Con-fusion Ethic: How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black Racism / Oct 05
From: Racheli Gai (jnpalmeattglobal.net)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:34:02 -0600 (MDT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following message is forwarded to you by jnpalme [at] attglobal.net
(Racheli Gai)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm forwarding Tim Wise's article in connection to the discussion of
affordability (or the lackthereof) in cohousing, and its relationship to
race issues.
What makes the article interesting and relevant is that it looks behind
shallow numbers (according to which Southeast Asians "do better than
whites"), and flashes out the actual reality. If it's true for Asians, we
can imagine it's even more so for black, hispanics, native americans, etc. 
...
R.
PS I got the article as a ZNet sustainer.  I encourage others to check
ZNet (www.zmag.org), and consider supporting their
excellent work.


ZNet Commentary
Con-fusion Ethic: How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black Racism 
October 05, 2002 By Tim Wise 

It happened again, for what seems like the millionth time. Once again, in
response to something I said about ongoing racism in the United States,
someone (a white male, naturally) pulled out the all-too-common
conservative race card (oh yes, they have one), which they believe
disproves the existence of racial injustice. It sounds a bit like this:  

"If racism is such a big deal in America, then why have Asians done so
well? Why is Asian income higher than white income? Doesn't this prove
that the problem with blacks is simply a lack of effort?"   

Offered this challenge most recently by a disgruntled county employee in
Minneapolis who resented having to sit through a speech I had given, I
rolled my eyes, took a deep breath and considered the irony of the query
(ironic because it always comes from whites who insist on their
"color-blindness") before issuing my reply.  

As I pondered my response, I thought about the Asian women working twelve
hours a day in garment sweatshops both abroad and in places like Los
Angeles to make clothes for people like this guy's kids; and I wondered,
in what sense were they "doing so well?"   

I thought about the Vietnamese youth in California who are profiled as
potential gang members by police, for wearing the wrong clothes or driving
in the "wrong" neighborhoods; and I wondered, in what sense were they
"doing so well?"   

I thought about the Asian families whose members have to put in 80 hours a
week just to keep their heads above water; and I wondered, in what sense
were they "doing so well?"   

I thought about the Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi taxi drivers who
endure crappy working conditions, customers who get pissy about their
accents or "attitudes," and cops who are responsible for nearly eighty
percent of all anti-South Asian attacks-often against hack drivers in
places like New York; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so
well?"  

I thought about the demonization of Wen Ho Lee, and of Chinese American
political contributors during the Clinton Administration; and the beating
death of Vincent Chin; and the persistent refrain that the Japanese are
"buying up America;" and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so
well?"  

But instead of getting into all of those things, which likely wouldn't
have been seen as responsive by my detractor, I offered the following.  

First, I noted that the Asian "model minority" myth has long been a staple
of white conservative race commentary, though rarely have members of the
various Asian communities in the U.S. pushed the notion themselves. The
genesis of this argumentation goes back to the 1950's and '60's, when
prominent magazines ran articles lauding the "hard-working" Chinese or
Japanese, and explicitly contrasting their "success" with the "failure" of
African Americans.   

   

Of course, none of these ever editorialized in favor of lifting the
immigration restrictions that had kept Asian populations small in the U.S.
from the 1880's until 1965, despite their respect for their favored
persons of color. Neither they nor any adherent to the model minority
image spoke out against internment of "hard-working" Japanese Americans
during World War Two, or the killing of hard-working Southeast Asians
during the Vietnam War.  

Secondly, I explained that comparisons between blacks and Asian Americans
overlook a number of differences between them. Whereas the African
American population represents a cross-section of background and
experience, the APA community is highly self-selected. Voluntary migrants
from nations that are not contiguous to their country of destination tend
to be those with the skills and money needed to leave their home country
in the first place. As many scholars have found, Asian immigrants are
largely drawn from an occupational and educational elite in their
countries of origin.  

Indeed, Asian "success" in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to
immigration policies that have favored immigrants with pre-existing skills
and education. As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between
two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly-educated APA community in the
U.S. already had college degrees or were in college upon their arrival.  

Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, Asian Americans are
two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks
to have a college degree. More than eight in ten Indian immigrants from
1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science,
medicine or as engineers.  

Pre-existing educational advantages are implicated in Asian success once
here; but they hardly indicate genetic or cultural superiority. After all,
to claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in
the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty and lack of success
for persons from the same genetic or cultural backgrounds in their
countries of origin. There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor
Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the
absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.  

Indeed, ethnic Koreans in Japan, as well as the Burakumin there-a minority
treated similarly to the Dalits in India-consistently underperform
economically and educationally, compared to dominant Japanese. They are
both the targets of discrimination, and although they are culturally and
genetically indistinguishable from other Koreans or Japanese, they are
consistently found at the bottom of Japanese society, and do worse than
others in Japan, or than Koreans in Korea. 

Not only does this debunk the notion of pan-Asian superiority in genes or
culture, but it also suggests that a group's caste status influences group
outcomes: much as with blacks in the U.S., whose position has been similar
to the Burakumin and ethnic Koreans in Japan.  

The primary argument put forth by those who push the model minority myth
is that APA income in the U.S. is higher than the average for other people
of color and even whites. As such, it is suggested, racial discrimination
cannot be a significant problem any longer.   

But the data that shows Asians doing better in terms of income than
whites, is family and/or household data, not per capita income data. This
is important because APA households and families tend to have more family
members (thus, slightly higher incomes are made to stretch over more
persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more family members
in the workforce in order to earn only slightly more than whites, with
fewer income earners).   

The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to
only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are
more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly
twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family
income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is
lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually.  

An additional reason why the average income of Asian families is higher
than that of whites is because Asians are concentrated in parts of the
country that have higher average incomes and costs of living. The three
states with the largest Asian populations and a disproportionate share of
the overall Asian population (California, New York and Hawaii), rank 13th,
4th, and 16th in terms of average income: all within the top third of
states. Whereas 76% of all Asian Americans live in the higher-income
regions of the West and Northeast, only 41% of whites and 28% of blacks
are in these regions.  

Over half of all APA's in the U.S. live in just five major U.S. cities
(Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City): all of
which have higher than average household incomes, and much higher costs of
living than most of the U.S.    

According to the Census Bureau, in 1996, median household income was about
$35,500. But in states with disproportionate shares of Asians (NY and
Hawaii, for example), median household income was $39,000 and $42,000
respectively. This means that APA median income will be skewed upward,
relative to the rest of the country, but given cost of living differences,
actual disposable income and living standards will be no better and often
worse.  

More importantly, claims of Asian success obscure the fact that the Asian
American child poverty rate is nearly double the white rate, and according
to a New York Times report in May of 1996, Southeast Asians as a whole
have the highest rates of welfare dependence of any racial or ethnic group
in the United States.   

Nearly half of all Southeast Asian immigrants and refugees in the U.S.
live in poverty, with annual incomes in 1990 of less than $10,000 per
year. Amazingly, even those Southeast Asians with college degrees face
obstacles. Two-thirds of Lao and Hmong-American college grads live below
the poverty level, as do nearly half of Cambodian Americans and over a
third of Vietnamese Americans with degrees.  

Indeed, Asian "success" rhetoric ignores the persistent barriers to
advancement faced by Asians relative to whites. On average, Asian
Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and
APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than
their white counterparts.   

When Asian American men have qualifications that are comparable to those
of white men, they still receive fewer high-ranking positions than those
same white men. Asian American male engineers and scientists are twenty
percent less likely than white men to move into management positions in
their respective companies, despite no differences in ambition or desire
for such positions.   

Of course, beyond the statistics, there are obvious points to be made.
First, if whites truly believe that Asians are culturally superior and add
to the quality of schools and workplaces, then why aren't these folks
clamoring for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations? Why
not flood the borders, since we could all benefit from a little more Asian
genius? Why not have white CEO's step down from their positions and let
Japanese managers take their place?   

Secondly, the whites who trumpet the model minority concept would be the
first to object if Asian Americans began to bump their own white children
from college slots, even if they did so by way of higher test scores and
"merit" indicators. Just ask yourself what would happen if next year the
top 3500 applicants to U.C.-Berkeley, in terms of SAT score and grades,
happened to be Asian Americans, especially since there are only 3500 slots
in the freshman class.   

Would the regents allow the freshman class at the state's flagship school
to become 100% Asian? Or for that matter even 80% or 70%? How would white
Californians react to such a development, including those who praise
hard-working Asian kids for their educational excellence and scholarly
achievements?   

How would white alums react if their favorite "model minorities" were
suddenly seen as taking slots not from black and Latino youth, but from
their own white children? To ask the question is to answer it.  

And finally, to argue-as supporters of the model minority myth do-that
Asians "have made it, so why can't blacks," is to misunderstand the issue
of moral and ethical responsibility to correct the harm of wrongful
actions.   

Even if we accept the notion that groups victimized by racism can "make
it" without assistance, affirmative action, or reparations, that would not
deny (or indeed speak to in any way) the fact that society has an
obligation to compensate the victims of injustice. After all, if my leg is
blown off in an industrial accident, it hardly matters that many people
with only one leg go on to succeed. The issue of compensatory justice
remains, irrespective of what gains one can make without compensation.   

I have little reason to believe that any of this made much difference to
the individual who chose that day to trumpet Asian success as a way to
denigrate African Americans. Given some of his other comments-that African
sexual promiscuity was to blame for AIDS on the continent, and that he
resented the "fact" that his black son (presumably adopted) has more
opportunity in life than his white son (despite the fact that the former
is unemployed and the latter in college)-his ability to rationally
decipher much of anything seems doubtful.   

Nonetheless, challenging the model minority myth is a worthwhile
enterprise, especially when one considers how many decent, well-meaning
individuals often fall for it.   

Those who trumpet "Asian values and culture" (based on stereotypical
understandings of both, not unlike the white guys who covet mail-order
Asian brides for their anticipated "docility"), do Asians no favors. If
anything, they set them up in a way that not only harms the groups against
which they are contrasted, but in a way that harms Asians as well.   

To be considered a group filled with math and science geniuses and
passive, sensual, and willing female companions, not only objectifies
Asian Pacific Americans, but results in a special stigma for those in the
various Asian groups who aren't good in school, don't know how to fix your
computer nor care to do so, or who don't fit the sexist stereotypes that
are so comforting to Western male tastes.   

The model minority myth, in other words, is a setup: a carrot offered to
certain groups so long as they don't get out of line, assert their rights,
strike for better wages, or try to determine their own sexuality. And as
with all carrots, there is an even bigger stick, ready to throttle those
who don't go along with the game.  

Ultimately, justice and equity will remain elusive so long as whites feel
no compunction about using one group of color against another group of
color, in an attempt to make fools of both.  

Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, lecturer and activist. He can be
reached at (and footnotes for this article can be obtained from)
timjwise [at] msn.com  


-----------------------------------------------------
 -- End of forwarded message
-----------------------------------------------------
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
jnpalme [at] attglobal.net (Racheli Gai)
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.