HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day)
Subject: Re: Oriental bias against Indians ? How true ?
Organization: /u/mday/.organization
	<1992Apr14.190157.10760@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
	<1992Apr15.131822.16426@nynexst.com>
	<1992Apr15.231628.11852@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:00:39 GMT

   > jpak@oakhill.sps.mot.com (James Pak) writes:

   Oh, and while I'm on this topic, I'm not that big on this notion of
   "you're only beautiful if you think so."  My very personal opinion on
   this whole self- esteem issue in this country is that it's quite
   overblown in importance.  

Yes, this is mostly true.  Another part of what's going on is that
people focus on a symptom (self-esteem) rather than the problem,
simply because the problem is sometimes too hard to deal with.  I've
been at school assemblies in inner-city schools where the kids sing
songs about "I am special, I am important" etc. ad nauseam.  The kids
have rotten lives (fathers beating them and mother, friends and
relatives killed in gang fights or by random gunfire) and tend to
think that they must have done something to deserve it.  What you'd
like to do is fix whatever's broken about their family or
neighborhood, but you can't.  So you push self-esteem instead.  It's
all sort of like taking aspirin for a gunshot wound to the chest.

--Mark Day

mday@lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go)
Subject: Re: Lack of AA literary culture (was New topic!)
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:22:31 GMT

In article <44202@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kawakami@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) writes:
>Hmm. "101" is a pretty high number, implying that it is geared for English
>majors.

This is not the case at Rice.  101 is the lowest number (except for 100) *any*
course here can have.  However, we do have Engl 103 and 104, which is geared
for those of us who do not write so well in English.

>Also, I have a problem with your assertion that only a "tiny fraction" of all
>people are creative writers.  All writing is creative, even if only in small
>degrees.  If you can write, you can write creatively. 

Judging from the posts on the newsgroups, I'd have a problem with the
assertion that more than a tiny fraction of people are even *competent*
writers.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: jch@netcom.com (Jack Hwang)
Subject: Re: ANTI-CHINESE soc.culture.asian.american posts (Underdog)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 07:57:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr06.025759.20480@medsys.rn.com> bbs@medsys.UUCP (Public BBS System) writes:
>In article <6=kj#+-.jch@netcom.com> jch@netcom.com (Jack Hwang) writes:
>>.......
>>Isn't this "fundamental difference" basing on your "feeling"?  For those
>>KMT officials who put Bo Yang into the jail before, they probably did not
>>perceive the difference.
>
>No. It is not just based on my feeling. Bo Yang said that he loved his
>country. (I have most of his books [*]. I can find out where he said
>that if you want.) DJ of course hates China/Chinese. (I don't waste my
>disk space to save his articles. So I can't pinpoint where he said that.
>But it doesn't take a genius to know that DJ hates China/Chinese.)

Sorry, I thought you just lost me.  If it did not base one a person's feeling,
what did it mainly base on?  If "Bo Yang said" can be used as an argument,
then we should also believe whateve anybody says about himself.  However,
I don't know whether Uderdog really hates Chinese culture or not.  I only
expressed two points: first, from the crosspostings, I found that he was not
more extreme than some Westernizationists in 20's; second, reflection is much
more valid than declaring other's hatreds.

>As to those KMT officials who put Bo Yang into jail, they may or may not
>have perceive the difference. That is not the point. The point is they
>have to carry out the order from above. Remember Bo Yang classified
>two kinds of Yuan1 Yu4? One is called Gou3 Tui3 type, the other is called
>Gou3 Tou2 type. The one Bo Yang encountered was the later one.

We knew that some of them were executing the orders with their conscience
tortured.  Yes, we can agree on it.  But your answer still avoid my question
point.  Let's say this: "Did those ABOVE people perceive Bo Yang's FUNDAMENTAL
DIFFERENCES?"

>>On the other hand, except for judging one's intention,  shouldn't people
>>think about the other's critics deeply first and reflect what it might
>>speak the truth.  Even one degrades something we value, does it mean that
>>he is an enemy?  Do we accept and reject words just because who says it?

>Critics from enemy can be the best critics one may have.(Sometimes friends 
>just don't tell the truth.) That is true if the enemy is a rational one.
>If the enemy is an irrational person or a mad man, I would not take his
>critics seriously.

Well....
From: kawakami@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Lack of AA literary culture (was New topic!)
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:08:09 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility

In article <MDAY.92Apr6235535@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu> mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) writes:
>Writing is, and always has been, used more as a way of recording and
>conveying rather mundane information than as a way of creating art.
>It's entirely appropriate for English 101 classes to focus on
>improving the ability to communicate within a broadly-used idiom,
>rather than encouraging self-expression and invention of new language
>forms.  Almost everyone needs to write clearly from time to time; only
>a tiny fraction of the population ever has the inclination or
>opportunity to write creatively.
>
>--Mark Day
>
>mday@lcs.mit.edu

Hmm. "101" is a pretty high number, implying that it is geared for English
majors. The running assumption would be that they already know how to write
a reasonable paper, and the focus of 101 should be on criticism, analysis, or
composition.  Teaching the basic methods of communication should occur in high
school or in the lower numbered general interest courses.  As you get higher
up into the class offerings, the writing style changes to conform more to
scholarly styles used within the field.

For example, a friend of mine is taking courses in Psychoacoustics. It is
required of him to read Physics papers and Psych papers about human hearing
and sound. He is a physics major and the physics papers are easily comprehended
but the psych papers take longer to understand and seem more boring. The
informational content is different, and the writing is different. I imagine
that computer scientists interested in neural nets faced a similar situation
with psych and biology papers.

Also, I have a problem with your assertion that only a "tiny fraction" of all
people are creative writers.  All writing is creative, even if only in small
degrees.  If you can write, you can write creatively. 

-- 
John Kawakami                  kawakami@ocf.berkeley.edu
                               ucbvax!ocf.berkeley.edu!kawakami
From: tse@Apple.COM (Gary Tse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Chinatown unsafe? (was Re: Will America fall?)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:37:08 GMT
Reply-To: tse@apple.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Raoul Duke School of Pharmacology and Journalism

kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
| When I lived in Berkeley, my roommate and I went to Chinatown
| frequently after two or three AM to eat...
| 
| I feel far safer there than I do in South Berkeley or Downtown Oakland
| at night, although we've been known to make late-night forays into
| those areas for food as well :-)

Well, there are few spots in the Bay Area more threatening to one's
sense of safety than South Berkeley (near and at the Oakland border).
That said, I have always found both Chinatown and South Berkeley to be
quite safe.  I occasionally make late night rib runs to Flints, and I
often eat in SF Chinatown after the theatre lets out.  I can't remember
ever feeling the least bit worried for my safety.  But then, I grew up
in some fairly unsavory neighborhoods, so your mileage will definitely
vary.

-- 
Gary Tse 	     tse@Apple.COM || tse@soda.Berkeley.EDU 	 (408) 862-5452
From: jpak@oakhill.sps.mot.com (James Pak)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: re Oriental bias against Indians ? How true ?
Date: 10 Apr 1992 17:15:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Austin, Tx.

In article <1992Apr9.132755.17951@nynexst.com> clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu Ayala) writes:
>I think you're wrong about Oriental women.  Haven't you read about
>the great number of Oriental women marrying non-Oriental men?
>In fact the majority of Chinese-American and Japanese-American
>women are married outside of their ethnic group, something like
>4 out of 5.

And what if all of those "4 out of 5" were married to, say, Caucasian men?
The fact that they marry non-Oriental men doesn't necessarily mean they will
favor, say, an Indian man.  A preference for "non-Oriental" doesn't necessarily
mean a preference for a person of specific non-Oriental ethnicity.  It is
entirely possible for an Oriental woman to not want to date an Oriental man and
also not want to date an Indian man either.

>Now if you were an Indian girl wanting to date an Oriental man, you may find
>more difficulty since their rates of outmarriage are very low.

I disagree.  Why are the rates of outmarriage so low?  Is it because the men
don't like non-Oriental women, or because they've had very limited success
getting non-Oriental women interested in them?  You're assuming it has to be
the former.  From all the talk in this newsgroup (and from other places), I'd
say it's primarily the latter.

(BTW, to the original poster, you should have gone for it.  Next time don't
 listen to your friends.)

Jim
-- 
(Do not listen to the address on the header.  My correct email address is: )
jpak@manute.sps.mot.com  or  ...!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!manute!jpak
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: shay@osiris (George Shay)
Subject: Re: Oriental bias against Indians ? How true ?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:24:25 GMT

timlee@public.btr.com writes:


>Do you hold other potential mates for your sister to the same standards
>of nice personality and good education?  If not, why do you hold those
>who are Indian to such standards, seemingly confirming the stereotype
>referred to in the article subject?

Someone said whom my sister wants to date is none of my bussiness.
Absolutely true, it is none of my business. But it does not mean I have got
to shut up my mouth and tell her it has absolutely nothing to do with me
when she asks my opinions. 
The answer to your question is YES. I do hold the standards of nice
personality and good education for my sister and myself. Is it a
discrimination against jerks and poor-educated people? If it is, I don't
want to change it and I am not going to change it.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.asian.american:3556 soc.culture.taiwan:7385 soc.culture.china:12874
From: mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day)
Subject: Re: Lack of AA literary culture (was New topic!)
Organization: /u/mday/.organization
	<1992Apr6.133551.5659@wam.umd.edu>
	<MDAY.92Apr6235535@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu> <44202@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:28:17 GMT

   kawakami@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) writes:

   > mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) writes:
   >Writing is, and always has been, used more as a way of recording and
   >conveying rather mundane information than as a way of creating art.
   >It's entirely appropriate for English 101 classes to focus on
   >improving the ability to communicate within a broadly-used idiom,
   >rather than encouraging self-expression and invention of new language
   >forms.  Almost everyone needs to write clearly from time to time; only
   >a tiny fraction of the population ever has the inclination or
   >opportunity to write creatively.

   Hmm. "101" is a pretty high number, implying that it is geared for English
   majors. 

Where do you get this idea?  The idiomatic use of "Such-and-such 101"
as I've seen it in the national media is to imply an introductory
class.  Many schools organize their courses using the first digit to
indicate the year, so that 100-level classes are for freshmen,
200-level classes are for sophomores, and so on.  I know that this is
not universal (at Harvard, one would probably talk of "10" instead of
"101"; at MIT, it would be "001").  

Did you read the article to which I was replying?  I'm
pretty sure that it also used the phrase "English 101" and made
clearer that it meant an introductory English composition class.

After your leap into deciding that I was talking about a class for
English majors, most of the rest of your discussion is sadly
irrelevant.  

   Also, I have a problem with your assertion that only a "tiny fraction"
   of all people are creative writers.  All writing is creative, even if
   only in small degrees.  If you can write, you can write creatively.

This is true but misses the point.  Please recall that this discussion
was about the creation of a distinctive Asian American language and
encouraging people to express themselves in it.  Some people felt that
part of the problem was the teaching of "standard American usage" in
mandatory composition classes, and that this stifled creativity.  

I was simply pointing out something obvious that was being ignored:
for most people, it is much more important to be able to write a memo
or a letter of recommendation than to write novels in a distinctive
voice.  As you say, being able to write clearly means that you can
write creatively.  However, being encouraged to write in a distinctive
voice (especially if it contains AA-specific slang or jargon) does not
necessarily mean that you can write clearly.

--Mark Day

mday@lcs.mit.edu
From: mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Lack of AA literary culture (was New topic!)
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:47:09 GMT
	<1992Apr7.053713.7500@wam.umd.edu>
	<1992Apr7.200338.23412@Princeton.EDU> <upsi1.702786570@mcl>
Organization: /u/mday/.organization


   upsi1@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Mathew Waywe Yee) writes:

   Gee, I guess that you don't have an education or an imagination.  This
   is a slogan much like "This Bud's for you."  (BTW, the '?' should go inside
   the quotation marks according to standard written english)

Bzzzzt!  Sorry, that's wrong!  But thanks for playing.

You are describing standard American hardcopy usage.  In standard 
English hardcopy usage, punctuation stays outside of a quoted
phrase, e.g. 

	What about "This Bud's for you"?

Even in American hardcopy usage, the punctuation stays outside if
there is punctuation in the phrase, e.g.

	What about "This Bud's for you!"?

since the alternative would change its meaning, e.g.

	*What about "This Bud's for you!?"

Net usage tends to be closer to the English hardcopy form, because it
respects the integrity of the quotation better and the typographical
reasons for the American hardcopy form aren't applicable to the way
most electronic communication is seen.  See The New Hacker's Dictionary
(Eric Raymond, ed.) for a discussion of this.

--Mark Day

mday@lcs.mit.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.asian.american:3378 soc.college.gradinfo:644 soc.college:1822
From: achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american,soc.college.gradinfo,soc.college
Subject: Which universities have AA departments?
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:37:49 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.asian.american
Organization: Dept of Mathematics, Texas A&M University

Could we start compiling a list of universities with Departments of
Asian-American Studies?  Email me any information you may have
and I'll post a summary.
-- 
Andrew Chin    Dept. of Math.    Texas A&M U.    College Station, TX 77843
achin@math.tamu.edu   Probably not TAMU's exact opinions.   (409) 845-1924
                * Fighting racism is not a special interest *
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go)
Subject: Re: Will America fall?
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:37:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.005256.4868@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>In article <22524@dog.ee.lbl.gov> yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang) writes:
>>Dwight Joe's comparison of the prevalence of Chinese gangs to 
>>the absence of Japanese gangs in the U.S. as another sign of
>>Chinese depravity is completely ludicrous. Hasn't he ever heard 
>>of the yakusa? Japanese criminal activity, if anything, is even
>
>Wrong spelling.  It is ya-ku-za.
>
>>more organized and connected with legitimate elements than the
>>Chinese!
>
>This is a ludicrous comparison.  Mr. Huang is comparing Japanese
>gangs in Japan with Chinese gangs in the USA.  USA is not the
>home turf of Chinese but is fast becoming one.  A fair comparison
>would be between Chinese gangs in Hong Kong (and other unfortunate
>strongholds of Chinese society) and Japanese gangs in Japan.
>
>Chinese gangs in the USA should be compared against other Asian
>gangs in the USA.  The FBI report made no mention of either Korean
>or Japanese gangs in the USA.  Why?  Could this have something
>to do with the virulent Chinese culture?

It could.  It could also have to do with there being fewer Japanese
and Koreans than Chinese.  I'd guess there are not even *Chinese* gangs
in, say, Brenham TX.

>As I've said before, the model minority concept might apply to
>the Japanese-Americans and Korean-Americans, but it certainly doesn't
>apply to Chinese-Americans.  A visit to Chinatown should convince
>you.  (I've been told by a couple of Chinese to stay away from
>Chinatown, a very unsafe place--"thanks" to Chinese culture.)

I don't believe Chinatown is so unsafe (on the other hand, I have few
qualms about walking through Alphabet City, either).  Perhaps it is
less safe because the more affluent people have moved to suburbia.  Is
a city such as Monterey Park or <I'm trying to think of a predominantly
Chinese city in New Jersey, but I can't think of one...> equally unsafe?
(Note: I've been to the Chinatowns in only a few cities: Boston (which I
*would* consider unsafe), Flushing, Houston, New York, and San Francisco.
The last question is a *question*, not rhetoric which means, "I don't
believe you."  Perhaps y'all are talking about different places.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: UNDERDOG:  WAKE UP AND OPEN YOUR MIND.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:14:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.100713.54576@cc.usu.edu> haoc@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.013941.13394@medsys.rn.com>, bbs@medsys.rn.com (Public BBS System) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr12.005212.6475@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>>>
>>>At no point in Chinese history has China ever been as prosperous
>>>and well off as the USA or Western Europe.  Even if you reach back
>>>3000 years like the way many China-philes like to do, you will find
>>>that China was far worse than modern Western society.  There was
>>>no penicillin, no antibiotics, no Bill of Rights, no human decency
>>>(but that's always been true, hasn't it?), etc. in China.
>>>
>> 
>> That is right. And so many Chinese praise Confucius I simply cannot understand
>> why. Did Confucius know anything about group theory? Did he know anything
>> about solving differential equations? Did he speak English? I doubt very
>> much if he even knew how to ride a bicycle, not mentioning driving a car.
>> 
>> Chou1

Well , As a friend here personaly pointed out to me , Chou was using sacrastic
tone here .

>>
>
>  Does the grandpa of your grandpa know how to do these things? I personally
>think that Con Lao Er was just an ordinary people whose glory got amplified

I thought he was ordinary , but I found he was more than that after I read 
some of his ideas . He was in a period of various philosophy schools . He 
gathered many talened students at the time . And his good ideas (not poor ones)
have been praised for thousands years in many places .


>a thousand times and whose theory(or theory that claims to be his) has been
>used to fool people for a long period of time. AND I personally don't think an

Yes , by emporers . The great ideas were stiffened .

>ordinary people that lived several thousands of years ago should be required to
>ride a bicycle.
>
>
>                                            
>--Hao.
>*******************************************************************************
>A flying bullet hit my heart,all of a sudden everything turns dark,oh my god!!!
>******************************************************************************** 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
From: rtang@sunee.waterloo.edu (He who must not be Named.)
Subject: Re: China never as prosperous as Europe?
Keywords: predestination
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.213537.10723@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>The Chinese culture destroyed the hopes and dreams of generations of
>Chinese--of an entire nation.  It's the same culture where infanticide
>is condoned--past and present.

Infanticide is happening in China, like any other country, but definitely
NOT condoned.  Take a survey, if you dont believe it.  IF you can come
up with >50% hell, >5% I'll let you off. 

 WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS:
You believe they condone it. Which is quite a different thing.
Maybe its a fraudian slip on your parft, and YOU condone it?!
From: mds4101@summa.tamu.edu (SZETO, MARVIN DEAN)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: China never as prosperous as Europe?
Keywords: predestination
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:01:00 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.asian.american
Distribution: na
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr13.193403.10890@leland.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@leland.
Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes...
>I meant that "At no point in Chinese history has China ever been 
>as prosperous and well off as the [MODERN = 20th century] USA
>or Western Europe".  Mr. Kemnitz is doing what basically many people

I regret that I must agree with Mr. Joe's statement above.  However, it is a
stacked question.  After all, the U.S. and Western Europe respresent the
pinacle of achievement (technical, socialogical, etc.) for civilization as
we know it.  If China has never been as prosperous as the U.S. or Western 
Europe, then let me make a list of other countries that have never achieved
the prosperity of modern U.S./Western Europe:
	the countries of the former Soviet Union
	Mexico
	India
	Saudi Arabia
	every country in Central and South America
	every country in Africa
	every Oriental country (Korea, Vietnam, Taiiwan, etc.)
	and on and on.
Does Mr. Joe consider all the rest of the world (except the U.S. and Western 
Europe) to be as "vile, barbaric" as China?

Next Mr. Joe goes into his silly argument "f(1992,U.S.) >> f(t,China)".  Big
deal!  If I assume an optomistic future for the U.S., then I could infer that
f(2000,U.S.) >> f(1992,U.S.).  What's the point of his silly argument?

Marvin Szeto