A couple weeks ago, African American boxer Floyd Mayweather posted a video rant full of ignorant, racist stereotypes against Manny Pacquiao, a Filipino boxer. Mayweather posted a fake apology (“I don’t have a racist bone in my body”) in response to criticism of these comments, along with another video intended to show his, ahem, “acceptance” of Asian people which is, unsurprisingly, full of even more racist nonsense (Racialicious).
Mayweather’s comments have been largely overlooked by mainstream news outlets, and the response even from anti-racist organizations has been tepid. Last week an Asian American friend of mine shared a column by ESPN’s Floyd Granderson, who is African American, questioning why there has been so little outcry over this, and specifically calling out the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson for what he calls their “muted response,” suggesting that they are judging Mayweather ‘by the color of his skin” rather than by the content of his comments.
The truth is Mayweather’s being given a pass because he’s black . . . . he is being treated differently because he’s black.
Period.
And if he were being treated honestly, black man or not, we would be hearing denunciations from Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP . . . I’m not playing devil’s advocate; I’m advocating for equality — but in the true sense of the word. Whites don’t hold the patent on being racially insensitive, just as blacks are not the only group of people to be discriminated against in this country . . . .
If we truly believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” then it is only fair that the boxing world punish Mayweather. I understand he’s the industry’s cash cow. But this kind of hypocrisy only fertilizes racial tension while simultaneously lining the pockets of people who make their living manipulating that tension [I’m not clear on who Granderson is talking about here. Does he mean Jackson and Sharpton? If so, FAIL.].
My reaction to Granderson’s argument was that it’s hugely problematic in a number of ways, not least because it’s an argument from total silence. And I found it unfortunate that Granderson chose Mayweather’s blackness as the angle for his article rather than the reality that anti-Asian bigotry is still widely accepted as “humor” in our society. It’s seriously problematic to argue that black leaders or the NAACP are required to comment on the situation just because Mayweather is black.
I left a comment to this effect on my friend’s post sharing this article; this started a discussion about the article and the degree to which the NAACP, etc., are obligated to comment on a situation like this. In my opinion, the way Granderson made his argument was racist, and actually detrimental to anti-racist work. My friend, on the other hand, saw the article as holding anti-racist activists accountable to do a better job, and thought Granderson was identifying a potential blind spot in the NAACP, Jackson, and Sharpton.
I emailed Nikki to get her thoughts on the situation and ask if my reaction to the article was off-base. We ended up having a really productive discussion about anti-Asian racism and what it means for anti-racist activists to be good allies to Asian-Americans. Parts of our conversation are posted below the jump, edited and cleaned up to make it easier to follow dialogue.
Tope: Mayweather isn’t getting a pass for being black; he’s getting a pass because anti-Asian bigotry isn’t taken seriously. And it’s not the job of the NAACP to speak out every time a black person says something racially prejudiced – not that I think they shouldn’t, since I believe in anti-racist solidarity – but it’s ludicrous to insist they have to call out prejudiced black people in order to not be hypocrites.
It was really egregious that Granderson made the column about his beef with the NAACP et al and only had ONE paragraph about the history of anti-Asian discrimination, and nothing at all about ongoing anti-Asian bigotry. And the arguments he’s making about them originated with white racism deniers who want to undermine the credibility of the NAACP, and some of his claims are just factually incorrect, so he’s either misinformed, disingenuous, or dealing with some internalized racism when he takes up these arguments against leaders and an organization who have worked for his and others’ civil rights.
I mean for me the bottom line is the argument that black leaders and orgs wouldn’t comment on a black person’s public display of racial prejudice BECAUSE HE IS BLACK is racist, period, no matter who makes it. Am I off base here?
Nikki: He’s getting a pass because anti-Asian bigotry isn’t taken seriously. Agree. It’s not because he’s black. If he had used a bunch of white “slurs” about a white opponent, or even slurs about a Latino opponent, I am just guessing someone would have made more of a stink about it. This is partly because, as you pointed out, anti-Asian prejudice is not taken seriously — and it’s also because Mayweather said things many people may not have been able to identify as “racist” at all, simply because many people (of all races) are quite ignorant about Asian Americans and probably assume what he was saying was true (as stupid and unbelievable as that may seem). Which is probably why the *only* outcry I’ve read about the Mayweather flap has been on anti-racist blogs.
I don’t know if I’d say it was a racist argument. But it seems like a strange claim to make. Even if *some* people are giving Mayweather a “pass” because he’s black, or because they agree with him, or both, it’s impossible to know who is doing that and who isn’t unless they say so explicitly. I would agree with you there is no way to know why the NAACP et al have been silent, other than the assumption that it’s outside their primary mission, which is to combat anti-black racism. And I’d want to give them the benefit of the doubt every time, and not assume their motives were less than pure.
I’ve heard people say that the “CP” in NAACP does stand for all ethnic minorities, but it’s a bit naive to expect them to care as much about anti-Asian racism when tackling anti-black racism is already an enormous and longstanding task. Anyway, I can see why that article and the ensuing discussion bugged you. I don’t think you can know the motive behind someone’s silence, only their words.
That said, I guess as an Asian person I can sympathize with your friend, even though I don’t agree. I found Mayweather’s comments incredibly gross, and wish the incident — and his lame apology — had been more talked about outside anti-racist circles. It’s disappointing to see such an obvious and unapologetic display of racism go mostly ignored, and I understand people asking why, though I do not agree with Granderson’s take on it.
Tope: People (of all races) are quite ignorant about Asian Americans and probably assume what he was saying was TRUE. Yea. Part of what bugged me about the article is that it felt like a missed opportunity to point all that out. It could very well be the case that the NAACP and black leaders need to be called out for not taking anti-Asian bigotry seriously.
I think you’re right that racist might be a overly strong word to use. It’s certainly hugely problematic to assume the reason they haven’t commented is that Mayweather is the same race as them, in the absence of evidence, and given the NAACP’s and even Jackson’s and Sharpton’s records on civil rights issues.
“The ‘CP’ DOES stand for all ethnic minorities . . .” I thought the CP was still in their name as a nod to their history. I mean, I know their mission has broadened, but I’d find it a little weird if they were saying the meaning of “colored people” is different now from what it’s historically meant. But that’s a fairly academic point. It is a black-led and as far as I know mostly black organization, and perceived as an organization focused on “black issues,” so yea, their focus is going to be mostly on issues that affect black communities.
I do think there’s an argument to be made here about the need for anti-racist orgs to express more solidarity with each other. And especially with anti-Asian bigotry, which I think even among anti-racist groups probably isn’t taken as seriously as prejudice against other groups. I get this sense that there’s the “serious” discrimination – against Latinos, Muslims, blacks, say – and anti-Asian bigotry has a kind of second class status :/
It’s disappointing to see such an obvious and unapologetic display of racism go mostly ignored, and I understand people asking why. Yea, and as crappy as Granderson’s argument was, it still made me think about what my reaction is to certain expressions of racism versus others – though that probably was more influenced by the fact that I had just read Kate’s Model Minority post and was already mulling over similar questions when I read the article. I think it is the case that I get more worked up and respond more actively to anti-black racism and other manifestations of prejudice that are more in the public awareness right now than I do about anti-Asian racism.
It also made me think more about how frustrating it must be to constantly deal with the fact that so many people don’t seem to register that anti-Asian racism is even possible. I mean, discussions of anti-black racism are difficult to have but at the very least the idea that someone could say or do something that’s racist against black people is not usually in question.
So I’m realizing that I need to cultivate more empathy for and awareness about the particular difficulties of experiencing and calling out anti-Asian racism, and that I need to work more on being a good anti-racist ally on these issues. Anti-Asian racism is more invisible than other kinds of racism, so that means that other POC allies need to be all the more in solidarity with Asians in calling it out.
Nikki: I’ve only read a little about specific anti-Asian racism, but I tend to think it’s not seen as an issue in part because of the “model minority” viewpoint, and in part because it’s just not very well understood. Asians deal with “perpetual foreigner” syndrome; some white people are so ignorant about South/East Asians and other groups that they just don’t think much about us, or can’t even recognize the racism when they see it.
I also think some racism against Asians is obviously way more harmful than others. I am annoyed by racebending and the almost total absence of Asians in popular culture, and their marginalization/stereotyping when they ARE present. But the more harmful stuff, the stuff that really gets under my skin, would be the gross stereotypes of Asian women as “exotic”/submissive/childlike/demure/”traditional”/fill-in-the-blank (racist AND horribly sexist) and the general emasculation of Asian men. And the perpetual foreigner stuff also means that a large group of people will just never see me as “American enough” — being asked where I’m from or told my English is “really good!” irritates me every time.
I also think it’s important to note that anti-Asian prejudice is hard to track because it waxes and wanes depending on the era. You have people who might hate the Japanese because of WWII and will never get over it, and since many white people can’t tell Asians apart, we all get lumped together in their ire. I remember in the early ’90s there was a lot of anti-Japan, anti-Asian sentiment in the U.S. because of our dueling commercial interests. And of course, we’ve seen the backlash against Muslims of all nationalities (and anyone with a certain type of last name or certain skin tone) since 9/11.
I have often felt that Asians, no matter how many of us are seen as “successful” in the U.S., have never quite succeeded in gaining the kind of strong foothold here that so many other groups have, even still-marginalized groups. We are never quite seen as “belonging here,” for whatever reason, and so when something bad happens, at home or abroad, we’re always going to be “outsiders” and therefore easy to scapegoat. I feel we’re not very well understood or trusted as a group in America, and could be turned on easily (and historically we have been).
I don’t know that this is so true in places with extremely high Asian American populations, as I have not really lived in a place like Seattle or San Francisco. But it has been the case almost everywhere I’ve lived.
Tope: I have a little personal experience of the perpetual foreigner treatment. When people guess from my name or whatever that I’m not originally American, I often get the where are you really from question. Or if I mention that my family is African/Nigerian, I get congratulated for my English. But it’s interesting – even though African Americans in their own way are not really coded as “real Americans,” there’s a sense in which I can pass as “American enough” because of my blackness in a way that an Asian American can’t.
I feel we’re not very well understood or trusted as a group in America, and could be turned on easily (and historically we have been).
Yes, I definitely see how this would be the case. Model minority is basically a euphemism for “still other, but in our good books” – which is a very dangerous place to be, because it doesn’t take much for a group seen as “other” go from being coded as good to being coded as threatening. And I also think a big part of the model minority image is the perception that Asians “don’t make an issue out of their race” – “tolerance” of Asians often is conditional on upholding the fantasy that anti-Asian racism and racism in general don’t exist anymore.
Nikki: You bring up a good point in that the “model minority” thing is house of cards that falls down as soon as anti-Asian racism is actually brought up in a serious way. I mean, I’m just guessing that people no longer think of me as a “model minority” as soon as I actually start talking about prejudice and racism.
I wouldn’t presume to say anything definite about the African American experience, but you know, even *I* have an easier time seeing most black Americans as “American” than I do some other immigrant groups, including Asians! It’s hard to explain, but part of it is just that African Americans have been here for so long; they have a long, rich history in the U.S.; they were here, fighting wars and fighting for their own freedom, way before Koreans got here, for example. They were naturalized as citizens before most Asian immigrants, even if that citizenship did not automatically come with the rights it should have. Of course I know that they still face enormous prejudice, but in spite of that I do think of them as just as “American” as white people, if not more so, and now I’m wondering if a lot of other white people — even prejudiced ones — feel the same? That black and white Americans are real Americans, and many other people of color are not, somehow?
Irene's Daughters 
Tope wrote: Model minority is basically a euphemism for “still other, but in our good books” – which is a very dangerous place to be, because it doesn’t take much for a group seen as “other” go from being coded as good to being coded as threatening.
I agree.
When I was researching the “Model Minority” post, I read a study supposedly debunking elements of what anti-racists say about the myth. But I found a number of errors in their approach, and your comment touches on one of those problems.
The study claimed that non-Hispanic whites who “have positive views of Asian Americans” do not exhibit a strong tendency to view “Asian Americans as foreign, cliquish, and unpatriotic.” In their words, “we found little evidence that model minority beliefs mask more insidious ‘Yellow Peril’-like beliefs.” For example, surveyed whites who rate Asian Americans as “harder working than whites” are not more but less likely to rate Asian Americans as “less patriotic than whites.” “These findings are important,” the study authors conclude, “because they suggest that some whites who perceive differences among different racial and ethnic groups do not equate ‘different’ with ‘bad’; for them ‘different’ can indeed mean better.”
This does not, as the study authors seem to think, undermine what anti-racists like Frank Wu are actually saying. Why? For at least two reasons.
First, Wu is not claiming that these positive and negative stereotypes are dominant at the same time. He writes: “The turnaround is inevitable during a military crisis or economic downturn. To be intelligent is to be calculating and too clever; to be gifted in math and science is to be mechanical and not creative, lacking interpersonal skills and leadership potential. To be polite is to be inscrutable and submissive. To be hard working is to be an unfair competitor for regular human beings and not a well-rounded, likable individual. To be family oriented is to be clannish and too ethnic. To be law-abiding is to be self-righteous and rigidly rule-bound. To be successfully entrepreneurial is to be deviously aggressive and economically intimidating. To revere elders is to be an ancestor-worshiping pagan, and fidelity to tradition is reactionary ignorance.” In other words, Wu argued that a change in circumstances can trigger a switch in perception, and he documents that this has, at times, really happened. Your comment shows the same nuance.
And second, the study did not pair the good and bad stereotypes in the same manner anti-racists like Wu do. Wu did not argue, as you can see above, that “hard-working” becomes “less patriotic.” Those are not the parallels he draws.
I could probably go on and on about the problems I see with this study. For example, I mentioned above that surveyed whites who rate Asian Americans as “harder working than whites” are not more but less likely to rate Asian Americans as “less patriotic than whites.” The study does show that whites report their attitudes that way. But it also shows that 45% of whites who rate Asians as “harder working than whites” and 60% of whites who do not rate Asians as “harder working than whites” do rate Asian Americans as “less patriotic than whites.” When I look at this, I don’t think “Oh, look, positive stereotypes about Asians being hard workers coincide with a tendency to also view them as patriotic. Isn’t that cool?” I look at these numbers and think “OMG, 56% of all surveyed white people consider Asian Americans less patriotic than white people, with large percentages in all the graph columns! Are these people missing the forest for the trees?”
Really great points, and thanks for mentioning Frank Wu – reminded me that I need to add Yellow to my reading list!
I loved reading Yellow. Everyone should read it! :)
woah, so much to think about here!
I know nothing about boxing, Mayweather or the specific situation in the US (other than what I read on blogs!)
But what this made me think about was a discussion recently on an adoption board about racism. The definition of racism here (UK) seems to be that its’ stereotyping / bad treatment / making assumptions / doing pretty much anything about somebody based on their race. So, this means that anybody (whatever their colour) can be racist towards anybody else (whatever their colour, assuming it’s different from the person being racist). What I was getting from the discussion on the board was that in the US there is an acceptance that what I’ve described above is racial prejudice, but not necessarily racism. To be racist, apparently, you need to have the power that comes from being part of the dominant group – ie white.
I have no way of knowing whether that is a widely accepted view of what it means to be truly racist. But if it is, I’m wondering if that plays a part in any of this? That is, not that he’s black, but that he’s not white?
Personally, I think this whole incident makes that ‘you can’t be racist if you’re not white’ theory look pretty silly, but that’s just my view. Please call me out if that is stunningly ignorant.
The definition of racism here (UK) seems to be that its’ stereotyping / bad treatment / making assumptions / doing pretty much anything about somebody based on their race. So, this means that anybody (whatever their colour) can be racist towards anybody else (whatever their colour, assuming it’s different from the person being racist).
Unfortunately, this understanding also dominates the thinking of most white people here in the United States, and even some people of color.
Regarding your questions, here are some of my thoughts.
Mayweather’s comments certainly exhibit racial prejudice and bigotry. They are not in themselves systemic racism. Perhaps they could be said in some sense to participate in racism, but saying that we must bear in mind that in America racism is a system of white privilege. Racially marginalized people at times adopt the prejudices of the racially privileged, deeply embedded as those prejudices are in the dominant culture, usually unconsciously and often to their own disadvantage. Sometimes this internalization can generate a kind of self-hatred, as in the doll tests. Sometimes it is turned, as in a case like this incident, against people who really should be allies in the anti-racist struggle.
So I don’t think this Mayweather incident makes the “you can’t be racist if you’re not white” idea look silly. If we say that people of color “cannot be racist,” we are not suggesting that people of color cannot harbor prejudices and stereotypes against either white people or other people of color, or that they cannot act on them. Any person, of any race, may harbor racial prejudice, consciously or unconsciously. Any person, of any race, can view or treat people differently based on race, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or not. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think we probably all do these things at some time or another, even when we do not intend to. When we discover that our prejudices and actions are harmful, we each, whatever our race, have a responsibility change our attitudes and behavior.
If we say that people of color “cannot be racist,” what we do mean is that in the United States (among other places), white people have, for centuries, had greater access to and control of social, cultural, political, and economic resources. The racial attitudes and prejudices of white people (both conscious and unconscious) are the ones that receive dominant expression and systematization in common language, cultural messages, social mores, institutional practices and policies, cultural artifacts, etc. None of us could begin to identify all the ways white racial attitudes have been perpetuated, applied, and transmitted. So white people continue to have greater access to good schools, jobs, housing, and so forth. Social indicators from salary to life expectancy repeatedly reveal the advantages of being white in the United States. And this racist system, if left unacknowledged and unchecked, is self-perpetuating.
No matter how prejudiced Floyd Mayweather may be, his own racial attitudes and prejudices are not the ones that receive dominant expression and systematization in common language, cultural messages, social mores, institutional practices and policies, cultural artifacts, etc. Only to the extent that Mayweather’s coincide with the attitudes of the racially privileged can they participate in systemic racism.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
I would generally agree with you, Kate. I do think Mayweather’s words were prejudiced, ignorant, and racist — they coincide with attitudes towards and stereotypes of Asians held by racist people and perpetuated by continued ignorance and racism — but I don’t think it’s possible, given the definition of racism (prejudice + power/privilege), for him to be a racist. Anyone of any race can participate in anti-Asian racism — or echo it, I guess — but such racism itself, like all racism against any POC in America, originates with white Americans and the systems of privilege established by them.
White people may think this sounds unfair, but believe me, I’m not giving Mayweather a pass.
Thanks for helping to clear up some of my muddy thinking on this (and sorry, ‘silly’was definitely a bad choice of word!)
I think part of the problem that arises, discussing the racial prejudice vs racism issue is that ‘racist’ is such a hugely, hugely loaded word now. (I loved the great video on this site about ‘what you SAIDvs what you ARE – I thought that was really helpful). I think that it has connotations of being a ‘bad person’ that I do’nt think ‘racial prejudice’ does. So while I can absolutely see that there needs to be a distinction between what is systemic and what is individual – and obviously adding power to prejudice is different from prejudice on its own – I think that this distinction can make the whole conversation about what is and isnt’ racism *emotionally* loaded. I think there is a hierarchy of wrongness operating with these words, which makes things complicated. Not saying that the distinctino shouldn’t be there, just making an observation.
Sorry, not sure if that makes any sense at all!
I think I understand what you’re saying, Claudia, and share your concern about a “hierarchy of wrongness” and how it potentially muddies the waters for some people. I don’t think of “racially prejudiced” as simply framing things “nicely”; I do think there’s a distinction to be made between racial prejudice (which anyone can have) and systemic racism (which can only be perpetuated against a marginalized group by a privileged one). That said, a racially prejudiced person can say/think/believe truly abhorrent things and be just as morally culpable as someone capable of participating in and perpetuating racism. It’s not as if the first thing is okay and the second is unforgivable; they are BOTH bad.
Late to the party here – I agree with what Kate and Nikki have said about the distinction between racism and racial prejudice, though I also agree with you that racism is morally loaded in a way that racial prejudice is not. And the connotations of those terms in everyday conversation can lead to misunderstandings in both directions: as you said, making racial prejudice seem ‘not as bad’ as racism, but also making racism seem more rare than it actually is (if only really bad people say/do racist things).
We need a vocabulary that distinguishes between racial prejudice that has institutional, systemic, and societal backing and prejudice that doesn’t. It’s the accepted terminology among people who work on these issues that racism means the former and not the latter, and it’s a terminology that I think makes sense.
The problem is with having conversations with people who don’t work on these issues, and often hear a totally different thing than what’s meant when someone says people of color can’t be racist. People can be so defensive about what they think is being said – in part because of how morally loaded “racism” is – that they might not be able to hear the person out long enough to understand what’s actually being said about racial prejudice. So that’s an issue. Obviously the solution is to change the discourse so that we can talk about racism without necessarily talking about people being evil, but I don’t know how to work around that in one-on-one conversations.
And the other issue, about intra-POC prejudice, is similarly troubling to me – I mean, read articles like this one about Bay Area Asians being systematically targeted as victims of violent crime by some African American youth, and I think “racial prejudice” doesn’t really cut it as a descriptor for that, and I’d totally understand why someone would object to my saying that’s not racism.
I don’t know. It’s really complicated, but I don’t really have a better alternative terminology to propose.
I mean, read articles like this one about Bay Area Asians being systematically targeted as victims of violent crime by some African American youth, and I think “racial prejudice” doesn’t really cut it as a descriptor for that
“Racially motivated violence”/”hate crimes”?
Sure (I’d question “hate crimes,” myself. I doubt most feel serious hatred for their victims; they are more like crimes of convenience, because they are less likely to report the crimes or have recourse to defense), but you can see how “racially motivated violence” also sounds/feels a bit like splitting hairs.
Yea. I think “bigotry” does have a kind of moral weight to it – but like you say that’s not exactly what’s going on in that case. I don’t know. This question of how to have conversations with people who fundamentally object to the terminology we use is a pesky one (but I guess the main issue is they often fundamentally object to the idea that systemic racism exists, so . . .).
I agree, Tope. When people object to the terminology, especially after it’s been explained, it’s generally because they question/object to the existence of systemic racism/privilege.
“And the connotations of those terms in everyday conversation can lead to misunderstandings in both directions: as you said, making racial prejudice seem ‘not as bad’ as racism, but also making racism seem more rare than it actually is (if only really bad people say/do racist things).”
ahhhhh…. yes! That’s exactly what I was trying to grope my way towards. It’s this making racism seem rarer than it is that i think is particularly problematic.
Thanks to all of you for exapanding on this – really helpful!!
Hi everyone, this is Tope’s misguided friend who posted the original ESPN article on my Facebook. I don’t know what I can contribute to the discussion that hasn’t been said already, so I’ll just offer up a term that may or may not be useful in the ongoing discussion about semantics:
Kwame Anthony Appiah uses a term called “racialism” to describe the sheer belief that there are differences among the different races, as opposed to “racism,” which puts a weight of superiority or preference onto those differences.
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/appiah/excerpts.html
In the book Divided by Faith the authors introduce the term “racialized” to describe contemporary American society’s attitudes toward race (with special attention to the evangelical church in America.). As several comments on this post have indicated, people often think about “racism” as an extreme socially or physically violent action, and fail to recognize it in their own attitudes because it’s easy to avoid such a “harsh” label. “Racialized” attitudes, however, are those influenced by subtle personal assumptions, varying degrees of personal privilege, and the relative ease with which we isolate ourselves from one another. In a way, it’s a confession that colorblindness is a total lie. We all SEE color. And we all respond to it in different ways (mostly in ways that are consistent with cultural or familial constructs that have [mis]educated us about race).
I find that this term does help to break through that wall of defense some people put up. People are more likely to cop to having “racialized” attitudes than “racist” ones. The only drawback here is that in confessing to having racialized attitudes and behaviors without fully appreciating the gravity of it (like one would if they realized they were racist), there’s little incentive to change those attitudes.
For me, all this is a big ol’ sin issue. We’re all tempted to cover up our sins: some behind more comfortable labels (prejudice vs. racist, etc.) and others behind outright denial or “just joking” disclaimers.
Thanks for commenting, Rebecca! That’s an interesting distinction. I can see it in theory, but I’m having trouble imagining how someone could be a racialist without having some racist beliefs or attitudes . . . I mean, what sorts of difference beside very basic phenotypic differences wouldn’t involve some sort of racist implications? I can’t really think of an example of a belief that could be racialist without being racist. And I can’t think of any point in American history where racialist beliefs have flourished to any significant degree without being used in the service of racism.
I also think his definition of racism as involving preference or superiority is too narrow – the model minority myth is racist, for example, and doesn’t involve either. I’d broaden it to any attitude, belief, or action individual or institutional that “others” another group in some way, naturalizes differences between the dominant group and minority groups, and (usually) reinforces the privilege of the dominant group in some way.
Well, I think the model minority stereotype might be an example of a racialist concept, because on its face it’s “flattering,” but definitely based on non-factual assumptions of race.
Cayce, I agree with your comments! Well put.
[…] goes back to something we’ve posted about before, the general lack of public knowledge about Asians, Asian Americans, and anti-Asian racism. I think […]