that I cannot understand some part, I started to doubt the others. This one is really an annoyance.

Thanks, chike_eze!

Yeah, thanks for the feedback. I agree, some of these passages are really tough to understand, especially under time constraints. I'm sure I would have been thrown off if I had come across this passage in a prep-test. Tough passage indeed!!

--Chike

[obobob]

I am also having some difficulty understanding some parts of the second paragraph.

1) lines 17-24: “Although the persistence of community is stressed by ... achieved by Japanese Americans.

—-> Just to confirm, the three points that F and O’s demonstrated (of high levels of education, income, and occupational mobility achieved by Japanese Americans) is brought up by the author to support the author’s point? I think I am confused because it seems like what F and O demonstrated is kind of weakening their argument and support the author’s point. Is the author essentially pointing out the fact that F and O are just focusing on some favorable aspects about their data/demonstrations without critically considering alternative explanations, like the one that the author mentions in this sentence?


2) lines 24-29: “In addition, their data reveal that the character of the ethnic community itself changed: ... accommodate multiple and layered identities.”

—> Is this another point that the author is making?

[smiller]

Is the author essentially pointing out the fact that F and O are just focusing on some favorable aspects about their data/demonstrations without critically considering alternative explanations, like the one that the author mentions in this sentence?

That's basically it. In the first paragraph the author states that there is a common problem with the way ethnic groups in the U.S. are studied. In this second paragraph, the author is describing some problems or contradictions in Fugita and O'Brien's work.

2) lines 24-29: “In addition, their data reveal that the character of the ethnic community itself changed: ... accommodate multiple and layered identities.”

—> Is this another point that the author is making?

The author is describing another way in which Fugita and O'Brien's data illustrate a degree of assimilation: Japanese Americans' ethnic ties are are changing even as they persist. It's a continuation of the point that the author was making earlier in the paragraph.