Most people in the U.S. believe that Asian American success in the academic field is indicative of idealized immigrant assimilation, but this image is not completely accurate and may be more harmful than beneficial

                It is commonplace to assume that Asian Americans’ academic and monetary success in the United States can be attributed to “natural” intellect and a culture that inherently places emphasis on education.  However, this attitude silences Asian American and Pacific Islanders’ (AAPI) voices in discussions of racial injustice in addition to numerous, serious repercussions.

What the model minority myth is

                In short, it is the idea that AAPIs are a prime example of an immigrant group that has reached a higher level of achievement than the rest of the population average. This success is typically measured in high achievement in academics and in the workplace, as well as other factors such as low crime rates.

                AAPIs have had a history of being seen as the “Yellow Peril”, a fear that manifested itself as initiatives to restrict immigration from Asia and the Japanese internment camps of World War II. That is, until it became convenient for them to be portrayed otherwise.

                During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, blacks mobilized across the nation calling for action against segregations laws, voter disenfranchisement, and mass racial violence at the time. In response, the white American press began publishing rags-to-riches stories of AAPIs who achieved success in the U.S. despite facing similar racial segregation and marginalization as blacks. White America essentially broadcast the message that if AAPIs are doing so well, black America’s concerns were unfounded and the system was fine as is.

By the 1980s, every major U.S. publication had run a feel-good story about the high achievements of AAPIs

AAPIs were nonthreatening enough to utilize as symbols of idealized minority assimilation to American society because their population was much smaller and their history of political activism was quieter and less visible. Thus, AAPIs have been a tool to justify institutional racism ever since, and the model minority myth is taken as fact to this day.

Flaws of the Model Minority Myth

                The model minority myth seems to be fairly easy for the general public to understand. After all, it’s hard to argue against a “positive” stereotype and the statistics that tell us that AAPIs have “obtained the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial and ethnic demographic in the country”. This idea alone is misrepresented, as are many other aspects that constitute the myth at large.

It homogenizes an incredibly diverse group

                Asia is the world’s largest continent, not simply made up of the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. AAPIs therefore have many differences in class, ethnic, geographic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Claiming otherwise one-dimensionalizes AAPIs on traits based on stereotypes rather than as complex humans with complex experiences.

It needlessly pits AAPIs against other minorities

                The model minority myth contributes to the historical tension between “the model minority” of AAPIs and those who the myth seeks to put down: blacks and Latinos. This is precisely what the manufacturers of the myth intended in a classic “divide and conquer” tactic. If minorities are too busy feuding with each other over harmful stereotypes and illusory privileges of “positive” stereotypes, they will spend less time resisting the actual oppressors. Black and Latino communities’ struggles with social inequity are attributed to “bad culture” without the press exploring whether institutional racism is at play. In contrast, when a well-educated, upper middle class East Asian community seems to be flourishing, the media is quick to attribute it to how much the current system is working. The latter story is easier to swallow at the expense of creating a very problematic racial hierarchy, leading into the next point.

It makes racism seem less harmful to certain minorities over others

                It’s very troublesome that success is being measured in wealth and academic success, and it’s even more problematic that supposed social and economic equality means there are no significant forms of discrimination left in American society.

                Instances of microaggressions are so prevalent in our society that they are considered normal, which silence AAPI voices in discussions of racial issues.

It puts undue, unfair pressure on AAPIs

                For starters, reduction of AAPI into superhuman machines thriving in the American education system and workplace is pure objectification at best. Its implications beyond that are far worse.

                Higher expectations of AAPIs means Asian-American college students in particular are more likely than white American students to have suicide thoughts and to attempt suicide. Additionally, 15.9% of U.S.-born Asian-American women have a higher lifetime rate of suicidal thoughts than the general 13.5% of the U.S. population, according to the American Psychological Association. This is not helped by the studies that show AAPIs in general are less likely to seek psychological and counseling services .

Hard facts about the “model minority”

Infographic compiled by the Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus

AAPIs face more economic inequality than the model minority myth would suggest

                First and foremost, it should be noted that while AAPIs seem to boast impressive statistics with having a higher median income than white Americans, AAPIs also have a higher rate of poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, while 12.4% of the general U.S. population is living below poverty, 37.8% of Hmong (the highest in the country for any one ethnicity), 29.3% of Cambodian, 18.5% of Laotian, and 16.6% of Vietnamese people show stark poverty rates that are not discussed enough. For reference, 27.6% of blacks and 25.3% of Latinos compared to 9.9% of whites live under the poverty line. 

The fixation on the successful numbers of AAPIs is a result of an inaccurate depiction of their economic diversity. The reason for the earning disparities in the first place is due to higher educational attainment by Chinese and Indian Americans in particular. When white men and AAPI men with similar educational backgrounds and qualifications are compared, however, it is shown that white men will still earn up to 8% more. Something in the current system, therefore, still discriminates against AAPIs.

The relationship between AAPIs and higher education is bleaker than the model minority myth suggests

                The idea that AAPIs are overrepresented in universities is also, simply, a myth. University officials have used this myth as justification to cap their “quotas” of AAPI students during the admissions process. This means that AAPIs have to actually work harder to score higher than their white counterparts and compete amongst themselves for a limited number of spots. Prestigious institutions such as Brown University, Harvard University, and UC Berkeley have been investigated for their discrimination against AAPIs in admissions.

 According to a detailed publication compiled by College Board, “The AAPI student population is concentrated in a small percentage of institutions, giving the false impression of high enrollment in higher education overall.” AAPI college students tend to be distributed in only a limited number of institutions, such as in 2000 when two-thirds of AAPIs attended college in only eight states.

                Facts such as these tend to be glossed over in major policymaking decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold Michigan’s ban against affirmative action. The model minority myth alone serves as a pillar of color-blind racism and suggests that for society to move forward, minorities need only to pull themselves up through hard work rather than protest and policymaking. In the same way, proponents of the ban of “racial preferences” would rather take away the social programs and protections that seek to amend historical segregation and racial bias than openly discuss the inequities inherent in the current higher education system. The fact remains that minorities in general are still vastly underrepresented at universities, yet the ban outright ignores this.  Because the model minority myth persists, bans on affirmative action and related protections persist, meaning chilling consequences for the advancement and empowerment of already marginalized minorities.

               

Background

“Salvage the Bones” by Jesmyn Ward is the story of a rural family preparing for Hurricane Katrina. That family consists of pregnant 14-year old girl (no one knows at the time), her brothers, and her sometimes present (and usually unemployed) father. Her mother has died in childbirth, leaving Eesch as the only girl in a world of dog fights, boys, and abject poverty.

Then again, “Salvage the Bones” is not your typical “teen pregnancy” story.

 “Salvage the Bones” is a story about a boy with a strong relationship with his dog, China, and their journey through puppies, dog fights, parvo, and love. China is a legend and Skeeter will do everything he can to make sure China and her puppies live up it, no matter what it takes.

Then again, “Salvage the Bones” is not your typical “boy and pet” story either.

Evaluation

I was referred to the book in a Twitter conversation with Cameron Conaway, a social justice advocate, poet,author, and mixed martial artist.

“Salvage the Bones” by Jesmyn Ward was not what I expected given the title and the preview. I expected a heartfelt story about a rural family preparing to survive through Hurricane Katrina. What I read was one of the most emotionally gut-wrenching and detailed books I have ever read on rural poverty. Jesmyn Ward is a master at being able to provide tiny details about some minor thing in the character’s life and turn it into a poetic expression of the human expression. That expression is a tragic and brutal one, filled with dog fights, parental neglect, teen pregnancy, and cursing. It’s the kind of life you read about in the news covering a rural family living in poverty. Jesmyn enters that without apology and without being patronizing. This is simply the world Eesch and her family live in and they accept it for what is.

Jesmyn Ward also does an incredible job of displaying the fickle thoughts and emotions of a teenager in Eesch and Skeeter. Reading their dialogue (internal or external), readers get a chance to see their condition from the inside out. For example, Jesmyn is able to capture the cornucopia of feelings Eesch feels about her mother, her upcoming pregnancy, her relationship with boys, and her relationship with China. All of this comes out in all of its poetic and graphic detail like they do in real life.

Maintaining two simultaneous plots is strength of the book as well. Jesmyn is able to balance the story of Eesch’s conflicts about the nature of her upcoming motherhood with Skeeter’s journey with his dog. Both plots happen at the same time and both plots impact each other. 

“Salvage the Bones” is a great book, however, there are some things that might (and have) turned readers away from it. The first is the over-emphasis on emotion and tragedy. Although I liked this aspect of the book, the plot suffered a little because it was too focused on detail and emotion. That is most evident in the ending, which stopped rather than ended. After becoming so emotionally invested in the characters, the book didn't really end on a strong note. I wanted to know what would happen next. The second issue is the content itself. If you are not ready to confront the graphic reality of rural poverty and other aspects of our culture (like dogfights, teen pregnancy, etc.) then you probably are not ready for this book.