Generally stereotypes as a concept are considered inherently pejorative in the USA.
Secondly, your inference that people are avoiding the neighborhood is because of the local population. People aren't avoiding the area, the neighborhood is mostly staying the same. Large numbers of people moving into a neighborhood is the exception to the norm. Particularly in San Francisco where there are protections on existing residents such as rent control.
Thirdly, in the USA we would view asian-american as a cultural description, or nationality description, rather than as a racial description. When someone says 'asian grocery store' they don't typically mean 'because asian people shop there,' but a place where foods sold in asia are more available. This point of view would be particularly so in the bay area worldview. In the USA, it is generally considered offensive/patronizing to compliment people based on their race for any reason. People want to be recognized for their abilities on an individual level, or because of some meritocratic reason.
I could go on, but the other reasons are more or less permutations of the above.
The OP wrote: "Sure, it’s 80% Chinese American, but [it's cheaper]". That made me wonder too why the ethnicity would be a drawback.
An example of how this plays out is demonstrated in the article itself. The author says '80% asian-american' rather than 'asian neighborhood.'
From a political correctness perspective, people in the US don't want to be seen perpetuating anything that could be considered a form of segregation. Simultaneously it is considered negative to be seen as 'gentrifying' a neighborhood, i.e. disrupting the traditional demographics of a neighborhood.
I do think separating culture from race is dodging half the conversation, but I can't argue with your observation that this is the reality of how most people in the area think. Thanks for the feedback.
the reason you're not getting replies is likely because the US are asleep though.
I think it's a valid question-
although it's probably more about causation; Asian-Americans are less snobbish when it comes to areas to live, my assumption is that they live in area's that Americans wouldn't want to live anyway.
> my assumption is that they live in area's that Americans wouldn't want to live anyway.
yeah, real americans wouldn't want to live there, amirite? trustworthy, dependable, high standards having white americans, not like those filthy asian americans who are only pretending to be citizens.
after all we all know where they're really from wink wink nudge nudge
i've got news for you, pal. "Americans" (i.e. "white people") have been moving into black and latino neighborhoods in SF for decades, pushing them out systematically (see soma, mission) the asians are the only ones with enough money to resist it.
in fact, asians as a demographic have the highest income in the entire country, so that might explain a few things that your shitty conclusions don't cover, like why white people don't seem to be able to displace them.
in the UK we consider white people to be indiginous (even if there are british citizens who are from different descents who are equal to me in every way).
regardless, there is a certain set of areas where white people simply do not live, and they are almost entirely inhabited by Indians or British with indian descent.
(fun fact: on forms they have a "British Indian" check-box)
race doesn't matter, but they're culturally different and I was suggesting that it might explain why they'd be willing to accept lower standards of living for some money saved (which is the case in the UK)
Please stop implying I'm racist because I used the colloquial term "Americans" to mean "white people" who have out-bred and/or killed the native populace.
(personally, I don't agree in any context, race matters in pretty much every context in the world because discrimination based on race is present in every context, and to ignore it only allows that discrimination to continue)
Also, by saying Asian-American what do we mean? is it people with Chinese ancestors, or is it Japanese, or Indian, what about Russian?
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29
race matters, but not for nationality. nationality means the country that you are a citizen of
you can't run these stupid verbal tricks on HN and expect to get away with them.
for example, i know white people of south african nationality who would take great offense if you considered them to be american, or european in any context other than a simple mistake.
Also I sense we both believe that discrimination is wrong, you've taken this fairly strongly. But we approach this matter differently.
Your point about how I would react being described as anything other than South African is dead on. But the truth is that apartheid and colonialism has meant that not all South Africans were born with the same opportunities. So nationality may exist in some abstract sense apart form race but it is not a great equaliser. A whole lot of what I know about the US leads me to believe that this is something our countries have in common.
This is not a verbal trick: I firmly believe that the only way to deal with discrimination is to recognise it even where nobody is using the words. If anything the "trick" is pretending that a stamp on a form wipes out the tremendous advantages or disadvantages of skin colour.
it isn't good to say in polite company, but sometimes it slips out because it's kind of hard to disguise an entire racial worldview (i.e., only white people are real americans)
i'm an american and my race is asian, i hear little subtle things like this all the time, everywhere. it's gone down in the past 10 years but it's still there.