# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, the Nigerian newspaper Punch opened an article as follows: "Nigerians ... have been rated among certain races who are bound to succeed over others in America, the News Agency of Nigeria reports." Anyone who reads book reviews or listens to middlebrow talk radio in America is likely to know that this refers to the new offering from Amy "Tiger Mom" Chua and her husband, Jed Rubenfeld (that's them looking self important above).

Their book, The Triple Package claims that Nigerians and a few other groups share the characteristics that are commonly supposed to have made Asian immigrants so successful in the U.S. (In a far stranger opinion piece in the Premium Times, Reno Omokri, an advisor to Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, cites Chua and Rosenfeld as support for anti-gay policies.)

One can see why the Nigerian elevation to model minority status might be welcome news in some quarters. After all, Asian-Americans have come a long way.

For much of twentieth century, Asians were the "yellow peril" that had to be kept at bay by overlapping layers of racially discriminatory policy. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (pretty much exactly what it sounds like) was followed by a 1907 "Gentlemen's Agreement" with Japan. (That arrangement spared the Emperor the embarrassment of having his citizens similarly barred, but only if he agreed never to let any try to emigrate.) Combined with an "Asiatic Barred Zone" established in 1917 and the "national origins" quotas enacted in 1924, these measures added up to repeated, official U.S. government declarations that people from East and South Asia were not citizen material. When U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were herded into internment camps during World War II, the Supreme Court doubled down on this estimation, essentially holding that blood would tell.

In the early twentieth century, there was plenty of support for these measures from U.S. social scientists. Franklin Giddings, the founder of modern sociology in the United States, published a "scientific scale" (See the chart on page 142 at this link) showing "Asian yellow" to be the seventh-least civilized racial group in the United States. "Civilized" blacks were next, followed by "uncivilized" on the bottom.

John W. Burgess, Giddings's counterpart in political science, thought whites had a "world-duty of carrying civilization into the dark places of the earth," but still opposed America's imperial adventurism in the Philippines, worried that it would add "unspeakable Asiatics" to America's list of problems (e.g. Indian, negro, labor, and Mormon). And when the U.S. did acquire an Asian colony in the Philippines, social science stood more or less united behind the proposition that "assimilationism" was doomed to fail. In the words of international relations scholar Paul Reinsch, the U.S. would "never succeed in making Americans" of its new subjects, since "deep racial differences cannot be bridged over by political institutions."

Fast forward to 1966, just after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act deracialized U.S. immigration law (on paper, at least) and the U.S. civil rights movement won its great legislative victories. That's the year the sociologist William Peterson coined the term "model minority," claiming that with their strong families and stringent work ethic, Japanese-Americans had proven that discrimination was no barrier to the American dream. The media piled on, finding exemplary qualities and success in all manner of Asian-descended groups.

Suddenly, the "deep racial differences" that had meant Asians could never make it American-style were reimagined as their secret weapon for doing just that.

But it wasn't so much what made Asians different from whites-the kinds of differences that had preoccupied people like Giddings, Burgess, and Reinsch-that made this trope so appealing. Sometimes implicitly, but often as not explicitly, the differences that mattered were with "negroes," so tragically unfit to get on with the business of becoming middle-class Americans. Senator (and Tufts-trained sociology Ph. D.) Daniel Patrick Moynihan crystallized the liberal version of this canard in "The Negro Family: a Plan for National Action" (better known as the "Moynihan report"). For Moynihan, black poverty may have originated in slavery and discrimination, but stemmed in modern times primarily from the resulting damage to black culture. In particular, Moynihan highlighted the "deterioration of the Negro family" evidenced by the high incidence of female-headed households. By this logic, the solution wasn't antipoverty programs but rather a federal effort to "stabilize" black family structures along patriarchal lines.

These weren't new ideas-versions of them had long informed "uplift" schemes peddled by paternalistic liberal whites and many black elites. But this image of black Americans, paired with the new, improved version of Asian-ness, was a potent brew. That is, just at the moment that de jure racial oppression was dismantled, social science found that it was not the real problem. The real problem was black Americans themselves.

This "damage" discourse has had a curious history since. Roundly denounced by activists and social scientists for "victim-blaming," it nonetheless lived on in various strains of "underclass," "cycle of poverty," and "pathology" theories of class and racial hierarchy in America. (For more on this, see Adolph Reed Jr., on "The Underclass as Myth and Symbol".) That is, it became at once a commonplace of mainstream liberalism ("It's not 'race!' It's 'culture!'") and deeply suspect ("'culture' is the new 'race!'").

Chua and Rubenfeld have hit the publicity jackpot by playing at the edges of this paradox, going mainstream by locating racial superiority in culture rather than genes, and at the same time trying to finesse the controversy by endowing some black people with their "triple package" of desirable cultural traits. (Sorry - no link to the book here. It's bad enough we're writing about it.)

Of course, the book is nonsense. And it's scurrilous nonsense to boot. In point of fact, "culture" isn't the new "race." It's the old "race." Biological racism is particularly lurid (and saw particularly heinous expression in eugenics and Nazism, for example), but racial oppression has as often (or perhaps even more often) been justified on cultural, religious, or economic grounds. To disavow, as Chua and Rosenfeld do, "the whole idea...that groups succeed because of innate biological differences" and claim instead that "cultural forces are at work" does not put you on the side of the angels.

In any event, boosters should take note-being among the anointed has its hazards. As the political scientist Claire Jean Kim has pointed out, for Asians, the stamp of elite white approval has come with plenty of othering. You may be successful, the story goes, but you are really strange-not one of us, unassimilable.

And heaven forbid you're an Asian-American family on food stamps, with children who will probably never walk the halls of MIT. What the hell is wrong with you?

And that, of course, is what the authors of The Triple Package are selling: The idea that elites are on top because they are better; everyone else simply doesn't have what it takes.
Caveat emptor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, the Nigerian newspaper Punch opened an article as follows: "Nigerians ... have been rated among certain races who are bound to succeed over others in America, the News Agency of Nigeria reports."

# data[].attributes.body
Asian Americans used to be portrayed as the villains. How did they become a "model minority"? http://wapo.st/2pjLdCl

# data[].attributes.body
rather than being violent antagonists model minorities sit back and put their efforts into "positive" work that is for the better of society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
public broadcasting service (tv network)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
america by the numbers with maria hinojosa: clarkston georgia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AMERICA BY THE NUMBERS | Model Minority Myth | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asian Americans are one of the best-educated groups in the country, but a startling number of Southeast Asian Americans aren't graduating from high school. AMERICA BY THE NUMBERS premieres Oct 4 on PBS (check local listings). Learn more at http://pbs.org/americabythenumbers

# data[].attributes.body
Asian groups are considered to be the model minority because of how well specific Asian groups have done. This term is used to justify how other minorities are not not up to par and puts Asian groups against other minorities. However, the idea of how Asians are model minorities is incorrect because only a handful of Asian groups are successful. Because of this umbrellaing of Asianness, it does not accurately depict how certain Asian groups are really doing.

# data[].attributes.body
A ethnic minority group that white Americans use as a role model or example for other minority groups to follow. (Chinese were used as social wedges to break Irish workers' strikes and were preferred because they worked for lower wages and were less demanding.)

# data[].attributes.body
Model minority is a stereotype to describe a minority group of people's success.

# data[].attributes.body
Claiming one racial group is superior over another by misrepresenting their success as a way to delegitimize criticism against injustices in America. "If they can make it, why can't you?" Or "You're just not working hard enough."

# data[].attributes.body
It's the justification for embracing the culture of a group, while also implicating stereotypes

# data[].attributes.body
Stereotyping one minority as the example for other minorities to follow

# data[].attributes.body
Like a A really weird art piece
No one wants to be it, but not may deny the appearance of greatness

# data[].attributes.body
A minority group of people that is used to ostensibly provide an ideal for all other minorities to follow; in practice, despite the supposed success of such minority, this minority is still discriminated upon and merely used as a stake to drive minorities apart from each other.

# data[].attributes.body
can Be seen as both relative valorization and civic ostracism

# data[].attributes.body
The model minority is a group that the dominant group uses as an example of what other minority groups should be like.  However, having the model minority status could be detrimental to individuals who are stereotyped that way but they do not fit into that category.

# data[].attributes.body
They can be successful with “totally unaided effort.”

# data[].attributes.body
When a group of people are believed to have risen in the social ladder do to an increase in education levels and media exposure

# data[].attributes.body
A minority group which sets expectations of success for other minority groups

# data[].attributes.body
valorization of asians relative to other minorities

# data[].attributes.body
The radicalization of Asians being above all else self sufficient, family oriented and apolitical.

# data[].attributes.body
Model minority is a label used by the dominant group towards a minority to make it seems as though the oppression faced by minorities is surpassable/isn't real. This is notably used towards Asia's in America to help maintain the image that the American dream is accessible to all

# data[].attributes.body
Model minority is a term used to glorify the American dream. In the model minority, white people use this as a way to say "hey if this one group can do it why can't everyone else? This is damaging to other races that are more heavily oppressed in that because one minority group can be successful, there is equal opportunity for all to do the same(actually not). It is also damaging to Asian Americans in that those who cannot get ahead are not seen as oppressed but lazy or underachieving and therefore,

# data[].attributes.headline
stereotyping a group by assumptions to ultimately support another group, the "majority." Such is visible between whites and Asians beginning in the 60's

# data[].attributes.subject
stereotyping a group by assumptions to ultimately support another group, the "majority." Such is visible between whites and Asians beginning in the 60's

# data[].attributes.body
A model minority is the ideal minority person. Usually assimilating to whiteness in America. For example Obama would be the model minority for black folks. White folks believe that because one black man fits this model minority that everyone else should be able to do it too. This creates problems because structural racism will never allow for POC folks to reach that model minority thus creating stereotypes and prejudices against black folks

# data[].attributes.body
A model minority is one which is considered to be in line with the norms of society, eschewing the issues commonly blamed upon other minority groups such as drugs, crime and instability. The model minority is held to be assimilate in the sense that they conform to the standards of "mainstream" society, but that same conformism can be twisted to ostracize them by characterizing them as "other" by ascribing to their positive qualities to their cultural heritage, keeping their perception as something foreign

# data[].attributes.body
A small group of people, being excluded from the dominant, raises their own success and even more successful than the dominant race

# data[].attributes.body
Is the ideal minority which assimilates to American culture and is used as an example for other minorities. This includes stereotypes that favor the majority group as well as pitting minorities against each other.