From: chong@juliet.caltech.edu (Chong, Francis F. S.)
Subject: Re: Do not overgeneralize
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:51:00 GMT

In article <ges.28.0@boris.net.com>, ges@boris.net.com (G.E. Song) writes...
> 
>>        By the way, the term "chinaman" is loaded with negative connotations.
>>Chinese is a much less offensive term.
> 
>I did not mean it a negative sense so I suggest you don't take it as such. 
>Very often (in my exprience) one chinese has refered to another chinese as 
>chinaman. I can't understand what's so offensive about it. It is a common 
>term and I feel quite comfortable with it.

	Perhaps you do not mean it in a negative fashion. However, I was merely
alerting you to the point that the term carries negative connotations. You may
choose to ignore this, of course.

> 
>Are you implying that the other ethnic groups in Singapore had absolutely
>nothing whatsoever to do with singapore's success? Hong Kong is succefull but
>at what cost. I know a few honkys who are well off and some who are not so 
>well off. I don't think you would want to be a poor honky in Hong Kong.

	At what cost? Tell us.
	I am not implying that other ethnic groups have not contributed. 
However, my point was that your assertion that a high Chinese presence is 
a recipe for disaster is hyperbole and ignores the reality that a high 
Chinese presence had also paralleled high economic growth. You misunderstand
the point. Now that I have clarified it, would you mind commenting on how
this agrees with your assertion.

>Since you have no idea whether it's
>>cultural or genetic, might I suggest that it's cultural, on your part that is,
>>meaning, can you spell "P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E" ?
> 
>I don't know why you want to know if I can spell something. I don't remember
>using that word but I could have. Any way thanks for the spelling lesson. I
>believe very strongly that it is not cultural. Believe me I know!
>                                                          ^^^^^^  

	Ah, the sarcasm is lost on this fellow...*sigh* Let me lay it out
in plain language. I am suggesting that your tirade against the entire Chinese
race is plain prejudice. What do you say to this?
	Interesting that you are now saying that it is not cultural and by
default therefore, you must mean genetic. Staking out a position, eh? Be 
careful lest you pick an indefensible position and dig a hole for yourself.

> 
>>        How about the Japanese organized crime rings, the Vietnamese gangs,
>>the Sicilian and U.S. Mafia etc?
>The Mafia has italian origins (non-oriental) but the overwhelming majority
>of these people have oriental origins. Don't forget the Khemer Rogue (You
>can help me with the spelling of this one |-). ) I am saying that oriental
>features/traits is closely related to the sort of behaviour we are talking 
>about. Of course this includes the Japanese too. Perhaps you would want to 
>re-read what I have written before. I said both the japanese and the chinese
>have misbehaved. (Go on, REad it!)

	Yes, I know you said that the Japanese have also "misbehaved". However,
it is against only the Chinese that you directed your mighty blows of logic
and righteous ire, accusing the entire race of having a tendency towards
"deviant" behaviour.
	Now you are claiming that "oriental traits" are related to deviant
behaviour. *Grin* My, my....how deep is that hole now?
	Of course, by sheer numbers, the preponderance of people of Oriental
origins (China alone has a fifth of the world's population), you are justified
in saying that the majority of "these people" are probably Asians. However,
consider this : 
	Every society has its criminal class, regardless of whether it is
Occidental or Oriental. Consider the IRA, the Hezbollah, the Nazis, British
soccer thugs, German neo-Nazis, Latino gangs in the US, Right-wing death
squads in S.America, Township gangs and paramilitary white supremacists
in S.Africa, the KKK in the US etc. I give here all criminal groups with non-
Oriental origins. How does this agree with your assertions?

>>>statistical norm. I can't comment about the Japanese because I know very few 
>>>of them. However, I am very well placed to comment about the Chinese. (for 
>>>obvious reasons which may be apparent to some)
> 
>>        The link between the "draconian" (draconian being a relative term)
>>laws of Singapore and the alleged pre-disposition of the Chinese towards
>>"deviant" (again, deviant being a relative term) is, shall we say, tenous.
>>I suggest a better explanation would be that the government of the Republic
>>has an authoritative streak and would prefer to have the people under tight
>>control, regardless of any tendency towards deviant behaviour.
> 
>The govt. of china has similar streak, don't you think? Do you really think
>the link is tenous? You know there is a saying which goes something like this
>"There are non as blind as those who will not see". I may have paraphrased 
>the saying a little but I think you know what I mean.

	You dance, very poorly if I may say so, around my point. It is not 
possible to logically prove a non-existent link. The onus is on you to prove 
that such a link (genetic or otherwise) exists. I have given numerous 
examples to refute this. Asking me if I think the link is tenous is beside the
point. I suggest that the real link is in the authoritarian streak in both
governments. So, I await your proof of such a link.

>>> 
>>>The point I am trying to get across is that a chinese apology is not worth
>>>getting since it is not going to mean anything.
> 
> 
>>        You are of course entitled to make this point. However, I suggest
>>that you apologize and retract your overgeneralizations. To make such
>>broad, sweeping statements about an entire country, not to mention an
>>entire race (your weak attempt to cover yourself by proclaiming that you
>>are not saying that all chinese tend to misbehave notwithstanding) is 
>>insupportable. Please apologize. On the other hand, consider this. I hazard
>>a guess from your last name that you are Chinese. If one subscribes to your
>>hypothesis, does that mean that an apology from you would not mean anything?
>>Fortunately, I do not subscribe to your hypothesis. Apologies, please.
> 
>I did not attempt to overgeneralize. I am merely pointing out that there may
>be a link between the genes which code racial features/traits and inhuman 
>behaviour. I don't think there is cultural link because people of different
>races are guilty of such behavior. The chinese race is not the only race. You
>see we are not alone. The japanese are guilty, the cambodians (khmer rougue)
>are guilty, the mongolians (remember genhis khan) are guilty ... etc.
>Why do you wish me to apologize for something I believe in? If I am wrong
>(I hope I am) then I would surely apologize. If it would make you happy then
>let me make a conditional apology. 

	No, indeed you do not attempt. You merely vastly overgeneralize and 
do injustice to an entire race. Well, to many more races, upon re-reading
the above paragraph.
	I note that you are now commenting on the Japanese, passing judgement
in your infinite wisdom, whereas before you claim that you are unable to 
comment, since you do not know enough of them. How do you explain this?

> 
>If I am wrong, and there is actually no genetic link between oriental traits/
>features and inhuman behaviour, than I apologize to everybody including 
>myself.
> 
> 

	I say you are wrong, very wrong. And if you are unable to prove
your accusations, then apologize unconditionally.

-Francis Chong
Caltech

Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean