Slashdot Mirror


Steve Bannon Suggests Having Too Many Asian Tech CEOs Undermines 'Civic Society' (theverge.com)

In an interview last year with Donald Trump -- that The Washington Post resurfaced yesterday -- Breitbart News Network's executive chairman, Steve Bannon, suggested that there are too many asian CEOs in Silicon Valley. "He alluded to the idea that foreign students should return to their respective countries after attending school in the U.S., instead of sticking around and working at or starting tech companies," writes Ashley Carman via The Verge: Trump voiced concern over these students attending Ivy League schools and then going home: "We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country," Trump said. When asked if he agreed, Bannon responded: "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think [...]" he didn't finish his sentence. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society." While Bannon didn't explicitly say anything against immigrants, he seemed to hint at the idea of a white nationalist identity with the phrase "civic society." The Huffington Post makes note of a May 2015 study in its report, which "found that 27 percent of professionals working in Silicon Valley companies were Asian or Asian-American. They represented less than 19 percent of managers and under 14 percent of executives, according to the report."

6 of 805 comments (clear)

  1. The Actual Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When asked if he agreed, Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ... ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

    While it doesn't exactly seem to have a very positive connotation, there's also not much of a negative one. It's definitely not what the widespread quote has been.

    Definition of a civic society (since I had to look it up):

    In the United Kingdom, a civic society is a voluntary body or society which aims to represent the needs of a local community. Some also take the role of an amenity society.

    A civic society may campaign for high standards of planning of new buildings or traffic schemes, conservation of historic buildings, and may present awards for good standards. They may organise litter collections or "best kept village" cleanups

    I'm clearly missing the problem here? He has the wrong statistic (literally the opposite quantity), but what part of his statement doesn't make sense? A country should probably be a civic society, by that definition, to preserve its own self-interests. I also agree that with the other statement that we should look to retain their best and simply block their worst. Why effectively use our institution's tax dollars to train a foreign power's workers?

  2. Re:Did he suggest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The issue here is that he doesn't have his cleared/approved set of reporters, and he doesn't have that because the transition team hasn't approved one, and the transition team hasn't approved one because he's hired then sacked half his transition team, and appointed family members to transition roles, which is illegal under anti-corruption laws.

    So he needs to get his transition team sorted, so he can do the transition (preferably BEFORE next year), so they can approve the press pool. God help us when he needs to do some actual work, appointing the press pool is the least of the jobs.

    I'd say he's a sad joke of a man, but in a US President that is very dangerous. Putin put him in that job, and Putin will take advantage of his incompetence.

    I suspect the federal departments are making plans to run the show behind his back to keep government going despite him.

  3. Re: Reverse brain drain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Probably"? Based on what?

    Based on his racist, bigoted history. Based on the quote in this article. Based on the quote in his email to his wife that was entered as evidence in his divorce. Based on the past year of Breitbart headlines.

    He's a racist piece of crap, and the perfect "Chief Strategist" for the Trump Administration. I'm of the opinion that the best way to see someone destroyed is to give them exactly what they want, so I'm rooting for Trump to keep Bannon and make Giuliani Atty General and John Bolton Sec'y of State and fucking Ben Carson Education Secretary.

    It's Trump's government to run and it will be a glorious thing to watch.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

    How about Breitbart headlines over the past 2 years or so while he was editor ? There's plenty of flagrant sexist and racist bits in there. The washington post ran a profile on Bannon the racist a few days ago that consistently almost entirely of a list of links to articles he approved as editors with their headlines.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  5. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    I paraphrased.
    Here's the original quote:
    Levitcus 19:33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. In fact my paraphrasing is extremely close to the original text - and could very easily be the text in a contemporary translation without altering the meaning in any way.

    Also worth noting that this message is repeated in several other texts - for example:
    Exodus 21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

    Sojourner would just be an older word meaning 'immigrant'.

    There is no doubt in my mind that America's current immigration laws violate the principles of those verses which make them incompatible with Christianity - literally the only reason the bible gives where breaking the law is biblical okay - when the law prevents you from acting as the bible commands, and those texts make no claim of a difference between 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration. It tells you how to treat immigrants, it doesn't say you get to change that treatment because an immigrant hasn't complied with a burocratic process that itself violates those principles and numerous others (like the obligation to care for the poor and destitute and to offer shelter to those fearing for their lives).

    Trust the atheist to, as usual, know the bible better than the biblethumpers do.

    And that's without me even pointing out that if you oppose offering shelter to refugees fleeing YOUR enemies who want to kill them - then you have become nothing less than a murderer. You fear that one or two Syrian refugees may want to kill Americans ? So you are happy to let hundreds of thousands of them die ? You're a mass murderer if you think that way. Nothing less.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  6. Re: Steve Bannon, not a racist? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Not enough" = "disproportionately few".

    Fewer than you would expect given an unbiased selection from the population.

    Which suggests there might be a bias somewhere.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."