Has the Stranger ever had an Asian writer? I've lived her 23 years and can't think of any.

I'd be interested to know how many minorities even apply for positions at The Stranger or The Seattle Times. do any Asians apply? what kind of outreach efforts get made when positions open up? one would think you'd have binders full of minority candidates by now.

but, with the Times cutting staff right and left, I can't imagine there's many opportunities for new hires, period.

I honestly think it was originally an honest mistake by the editor ("people know Macklemore -> we should get that in a headline -> I'm on deadline and sidekick seems like a fine word"). Even as someone who tries to be fairly cognizant of social justice issues and their intersection with language, I was not aware of the #NotYourAsianSidekick movement, so I have a hard time envisioning a stodgy old ST editor who probably doesn't know what Twitter is being aware of the microaggression (or even being able to define a microaggression).

That said, that response is really condescending and tone-deaf. The Times should be ashamed.

Min Lao and Angela Garbes, both Chow writers extraordinaire.

Last comment was directed at @1.

@1
Min Liao, Angela Garbes. I think Liao was also a food writer.

I seem to recall David Schmader writing about calling Liao his little lotus blossom. Perfectly okay in person and in private if you've got that kind of rapport, but really stupid to be bragging about.

And I think Dan Savage spend lots of time explaining why it was cool for naked Asian women to be sushi plates in a Pioneer Square restaurant.

Oh, and Sandeep Kaushik.

Wong-Wear declined to comment on Best's apology.

Of course she did.

@9

What is "actual racism"?

"... American Indians make up 0.6 percent of the Times newsroom ..."

"... 2010 census figures for Seattle's population are American Indians, 0.8 percent ..."

In an article about diversity? Cringe-inducing.

@11: like in the dictionary?

racism is a belief that an ethnic group (Asians) are inferior to another group (Caucasians). you could quibble that the Times headline reflected inherent prejudice or bigotry, which are part of racism, but not "actual racism", because it's not backed up by a explicit belief (if you don't count white privilege - subconscious belief in the superiority of Caucasians - as racism).

it's likely the headline author intended something along the lines of @9's contention - she was a collaborator on Macklemore's track, after all.

Mad at "sidekick" but chose to have a record release at Chop Suey.... har har har.

"Essentially, they said sorry that they unknowingly used a word that was touchy with my people, but refused to even try to see how it undermined me, and instead chose to reaffirm their position as cultural authority while gaslighting me into the role of the angry Asian woman."

Does gaslighting even have meaning anymore?

So if it were a white person who collaborated on an album with the much more famous Macklemore, it would have been okay to use the word sidekick as within the context, that is an appropriate comparison, but if the person is Asian, it is racist, even in the exact same context? That sounds pretty knee-jerk.

@13

Well, no, like in what does @9 mean by the term?

But since you bring it up, wouldn't the "Mexican piss" cop then not be racist, or shootings like those of Tamir Rice or John Crawford or Walter Scott or the arrest of Sandra Bland not be racist unless the officers involved were also kicking and shooting under the belief that they are in the racially superior group?

. . .Sez the guy with the Hillary hard-on. . .

@20 - Yeah, I'm pretty sure for the word "racist" to be used, the target has to explicitly state a belief that one race is superior to one or more other races.

We fixed racism, everybody, just don't be overt about it.

That word doesn't fit the relationship even a little bit. The choice of "sidekick" rather than "collaborator" or something like that shows how deeply embedded the stereotype is - in marginalizing the musician the writer even chooses the exact word that is used as the name of the stereotype. Asians can be assistants, but never equal partners.

thank you the stranger for at least being open and honest about your racial makeup, which is probably the first step in attempting to make an actually diverse workplace.

None of this much matters. The only people who care about this are those for whom this is directly and personally relevant – very few people.

Wow, Slog sure is censoring a lot of comments which do not even come close to violating their decorum policies today.

@34: Giving unheard voices a platform is social progress, but that is separate from bending over backwards to be as offended as possible at anything you can in order to garner attention or sympathy.

@37

You mean like continually griping about being "censored" on a blog like you're Malala?

I bet that Ansel and Hollis aren't even Seattle Times subscribers. And who cares about some 2-bit, part time, wouldn't know her unless she cried about what evs, supposed person.

@40: Well Theodore isn't Asian or a woman or some one carving out a career in the music industry so none of this resonates with him. If it don't bother Theodore there ain't naught to be bothered by.

@38: Your comment makes absolutely no sense, but if you must know, the comment that was deleted was about how Keck needs to pay his employees better and give them better benefits. Dangerous thoughts, I know.

@40, 41: They changed the article after she complained, I am unsure what else they could have done. I just fail to see how her demanding a differently worded apology advances anything but her own wounded ego. Let's not conflate personal desires with righteous civil rights work, just because she is an Asian woman.

Someone was pretty liberal with the comment deletion machine.

anyway, here's the wrap up: Wong-wear rightfully complained about being labeled a sidekick; the Times immediately apologized and made the changes she wanted; but instead of accepting the apology, she continued to whine like the pretty-girl-who-went-to-a-40k/year-high-school she and basically spat the apology back in the Times face; at which point the editor told her, politely, to Fuck Off.

TLDR: Wong-wear was right, but also a total brat.

@43 Did you read her piece on Medium? The email "apology" she got was completely condescending bullshit. TLDR though, right?

That comment about "sidelining" her "apparent outrage" is called TONE POLICING. It is extremely common defensive maneuver in conversations about oppression. I know people in seattle who support Hollis 100% and have all the "right values" who i have witnessed do the same thing or worse when faced with other people's experiences of oppression.....so how do we deal with this?? I don't know but i do know it isn't the responsibility of the marginalized/oppressed to voice their experiences in such a way as to not trigger any defenses which is in many cases impossible especially when they are facing a perpetrator. I also know we won't get anywhere unless we abandon the culture of "respectability politics" that is overtaking seattle and which is reflected in comments to this article. I'm all for respect but respect is about tolerating and understanding people's feelings not about controlling them or judging them for expressing them. the seattle times needed to, at a minimum, apologize to Hollis and remove their references to her as a sidekick. She doesn't owe them anything in return, she doesn't have to be their friend, and she definitely doesn't have to like the apology/outcome. She is entitled to whatever feelings she has about the situation. That said she also doesn't get to control anyone else's feelings or reactions to her legitimate, justified anger (ie the editors at the times). The rest of us though are more than capable of giving her grace and allowing her to feel how she feels about the situation by acknowledging that the world is messed up, that Hollis's experiences of racism can't be retracted and that maybe there isn't any response the seattle times could give her that would make things better. We can acknowledge the validity of Hollis's anger while also acknowledging that maybe at least some people at the seattle times are trying and did all that was in their power to do. If for some reason we are not capable of that kind of grace, could we at a minimum refrain from multiplying the problem by describing her continued anger about the situation as "whining like the pretty-girl-who-went-to-a-40k/year-high-school she and basically spat the apology?" This comment is an example of how tone policing and respectability politics maintain and perpetuate oppression not to mention it is overtly sexist. have you heard the studies about how when women express anger they lose respect but when men express anger they gain it??