From: wenz@ucs.orst.edu (Wen Zongyao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: CU/GE
Date: 31 Dec 1992 11:03:42 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec31.040900.11913@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>
>Mr. Withers correctly identifies their inherent meaning.  So, for example,
>a German-ge can be Korean-cu but American-ci; in other words, a person
>can be ethnically German with American citizenship but live his life by
>the standards of Korean culture.
>
[a paragraph deleted] 
>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."
  .................................   Japanese.   ............    Japanese."

>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
 "..................................... Japanese-ge.  ................... 
>Chinese-cu."
Japanese-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).

WHAT MAKE YOU SO SURE THAT CHINESE ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE LIKE THIS?
WHAT MAKE YOU SO SURE THAT JAPANESE AND WESTERNERS ARE NOT LIKE THIS?
IF NOT ALL CHINESE ARE CHINESE-CU, AND CHINESE-CU ARE NOT ALL CHINESE,
WHY YOU CALL THIS KIND OF BEHAVIORS CHINESE-CU?

I think there is hatred towards Chinese people inside Dwight's mind.
If I am wrong, please answer my questions.  
>
>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.

There are many reasons of unification of mainland and Taiwan.  Very few
people support unification because they think soul of Taiwanese is belong
to China.  It's stupid that Dwight thought most people think that way.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american