It's only a matter of time before "asian privilege" becomes a common phrase and / or people start campaigning to no longer classify asian / pacific-islanders as a "minority".
I've already seen people jokingly use the term "schrodinger's minority" to refer to Asian's and Indians. They're excluded from minority statistics when trying to push for more diversity hires, but included in minority statistics when trying to show how many succesful businesses are run by minorities.
It's already common (in the US) to hear diversity initiatives as being about inclusion of non-SE Asian minorities (as these groups are 'overrepresented').
It used to be enough, from a rhetorical perspective, to talk about representation of "minorities" (or, "minorities and woman" because women are a very slight population majority in the US).. but then once a minority became "overrepresented", they had to find a better way to describe the groups whose inclusion they're looking to increase.
I mean, asians are likely to always be a minority in the US, as in, there are fewer of them then there are caucasians. But if they reach the point where they are no longer disadvantaged or discriminated against... isn't that what we want? Not just for asians, but for everybody?
> Slightly tangential, but why are Pacific Islanders often considered in the same "ethnic group" as Asians in the USA?
Up until 1997, the US government's official racial classification system contained a race called "Asian or Pacific Islander". In that year, they modified the system to split that race into two new races – "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander". However, more than 20 years later, the old system still gets used sometimes (e.g. the University of Pennsylvania's published diversity statistics), but most institutions in the US have moved to the new system (and I think as time goes by the old system becomes less and less common.)
Now, why they did originally group these two groups together? I'm not entirely sure why. There are some historical connections between the two groups – the Pacific Island languages (Hawaiian, Maori, etc) belong to the Austronesian language family, which is believed to originally come from Taiwan, and contains several major languages of Southeast Asia (e.g. Malay, Indonesian, Filipino/Tagalog) – but I'm not sure whether that history plays any role in the decision to originally group them together. The original grouping was established by OMB Circular No. A-46, dated May 12, 1977 – I have been unable to find a copy of that document, maybe it contains some explanation of why they did it.
> They're about as similar as North Africans and Europeans.
The US government officially classifies North African and Middle Eastern people as "White". Some Arab Americans and Iranian Americans don't agree with the label "White", and don't be surprised if the system gets changed sooner or later to split out a separate label such as "Middle Eastern or North African": https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-no...
> people start campaigning to no longer classify asian / pacific-islanders as a "minority".
I'm not aware of any organized campaigns to this effect, but the idea that Asians aren't "real" minorities / PoC is one that sometimes gets tossed around in progressive circles.
Arguments put forth range from the purely visual ("some asians are fairer than white people") to the socioeconomic ("asians don't give back to the black communities in which they own businesses"), or variants thereof.
I guess it's a gentle reminder in these relatively polarized times that relations between minority groups in the US have historically been tense, be it black-latinx, black-asian or black-jewish. It might feel like there's a detente right now due to the focus being on the state and the white power structure et al - but the underlying animosity is real enough. Humans are tribal to a fault, and that will never change.
> Consider that most people here on HN have some level of privilege simply by being in the tech field.
I have to disagree with this statement. My view on "privilege" in its contemporary usage is that it is any advantage which comes "naturally" without any (or at the very least a relative minimal amount of) effort. Being in the tech field is something you have to work for, develop your skills for, etc. That isn't what privilege is, that is the result of your own work and ambitions.
Asians experience a lot of racism too. It’s not always the clear cut racism other groups experience but it is reliable enough to have a definite impact. Sometimes it’s country club style “I have an Asian friend” or “not you though”. And then admissions turns around and lumps Asia all together with negative quotas even though there are rather meaningful differences between south, SEA, and east Asian countries and cultures. So someone saying check your privilege to someone who’s parents may very well have earned them that privilege the hard way sounds hollow.
I mean the systemic racism against black people in America is far worse than Asian people for a long time - Ivy leagues didn’t have blanket bans on Asian students, so they started getting the legacy admission benefits a long time ago.
This isn’t to say that Asian Americans don’t experience a ton of discrimination, but rather that the penalties for being black are systemic and reach out a long way.
