From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:33:27 GMT

In article <1gn3heINN6kk@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka)
writes:
>underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>Dwight Joe describes fine points in distinguishing various 
>East Asian Cultural group members  and reports amazing accurate
>hit rate of 75% in guessing which Asian ethnic group a particular
>Asian person belongs :  
>... I no longer subscribe a romantic notion that somehow
>physical appearance tells something meaningful. It doesn't.

Mr. Ohtsuka and I agree; I don't see a point of disagreement.

I believe that physical appearance indicates nothing about the worth
of a person or his behavior or his attitudes.  I know that many Japanese
are racist enough to attribute behavior to genes, but I disagree with
their views.

Mr. Ohtsuka failed to note that I pointed out the following:
    American-cu Japanese-ge and American-cu Korean-ge
    are behaviorally similar.
The only thing that distinguishes them is slight physical differences
since behaviorally they are virtually the same.
(-cu = culture, -ge = ethnicity (i.e. genetics))

I agree 100% that physical appearance tells NOTHING meaningful.
My only point is that there are slight physical differences and
that people can use them to distinguish the ethnicity.  There is
nothing wrong with thinking that Korean-ge physical differences
are the most beautiful in the world; that is a matter of personal
taste.

Some women like guys with hairy chests.  Some guys like women with
large breasts.  Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

> I can't
>tell where people come from by their appearance and, more  
>importantly, I don't care where they come from so long as
>we can peacefully co-exist.

I agree.  (Ethnicity does not determine culture.)

>But isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder?
>...

I agree that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".  I don't understand
why he is questioning me about it since I have already stated numerous
times that "beaty is in the eyes of the beholder."

>There are lots of esthetically pleasing people in
>each ethnic groups.
>...

Mr. Ohtsuka shouldn't contradict himself.

If "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", then someone might think
that some ethnic groups are less esthetically pleasing than other ethnic
groups.  That is the principle of "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".
(I've stated this 8 times now.)

If Mr. Ohtsuka thinks that "there are lots of esthetically pleasing people
in each ethnic groups", then that is beauty according to _HIS_ eyes.
But to others, they will think that some ethnic groups are, generally,
more esthetically pleasing.

(one more time)

(1) There are numerous Oriental men who think that real beauty is "Caucasian
skinned women".  (2) There are numerous Caucasian men who think that real
beauty is "Thai-featured women".  (3) Of course, Mr. Ohtsuka thinks that both
types are equally beautiful.  Is there anything inherently wrong with
any of these 3 statements?  No.  Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

So, there is nothing wrong with saying "I find Korean-ge and Japanese-ge
women to be more esthetically pleasing than Chinese-ge women".

(I don't know how to make my assertions any clearer!)

------------------------------------------------------------------+------------
Jinsei no imi wa nan desu ka.                Sister, can you      |   \|  |`
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.           spare a coin?        |    | -+-
                                                                  |   /| / \
Copyright 1992.  Disclaimer:  1 + 1 = 3                           |
------------------------------------------------------------------+------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan