Talk:Peak Reservation Ordinance

message: Consider West Philadelphia, long plagued by neighborhood crime. Suppose further that it has been statistically shown that most crimes were perpetuated by individuals of African American descent. In response to this, the City Council adopted a new ordinance authorizing police officers to stop, search and arrest African American males of age between 18 and 40, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Would that be justifiable under the principle of equal protection under the laws? Such a law, to say the very least, is discriminatory on its face, and would definitely have been struck down had it been passed by courts under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 
How is the Peak Reservation Ordinance any different? Consider Hong Kong, long plagued by Bubonic plague. Some Portuguese colonial medical doctor and a colonial governor of British extraction reported further that the plague has been caused by the filthy living habits of the Chinese. In response to this, the Legislative Council adopted a new ordinance authorizing the exclusion of people of Chinese descent from living on the Peak, exempting, incidentally, those Chinese who are either prominent enough or who worked as houseboys for European households. The Chinese are excluded from the Peak categorically without individual review. How is such a law not discriminatory on its face? Being a law that racially discriminates on its face, how can it pass constitutional muster under any civilized legal system? Only in good ole' Hong Kong, apartheid South Africa, pre-Civil-Rights-Movement American South, and Nazi Germany. AR1997 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some info about the Light & Pass Ordinance which came just before the Peak reservation Ordinance.  Originally this article was supposed to be kept quick and short (even give westerners the benefit of the doubt).  But Da Vynci keeps insisting this law is health driven.  And I keep having to dig up additional sources to prove this is NOT a health conscious law.  Far from it in fact. Da Vynci is looking up colonial HK laws in books like "The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance Europe"? No wonder this article is so out of balance. Most people got along by the 1950s, so let it be old historical facts.  Benjwong (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: To Benjwong: Because it WAS a racially-based law, OK? No one here is denying the racial part. What we are debating is: Whether or not it is also has anything to do with the plague. All I did was to include the sources that indicate it had.  Yes, as u point out, that era of time was filled with discrimination on the globe, this law is one of the example, people try to solve problems with a discrimination measures. So did the Imperial Chinese Government, which they thought Westerner were barbaric, the force them reside only certain part of Canton, and made them move out during certain time of the year. With your examples, its indicates that discrimination was common and everywhere. But does that exclude the fact that Peak Reservation Ordinance was a discrimination measure to handle the plague, no. It may be a wrong way to handle the problem with today's standard, but doesn't mean the plague never exist and totally unrelated? No. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: To Benjwong: Haha, which article in wikipedia could practically be  supposed to be kept quick and short??--Da Vynci (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Benjwong. I agree with you that we should definitely let historical facts speak for themselves. The Light and Pass Ordinance indeed shed light on the Peak Reservation Ordinance. What the Government cannot do directly it achieved its goals indirectly. AR1997 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To Da Vynci: I don't know where you read "The law was passed because of the plague." in such a simple sentence.  I went through 3 excellent sources that talk from a very "east-west" perspective and they seem very certain that social status was a main reason for the law.  It is also very consistent with the many strange and bizarre racial laws passed of the period. Look at how mad user AR1997 is getting with you. Benjwong (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: To Benjwong: It is interesting to observe how the logic of your argument rely heavily on the idea of "consistency". Judging matters this way could be unrelible. Let's say there are 10 people from "Country A" setting in a courtroom as defendents, just because 8 of them committed robbery, it doesn't mean the other 2 also commited crime. Not in a fair judge's eyes at least. A fair judge wouldn't say "because it is consistence with those from the same country's behaviour, so these 2 persons must have also commited the same crime". In modern day, we call it "stereotype". Just because in some other parts of the world u saw "strange and bizarre racial laws passed" in the period with racial segregation as it sole goal, it doesn't necessarily means in this particluar case racial segregation was the foremost factor . --Da Vynci (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency does matter. It is clear that Chinese maids (the group carrying alot of bacteria and germs) are regularly allowed into these rich people's home. This contradicts a health law. Is that simple. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can't jump to conclusion with a "consistency" hypothesis. Ha, I knew you would bring up the servant's argument (not maid, sorry for pointing out ur inaccuracy again XD), The reason why servants were allowed while House owners weren't, because servants can be told to follow hygiene instruction. But u can't tell a House Owner how to live their live within their house. As The Great Plague of Hong Kong describes, when someone died from infection in a Chinese family and the Government attempt to disinfect the house, Government officials often encounter furious resistance from Chinese House owners (expecially those with wealth and had women lived in the house) because they think it is degrading to let outsiders to enter their house (especially an unmarried girl's room). If u are ethnic Chinese, u should know this old custom, unless u have lived in overseas for too long and have forgotten those ultra-conservative old Chinese customs. You can't just pick a Hong Kong historical issue and look at it with modern (Chinese-American) eyes, u gotta understand the HK local context and circumstance at the time too. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Da Vynci Just so you know, self-hatred is a very bad thing. How were "Europeans" back then any more hygienic and less superstitious than the "filthy" Chinese? Which part of China were you raised anyways, where you have come to learn these "old custom"? As far as I know, Europeans back in the 19th century still believed in BLOODLETTING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting), and the anointing of the sick, and many of them of Anglican or Catholic persuasion believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. How were these any less abominable in your modern, civilized eye than praying to effigies? Listen, I think you have been going out of your way to portray the Chinese as a historically barbaric and filthy people, which is uncalled for. I'm going to undo all the changes you've made, per rules you have produced earlier in our discussion. Also, the word race was used originally to refer to ethnic groups, hence, the Anglo-Saxon race, the Italian race, etc. It wasn't until late 19th century that scientific racism became popularly accepted, which divides the human population into 3 major "races." In any event, if "racism" isn't acceptable to you, how 'bout ethnic profiling? That would do, I'm sure, even for an Uncle Tom as eager to defend his European masters as you yourself, sir. You have gone so out of your way to defend the ethnically discriminatory behavior of your European daddies that I think they ought to hand you an OBE (Other Bugger's Effort? They discriminate, and have their Uncle Tom houseboy defend them. LOL.) AR1997 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Why are you bringing this up???  The majority of the people who were house owners at the peak were europeans.  None of these customs apply to them. Not only were chinese maids allowed, but records showed european peak-residents frequently rode rickshaws run by chinese people until car culture developed.  There is no sign anywhere that showed westerners were ever isolated from the plague. Benjwong (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why??! Because, first of all u have got to understood and accept the situation at the time, Chinese ppl in late Qing era didn't live life like we do today. Cantonese customarily threw left-over food into the street, believing sickness was caused by the devil, believing plague can be treated with ash of incense from temple, no modern hygiene awareness, etc. The Ordinance didn't forbid Chinese from accessing the Peak, it just forbid Chinese from residing on the Peak, thus avoiding the above living habit/condition (i.e. not the people). Coz if a Chinese family who reside on the Peak, and someone in that Chinese house get infected and died, Government can't tell the Chinese house owner how to live their life (such as not to throw left-over food in their own back yard, or not to treat plague using ash from burned incense), the Government even had great difficulty disinfecting infected people's houses. The Goverment tried to disinfect a lot of Chinese families house in Victoria City, often encountered great resistance as I described above.  The ordinance also make all houses on the Peak are built in Western detached style on peak , instead of the usual Chinese enclosed centre court yard house this which lack ventilation and promote environment for the speard of the plague. The ordinance may not establish isolation, but surely reduced risk in their perspective. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning is fallacious. The ordinance was designed to avoid the people, not the condition. If the legislation really aimed at the condition and not the people, it would not have placed a blanket ban on Chinese people but would rather set up some sort of review mechanism to decide which people (whether European or Chinese) should be allowed to live on the Peak. The entire basis for the ethnically discriminatory treatment was based on the presumption that ALL Chinese people are filthy unless: (1) the Governor-in-Council did not think so; or (2) they worked as houseboy for some European household. AR1997 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: To Benjwong: Furthermore, I also doubt if the Ordinance even qualifies the term racial discrimination, as the Ordinance wasn't even base on skin colour, facial features or hair texture. (According to Race (classification of human beings): The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.) "Chinese" is an ethnic group, not race. The Ordinance just banned people who come from the country that the Plague originated from entering certain place. Even in modern day, let's say if Country X has a SARS epidemic outbreak that resulted in 100,000 deaths, do u consider banning people from Country X from entering certain places as an act of racial segregation? It seems to me that quarantine would be a better term for that specific situation. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you accept the social status or plague reasoning, it is still a racially profiled law and should be presented as such for accuracy. Figuring out what ethnic group Chinese people belong and whether the word "quarantine" should be used is pointless. If anything the law rushed to conclusion that Chinese people were a liability.  Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A country had a deadly plague broke out, 60000 ppl died in Canton in matter of weeks (which is next to HK), this doesn't sounds like a liability to you? No one was asking "which ethnic group Chinese people belong", I was just saying Chinese IS an ethnic group, not a race. Thus the term racial segreation is not applicable here. The term "race" refers to ppl can be differentiated by looking at their apperance. There isn't substainal facial feature u can reliably differentiate Chinese from other Asian. It seems that u have read too much American history (where they had the racial issue of Black and White), and got messed up. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When something public is isolated from a group of people for discriminatory reasons, it is racial segregation.  It doesn't matter if the Chinese person had 5% or 10% of some other race.  I think you are an excellent editor, but going way too far with this ethnic group analysis. Many of the  trading posts experiences of the europeans of that era have shown there were no tell the difference between beijinger, cantonese, fujianese. You are thinking from such a modern perspective, I don't think these laws passed at the time was that sophisticated. Benjwong (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moreover, there is not any moral distinction between ethnic and racial segregation - both were based irrationally on a person's unalterable physical characteristic and ancestry. Hence, under modern constitutional jurisprudence, discrimination are subject to the strictest of judicial scrutiny, whether it is based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. The point being, in the eyes of the law, there aren't different. AR1997 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Better Hypothetical

message: I noticed that Da Vynci, a certain self-described Chinese who believed that it is justifiable that the filthy Chinese should be zoned out of the Peak area and that they should kowtow and prostrate themselves before their English masters for permission to live in Mid-Levels, didn't engage with my arguments at all under the Neutrality section. This is obviously because he's been running out of arguments and could do nothing but vandalize the page without first engaging me. In light of this, I too will edit the page without warning whenever it strikes Da Vynci's fancy to vandalize it. AR1997 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All my edits are referenced and I HAVE responsed your questions in Neutrality sections, and you said you have read them (on 17:00, 19 August 2008 UTC).I don't response to personal attracks by the way.--Da Vynci (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have posted rejoinder to the non sequitur you posted after I had read them at 17:00, Aug 19. You never responded to those. I am entitled to put the material you posted in quotes because, well, they are quotes from various primary sources. This is of particular importance if the subject matter of the materials cited is of such controversial character that by unquoting readers may be misled into believing that what was quoted were actual facts rather than, well, quotes. AR1997 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: *Note for AR1997: My responses are all moved to Neutrality section by Benjwong, please go to Neutrality section if u want to read them.--Da Vynci (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note for Da Vynci: Thanks - I just read them, and they, collectively taken, make little sense. I did shift "observe" back to "claim" regarding Sir Wm. Robinson's claims. That's what it is. Observations falsely implies neutrality - how a Colonial Governor could, by definition of his job, be neutral between the interests of the colonizer and the colonized is beyond me. And this is for all the Uncle Toms out there - colonizers don't come and occupy your home because you're all cuddly and cute and they want to pinch your chubby face - they come because it's profitable to do so. And I doubt Sir William would argue against my point. It's only self-deluded Uncle Toms who desperately wish to convince themselves of their colonial overlords' warm affection towards them. AR1997 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course doctors CAN be colonizers, and I am disappointed by your naivete. The only physician you quoted was a Portuguese, no? Who do you think he identified himself more with, filthy Chinese like yourself, or the white man?? Come on now, kid, who are you trying to kid? AR1997 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I am sorry but if the source said chinese people were throwing leftovers on the street, and now the british people need to isolate an entire mountain to protect themselves from the rubbish. I am sticking to the exclusive-club reasoning. At least doing it for social purposes make sense. I have rechecked the source (again) and added the contents back in. Benjwong (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't argue with him Ben, let's just edit the page as we see fit. That's what I'm going to do starting now. If this doesn't get better I'll report to wikipedia and have this page frozen. By the way Uncle Da Vynci - how was an average Chinese (who bathed every day) any filthier than a five-point Irishman like Billy Robinson who bathed like what, one time a week?! You are such a self-hating little s---head that I can't help but feel sorry for your self-hatred. AR1997 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Not the whole mountain mate, just the Peak (which forms a relative small area on the mountain) . The Mid-Level was dominated by all the wealthy Chinese by the way. It is time to read books other than Wiltshire's Old Hong Kong. So your view won't be confined by a single source. --Da Vynci (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha...Uncle Tom, oops, sorry Uncle Da Vynci, again why don't you tell this to the Memphis "Negroes" who could sit at the back of their buses? Eh? When seats at the front were reserved to whites? Good God - is that what you consider civilization?! AR1997 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Da Vynci, I think you might need to stop the tagging and editing of this article for awhile. Preferably do some research on the many similar racial ordinances in that era and come back later. Benjwong (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming the peak "Little england" does not stop any plague. Da Vynci is refusing to accept anything other than the law being a health protection ordinance.  Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right from the beginning, I have recognized it is a racial-zoning law AND the health concern. But you, don't believe anything else other than racial explaination. --Da Vynci (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Da Vynci please stop your tagging

message: To Benjwong: You are refering to this ? I only added 2 tags and a citation needed request after someone added unsourced info in questionable tone. Apart from the above edits, I rarely tag this article so far. Well, u should take a rest from frequent editing on this article too and start doing some research about the Plague and the hygiene condition around that period too. Seriously I think you have read too much about racial conflicts (esp the US ones) as a consequence u tend to narrow ur thoughts to racial explaination even when other major explaination (such as a great plague) was present. --Da Vynci (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming the peak "Little england" does not stop any plague. Da Vynci is refusing to accept anything other than the law being a health protection ordinance.  Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right from the beginning, I have recognized it is a racial-zoning law AND the health concern. But you, don't believe anything else other than racial explaination. --Da Vynci (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Benjwong please stop your misunderstanding