Which Culture/Combination of Cultures is the Best to Raise Children In?

[Lord_Ragnarok]

Asian people probably aren't inherently smarter than everyone else, Jews probably aren't inherently better with money than everyone else and Black men probably aren't inherently better with women than everyone else. But somehow, stereotypes have existed about these things and for things, there are unique challenges facing a particular community, but for other things, culture and upbringing seem to be the best explanation for why differences exist.

If I wanted children, I would most likely want to raise them with expectations similar to Indian families, but probably not quite as harsh as Southeast Asian. I would choose this because it has an emphasis on people and relationships with other people (you know, the things that actually result in happiness), rather than material wealth, but still instilling them with values and work ethic that would lead to becoming financially stable anyway.
I would still keep some White values, such as non-violent punishing (although, unlike a lot of White families, I would actually follow through with punishments so I didn't up with a little shit who calls my wife/his mother a "stupid bitch" while we're sitting at Applebee's), and I would consider how different neurological disorders would affect their lives. I would try to figure out what Black values lead to confidence and emotional resilience. In another thread, I had mentioned the Black Americans have the lowest suicide rate per 100,000 people in the country. I know that it exists to counter challenges that seemed outside of the Black communities control for a long time, but I might avoid some of it that might be mutually exclusive with the discipline in Indian/Southeast Asian cultures.

[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Merely puts forward own opinion, no evidence or logic-based argument made" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[Cutthecrap]

[QUOTE]But somehow, stereotypes have existed about these things and for things[/QUOTE]
Well...

If....

[QUOTE]Among socio-economic factors were restrictions by the authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, tolerated then as a "necessary evil". Catholic doctrine of the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this restriction, Jews dominated this business. The Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible criticise Usury but interpretations of the Biblical prohibition vary. Since few other occupations were open to them, Jews were motivated to take up money lending. This was said to show Jews were insolent, greedy, usurers, and subsequently led to many negative stereotypes and propaganda. Natural tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) were added to social, political, religious, and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked.[/QUOTE]

The richest man in 11-12th century England....was not the king, but a jew....who after dying his fortune was so big that the Crown created a whole group/deparment/section/court/dontknowhowitwascalled dedicated to it

Also, the Cid features himself doing a con on jews...who were moneylenders...
The stereotype has a reason to be. It's not that it came out of thin air.