Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"
ORDER NOW

The marginalized ‘model’ minority: An empirical examination of the racial triangulation of Asian Americans Xu and Lee argue that with demographic


The marginalized ‘model’ minority: An empirical examination of the racial triangulation of Asian Americans Xu and Lee argue that with demographic

ARTICLE 1

The marginalized “model” minority: An empirical examination of the racial triangulation of Asian Americans

Xu and Lee argue that with demographic changes in Asian and Hispanic populations in the U.S., a multidimensional racial triangulation theory is a more useful analysis of Asians in the U.S. than the more traditional black–white binary model. Do you agree that a multidimensional study of race relations is more effective to understand the demographic makeup of the U.S. currently and in the future? Support your answer with specific details from the article.

******Please see attachment for the article*******

ARTICLE 2

The central frames of color-blind racism

Bonilla-Silva identifies four frames of color-blind racism; briefly explain these four frames. What is your opinion on the usefulness of these four frames to understand issues of racism that persist today?

*******The link of the article 2********

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.links.franklin.edu/lib/franklin-ebooks/reader.action?docID=1246203&ppg=68

  • Cite any sources, including assigned readings, according to APA citation guidelines.

  • Write two paragraphs for each articles

,

© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

Social Forces 91(4) 1363–1397, June 2013 doi: 10.1093/sf/sot049

Advance Access publication on 3 May 2013

We are indebted to Jeff Dixon, Gilbert Gee, Fang Gong, Carolyn Kapinus, Josh Klugman, Hiroshi Ono, Lisa Pellerin, Brian Powell, Quincy Stewart, David Takeuchi, and Wenquan Zhang for provid- ing useful comments. An early version of this paper was presented at the 2009 American Sociological Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco and won the most creative methodology award at the Diversity Research Symposium hosted by Ball State University. This work was partly supported by the Fisher Research Fellowship and an ad hoc grant awarded by Ball State University to the first author; all rights reserved and the usual disclaimers apply.

Asian Americans, Race Relations, Triangulation

The Marginalized “Model” Minority: An Empirical Examination of the Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans

Jun Xu, Ball State University Jennifer C. Lee, Indiana University

In this article, we propose a shift in race research from a one-dimensional hierarchi-cal approach to a multidimensional system of racial stratification. Building upon Claire Kim’s (1999) racial triangulation theory, we examine how the American public rates Asians relative to blacks and whites along two dimensions of racial stratifica- tion: racial valorization and civic acceptance/ostracism. Using selected years from the General Social Survey, our analyses provide support for the multidimensional racial triangulation perspective as opposed to a singular hierarchical approach, although findings do not match all predictions by the racial triangulation thesis. Our results also suggest that on average whites are more likely than blacks to have more favorable views of the relative positions of Asians, particularly for family commitment, nonvio- lence and wealth, but blacks are more likely to assume racially egalitarian views than do whites.

Introduction Asian Americans comprise one of the fastest-growing groups in the United States (Xie and Goyette 2004; Humes, Jones and Ramirez 2011). Census data show that the Asian1 population in the United States increased by 48 percent between 1990 and 2000 (from 6,908,638 to 10,242,998) and by 43 percent between 2000 and 2010 (14,674,252 in 2010), and it is projected to reach 41 million by 2050 (Passel and Cohn 2008). Beyond numerical growth, Asian American rep- resentation in such domains as education, politics and the media has increased

Asian Americans, Race Relations, Triangulation 1363

dramatically. Given major social and demographic changes in both Asian and Hispanic populations, scholars have begun to move beyond the black-white binary discourse that is dominant in theories of racial stratification (C. Kim 1999; Forman, Goar and Lewis 2002; Gold 2004).

Some research speculates about which side of the “color line” Asian Americans fall (i.e., closer to blacks or whites); other research emphasizes the distinct racial- ized experiences of Asians and other racial/ethnic minorities (Omi and Winant 1994). However, C. Kim (1999) argues that neither perspective is quite adequate. She suggests that Asians do not fall on one side of a color line or another (nor do they fall somewhere in between blacks and whites); at the same time, the racialization of Asian Americans is not insulated from the experiences of, and interactions between, multiple racial groups. Instead, C. Kim’s racial triangula- tion theory proposes that Asian Americans are “triangulated” within a “field” of race relations based on their position relative to blacks and whites on two differ- ent dimensions (racial valorization and civic ostracism). This results in a racial position distinct from other groups. Specifically, the American public simultane- ously lauds Asians as the “model minority” and marginalizes them as “outsid- ers.” This contradictory racial complex is largely attributable to the relatively high socioeconomic status that Asian Americans have seemingly achieved and the “perpetual foreigner” image that still haunts them.

Although some scholars have advocated for the use of multidimensional theo- ries of race relations like C. Kim’s racial triangulation perspective (e.g., Gold 2004; Song 2004; Ng, Lee and Pak 2007; N. Kim 2009), there has been rela- tively little research devoted to a systematic assessment of its applicability to racial attitudes toward Asian Americans. In this article we assess the racial tri- angulation thesis by using data from the General Social Survey (GSS) to examine attitudes toward Asians in relation to blacks and whites along two different dimensions. We also extend the racial triangulation approach by examining black-white differences in the perceptions of the relative positions of Asians. In doing so, we aim to advance race research by moving from a one-dimensional color-line approach to a multidimensional field of race relations.

Background Theories of Racial Stratification Theories of racial stratification have traditionally utilized a black-white orienta- tion, which sees the racialization of other racial/ethnic minorities as following a process similar to that of blacks, or views the black-white dichotomy as being the most important (Okihiro 1994; Wu 2003). Doing so, however, has received much criticism because it renders the experiences of and racism against other racial minorities irrelevant (Okihiro 1994; Perea 1998; Gold 2004; Song 2004; Kao 2006).

With the increase in the Asian American and Hispanic populations, there has been a major call to move “beyond black and white.” Scholars have begun to examine where racial groups fall relative to one another on a racial hierarchy,

1364 Social Forces 91(4)

with blacks at the bottom and whites on the top (Okihiro 1994; Lee and Bean 2010). This approach has led to the debate over whether a color line exists, and whether it reveals a white/nonwhite divide or a black/nonblack divide. Some propose the existence of a white/nonwhite divide, suggesting that the boundar- ies between whites and nonwhites as more important than differences among nonwhite groups (Skrentny 2001; Hollinger 2005). From this perspective, Asian Americans are more closely aligned with blacks. Others suggest the emergence of a black/nonblack divide, indicated by the continuing separation from blacks not only on the part of whites but also of other nonwhite racial groups (Lopez 1996), and the higher rates of intermarriage with whites among Asians and Hispanics (Yancey 2003; Qian and Lichter 2007; Lee and Bean 2010).

Critics of the white/nonwhite perspective argue that this approach fails to differentiate experiences among nonwhites (N. Kim 2007). The same can be argued about the black/nonblack approach, which does not distinguish between the experiences of whites and other nonblacks. To move beyond a biracial para- digm, Bonilla-Silva (2004, 2010) advances a triracial stratification system, in which there are three loosely organized strata, including “whites” (whites and assimilated white Hispanics), “honorary whites” (East Asian groups and light- skinned Hispanics) and “collective blacks” (blacks, dark-skinned Hispanics, and disadvantaged Southeast Asian groups). From this viewpoint, most Asian Americans tend to fall in between whites and blacks.

Although the color line(s) research has contributed to a better understanding of racial stratification, it is argued that this hierarchical approach does not ade- quately illustrate the racialization of Asian Americans (C. Kim 1999; Alcoff 2003; Gold 2004; Song 2004). The color line(s) approach inherently assumes that racial stratification occurs along a single dimension of “superiority” and “inferiority,” thus homogenizing the racialization processes among all racial/ ethnic minorities (C. Kim 2004). Another approach is Omi and Winant’s (1994:1) racial forma- tion theory, which sees the experiences of Native Americans, blacks, Mexicans and Asians in the United States as following distinct trajectories, characterized by “genocide, slavery, colonization, and exclusion,” respectively. These experiences largely dominate American race relations. The idea of distinct racial trajectories is valuable because it underscores various types of race relations based on unique his- torical experiences, and it emancipates the discussions of the racialization of Asian Americans from a traditional black/white framework. However, while racialization is dependent upon the historical context under which it occurs, C. Kim argues that groups are not racialized in vacuum without reference to one another.

The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans To address these limitations, C. Kim (1999) proposes a theory of racial trian- gulation, which combines essentials from racial formation theory and the racial hierarchy/color line(s) approach. Racial triangulation theory argues that Asians occupy different group positions relative to blacks and whites along multiple dimensions, which results in a unique racialized experience of Asian Americans. Specifically, Asian Americans have been “triangulated vis-à-vis whites and blacks

Asian Americans, Race Relations, Triangulation 1365

in a ‘field of racial positions’” (C. Kim 1999:106). This field is comprised of two dimensions: the “superior/inferior” axis refers to the process of racial valoriza- tion, by which groups are ranked hierarchically based on cultural and/or racial grounds; the “insider/foreigner” axis refers to the process of civic ostracism or to what extent a group is considered to be unassimilable as opposed to being considered “insiders” (see Figure 1) .

Making a useful departure from previous theoretical orientations, racial tri- angulation theory suggests that racial stratification is multidimensional and that a racial group can be rated high on one dimension and low another. Because of ingrained racial stereotypes, average Americans evaluate Asians as “inferior” to whites and “superior” to blacks on certain racial or cultural grounds such as work ethic or family commitment, but they also rate Asians relatively low in terms of civic acceptance. This can be seen with the persistence of the “model minority” and “perpetual foreigner” images, both of which set Asian Americans apart from other Americans (Min 1996; Tuan 1998; C. Kim 1999; Zhou 2004; N. Kim 2007). It is this process of simultaneous valorization and civic ostracism of Asians, along with the racial subordination of blacks, that maintains systems of white privilege (C. Kim 1999).

Figure 1. The Field of Racial Positions in Racial Triangulation (reproduced from C. Kim 1999:108)

SUPERIOR

INFERIOR

FOREIGNER INSIDER

Whites

Asian Americans

Blacks

= Civic Ostracism

= Relative Valorization

Source: Claire Kim, Politics & Society 27(1):105-38, copyright 1999 by Sage Publications; reprinted by permission of Sage Publications.

1366 Social Forces 91(4)

Asian Americans as the Model Minority and Perpetual Foreigner Asian Americans have long been portrayed as the model minority since William Petersen’s 1966 New York Times Magazine article, “Success Story: Japanese American Style,” and a myriad of subsequent studies of Asian socioeconomic attainment that crystallize this image (e.g., Waters and Eschbach 1995; Xie and Goyette 2004; Zeng and Xie 2004). Recent research, however, has been critical of such “acclaims” of Asian Americans as the model minority, contending that the socioeconomic success of Asian Americans has been exaggerated. For “substan- tive” measures of success, including median individual income (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Mills 2004; N. Kim 2007), wage returns to education (Hirschman and Wong 1984; Xie and Goyette 2004; Zeng and Xie 2004) and representa- tion at the managerial level (Hirschman and Wong 1984; Woo 2000), Asians actually fare worse than whites. The model minority image also conceals the fact that the poverty rate among Asian Americans (12.3%) is higher than that of whites (Sakamoto, Goyette, and Kim 2009). Additionally, the success stories of selected Asian groups are often not a result of individual efforts rewarded by a fair system, but rather a “success” of the American immigration policies that have targeted highly skilled professionals since the 1960s (Mallick 2010).

The model minority image also obscures the racial subordination of Asian Americans (C. Kim 1999; N. Kim 2007). Despite the group’s perceived socio- economic success, the typical Asian is also often viewed as an outsider or a perpetual foreigner (Okihiro 1994; Ancheta 1998; C. Kim 1999; N. Kim 2007) who “clings to the culture of his own group” (Siu 1952:34). Studies in history (Okihiro 1994), sociology (Danico and Ng 2004; Tuan 1998) and psychology (Devos and Banaji 2005; Devos and Heng 2009) have provided strong evidence that almost all segments of the Asian American population, including first and later generations, youth and elderly, English and native-language only speakers and across most ethnic groups, suffer from this stereotypical image.

Although research in Asian American studies has effectively juxtaposed such contradictory images of Asian Americans as “model minorities” and “perpetual foreigners,” and social psychologists have also constructed a similar two-dimen- sional stereotype content model (Fiske, Xu and Cuddy 1999; Lin et al. 2005), the racial triangulation perspective for the first time provides a dynamic (i.e., rel- ative racial positioning) and systemic (i.e., a field of racial positions on multiple dimensions) theoretical framework to essentialize the racialized experiences of Asian Americans and race relations in the United States more generally.2 Despite the important implications of racial triangulation theory for research on race and ethnicity, there has been little quantitative examination of its specifications, especially regarding perceptions of the relative positions of Asian Americans along multiple dimensions.

Racial Differences in Attitudes Toward Asian Americans Although racial triangulation theory provides an innovative approach to study- ing attitudes about Asian Americans, it does not explicitly address potential vari- ations in perceptions of Asian Americans. An important social cleavage in public

Asian Americans, Race Relations, Triangulation 1367

opinion is the black-white divide (Bobo 1998; Hunt 2007), which reflects more than just differences between individuals in each group, but groups’ structural locations (Blumer 1958). We would therefore expect to see differences between blacks and whites in their attitudes toward Asians. The lack of discussion about such variation in racial triangulation theory is problematic because although the black-white binary is not powerful enough to fully delineate the mosaic of color lines, race discourse is largely dependent upon black-white dynamics.

In this study, we extend the racial triangulation theory by examining differ- ences between blacks and whites in their relative ratings of Asian Americans. Little research has examined the relations among Asians, blacks and whites (Jackson, Gerber, and Cain 1994), but we suggest three possibilities for race dif- ferences in attitudes toward Asian Americans. One possibility is that blacks, on average, view Asians more negatively than do whites. The model minority image of Asians has been used to discount the disadvantages that the African American community faces and to disregard their call for racial equality (Lee 1996; Zhou 2004). Blacks may respond to this with unfavorable views of Asians. Moreover, scholarship on race has suggested that economic competition, cultural and reli- gious differences, and the belief that Asians hold racial prejudices against blacks could contribute to a high level of hostility toward Asians (Shankman 1978; Cummings and Lambert 1997; Bonilla-Silva 2010). Because Asians were once used as labor replacement for African slaves and still serve as the middleman between blacks and whites (Bonacich 1973; Okihiro 1994), blacks may bear negative feelings toward Asians, particularly in areas where blacks have been denigrated and unfairly assessed historically.

A second possibility is that blacks view Asians more as allies than competi- tors. They may empathize with Asian Americans’ experiences since both have experienced racial discrimination and subjugation (Lee and Bean 2010; Tang 2011). African Americans have allied with Asian Americans to fight against racial discrimination in the era of Asian Exclusion, the school desegregation protest in California in the early 1900s, the labor union movement in the 1920s and the Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s (Okihiro 1994). Jackson, Gerber, and Cain’s (1944) finding that blacks in Los Angeles hold favorable attitudes towards Asian Americans despite increasing economic and residential competition is suggestive of this possibility. Therefore, we might find that blacks have more favorable ratings of Asians than do whites, especially regarding civic acceptance.

A third possibility is that blacks’ attitudes toward Asians are similar to those of whites (Cummings and Lambert 1997). First, the perpetual foreigner and model minority myths are so pervasive that they influence general views of Asians, regardless of race/ethnicity. Media portrayal of Asians is either so ste- reotypical, or too vague to be memorable (Lee 1999; Ono and Pham 2008), that blacks and whites may hold similar views. Second, Asian Americans usually do not weigh into major sociopolitical battles (Lien, Conway, and Wong 2004; Watson 2004; Kao 2006), and so blacks and whites may both perceive Asians as “outsiders” (Sakamoto, Goyette and Kim 2007). Because of these factors, black- white differences in attitudes towards Asians might be trivial.

1368 Social Forces 91(4)

Racial Triangulation of Hispanics One could also imagine that Hispanics are also racially triangulated, given some similarities to Asians Americans in their histories of assimilation in the United States. Both groups were used as cheap labor, and continue to immigrate to the United States in substantial proportions, seeking employment and competitive wages. Because of this, both groups are often met with prejudice and discrimina- tion arising from nativist sentiments among the American public (Alcoff 2003). Therefore, the perpetual foreigner image could also be relevant to Hispanics, as they are often perceived to be outsiders regardless of their immigrant sta- tus (Alcoff 2003). In addition, there is some evidence that whites also valorize Hispanics relative to blacks (Marrow 2009). On the other hand, Hispanics and Asian Americans may be racialized differently from each other because of the pervasiveness of the model minority stereotype of Asians in particular. Although there may be broader processes at work that position both Asians and Hispanics as outsiders in the field of racial positions, a unique valorization process for Asians would substantiate C. Kim’s (1999) hypothesis.

There has been some research on the racial triangulation of Hispanics, includ- ing Maldonado’s (2006) study of immigrant Hispanic, native-born Hispanic and white workers and King’s (2010) study of Mexicans, Native Americans and whites. However, these studies did not assess multiple dimensions of racial stratification, nor did they make clear reference to blacks, a shaping force of racialized politics in the United States. So, to examine whether Hispanics are tri- angulated in ways similar to Asians, we conduct parallel analyses of Hispanics. Although the focus of this paper is on the racialization of Asian Americans, the examination of the relative position of Hispanics compared with whites and blacks can help determine whether Asian Americans are racialized in distinct ways or if the simultaneous valorization and ostracism applies to contemporary immigrant groups more generally.

Data and Methods This study uses data from selected years (1990, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006) of the GSS, which provide information on attitudes towards Asians (and Hispanics in our supplemental analyses), blacks and whites. The GSS is a sample of English-speaking adults living in households in the continental United States and has tracked the opinions of Americans since 1972 (Davis and Smith 2009). It is one of the best sources for attitudinal studies, including those on race relations. Our samples consist of blacks and whites for whom there was no missing data on the dependent variables of interest.3 Those who did not respond to or marked “Don’t Know” for the racial attitude items were excluded from the analyses (rang- ing from 1.8% to 12.8% of the cases depending on the item).4 Not all items were asked in every year, nor were they always asked about all groups. So, in-sample respondents are those who provided ratings of all three groups in the same survey years. Our final sample sizes for the analyses of the racial triangulation of Asians range from 1,122 to 3,609, and from 1,120 to 3,565 for that of Hispanics.

Asian Americans, Race Relations, Triangulation 1369

Beyond individual characteristics, socio-demographic characteristics of the area in which an individual resides could also affect race relations and the attitudes about the relative position of Asian Americans (Taylor 1998; Dixon 2006). Contextual variables (for details, see our discussion in the Independent Variables section) are derived from Metropolitan Area and county-level data based on the 1990 and 2000 Census 5 percent Public Use Microdata Sample. We first identified the Metropolitan Area or county that corresponded to the respondent’s Primary Sampling Unit (PSU), and then merged the GSS data with the corresponding census data.5 We combined the 1990-1998 GSS surveys with data from the 1990 Census, and we merged the 2000-2006 GSS data with infor- mation from the 2000 Census.

Dependent Variables Appendix table A1 lists the year(s) each question was asked, question wording and coding schema for the variables used to construct our measures of racial valorization and civic ostracism. Original responses were recoded so that a higher value corresponds to a more favorable rating. We use respondents’ rat- ings of each group’s family commitment, intelligence, nonviolence, wealth6 and work ethic to assess the valorization of Asians relative to blacks and whites. Because civic ostracism refers to the extent to which Asians are perceived to be unassimilable, and thus excluded from being “insiders,” we use measures of respondents’ acceptance of living in the same neighborhood with at least half of the neighbors being from each racial group, and having a close family member marrying a member of each group, as well as measures of respondents’ beliefs about each group’s level of patriotism and their ratings of each group on the feeling thermometer.7

We construct measures of relative position by comparing the ratings of the same characteristics that respondents provided for Asians, blacks and whites. As mentioned earlier, not all variables are available for all years, since respondents were not asked the same questions or about the same groups each year. For example, attitudes about patriotism were measured only in 1990, and questions about living in the same neighborhood were asked only about Asians, blacks and whites in 2000 (respondents were asked about Asians and blacks in 1990, but the white category was divided into Northern and Southern whites). Using the ratings of all three groups, we create a set of categorical-dependent variables that measure the position of Asians relative to blacks and whites.

There are 13 possible combinations of how Asians are rated compared with blacks and whites. Because of the small number of cases for some categories, as well as the problem of dimensionality, we collapse the relative ratings into four categories for each of our dependent variables (see Appendix table A2 for details). If the scores for Asians, blacks and whites are the same, then all groups are assumed to have equal status (“all groups equal”). If a respondent rates Asians higher than blacks and whites, or higher than one group and equal to the other group, then we consider Asians as being rated relatively high on the racial hierarchy (“Asians high”). We do this because even if Asians share the top

1370 Social Forces 91(4)

position with another group, we argue that it is still considered to be a high posi- tion.8 If a respondent rates Asians between blacks and whites, then we consider Asians to assume a “middle” status (“Asians middle”). If a respondent rates Asians lower than blacks and whites or lower than one group and equal to the other, then we code Asians to be at the bottom of the racial hierarchy (“Asians low”).9,10

Using measures of relative position has advantages over simpler measures used in previous studies. First, they can effectively extract the crucial informa- tion about the implicit comparisons that respondents usually make across dif- ferent groups for similar questions asked in consecutive order. This is essential for the racial triangulation perspective, as the evaluation of Asian Americans is only meaningful when considered in relation to other groups. Second, the idiosyncrasy in respondents’ ratings may cast doubt over conclusions drawn from analyses of nonrelational social positions. For example, highly educated people are more inclined to provide socially desirable responses (Jackman and Muha 1984) and may give high ratings to all races. With a nonrelative measure of respondents’ evaluations of Asians, we might conclude that education is positively related to favorable ratings of Asian Americans. We would not know, however, if more educated individuals would rank Asians higher or lower than other groups.

Independent Variables Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the independent variables included in each analysis. Race is measured with a dichotomous indicator, with “1” referring to black and “0” to white. We control for age (in decades), gender (male = 1 and female = 0 [reference]), and region (North, South, Midwest, and West [reference]). To account for individuals’ socioeconomic status, we include education, which is measured by years of schooling, family income (logged)11 and employment status (part-time employed, unemployed, other types, and full-time employed [reference]). We also add party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, Independent, and other party affiliation [reference]) and survey year (year dummies) to account for the influence of political orientation and period effects.12

For PSU-level characteristics, we control for percent non-Hispanic Asian, per- cent Hispanic, percent non-Hispanic black, population size (logged), and median household income (logged) to account for the sociodemographic characteristics of the area. In addition, we examine whether the socioeconomic status of the surrounding Asian community influences attitudes about Asians by including the percent of Asians who have a college degree or higher.

Analytic Strategy Our analyses proceed in three steps. First, we look at descriptive statistics of the relative ratings of Asians to assess the average racial valorization and civic ostracism of Asian Americans. Second, to examine predictors of attitudes about the relative position of Asians and to assess whether black-white differences

Asian Americans, Race Relations, Triangulation 1371

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables

Variable Mean (SD) Minimum Maximum

Survey Year

Year 1990 .09 .29 .00 1.00

Year 1994 .20 .40 .00 1.00

Year 2000 .19 .39 .00 1.00

Year 2002 .18 .39 .00 1.00

Year 2004 .18 .39 .00 1.00

Year 2006 .16 .37 .00 1.00

Race

White .85 .35 .00 1.00

Black .15 .35 .00 1.00

Age (in 10 years) 4.68 1.72 1.80 8.90

Gender

Female .56 .50 .00 1.00

Male .44 .50 .00 1.00

Region

West .19 .39 .00 1.00

Northeast .19 .39 .00 1.00

Midwest .25 .43 .00 1.00

South .37 .48 .00 1.00

Education 13.36 2.93 .00 20.00

Imputed Income 9.97 1.01 5.62 11.86

Employment

Full-time .52 .50 .00 1.00

Part-time .11 .31 .00 1.00

Unemployed .03 .17 .00 1.00

Other employment .34 .47 .00 1.00

Party Affiliation

Republican .29 .45 .00 1.00

Democrat .34 .47 .00 1.00

Independent .36 .48 .00 1.00

Other party .

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.



Source link

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"