> They have no qualms with racism -- only with racism against Han Chinese. > Affirmative Action is somewhere near the mid-bottom, not the top, of a long list o

> They have no qualms with racism -- only with racism against Han Chinese. > Affirmative Action is somewhere near the mid-bottom, not the top, of a long list of very serious problems deeply rooted in racism. To you the fact that there are still black people who lived through Jim Crow matters more than the fact that there are Asians today who are turned down by high education institutions because of their race. Why can't a Chinese person tell you that you have no qualms with racism - only with racism against black people? It seems to be a common viewpoint in the West that the response to racism is a hierarchy of grievances, and that for example a white person who supports preferential treatment of black people at the expense of Asians is not a racist, either because "racism" is defined to mean "disagreeing with the hierarchy of grievances", or simply because it's only "racism" when you're trying to get preferential treatment for your own race, but it's not "racism" if it's for another race. This is not however the only possible definition of racism, nor the original definition, nor the definition used in the report. BTW I'm not sure whether a 100% color blind policy is always the best thing or not, and perhaps it depends on context. I'm just saying that I think it's a much thornier subject than people with (many different) strong positions seem to believe.