The emergence of Asian Americans as the model minority became prominent in 1966 when two articles in national magazines praised the achievements of the two largest Asian American groups at the time: Success Japanese-American Style in New York Times Magazine and the Success Story of One Minority Group in the United States (Chinese) in U.S. News and World Report.These two articles focused on the virtues and accomplishments of Asian Americans, especially in terms of exceptional educational achievements and phenomenal economic upward mobility. After enduring a century of blatant racial discrimination and negative stereotypes, the Japanese and Chinese suddenly found themselves cast into a favorable light.
In 1960s, newfound �success� image for both groups was based on the foundation of two basic elements:
1. empirical evidence for success = statistics of educational achievements, movement into high-status occupations, rising incomes, low rates of mental illness and crime
2. theoretical explanation = direct link between Asian cultural values and subsequent achievement in education and occupations; Confucian ethics (education is sacred and scholarly achievements are a way to express filial piety); emphasis on hard work, thrift, and morality
As Timothy Wong stated in his book, although this label is flattering, the designation is more of a burden than a breakthrough for four reasons:
1. Diverts from real and very serious social and economic problems that plague many sections of the Asian American population
2. Distracts from the racism and discrimination that is frequently suffered by the Asian American communities
3. Places pressure and stress on young Asian Americans who believe that they must achieve in school and in work in order to be deemed worthy (as seen on the previous page)
4. Serves to fuel competition and animosity between the minority groups
The last reason is particularly problematic for Asian Americans in the community. Conservatives claim that all racial minority groups can succeed just like Asian Americans if they work hard, don�t cause trouble, and assimilate into mainstream American life; Asian American success held up the fundamental meritocratic belief that America judged and rewarded people, not by the color of their skin, but on the basis of their qualifications, skills, achievements, attitudes, and behaviors. However, this turned into a direct critique of African Americans, many of whom asked for economic and social relief through federally funded programs. Tension and distrust between African and Asian Americans grew, and the situations often exploded into violence and destruction.
Between 1982-1986, ten more articles on Asian American success appeared in major popular press publications. However, there were two changes in the focus and content of discussion:
1. All recognized changing nature of Asian American populations
2. Greater recognition of the complexities and critiques associated with the model minority thesis
For example, instead of focusing on the differences between Asian families and those of other minorities, the articles instead focused on the differences between Asian and "American" families. While this reduced problems and competition between minority groups, it further established Asian Americans as a foreign group of people.
But the core elements�empirical and theoretical�continue to be an integral part of the current discussion on Asian Americans.The three most commonly cited statistics to prove that Asian Americans are the model minority: education, employment status, and median family income. However, as Benjamin Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." While the statistics about Asian Americans are not lies, they are quite misleading.
Educational achievement is far from universal between the different Asian American communities: 4.9% of the Hmong over 25 have earned a four-year degree. Additionally, it differs by sex: while 46% of males finish four years of college, only 39% of females do the same thing.
Additionally, many argue that socioeconomic success for Asian Americans can only be understood within the contexts of:
1. a high percentage of urbanization
2. more wage earners per family
3. comparing per capita income instead of median family income
For example, although 37% of Asian Pacific Americans were employed in 1999 in managerial and professional occupation ranks and there are more Asian Americans on the upper occupational levels than other minority groups, there are poor, working Asian Americans (especially those who are not fluent in English).After all, 12% of Asian American males earned under $6 an hour (compared to 9% of non-Hispanic, white males); 20% earned less than $15,000 a year (compared to 14%). For Asian American women, 21% earned less than $6 an hour, and 39% made less than $15,000 a year.
Additionally, even though Asian Americans, on average, have a higher family income, they normally also have more workers per family.
In conclusion, the model minority myth is debilitating because it unfairly homogenizes an extremely diverse group of people. It, and all other stereotypes, prove to be harmful for all those who are involved.