Darryl Shannon wrote:
> Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> 1.) Do you agree or disagree that citizens of the People's Republic
>> of China are all - each and every one of them - fully human in all
>> respects?
>> 1A.) If you do agree that '*they*' are 'fully human', >and therefore
>> 'think like everyone else', then why do you suggest that "we don't
>> know how *they* really think"?
> Listen, Christopher, I think you are being silly here.
I don't.
> Did you honestly not understand John's point, that public opinion
> cannot be accurately determined in a totalitarian state?
it was not clear to me that that was his point. it seemed likely to
me that that was what he was meaning - but it was _not_ what he said.
> (Whether in can be
> accurately determined in a non-totalitarian state is another argument).
agreed.
> Did you HONESTLY think he meant the Chinese people are sub-human? You
> are better than that.
Do I think that he meant to imply that? No, and I never said I did.
Do I think that he came too close to saying that? Yes, much too
close.
Do I think that his word-choice was influenced by the congruence
between his perception of the People's Republic of China as a
fundamentally different political _system_ (an 'other') and the
culturally supported perception of 'other races and cultures' as
fundamentally different from 'real people'? Yes. I have run into this
sort of 'not racist, but' speech for all of my life and I am pretty
darn tired of it.
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
