1) The label was overbroad, since the attacks were on East Asians, not south Asians.

2) The whole thing was manipulated by white liberals for their own purposes. They blamed Trump and “white supremacy” for the attacks, when in reality the attacks where happening in liberal cities like SF and NYC, and most of the attackers were non-white themselves.

In fact, the “Asian” label and identity was used to undermine the interests of Asians. Progressive identity activists used it as an opportunity to attack white conservatives, while reaffirming the need for reduced policing. But that’s not what actual Asian voters in these cities wanted: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang. They wanted more policing and measures to control the homeless. In NYC, for example, Asians overwhelmingly supported Andrew Yang, who was attacked for expressing moderately law and order views. And in the general election, heavily Asian communities in NYC voted in significant numbers for the Republican candidate, even though the Democrat also ran on a law and order platform: https://www.thecity.nyc/politics/2021/11/11/22777346/chinese.... The Republican candidate was otherwise a complete joke (even the NY Post endorsed the Democrat). But he got 46% of the vote in Brooklyn’s 70% Asian China town.

Sometimes these broad, politically constructed group labels are unavoidable. But labeling a group and getting people to identify with that label is also a tool for manipulating people. Indeed the term “Asian” to refer to a bunch of unrelated nationalities—who often have deep animosity towards each other—was coined by Berkeley political activists: https://time.com/5837805/asian-american-history/