From: georgew@hspice.portal.com (George Wu)
Subject: Re: What is...
Keywords: underdog
Organization: Meta - Software
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:08:33 GMT

[ Just my usual canned response.  Note, I'm trying to remember to modify the
  Keywords: field when I post this thing.  ---  George ]

In article <1992Dec21.020937.4119@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:

>The following post should explain the matter very clearly.
>If there are any questions, from non-Chinese-cu people, then
>please post; it's important that we draw a distinction between
>-ge and -cu.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>Actually, I'm the person who originated those suffixes, so perhaps, I
>should delve a bit into the history on s.c.a.a.  Terms like Chinese, Korean,
>German, etc. actually connote 3 different things.  Unfortunately, many
>Chinese-cu Chinese-ge refuse to recognize that culture != ethnicity (i.e.
>genetics); they think that a Chinese-ge is automatically Chinese-cu.
>Further, they think that a Japanese-(ge-)American(-ci) will automatically
>do the Japanese-cu "thing" simply because she is Japanese-ge.  Note that
>rednecks, Klansmen, and Nazis make the same racist assumption.
>
>But we Westerners-cu, Japanese-cu, etc. know better. 
>culture!=ethnicity(genetics)!=citizenship.  Hence, I developed this notation
>to make crystal clear the distinction between these 3 separate notions.
>
>Of course, many Chinese-cu Chinese-ge and some Koreans-cu Korean-ge
>are extremely upset that I would dare to differentiate between
>culture and ethnicity(genetics); they think that these are one in the same.
>So, they refuse to use my notation system; they consider it to be an
>insult that I would dare to separate the 3 notions.  I know.  It's strange
>for them to feel this way, but they are Chinese-cu (and to some extent
>Korean-cu).
>
>Anyhow, please do use my notation.
>
>A side benefit of my notation is that it creates a communication medium
>in which it is extremely difficult to hide the racism in Chinese-cu culture.
>For example, before my notation, it was easy for Chinese-cu to rant,
>
>"Come on.  You aren't White.  You are Chinese.  So, you should be Chinese."
>
>and then to fudge around, defending his statement as being proper.
>Now, let's use my notation; we get the following:
>
>"Come on.  You aren't White-ge.  You are Chinese-ge.  So, you should be
>Chinese-cu."
>
>Now, it becomes clearly obvious what the idiot is trying to say; namely,
>according to him, ethnicity(genetics) determines what culture you should be
>and are.  I know.  This sounds a lot like what Nazis say about genetics
>determining behavior (culture).
>
>So, now, on s.c.a.a., you rarely ever hear comments like that any more
>from racist bigots.  Of course, you can still find them in other newsgroup
>where they refuse to use the -ci/-cu/-ge notation; an example is
>soc.culture.taiwan (mostly with Chinese-ge telling Taiwanese-ge that
>because they are Chinese-ge they are are also Chinese-cu and hence their
>soul and Taiwan rightfully belong to China[or something stupid like that])
>or soc.culture.china.
>
>Well, now, isn't that an interesting coincidence?

-
     Welcome to the Dwight Joe FAQ.  This article is a standard rebuttal to
certain beliefs Dwight Joe routinely expounds in soc.culture.asian.american.
Specifically, Dwight Joe believes Chinese culture intrinsically incorporates
racism, sexism, infanticide, child abuse, and I suppose, other unsavory
characteristics.  For a full example of his beliefs, the reader is referred
to his many postings, one of which drew this response and is therefore
specified in the References: line of the header.

     The motivation behind this canned response is my belief an undue amount
of bandwidth is wasted concerning Dwight Joe's beliefs.  Dwight Joe has shown
a tendency to respond to any topic under discussion by espousing his
anti-Chinese feelings.  This, in turn, spoils many good threads of debate as
many readers of scaa, long tired of reading such nonsense, automatically add
the thread to their kill files.  Such readers are instead urged to add
/underdog/h:j to their kill files.  This may deny Dwight Joe a goal I suspect
he pursues, that of censoring discussion on Chinese culture and government.

     Hence, if you're reading this message, and are considering a followup
merely to rebut Dwight Joe's response, I strongly urge you to reconsider.
We most surely understand the frustration and resentment you're probably
feeling, because we've shared it first-hand over the last few years.
Certainly, if you have something valuable to add, please feel free to do so.
However, I think it quite likely what most of the scaa readership has already
heard it, as we're all too familiar with Dwight Joe and the responses he
draws.  *Please*, under most circumstances, you should not respond to Dwight
Joe at all, only to the original topic under discussion.

     Getting to the rebuttal, it is my contention Dwight Joe's beliefs are
without scientific foundation, and in fact, unmitigated racism or incitement
thereof.  Certainly, some individuals of Chinese society practice some of the
above, just as some members of any society deviate from "normal morality."
However, in the absence of scientific evidence showing Chinese society displays
these features with a greater frequency than other cultural groups, I contend
any civilized person must follow a simple moral principle: innocent until
proven guilty.  Dwight Joe has been repeatedly called upon to substantiate his
claims with references to an independent study.  He has consistently ignored
such calls, and in fact, often cites a single anecdote as proof that an entire
culture incorporates a particular practice.  Without any real evidence, one
should not make such wild accusations.  To do so smacks of racism and bigotry.

     Even if his claims were to be substantiated, which they have not, such
faults would not justify Dwight Joe's calls for the dissolution of Chinese
culture.  All societies have their faults, but such faults do not warrant their
destruction.  American society has been accused of sexism, racism, and
violence.  Yet no one (I know) calls for the abolition of American culture.
Yet Dwight Joe calls for the substitution of Chinese culture with Western
culture.  One does not treat a wart by shooting the man; one treats the wart.

     Another telling habit of Dwight Joe is to classify those who disagree with
him as Chinese.  He himself gets uppity when others claim Dwight Joe is Chinese
himself because (a) he has a Chinese surname, and (b) at least one scaa regular
has met his brother and hence is in a position to know.  Yet, one the basis of
a poster's opinions, Dwight Joe turns about and makes similar claims to ethnic
origin.  Such two-faced behavior demonstrates the hypocrisy and illogic of his
arguments.

     Finally, Dwight Joe uses a particular notation.  For the edification of
the new reader, I explain it here.  The notation involves abbreviating certain
words:

	Chinese-cu: Chinese culture, ie. raised as a Chinese;
	Chinese-ge: Chinese genetically, ie. bearing certain physical features;
	Chinese-ci: Chinese citizenship, ie. of a particular country.

I believe these distinctions, as used by Dwight Joe, are merely camouflage,
for his own mind as well as others.  Dwight Joe uses these terms to deflect
accusations of racism from himself by redefining racism to specifically
exclude his beliefs.  Such denials, however, are worthless, as Dwight Joe's
repeatedly posted opinions make it clear he holds significant predjudice
against Chinese society.
-- 
----
George J Wu,  Superior Maker of Technical Snafus,  georgew@metasw.com
Meta-Software,  1300 White Oaks Road,  Campbell, CA 95008,  (408) 369-5400
Never be the first to believe.  Never be the last to deceive.  ---  Chess
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american