"Asian guys in my show? Not gonna happen!"

[Timsup2nothin]

Populism aside, it's not a matter of perspective. The statistic, taken in isolation from other information- family structure, area of residence, etc.- doesn't really mean anything except "Asians have a higher median household income".


In itself? Sure, just as empty. Difference is, we have some idea why the numbers skew in that direction, we have some idea of why a lot of white people might be more prosperous than a lot of black, Hispanic and Native American people that doesn't involve recourse to stereotype. We know that there's substance behind the statistic. In this case, we don't, so the number stands in isolation and is not therefore particularly meaningful.

I can tell you plainly the substance behind the statistic...Asian Americans dominate the medical fields, which are among the highest paid workers in the US. Is that an outcome of the stereotype? I'd guess that it contributes.

 

[Traitorfish]

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".

 

[Farm Boy]

In itself? Sure, just as empty. Difference is, we have some idea why the numbers skew in that direction, we have some idea of why a lot of white people might be more prosperous than a lot of black, Hispanic and Native American people that doesn't involve recourse to stereotype. We know that there's substance behind the statistic. In this case, we don't, so the number stands in isolation and is not therefore particularly meaningful.

Well, that's an interesting amelioration of the harm in holding onto one's racist stereotypes of blacks/native americans. Seeing as that means they aren't really a problem. Or they're a jerking-off level problem, not a real one. Unless we do want to view it holistically? But then what would be the justification for only applying principles holistically in one situation whereas discounting it in another?

 

[Sommerswerd]

But then what would be the justification for only applying principles holistically in one situation whereas discounting it in another?

I think this quote gives some possible insight:

I don't see the line from Asian people succeeding despite stereotyping to the conclusion that the stereotypes are harmless (let alone beneficial).

See, the whole "Asians have it worse than everyone else but succeed in spite of it" line of thought is a perfect illustration of the "Asian superiority ideology" that I outlined in this post #496. Accepting the reality, that Asians may have actually benefitted from some of the stereotypes, (particularly the ones that entrench, justify, and perpetuate economically virtuous activity, like doing well in school, for example) undermines that ideology.

I will offer that another (possibly) more palatable way of describing it would be an "Asian romantic-underdog ideology" that holds Asians up to be a "succeed in-the-face-of-impossible-odds heroic underdog." This ideology would obviously be very attractive to anyone who identifies as Asian, for obvious reasons, right? So it could also therefore be somewhat uncomfortable to abandon.

 

[Sommerswerd]

edit: Also, to throw a spanner in the works, the same patterns don't apply to per capita income levels. It may simply be that above-average household incomes represent different family structures, such as the greater tendency of Asian-American households to include working adult children.

Thanks TF that was a very informative link. It was a touch outdated (1999), but of course you're not my personal statistic fairy... If I want newer stats I can d@mn well go find'em myself. I doubt the relative values have changed all that much anyway... So again thanks for the data

I have to ask though, are you saying now that you find the idea that Asians are "doing better" to be a myth, supported by a misleading interpretation of statistics? It kind of seems like that is what you are arguing based on you referencing this per capita income chart.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".

And the opinion of a dropper of slurs is irrelevant.

If you think the view from Scotland gives you a better picture, good for you.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm getting bored with digging around on stats myself. Not sure if this site is good or crazy, but it seems to be saying mostly the same stuff as other sites I'm finding.

http://goldsea.com/AAD/households.html It's from 1999, so about the same as per capita source.

Asian American households are the second largest among major American groups, but the most likely to be headed up by a married couple.
For 1999 the Census Bureau projection counted 101,683,469 households in the United States. A household is defined as any group of two or more persons living together. Asian Pacific Islander households numbered 3,043,374, or 3.0% of total households, but contained 10,682,242 individuals making up 3.9% of the U.S. population.
The average Asian American household contains 3.51 members compared with the national average of 2.61 persons. White households are the smallest with 2.55 members and Hispanic households the largest with 3.52.
In family size, however, Asian Americans are first, with an average of 3.98 members compared with 3.87 for Hispanics, 3.39 for Blacks and 3.05 for Whites. The national average is 3.12 members.
The large size of Asian families reflects two major factors. First, a larger percentage of Asian American families are in the child-rearing age while a larger percentage of Whites are elderly. Secondly, Asians are more likely to be hosting elderly parents.
Asian American households are by far the most likely to consist of a traditional married couple with children. Married couples headed 63.2% of Asian American households compared with only 55.4% of all American households and 58.1% of White households. The figures were 55.1% among Hispanics and 34.8% among Blacks.
Household and family sizes are decreasing steadily for all ethnic groups, according to Census Bureau projections, reflecting a rapid graying of the American population. By 2010 the average American household will consist of only 2.56 members and the average family, 3.06 members. Comparable figures for Asian Americans are 3.47 and 3.96, showing a significantly lower rate of decline in household and family size.

 

[Hygro]

And the opinion of a dropper of slurs is irrelevant.

Only a lobsterback would say this.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In case anyone else is concerned that the view from Scotland may be crystal clear, here's some data. I'd say that being overrepresented by a factor of four among the highest paid professions is a reasonably probable contributor to higher average incomes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Again, empty statistics. Asian-Americans are over-represented in certain professions, fair enough, but that does not in itself tell us very much. What proportion of the population do these professions represent? What income range does the profession represent, what's the income range for Asian-Americans in the profession, how is that weighted by age and region? Does this vary between Asian sub-groups. What, in short, is the significance of this number? You need to address this stuff at least in sketch, acknowledge that it's a factor and present an issue of what it might look like.

You need to make the statistics mean something, or you're just relying on blind assumption. I'm not even saying that you're wrong, here, just that the statistics are not some conclusive argument, because they are not yet an argument, any more than a lump of ore is a shovel.

Remember, the issue here is not "are Asian-Americans better represented among the middle class". That's probably true for at least certain Asian ethnic and generational sub-groups. The issue is how this ties to stereotyping and prejudice: whether this fact allows us to regard stereotyping as irrelevant, and whether there's any basis for Timsup2nothin's contentious arguments that some Asian stereotypes are actively beneficial to people in those careers, that the stereotypes, that the stereotypes encourage people to enter those careers, and whether any of that is any comfort to the majority of Asian-Americans who are not in those careers.

I have to ask though, are you saying now that you find the idea that Asians are "doing better" to be a myth, supported by a misleading interpretation of statistics? It kind of seems like that is what you are arguing based on you referencing this per capita income chart.

I don't think it's a myth, but I think it's an oversimplification. The argument runs "I knew a bunch of Asian dentists, therefore, most Asians are dentists-or-equivalent", and because median household income seem superficially consistent with that, it's cited as proof. But in the absence of context, it's not proof of anything but what it directly represents, that Asian-Americans taken as a group have a higher median household income than other racial categories taken as a group. There's no context, and the fact that introducing even a similarly-vague statistic like per capita income overturns the correlation makes it clear that the dynamics we're looking at are considerably more complex than the initial claim allows. (The fact that the wiki page I linked breaks it down by ethnicity and not just race, reminding us that the circumstances of the median Japanese-American and the median Lao-Americans are very different and therefore calling generalisations about "Asians" into question, is just a bonus.)

 

[Farm Boy]

You sound suspiciously like me(only more eloquent, granted, aight?) responding to people telling the white trailer trash and rednecks to "check their privilege." Is that intended?

 

[Traitorfish]

Not my intention. All I'm saying is, you have to use statistics, you can't just drop a few of them onto the table and expect them to form an argument all by themselves; they're numbers, not a T-1000.

I mean, I think that stereotypes of working class and rural white people are harmful, too, whatever that's worth.

 

[Sommerswerd]

the dynamics we're looking at are considerably more complex than the initial claim allows.

I would like to say that I find this entire post very persuasive (except where you confused me with Tim... an honest mistake, we do often make consistent arguments), and I particularly agree with this the sentence I quoted.

 

[Farm Boy]

I mean, I think that stereotypes of working class and rural white people are harmful, too, whatever that's worth.

Not quite what I mean. What I mean(closer to it, at any rate, not just exactly this) is when people attempt to correct for centuries of racial bias by counterbalancing it intentionally with institutional bias. Then dismissively brush off as (misguidedly)racist/bigoted the rage of the povertous that now manage to suffer both from economic/social disadvantage coupled with disparate access to amelioration based on the perception of their "superstatus" stereotype. Usually why I try to holler that, usually, raw economic advantage is a better indicator of privilege than the alternatives.

You don't want to own this one?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I didn't want to go looking for statistics at all, but you asked. I can look in my phone book and tell you that 50% of the medical professionals in this town are drawn from the 3-4% of the population that are Asian Americans. Of course, that's anecdotal (a minor drawback) and doesn't support your idea that "there is no substance behind the statistic" about median incomes (the real source of your complaint, IMO).

By the way, it isn't me who has been arguing that the "diligent good students" stereotype does the stereotyped Asian Americans more good than harm, though it seems reasonable enough to me.

Another observation, again anecdotal; those Asian Americans in the medical professions here get away with stuff that no American professional should be able to get away with. Out of hundreds of referrals my parents have gotten from doctors I can't point to one from an Asian American that was not to another Asian American. The almost exclusively Asian American board of trustees of the hospital demonstrates glaring preferences favoring Asian Americans in just about every decision they make. Anyone who questions any of these things is immediately tagged as a racist, as is anyone who questions them about anything.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Not quite what I mean. What I mean(closer to it, at any rate, not just exactly this) is when people attempt to correct for centuries of racial bias by counterbalancing it intentionally with institutional bias. Then dismissively brush off as (misguidedly)racist/bigoted the rage of the povertous that now manage to suffer both from economic/social disadvantage coupled with disparate access to amelioration based on the perception of their "superstatus" stereotype. Usually why I try to holler that, usually, raw economic advantage is a better indicator of privilege than the alternatives.

You don't want to own this one?

I will respond, by repeating my point that the economic success or otherwise (of any ethnicity) has much more to do with circumstances, often complex, than anything else... especially stereotypical ethnic superpowers or "unique abilities"... Everyone's favourite turn-based strategy game notwithstanding. So in that sense I think we agree.

Out of hundreds of referrals my parents have gotten from doctors I can't point to one from an Asian American that was not to another Asian American.

Every ethnicity does this... another reason that "positive" stereotypes are so potentially beneficial... one successful professional begats another... creating a "snowballing effect"...

OK I will stop using Civ terms

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Every ethnicity does this... another reason that "positive" stereotypes are so potentially beneficial... one successful professional begats another... creating a "snowballing effect"...

Undoubtedly true...but when white people do it there are often consequences...or at least questions. One time I bid a bigger than usual job and needed some extra guys, which I said I would pick up at day labor rates. I show up for the job with three young white guys for helpers and get called out at various times through the day by the homeowner, a neighbor (also a customer of mine), and the gardener (who was a passing acquaintance since we had a number of shared customers). They all knew that if you go to pick up day labor in front of our local Home Depot most of them are Hispanic so picking white guys three out of three was clearly demonstrating bias.

Spoiler :

The three white guys were my sons, who were cheaper and didn't involve driving to Home Depot.

 

[jackelgull]

Out of hundreds of referrals my parents have gotten from doctors I can't point to one from an Asian American that was not to another Asian American. The almost exclusively Asian American board of trustees of the hospital demonstrates glaring preferences favoring Asian Americans in just about every decision they make. Anyone who questions any of these things is immediately tagged as a racist, as is anyone who questions them about anything.

Unfortunately, I can see that happening. If white Americans stereotype Asian- Americans, then Asian Americans stereotype white Americans back. The worst stereotype I have encountered is that Americans are untrustworthy. More normal prejudices are that Americans are lazy or privileged. I remember when my mother first began to work at an school for underprivileged children she was shocked to find that most of the kids had I pad. She came from India, and social welfare just isn't that good over there.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not quite what I mean. What I mean(closer to it, at any rate, not just exactly this) is when people attempt to correct for centuries of racial bias by counterbalancing it intentionally with institutional bias. Then dismissively brush off as (misguidedly)racist/bigoted the rage of the povertous that now manage to suffer both from economic/social disadvantage coupled with disparate access to amelioration based on the perception of their "superstatus" stereotype. Usually why I try to holler that, usually, raw economic advantage is a better indicator of privilege than the alternatives.

You don't want to own this one?

I'm not really sure what you're saying. That there's an under-emphasis on class inequality relative to other inequality? I agree with that; I'm a Marxist, comes with the territory. But that's not what this discussion has been about, and I'm not sure what good there'd be in my crowbarring the observation into it. Seems like I'd be saying it to be saying it, and it's this whole culture of ritualised over-contextualizing that reduced the discourse around "privilege" to the mess that it's in.

So, yes, I agree, the best indicator of economic advantage is economic advantage. But the issue in this thread is: how are these advantages structured by race and racial stereotypes?

 

[Farm Boy]

How are they structured by race? Welp, if we use the category "Asian" for all it's overbroadness, apparently the structure is "doing better in Murica than any other overbroad racial categorization." We can then either decide that the overbroad stereotype is causal, irrelevant, partially contributory, or of negative effect but insufficient to pull down the other advantages that fuel the status of most privileged overbroad American ethnicity available.