From: nina@panix.com (Nina Yuan)
Subject: Positive and Negative stereotypes (was Re: Asian-male stereotyping, how?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:52:04 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec30.232515.7292@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.212612.12113@panix.com> nina@panix.com (Nina Yuan)
>writes:
>>In <1992Dec30.040657.18902@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>(Dwight Joe) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.030827.13697@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
>>>ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu) writes:
>>>>pretentions of following, ask him to clarify what he means when he insults
>>>>someone for having a Chinese-cu *name*.)
>>>I don't insult anyone for having a Chinese-cu name.
>>>Chancellor Tien of the UC-system has a Chinese-cu name, and I have
>>>said repeatedly that we can't tell whether he is Chinese-cu merely from 
>>>his name.
>>What exactly is a *Chinese-cu name*, Dwight?  Oh, you mean a *Chinese* 
>>name, I guess, or maybe a *Chinese-ge* name, since names are usually
>>inherited.
>Only a Chinese-cu would make a comment like that.  A Chinese-cu name can
>be wiped out; however, the genetics that give Chinese-ge their skin color
>cannot be wiped out.
>For example, Ms. Yuan can change her name from "Nina Yuan" to
>"Nina Wellington", but she cannot change the genes in her skin that
>give her the skin-color of a Chinese-ge.
>By the way, "names are usually inherited" is a typical verbal trick by
>Chinese-cu people.

How many people do you know, Dwight, Chinese or not, who have LAST names
completely independent of those of their parents?  Not many, I'd venture
to guess.  Sure, a name can be "wiped out;" plenty of immigrants have
had "unwieldy" names "shortened" for them by Ellis Island officials.  The
fact remains that last names are generally passed down from generation
to generation, and thus are inherited, not written in stone (or in the
genes), but inherited nonetheless.  Explain to me how this simple fact
is a "verbal trick."

>>So lets get back to Alan's original question (which seems to have been
>>deleted from Dwight's followup): "So, does silence intrinsically condone
>>an offensive statement or action?  Am I morally obligated to object to
>>*every* racist remark or act?"
>>...

>Here is another typical Chinese-cu comment.  But then, Ms. Yuan is Chinese-cu,
>isn't she?

Irrelevant, as you like to point out.  Incidentally, I was quoting Alan Hu
in that sentence.

>No _particular_ person is obligated to object to every racist comment.
>Similarly, when I point out Chinese-cu bigotry, narrowmindness, and
>crappiness, I am not obligated to point out the same for Japanese-cu culture.
>(I have said this 4 or 5 times now.  I guess that Chinese-cu people have
>trouble with Western-cu reasoning.)

>What I am an saying is that there is a difference between a single person's
>response (or lack thereof) and a _group_ of people's response.  I'm surprised
>that Chinese-cu twits lack the intellect to make this distinction.

So what constitutes the response of a group of people?  The responses of
every member of the group.  How can you absolve individuals of the
responsibility to speak out against racism and then condemn the group for
its response or lack thereof?  Who is responsible, then?  I'm surprised
you fail to make this distinction.

No, I am not saying that I have failed in my moral duty as a citizen if
I fail to scan every post on Usenet and point out every preconception
or prejudice; that's ridiculous.  I am saying that we should not just
stand by and let prejudicial statements pass without comment because 
"someone else will," because then no one will.  The most difficult part
about this, as I stated in my original post (which Dwight deleted), is
recognizing that prejudice which appears positive (i.e. "Chinese are
inherently non-violent") is prejudice nonetheless.

No, Dwight Joe, as a Usenet poster, you are not obligated to point out
every instance of Japanese cultural prejudice.  However, as you very
often favorably compare Japanese culture to Chinese culture, and regularly
point out the undesirable aspects of Chinese culture, in the interests
of presenting a balanced portrayal (if you are indeed interested) you
would present some of the prejudices of Japanese culture.  I'm surprised
you fail to see this.

>So, let's get back to my original point.  When I say that "_no_ Chinese-cu
>Chinese-ge objects to a statement that Chinese are inherently non-violent",
>I am saying that the group of Chinese-cu, collectively, is exhibiting racism.
>Why?  Because I have just asserted that, in this whole group of Chinese-cu
>on USENET, no _one_ came forward to object to this obviously racist assertion.
>I.e. _No_ bloody Chinese-cu came forward.  (BTW, this particular statement
>is a "real" one and is taken from another newsgroup.  Yep.  No Chinese-cu
>came forward to object.  Typical.)

See above.  Since I have no idea what newsgroup you are talking about,
I can't comment.

>I am _not_ saying that everyone should object.  I am _not_ saying that any
>particular person should object.

>But the fact that _no_ one has said anything suggests something to me.
>I read some other newsgroups, where I rarely post, and I often notice that
>there's almost always some Japanese-cu or Western-cu who would object
>to such racist statements.

Uh, how do you determine whether someone is Japanese-cu or Western-cu
or Chinese-cu?  By their last name?  But I thought you didn't do that.
By what they post?  Oh, so all people who don't object must be Chinese-cu,
and thus the Chinese-cu are racists.  I'm surprised you fail to see how
blatantly faulty this logic is.

-nhy

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nina H. Yuan
Harvard College             Panix -- Public Access Unix & Internet of NYC
yuan1@husc.harvard.edu      nina@panix.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american