Is it time for Asian Americans and Latino Americans to ask to be considered “white”? (c)

By AnAn 14 Comments

This is the next article in the series “Is it time for Asian Americans and Latino Americans to ask to be considered “white”, “Is it time for Asian Americans and Latino Americans to ask to be considered “white” (a)”,  Razib’s  “Hasan Minhaj’s Patriot Act on Affirmative Action“, and “Is it time for Asian Americans and Latino Americans to ask to be considered “white” (b)”.

A growing part of the global caucasian intelligentsia are attacking Hong Kong protesters as far right fascists. This is part of a growing trend among xenophobic caucasians attacking Asians for “white supremacy”, “nazism”, “racism”, “oppression”, “patriarchy”, “imperialism”, “colonialism”, “hegemony”, “exploitation.”

Why is this happening? Is it just jealousy? Is it that many caucasians fear that “darkies” own a growing percentage of global wealth, earn a growing percentage of global income? Is it fear that “darkies” have growing competence, capacity, merit, mental health, intelligence? Is it fear about improving “darkie” academic outcomes?

I am not sure. Can everyone share their thoughts?

How should us “darkies” react?

I believe in loving and respecting our enemy with all our hearts, all our souls, all our minds and all our might. This includes everyone who is disrespectful, not loving, racist, bigoted, prejudiced, white supremacist, Nazi, facist, oppressive, hegemonic, exploitative, patriarchal towards us. And everyone who accuses us of being disrespectful, not loving, racist, bigoted, prejudiced, white supremicist, Nazi, facist, oppressive, hegemonic, exploitative, patriarchal. And everyone who labels and mislabels us. And everyone who falsely accuses us.

Everyone has the right to freedom of art and thought. If we truly love and respect others, then how can we not respect their right to disrespect and not love us?

The sweetness of love will gradually melt their hearts.

Some might say that this works for most people who are mean to others, but is insufficient for dangerous people. For particularly dangerous people, we can combine the deepest of love and respect with dialogue. And for the most dangerous people, we can combine love, respect, and dialogue with other things.

Can there be any other way?

This topic is one of the reasons The Brown Pundits Podcast would like to interview Irshad Manji:

Irshad Manji has touched the sweetness of the heart, the silence that is always with us. And while I agree with her that we should respect and love others, and not label others. I don’t think we have the right to limit the freedom of art and thought of others by asking them not to label and mislabel us.

One example that inspires me is how Krishna dealt with harsh bigotry, criticism, false allegations, others mislabeling him, disrespect, bigotry, prejudice, white supremacy, Nazism, fascism, oppression, hegemony, exploitation, patriarchy. Krishna insisted that others be allowed to criticize Krishna.

I would be curious to listen to Irshad Manji’s thoughts about this.


14 Replies to “Is it time for Asian Americans and Latino Americans to ask to be considered “white”? (c)”

  1. May be this small video is relevant.

    Why are people in the USA living shorter lives?

    Lines that jump at you –

    If you don’t have a BA degree in the US, your wages have been falling for half a century, and that is destroying families…
    It’s to do the capitalism actually failing a large chunk of population…

    US doesn’t have much of a safety net..

    It is due to the dire predicament of this former “white” segment of population that US has taken a sharp turn towards nativism. I don’t expect asian americans to move into “white” category seamlessly. There will be bumps along the road. There will be reaction.

    And I fully expect Trump to win a second term, possibly with an increased vote share.

    1. Scorpian, in what way are Latino and Asian Americans not already de facto “white”–whatever that means?

      America only has two minorities with legitimate ancient grievances that are slightly recognized:
      —multi-generational (I would define as having 13 out of 16 great great grandparents be black Americans born in the USA) black African Americans
      —Native Americans who embody ancient native American culture and character (significantly less than 1% of the population)

      Chinese and Japanese, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other Americans who have been subject to discrimination get “ZERO” credit for it . . . and are rather often accused by caucasians of “white supremacy”, “nazism”, “racism”, “imperialism”, “oppression”, “hegemony”, “alt right”. I am not sure why this is. Some speculate it is for the crime of massively socio-economically outperforming caucasions. {I honestly don’t understand this phenomenon.}

      These allegations are also often made against native americans and multi-generational black americans.

      Many caucasians blast native Americans who practice native american culture/character/religion when they don’t follow the caucasian intelligentsia line. Perhaps it is because some native Americans love and respect those who harm them? Which many caucasians see as loving and respecting bad people?

      Most surprising to me was the way so many caucasians attacked President Obama when he spoke about agency, fatherhood, out of wedlock births, divorce, responsibility, discipline, studying hard in school and character. To quote Glenn Loury, “a pile of bricks fell on him.”

      Scorpion Eater, many multi-generational black americans correctly are uncomfortable about the way Latinos and Asians inappropriately claim the “people of color” and “minority” labels. This was one of the main causes of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Should we respect their wishes and let go of these labels?


      This post was about a global phenomenon versus an American phenomenon. America only has 1/6th of global income. Many caucasians in Europe and North Americans have growing angst about the rise of the rest. The rise of Asia, Latin America and Africa.

      The unusual reaction of many caucasians to Hong Kong reflects this growing angst.

      Is the only thing Asians, Latin Americans and Africans can do about it is to love and respect those who disrespect, abuse and mislabel us?

      1. AnAn

        Good points about two minorities with legitimate ancient grievances that are slightly recognized:

        All other minorities came there voluntarily for economic and other reasons and they knew what they were letting into by migrating to the USA.

        In the case of Europe, it is Jews (and blacks) who have been historically suppressed.

      2. “America only has two minorities with legitimate ancient grievances that are slightly recognized:
        —multi-generational (I would define as having 13 out of 16 great great grandparents be black Americans born in the USA) black African Americans
        —Native Americans who embody ancient native American culture and character (significantly less than 1% of the population)”

        Muslims and Hispanics have been added to the “Objects of Leftist Pity” list. Indeed, Muslims may be the list toppers now.

        1. Hispanics were thrown off the “Objects of Leftist Pity” list by Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter started as a response to a tragic inadvertent altercation between a hispanic American and black American in 2012 and between a Hindu Asian American and black American in 2014.

          Black Lives Matter exploded across Latin America (including Brazil and Mexico) and arguably was bigger in Latin America than in Europe, Africa, Asia, Canada or the USA.

          Now hispanics (like Asians) are frequently accused by caucasians of “white supremacy”, “fascism”, “racism”, “imperialism”, “colonialism”, “oppression”, “exploitation”, “hegemony”.

          “Muslims” were briefly added to the list 2016-2018 but are now off the list again. The left, liberals, Democratic party has condemned and disassociated themselves from Linda Sarsour. The Southern Poverty Law center has apologized to and paid Maajid Nawaz $3.3 million. They are likely to similarly settle with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Global Human Rights groups are dissociating themselves from Islamists.

          Ilhan Omar is quietly despised by the left, liberals and Democrats . . . let alone the muslim world. Her only major supporter is AOC. The moment AOC dumps her, watch what happens to Ilhan Omar.

          Muslim Americans are an affluent successful influential minority group that suffers far fewer hate crimes per capita than Jewish Americans. Muslim Americans also suffer from less discrimination than Jews, Hindus or Buddhists.

  2. The Hong Kong protesters are libertarians, demanding their human rights and opposing communism, which they have long experience dealing with. American leftists are essentially communistic, oddly enough having no real experience with communism. The rhetoric accusing the protesters of being “far right” has nothing to do with racism or intolerance of any sort; it is simply the current response to anyone opposed to Marxism. It is an allegation made by those who push Marxism here against people actively engaged against Marxism both here and elsewhere, even when the allegation is completely ridiculous. No more, no less.

    Don’t push to be labeled as anything. Be. Be who you are, no labels. You define you, you are not defined by your particular accident of birth.

    Marxists demand that all of us be defined by race… the new “class”… so that you will have group-based grievances. The oppressors and the oppressed. Don’t play that game. Don’t dance that dance. Be defined by yourself, your actions, your character… and hold everyone else to that same standard. That, my friends, is love and tolerance because it acknowledges each individual. It is the true spirit of namaste, “I see you.”

    1. Back in the 1980s and 1990s few things would trigger and anger global communists and socialists (post modernism was not as popular back then) as much as the four little Asian Tiger economic miracle.

      For many of them it was deeply personal. And often took dangerous racial and ethnic overtones. This was true across Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America and North America.

      The first time I realized the full extent of global anger this generated was during the 1988 South Korean Olympics.

      The 1988 South Korean Olympics led to the collapse of communism and socialism all over the world. Including India’s 1991 liberalization.

      The world was in shock that one of the poorest countries in the world in the 1950s (South Korea) was now rich. How could this happen?

      Did this mean that any poor/oppressed/exploited/abused person or group of people could become very successful, intelligent and powerful if they chose?

      Many people around the world responded by demonizing the people of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea.

      Is part of what we are seeing now on the part of many caucasians a continuation of that?

      How much is jealousy about the success, power and intelligence of Asians?

  3. No. I did not observe that kind of harsh feelings towards those countries. I still don’t. Taiwan has fallen out of favor because the world has failed to push back against China’s claim to it.

    “Caucasians” aren’t threatened by Asian prosperity, because there are no “caucasians.” The are only people. Some of those people are identitarians, whose identity is wrapped up in what color they were accidentally born. Most do not let it define their being.

    There are, however, people who are taking care of their own interests, like American farmers or manufacturing workers who have a vested interest in Asian affairs. Don’t mistake economic and national concerns for racism, though. Most decisions made by people both powerful and not are made without ever considering the race of a business partner or rival.

    1. Old Blue, you are describing yourself and the many social circles you are connected to. Sadly this is not as representative of Americans as it once was 🙁

      Traditionally part of American exceptionalism was that Americans:
      —celebrated the success of others and believed that people in general benefit from the success of others (were not jealous)
      —believed that people were soverign (if not divine) and that people had extraordinary potential power and intelligence inside themselves that could be realized
      —understood that people rarely benefit from harming others (“oppression” rarely exists in the real world), but rather that we usually hurt ourselves when we try to hurt others. While those we try to hurt often benefit from our trying to hurt them
      —believed that freedom was God’s gift to all people in the world
      —believed that most people around the world had similar values and similar long term interests as Americans
      —thought that most people have love in their hearts and desire to do good
      —aspired to color blind
      —thought most people in the world want to be like Americans

      All of the above are I believe generally true. The last point is mostly but not 100% true.

      Post modernism and cultural marxism has colonized the minds of caucasians around the world in subtle ways that most are not consciously aware of. And because of this, the above assumptions are no longer as universal among Caucasians and Americans (most caucasians are not American) as they once were.

      I agree with you that debates about globalization and free markets are not about race, ethnicity or religion.

      I think you under-estimate how jealous many young psychologically unstable caucasian post modernists and cultural marxists get when they see “darkies”, “ethnics” and “foreigners” academically dominate their K-12 and college. Mostly this affects their subconscious (Chitta in Sanskrit) without their conscious awareness. This was not as true in the 1980s and 1990s. Suspect this has contributed to the rise of post modernism and cultural marxism among caucasians over the last generation. Sigh. The world has changed.

  4. “A growing part of the global caucasian intelligentsia are attacking Hong Kong protesters as far right fascists… Why is this happening?… I am not sure.”

    I was previously unaware of this micro-trend (if it is even that). In my world, HK protesters are generally thought of as supporters of democracy. But OK, someone called Tim Pool tells us about someone called Ben Norton who calls some of the HK demonstrators “far right nationalists”.

    Norton seems to be talking about a portion of the HK protest movement who liaise with North American right-wing street toughs (I mean the sort who fight antifa in Portland), who carry Pepe symbols, look down on Chinese mainlanders, and want HK independence. So maybe he has a point? Or maybe he belongs to that portion of the western left for whom all forms of nationalism are “far right”?

    I remain unconvinced that any of this matters – that it is anything more than amplification of personalities and events on the absolute fringe of the HK movement, which then become something for very minor pundits like Pool and Norton to argue about. Pool is a Youtube infowarrior, Norton is a journalist from progressive alternative media, so they will both take an interest in any sign of western right-wing populism finding allies in HK; Pool will be excited, Norton will be appalled, but they will both take an interest.

    However, my read is that this has nothing to do with the majority of HK pro-democracy demonstrators, they just want to preserve their separate system for as long as possible (and indeed to push towards the universal suffrage proclaimed as a long-term goal in the HK law); and that the bulk of western opinion will continue to view the struggle in terms of ‘pro-democracy’ and ‘pro-China’.

    1. Thanks for sharing Mitchell Porter. I hope you are right that the large majority of the left and liberals would denounce Norton’s bizarre weird statements.

      I don’t know Norton’s history. Never heard of him before this. Do you think Nortan is angry at Hong Kong’s economic success and the fact that Hong Kong went from a poor city in the 1950s to one of the richest cities in the world by 1997? Is any of this a backlash against Hong Kong’s free market pro globalization policies?

      1. He’s certainly a leftist. Like AOC, he belongs to Democratic Socialists of America. A recurring theme in his work, is US assistance to “far right” figures and movements, in order to overthrow left-wing nationalists. If you want his views on a subject, you should probably just ask him via

        His colleague Max Blumenthal is mildly interesting, in that he is the son of an eminent Bill Clinton advisor, Sidney Blumenthal.

        1. “”US assistance to “far right” figures and movements, in order to overthrow left-wing nationalists.”

          Many across the left and the right oppose globalization as a matter of principle and support nativism and narrow understandings of patriotism around the world. They often see the global financial system (whether in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, London, Singapore, Mumbai, Chicago, San Francisco or New York) very negatively, and believe most Asians are “far right”. Sometimes they go further and accuse Asians of “white supremacy”.

          Hong Kong is a complex case for many marxists and post modernists, since they oppose both the global capitalist superpower China and Hong Kong–the embodiment of the global economic elite.

          I just googled Norton. Mostly pulled up Moduro related content.

          Norton appears to backs Moduro against Colombia (Moduro appears to be advising and assisting rebels fighting the Colombian security forces), Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Panama, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, almost all of Latin America.

          Every country has loons. But America seems to have a disproportionately large share.

          I don’t get why so many Americans back Moduro. He is deeply unpopular among the 96% of the world’s people who are not Americans.

Comments are closed.