I definitely didn't mean it that way but if thought it was "racism" you should read up on what racism is. To call out the differences between two cultures is not racism. Having said that, Asian culture has been, and is still very much, strongly influenced by the ideas of honor and shame. That's much less the case here in the US and that is what I was pointing out.
I find it interesting that you didn't take offense to my generalization of the "Americans who would qualify for 'the projects'". Why is that?
You may wish to follow your own advice there. Calling out the differences between cultures is a fundamental part of racism - "we're better than them and their funny ways". Yes, it can be done in a non-racist way, but the way you've phrased it is just plain wrong.
I find it interesting that you didn't take offense to my generalization of the "Americans who would qualify for 'the projects'".
I recently started thinking about this the other way - that it's actually more racist to accuse someone making statements about group differences of attributing them to race - rather than culture.
It's a fact that the way people are raised has a huge influence on how conformist they are as adults; in a conversation about the average level of conformity between two different cultures, someone who comes along and brings race into it is the one who is lowering the tone.
Culture is important and heritable, let's just talk about that!
I'm saying that you have a peverse understanding of what racism is, and that you should 'read up on racism'.
Your first paragraph is saying that calling out differences in two cultures isn't racist. This isn't true. Yes it can be done differently, but if you start talking about 'fried chicken and watermelon' (as an example), you're talking about the difference between two cultures, yours and the stereotyped one you're referring to.
The second paragraph was a straight-out derailment:"oh, if you're really against racism, why aren't you against this other kind?", the subtext being that the speaker is biased or selfish because they didn't evenly address the other potentially racist stuff.
Seriously, if you're going to be correcting others on 'what racism is', you do need to spend some more time reading up on it. There's a few subtleties that have bypassed you, from your comment above.
> Asian culture has been, and is still very much, strongly influenced by the ideas of honor and shame
Regardless, 'follow-the-herd' doesn't neccesarily follow from it. You seem to have very simplistic views of 'asians', who make up many different cultures and people. This kind of generalization is usually a prerequisite of racism - it makes it possible to broadly criticize an entire group of people because of their race and ethnicity.
the reason your comment about Americans is not racist is because you are not talking about Chinese People and American People at all. you are talking about Chinese People and People of Low Income who Live In America. you used a qualifier for the latter, but not the former. when you don't include a qualifier, the implicit one becomes "all".
yes, i realize changing your wording does not change your argument. but no one seems to be saying that you are a racist person or have a racist argument. they simply seem to be saying you said a racist thing.
and this is why delicacy is important when dealing with race. not just for sensitive audiences, but literal ones as well. ironically, if you take this perspective, "it's racist" actually seems less emotionally provoked than "it's not racist".
I find it interesting that you didn't take offense to my generalization of the "Americans who would qualify for 'the projects'". Why is that?