HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: "Rasie the Red Lattern"  was Re: Rapid Fire (probable spoilers)
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 04:31:35 GMT

In article <13799.2ab51525@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
luk@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>> Women in Chinese society have been treated like dirt for a long time.
>> This applies principally to women in the underclasses, which is
>> almost everybody in Chinese society.
>In any culture, women have been treated like dirt for a long time.
>...

I don't buy what Mr. Luk is pushing.

I assert that on average in the 20th century, women in the United States
have been treated much better than women in China.  Specifically, I 
assert this for the period of 1900-1992, which is about 100 years.

I encourage Western men who want Oriental wives to exploit the
ignorance of Chinese-cu who hold the view that mistreatment of women
in China is somehow comparable to mistreatment in the USA.  These
Western men should go to China and explain to prospective wives
the kind of life that is available in the USA.  Chances are very
high that they will consent to marriage.

Very high.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                 Disclaimer:  1 + 1 = 3 | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gwu@nujoizey.tcs.com (George Wu)
Subject: Re: "Chinese-Americans..."
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:42:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.230325.4375@leland.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
> 
> As I've said many times before, a racist is one who believes that
> genes determine behavior and hence that ethnicity determines culture.

     Though certainly valid, this is an extraordinarily limited
definition of racist.  A racist is a person with predetermined
beliefs about an entire group of people so broad and varied that
it is impossible to categorically and scientifically state the
person's beliefs are true about each and every person of the group,
and yet, the person persists in his beliefs about all of those
people.

> It is a view shared by Chinese-cu, rednecks, Klansmen, and Nazis.

     Therefore, a racist might be a person who believes that all of
black culture is uncivilized and worthy of wholesale destruction.
Therefore, Dwight Joe, a person who believes that all of Chinese
culture is unredeemably brutal and savage, is a racist.

						George


----
George J Wu, Software Engineer         | gwu@tcs.com or uunet!tcs!gwu
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3700
2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704  | Never be the first to believe . . .
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Another open letter to Dwight Joe (Was Re: "Chinese-Americans...")
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:15:04 +1000
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.

In article <1992Sep9.020612.23547@leland.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>
> [Stuff on short definitions of -ge, -cu and -ci deleted]
> 
> [Stuff about Mr Joe Wang's possible loyalties deleted]
> 
> Unlike Chinese-cu people, I certainly wouldn't make speculative personal
         ^^^^^^^^^^
> attacks.  Unless Mr. Wang wishes to make his position public, I
> certainly won't try to pin anything on him, generally speaking.
> 
> After all, I'm not Chinese-cu.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, so here you are Joe/Dwight (Sorry. Still not sure which is your
first name.  Want to enlighten me?).  I don't normally subscribe to
scaa so I thought you had departed from the net when you hadn't replied
to my open letter.  How lucky for me that I could find you again ;) .

Looking generally through the postings I see that not alot has changed
since you departed from soc.culture.asean.  Still pushing the same old
wheelbarrow over the same old plot of land.  (And I thought you wrote
all of this just for our benefit over here in the Asia-Pacific region.
I'm glad to find that you are very egalitarian with your postings)

The trouble is that I _still_ don't know what your definitions mean
and you seem to have overlooked/ignored my postings completely.
Twice I have asked for clarification and so far I haven't seen any
reply.  To re-iterate one further time,

  A previous poster has indicated that what you REALLY mean by
  Chinese-cu is actually Chinese-feudalism.  Do you agree with this
  statement?

  Could you also answer the following questions ...

  (1) What is YOUR definition of Chinese-cu?
  (2) Please indicate the personality-profile of a Chinese-cu
      (i.e. what they think/believe, how they act, examples of
      infamous people etc)
  (3) How prevalent is it ? (i.e. out of all the Chinese-ge in
      the world, how many practice it?)
  (4) Where/What are the main groups of Chinese-cu?
  (5) State anything else that would help others understand
      what you mean.

Perhaps I'm just stupid, but from all your postings, I still can't
work out what you mean.  Please elucidate.


And one final thing ....

Hi there to all you AA's (and others).  How does it feel to be on the
BOTTOM of the world? (Well Australia is at the top you know - all
the maps have that ... well the correct ones anyway ;) )

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 3168.
" The world economy is structured for the sole purpose of perpetuating
  the need for economists."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Perceptions, Realities, Perceptions
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:13:51 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep3.070444.8226@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu) writes:
>	I interpret Joe's position as approximately:
>		I'm Asian American, since I'm an American of
>		Asian ancestry.  Therefore, I'm representative to
>		some degree of what is possible or perhaps even
>		common for Asian Americans.  However, all the
>		self-styled Asian-American activists reject me, since
>		I firmly and uncompromisingly insist that I'm *Chinese*,
>		so I conclude that Asian-American activism is garbage.

Almost but not quite.  Substitute the last sentence with 

                However, if most of the self-styled Asian-American 
                activists were to reject me, since I firmly and 
                uncompromisingly insist tnat I'm *Chinese*, I would
                conclude that Asian-American activism is garbage."

I then hit the ball back in their court.

>The resolution comes from realizing how unusual Joe apparently is.

But am I all that unusual?  I seem to be unusual among the "new
Chinese" who arrived in the United States under the Immigration Act of
1965, who live in the suburbs, who are descended from professions, and
who don't speak the language of their parents (Mandarin or Taiwanese)
very well.

These are a minority of Chinese living in the United States (maybe 30
to 40%).

The majority of Chinese-Americans are descendants from the coolie
labor in the late-1800's, live in Chinatowns, and still speak their
native language (Taishan Cantonese or Hakka) after three or four
generations.

If you were do take a survey of all Chinese-Americans (not just those
on NetNews), I'm wondering how unusual my attitudes would be.  I
suspect they wouldn't be that unusual.
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Dictators Re: Please educate this man
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:46:52 GMT
Reply-To: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Followup-To: soc.culture.asian.american

mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) writes:
|
|   timlee@public.btr.com writes:
|   [dictators who claim that people don't want to rule themselves]
|
|   In this situation, it is obvious that the dictator's cultural values
|   include an interest in rulership, which means either (1) the dictator's
|   claim is false, or (2) the dictator does not share the cultural values
|   of the people being ruled, which contradicts the "self-determination"
|   claims made by many governments.
|
|Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning here.  You may be right, but
|it's not "obvious", at least to me.  The dictator's interest in
|rulership reveals nothing as far as I can tell.

If the dictator shared the claimed cultural values of the people,
then he wouldn't have much interest in ruling, true?  In which case,
he'd view rulership as a distasteful job and seek a successor after
a short time (instead of ruling for life).
 
|There was a time in Europe when both ruler and ruled believed in the
|Divine Right of kings; the idea of "self-determination" is of
|relatively recent origin.  It seems plausible that both ruler and
|ruled in some East Asian societies genuinely believe Confucian ideas
|that emphasize order and stability, with a willingness to accept the
|current ruler as "mandated by heaven".  You have said nothing that
|makes it possible to distinguish this case from one in which the
|people actually want to choose their rulers in some fashion, but are
|prevented from expressing this wish.

But in these cases, the dictator's cultural values _are_ different
from those whom he rules -- the dictator's culture is that of a
"divine" ruling class, while the people's culture is that which
accepts a "divine" ruler.

"Self-determination" is often used as an excuse by governments that
don't want other governments criticizing their practices.  Such
claims are made to take some kind of "moral high ground" over (former)
colonial ruler nations.  However, in the case of dictators, they
themselves are simply substituting for the former colonial ruler,
since, like the former colonial rulers, they do not share the cultural
values of the people, if indeed their claim that the people's culture
does not desire self-rule is true.
 
|You seem to be claiming that democracy is self-evidently a universal
|value; that's fine if you want to claim it, but some people would
|disagree with that view.  

No.  However, I would say that most people do not want to be
oppressed, regardless of whether they prefer a democratic or
otherwise government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                 timlee@btr.com  ...!decwrl!btr!timlee
This message comes with no warranty, not even an implied warranty of
fitness for any particular purpose.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: "Asian-Americans..."
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:48:33 GMT

In article <4920074@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> patw@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Patsy Wang)
writes:
>...
>Dwight Joe [groundless comments deleted] believes
>that the reason for all his troubles is the fact that he's Asian.

This is a ludicrous comment, given that I've never identified my
ethnicity on this network and that I've never met Ms. Patsy Wang.

As for as being born Asian, I see nothing wrong with being born
as a particular ethnicity.  What I do see as being unacceptable is
large portions of Chinese-cu thought.  For example, I've identified
specifically that many Chinese-cu are incredibly racist in believing
that ethnicity determines culture.  Case in point is Mr. Wilbur Pan
(u58402@uicvm.uic.edu).

>He
>attacks everything Chinese-cu.  One day he'll realize that he'll still 
>problems if he was born Caucasian.  Maybe then he'll ease up on us.

Who's this "us"?

The only culture that I have condemned is Chinese-cu culture.  I have
not made similar remarks about Korean-cu culture or Japanese-cu
culture.  There is a marked difference between the behavior exhibited
by Chinese-cu people and Japanese-cu people (and Korean-cu people).

I have received mail from all 3.  Although some of the mail from
the Koreans-cu were rather rude, no Japanese-cu and most of the
Koreans-cu have never done the following:

(1) flooded my mailbox
(2) sent mail threatening to commit physical violence against me
(3) sent mail saying that they've been probing me

#3 deserves some clarification.  Mr. Wilbur Pan (u58402@uicvm.uic.edu)
falls under this category.  He has sent me about 15+ pieces of mail.
His standard procedure is to append, unedited, USENET articles in their
entirety and to add some personal comments that attempt to allude to
something in my background.  He has been probing me.

What's curious is that I've met Mr. Pan.  What's even more curious is
that even though I've _never_ answered any of his mail (this is my standard
response to mail from Chinese-cu people who commit #1, #2, or #3), he
continues to send mail.

Tell us, Ms. Wang, what your judgment of Mr. Pan's behavior is?
Are you really so Chinese-cu that you find his e-mail crusade to be
appropriate?

I submit that Mr. Pan's behavior is typical of Chinese-cu people.
We Americans may be somewhat surprised by this sort of activity,
but let's remember that we are talking about Chinese-cu behavior.
Can we really expect anything different?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                 Disclaimer:  1 + 1 = 3 | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Perceptions, Realities, Perceptions
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:13:53
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Sep2.123638.7458@nynexst.com> <79215@ut-emx.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu's message of 6 Sep 92 00:50:00 GMT

In article <79215@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.123638.7458@nynexst.com> clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>>  My point is that as long as you let people think that you're not
>>  a full-fledged American, they won't think you have a vested interest
>>  in this country.  

>I've never really run into that problem.  Anyway, if "full-fledged
>American" means "not Chinese," then what's the point of being a
>"full-fledged American."

It seems to me that there are three different things that are getting
confused here: nationality, ethnicity, and culture.  I'm American in
nationality, Japanese in ethnicity, and American in culture.

The confusion arises because in certain sectors of the population,
people believe that being American in nationality and Asian in
ethnicity is incompatible -- or that those Asian-Americans who are
Asian in culture aren't "real Americans" while those who are American
in culture are somehow "race traitors".

All of this is, of course, nonsense.  The people who believe these
things are the ones who are confused, not the Asian-Americans.

>>  However if you "hide" behind, "Oh guys, I'm not AA, I'm Chinese."  

>I'm not saying that.  I'm saying, "I'm Chinese, you guys figure out if
>I'm AA or not, and let me know."

Are you saying that you're a Chinese citizen, ethnically Chinese, or
culturally Chinese?  If you're an American citizen of Asian descent,
then you're an Asian-American, regardless of anything else.

>Why is it so important what I consider myself as?  I am who I am.

Actually, I don't think that these group identities are *that*
important.  They do affect your personality in one way or another, but
they're only a small part in the overall picture.  Knowing who you are
as individual is what really matters -- and that goes far beyond
nation, race, and culture.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: "Chinese-Americans..."
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 21:23:24 GMT

In article <edcheng.1dl2@terapin.com> edcheng@terapin.com (Edmund Cheng)
writes:
>...
>        I know many Chinese-Americans... Some which have no Chinese "culture"
>in them.  The only thing that distinguishes them from any caucasian is their
>last names and their faces.  This scares me.

This is a ridiculous comment, but then Mr. Cheng is Chinese-cu.

Being Chinese-cu has nothing to do with being Chinese-ge.  Only a
racist would think that there's something unnatural about
Chinese-(ge)-Americans "who have no Chinese 'culture' in them".
Racists think that genes determine behavior; one such racist
is Mr. Wilbur Pan (u58402@uicvm.uic.edu).

>I don't want to lose my
>"identity", my language..I want to be Chinese.

Baloney.  Chinese-cu culture is _not_ Mr. Cheng's culture.
No one owns it.  No one has special rights to it.

The Chinese-cu language is _not_ Mr. Cheng's language.
No one owns it.  No one has special rights to it.

Chinese-cu culture is a word describing a system of behavior,
which is fairly repugnant.  No one owns that behavior or has
special rights to it by virtual of being Chinese-ge.  A German-ge
can be as much a part of Chinese-cu culture as a Chinese-ge can.

The use of the words "my language" is deceitful.

It is just as natural and appropriate for a Chinese-ge to say,
"My identity is Korean-cu.  I breathe Korean-cu.  I am Korean-cu.
 I reject all things Chinese-cu.  I despise Chinese-cu culture and
 society.  It is loathsome.  God damn it."

>So I don't think anyone that is
>Asian and living in the US can exclude either of their heritages.

Again.  Baloney.

A Chinese-ge can select the heritage that he wants.  He can select
only the heritage that he wants even if that means excluding Chinese
culture completely.

The heritage of a Chinese-ge is not automatically the Chinese-cu heritage.
If he choose that to be his heritage, then it is his heritage.
But a Chinese-ge can also choose his heritage to be the Western
heritage.

The Western heritage is just as much the heritage of any Chinese-ge
(who selects it) as it is the heritage of a German-ge.  It certainly
is all right for a Chinese-ge to completely reject all things Chinese-cu
(i.e. all things savage) and to completely embrace Western culture.
It should also be noted that Western culture has been far more
productive than Chinese culture.

P.S.

-cu = in the sense of culture
-ge = in the sense of ethnicity
-ci = in the sense of citizenship

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                                        | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Asian/Asian American Conflicts
Date: 14 Sep 92 06:24:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Raoul Duke School of Pharmacology and Journalism

In article <1992Sep10.185937.680@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jpak@manute.sps.mot.com writes:
>Gary, don't mean to be unkind, but sometimes (often?) you couch your posts in
>such high-falutin language that a peon like me doesn't get what you're trying
>to say.  Please do me a favor here.  Speak plainly.

Sorry.  My delivery was skewed by recent experience for a different 
audience.  Let me try again.

In article <1992Sep9.054921.28556@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jpak@manute.sps.mot.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.001237.23895@mumbo.apple.com> tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse) writes:
>>>But who in life is not defined in part by other people.  No one.  Only
>>>a fool can shrug off the opinions of others as ultimately insignificant.
>>
>>Sigh.  What a fool I have been!
>
>A fool?  Perhaps.  Self-deluded?  Surely.

Indubitably.

>Gary, do you *really* believe you've never listened to anybody else's opinion?
>Not in your entire life?  You live in a vacuum, right?

kawakami's claim is that only a fool can completely ignore other people's
opinion.  In fact, I have listened to others' opinions.  But then I have
done (and will certainly continue to do) all kinds of stupid and silly 
things.  That I have done this, therefore, is not of itself sufficient
proof that kawakami is correct.

-- 
Gary Tse, tse@Apple.COM		"The fascination of what's difficult",
(408) 862-5452  		    The wish to do what one's not done before,
				Is the proper card to show at Heaven's door.
From: tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Asian/Asian American Conflicts
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:47:07 GMT
Organization: Raoul Duke School of Pharmacology and Journalism

In article <1992Sep3.220438.5735@u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>In article <(~{5K6,F=~})DENG.92Sep3161531@math12.dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov> deng@dd-ap.rhic.bnl.gov (~{5K6,F=~}) writes:
>>>>>>> In article <1992Sep3.162735.28190@u.washington.edu>
>>>>>>> "Roger" == Just another theatre geek..... <gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu> writes:
>>  Roger> 	Notice, this does NOT mean that there have to be "Asian
>>  Roger> cultural influences." It merely means there are common effects
>>  Roger> from being perceived as Asian in America.
>>Won't calling yourself Asian-American reinforce such perception?  Why not
>>just Americans? 
>
>	"No, where are you FROM? REALLY!?"

"Hong Kong?  What do you mean Hong Kong?  Hong Kong, Indiana, right?"

-- 
Gary Tse, tse@Apple.COM		"The fascination of what's difficult",
(408) 862-5452  		    The wish to do what one's not done before,
				Is the proper card to show at Heaven's door.
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Perceptions, Realities, Perceptions
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:30:02 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep3.072720.8569@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu) writes:
>Mainstream America, when it sees a
>non-white/non-black face, expects you to say "I'm Chinese" or "I'm Iraqi"
>or whatever (witness the Dear Abby thread a while back).  You are happily
>satisfying this stereotyped need by insisting your Chineseness while
>down-playing any notion of Asian America.

Well that's not my problem, is it?

>if this oath required
>you to forswear any allegience to any other country, including an
>insistence like "I'm Chinese", would you give up your citizenship
>(on the grounds of not renouncing your identity as Chinese, rather than
>out of moral outrage at situation)?

I'd probably sign an oath saying that I wasn't conspiring with a
foreign power to arrange the violent overthrow of the United States
government, because I can see a legitimate reason for U.S. government
to require such an oath.  I'd also probably sign an oath renouncing
any allegiances to any non-American government.  Again, because
citizenship is a relationship between a government and oneself, I can
see the legitimacy of that.

However, I would never sign an oath which renounced my identity as
Chinese, or which stated that I have no special affection for China
the country (as opposed to the governments which rule it.)  And in
this situation, I don't think that you can separate out moral outrage.
After all, if I sign that piece of paper, the next night, they'll come
back with another sheet of paper demanding something else.