An article in the real estate section of today's New York Times reports on a neighborhood the Times calls NoLIta, for "North of Little Italy." The Times reports on one food shop on Mott Street and says, "Although the store has a bright, pleasant appearance today, Ms. Consolo said, the space required major renovation. The previous tenant was a fish store specializing in Asian customers. 'The landlord had to put in a completely new storefront,' she said."
Unpack the layers of racially charged stereotypes in that little New York Times-provided anecdote. Does the Times really believe that "a fish store specializing in Asian customers" must be incompatible with "a bright, pleasant appearance"? "A fish store specializing in Asian customers" could be anything: a high-end sushi bar catering to wealthy Japanese tourists, a stand in Chinatown that displays fresh fish on ice, a pet store that sells live tropical fish for display in tanks. How was the fact that the customers were Asian related to the appearance of the store? On a hot day, the fishy smell of the Fulton Fish Market carries for blocks, and its customers are predominantly non-Asian. Anyway, the phrase "a fish store specializing in Asian customers" makes it sound like the store sold Asian customers in addition to fish. If the Times feels it must mention the Asian customers, it could say the store catered to Asian customers, or specialized in selling to Asian customers. But mentioning the race of the customers at all seems like a pretty clear violation of the policy stated in the Times's own stylebook: "race should be cited only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader."