Asian Americans: Model Minority, POC or just a bad idea?

Razib Khan has a post up about Asian Americans and how they are perceieved/presented in American intellectual discourse.
Facts are important. But they can be inconvenient….. Today Quartz put up a piece, If Asian Americans saw white Americans the way white Americans see black Americans, which is not really about Asian Americans at all, but simply uses them as a prop, often in a mendacious manner. First, it gives a nod to the Asian American “Model Minority Myth,” stating that there is “perception that they are high achievers relative to other American ethnic groups.” Get it? There’s a perception. There’s a myth in some scholarly and political quarters that the model minority idea is a myth, founded mostly on assertion (e.g., just stating that it’s a false myth) and slicing and dicing the statistics to emphasize ways in which Asian Americans are disadvantaged in relation to non-Hispanic whites. For example, there is often a focus on the diversity among Asian Americans, ranging from affluent Indian Americans, to groups with more conventional socioeconomic profiles like Filipinos, and finally, those which are somewhat disadvantaged such the Hmong. This is to show that Asian Americans are not a model minority…some of them are struggling. But the logic is not applied to whites! Those who purport to debunk the myth of the model minority would not accede to debunking the idea of white privilege by pointing to the state of Appalachia, and rural white America more generally. Group averages for we, but not thee?


 And yet the Quartz piece engages in some interesting jujitsu by actually reporting the statistics of Asian American advantage vis-a-vis white Americans in the service of a broader agenda of putting whites in their place in relation to their critiques of black Americans. In particular it quotes Anil Dash as saying “If Asian Americans talked about white Americans the way whites talk about black folks, they’d bring back the Exclusion Act.”


This to me is really bizarre, and why I term the piece mendacious: Asian Americans do talk about white Americans the way whites talk about black folks. This sort of thing was a clear subtext of Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Many (most?) Asian American kids who grew up with immigrant parents were barraged with assertions about the disreputable character of their “American” (white) friends, and how it was important to keep on the straight & narrow. Immigrants from Asia often perceive white Americans to be sexually obsessed, lazy, and prone to a general amorality and fixation on short term hedonic interests. These are polite ways to condense the sort of attitude many Asian immigrants have toward the white American mainstream, which they worry will absorb and corrupt their children. Dash must know this, as he probably had immigrant parents, or was friends with people from immigrant backgrounds. Most white Americans don’t know this, partly because most white Americans don’t have non-white friends. But anyone from an Asian American background would be aware of the stereotypes and perceptions.


The tacit misrepresentation of Asian Americans here, not acknowledging that they do engage in the exact sort of behavior you are hypothetically positing they might engage in and so alienate white people, is not surprising. Asian Americans are often simply bit characters in a drama involving broader social and political streams which dominate the political landscape.,, 

Read the whole thing there..

I am posting this because I have often wondered why some Asian-American intellectuals (and more specifically, “South Asian” ones, since I am a little more familiar with them) are so committed to a model in which the model minority is a myth and Asian-Americans are “people of color”, standing shoulder to shoulder with African-Americans and Latinos in POC-solidarity against the oppressive rule of White privilege? I don’t mean to say that there is NO truth in any such model. But leaving the truth and untruth of the assertion aside for the moment.

On the hyphenated American…

First things first, my mother was shot during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Though, as upper-middle-class Muslims who tended toward being in technical professions (medicine, engineering, etc.) honestly I don’t think we bore the brunt of the violence (I qualify technical, because an uncle-in-law who comes from an artistic family had several relatives shot by the Pakistani army due to their possible propaganda creating skills).

I was born in Bangladesh. That being said, my parents spent more time as Pakistani citizens than Bangladeshi citizens. And they’ve spent the most time as American citizens. I grew up nearly my whole life in the United States of America.

When I was a kid people would often assume I was Arab, Iranian, or, most often, Indian. Sometimes I would correct them, and explain my family was from Bangladesh..but then I would have to explain what and where Bangladesh was. So often I would just let it stand, as “Indian” is good enough for government work.

That being said, some people have objected to my relaxed attitude on this. Mostly, these are Indians and Bangladeshis. People born and raised in India and Bangladesh. Though a few people I know from Nepal or Pakistan or Sri Lanka also are perplexed at my relaxed attitude toward national identity. I think the major issue is that as an American, there is clearly brown provenance to my origins, but the crystallizing national identities in the subcontinent are detached from my own family’s historical experience, which hasn’t experienced much of the last 40 years.

Of course religion and such matters. People of Muslim origin from the subcontinent who are irreligious are very different in their attitude toward being brown from people who are religious, and these are very different in their attitude toward those who are very very religious (in some ways, the irreligious and the very very religious are more similar than to the group in the middle).

Browncast: Dr Woodson

Another Browncast is up. You can listen on LibsynAppleSpotify,  and Stitcher (and a variety of other platforms). Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe to one of the links above!

You can also support the podcast as a patron. The primary benefit now is that you get the podcasts considerably earlier than everyone else. This website isn’t about shaking the cup, but I have noticed that the number of patrons plateaued a long time ago.

Woodson Shownotes:
In this episode, Razib and Mukunda speak to Robert Woodson, the founder and President of the Woodson Center along with one of the leading members of the 1776 Project.  We discuss the current social and racial dialogue in the United States, the problems with the mainstream understanding of racial history and relations in the US, the great strides made during the Civil Rights, the difference between the Civil Rights movement and current movements specifically Black Lives Matter and possible solutions.
The Woodson Center focuses its energies and efforts on addressing the economic and social needs and concerns of low-income African American communities using entrepreneurship and community empowerment strategies and initiatives.  The 1776 project is a “is an assembly of Scholars, Educators, and Activists who uphold our country’s authentic founding virtues and values, challenging those who assert that America is forever defined by its past failures—namely, slavery. It challenges the prevailing narrative that promotes class warfare and racial division with the constant message that all problems of low-income neighborhoods are rooted in systemic racism, which determines and limits the prospects of the poor.”  Mr. Woodson is the recipient of the MacArthur Fellowship and sits on the Board of the Rhodes Scholarship.

 

Of Indian Americans and American Indians

Of all ethnic groups in the United States, second generation Indian Americans are the only ones who experience a decline in income relative to the first generation. The art and media produced by Indian Americans tends to angsty, brooding and dispiriting.

📊 Estimated Audience Size & Profile

    • WordPress dashboard data noted roughly 20,000 monthly readers circa mid-2020  .

    • Updated trends confirm continued modest growth, with India-based IPs making up a rising share  .Monthly Unique Users

  1. Comment Engagement

    • Recent posts regularly attract 100+ comments, indicating strong reader engagement and active discourse.

    • An average reading time on site is 4+ minutes, suggesting high dwell and thoughtful consumption  .

     

  2. Reader Geography (2018 Data)

    • Estimated by mid-2018:

      • United States: ~35%

      • India: ~29%

      • Followed by UK, Canada, Pakistan, and others  .

       

    • Likely similar or more skewed toward India today, given recent commentary.

     

 


 

🔎 Summary Table

 

Metric

Estimate / Insight

Monthly Readers

~20,000 (unique visitors)

Engagement per Post

~100+ comments; high dwell time (~4 min+)

Geographic Spread

USA ~35%, India ~29%, UK ~6%, Pakistan ~5%

Engagement Quality

Active discussions, reflections, back-and-forth

Growth Trend

Steady rise; India traffic accelerating


 

✅ Takeaway

  • Readership is modest in scale (~20K/month), but engagement is high, with active comments and deep platform dwell.

  • Most traction likely comes from Indian-origin and South Asia-adjacent readers, especially online communities aligned with diaspora and intellectual South Asian discourse.

  • This audience profile aligns with Brown Pundits’ ethos — curated intellectual conversation, not mass media reach.

Brown Pundits