(Largely unsnipped in order to avoid further misunderstandings.)
"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 10:19 AM 6/21/01 -0700 Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> Let's clarify a few things:
>> Your statement that "we don't know how *they* really think" sounds
>> to me as if it is saying that - by virtue of being 'Chinese' -
>> Chinese thought is 'inscrutable', that there is something different
>> about being Chinese that impedes comprehending 'their' thought that
>> does not occur with the various cultures, political systems, and
>> genotypes available in the other 75% of the world.
>
> Well, let's clarify this further by going back to the original proposition:
> Kristin Ruhle suggested that: "(the conservative viewpoint
> tends to take *pride* in emphasizing so called American values) when
> AMerica has only five percent of the world's billions (Does that mean 95
> percent of the planet is, well, Un-AMerican? Not necessarily undeomcratic,
> but UN-AMERICAN! horrors!)"
>
> I replied that we have no idea whether or not the Chinese share American
> values, as their opinions are inscrutable.
Nope, you said "Well, considering that 25% of the World is Chinese,
and we don't know how *they* really think. Its hard to tell.". You
may have meant "we have no idea whether or not the Chinese share
American values, as their opinions are inscrutable." - but that is
not what you said.
> Given that the context of the discussion clearly concerns nations, and not
> races, I don't know how any interpretation other than "political system" is
> possible.
Because you used a term which is not clearly a political entity
('Chinese' instead of 'People's Republic of China', 'the Communist
Chinese', or 'Mainland China'), made a sweeping generalization ('25%
of the World is Chinese' - as if you are referring to all 'Chinese'),
and used an exclusionary emphasis (*they*). I've read enough of your
postings on 'Brin-L' to know that you did not mean the remark in a
racist way - but the way you said it did generalization and excluding
characteristics of racism - with nothing in the remark itself that
prevented that impression.
>> Given your reply I now assume that your
>> remark was not about 'Chinese' in general, but about citizens or
>> people within territory controlled by the People' Republic of China.
> Bingo.
Good.
>> However I don't see any additional interpretations of your statement
>> than the two I described above. Therefore a few questions to see if
>> clarification will present me with other interpretations for your
>> statement -
> Do you have any idea how incredibly demeaning these questions are?
None whatsoever. Why do you feel that they are demeaning?
> Just
> to show that I play nice, however, I'll answer them - but I am *shocked*
> that you somehow found these questions necessary.
Anytime that confusion is present clarification is needed. What you
said didn't match up with what I thought you meant- which of them
should I go with. Or would you rather that I go with what I thought
you meant...and wonder if perhaps maybe you did mean what you
said....
{snip}
>> 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?
> Agree.
Good.
>> 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"?
> The People's Republic of China is very efficient in preventing the free
> expression of opinions by the vast majority of their 1 billion + citizens.
How does 'preventing the free expression of opinions' mean that
people who 'think like everyone else' are also people whom "we don't
know how *they* really think"? If they do think like everyone else,
using the same biological structures as everyone else, then wouldn't
it follow that that we would know as much of how they think as we
know of how we think? How does their political repression change
this?
> For example, anybody know what the approval rating of Jiang Zemin is?
I have no idea. How would finding out the answer change your opinion
of the citizens of the People's Republic of China?
>> 2.) I fully agree that people in territory controlled by the
>> People's Republic of China are often repressed in a variety of ways -
>> ways that I deem unacceptable. How do you get from that shared
>> premise to "basic inability to even express opinions"? (i completely
>> agree that expressing an opinion significantly at odds with the
>> various power structures in the People's Republic of China can be
>> financially, medically, and socially dangerous (or worse) - but it is
>> a far cry from being unable to safely express a 'dissident' opinion
>> to having a "basic inability to even express opinions". hmmmm.... or
>> - i think this is unlikely, but i would like to be able to dismiss
>> the possibility - do you feel that being repressed makes someone
>> 'sub-human' and therefore not really deserving of consideration?)
> Having talked with some citizens of the PRC in the past, I have found that
> their viewpoints on most political subjects are inscrutable. The matter,
> to them, was simply taboo.
Again - it is a far cry from being unable to safely express a
'dissident' opinion to having a "basic inability to even express
opinions". Is saying "basic inability to even express opinions"
really what you meant to say? Or were you wanting to say something
like 'Political repression interferes with the expression of
opinion'? Not expressing an opinion, and obliquely expressing an
opinion is no where near to not having the ability to express an
opinion.
> Thus, making any characterization of the viewpoints of the world's people
> on a matter like American values should note that the viewpoints of 25% of
> the world's people, are, by definition, unknown on this subject.
But you didn't say "25% of the world's people", you said "25% of the
World is Chinese". And you didn't say "the viewpoints of", you said
"we don't know how *they* really think". If you want people to
respond you what you say in the way you meant it you need to say what
you mean. Otherwise people will think that you mean what you say.
>> 3.) Why do you find it depressing that someone would assert that
>> citizens of the People's Republic of China are as human as the rest
>> of us? (surely such a postulate would, in your eyes, justify
>> agitating for their having rights and freedoms at least as good as
>> what '*we*' rightfully enjoy?)
> This is where you REALLY piss me off.
Why does my asking you to explain why you found asserting 'that
citizens of the People's Republic of China are as human as the rest
of us' to be depressing make you angry?
> This question is copmletely
> predicated on an answer of *yes* to question #1, and if you already know
> the answers to your questions, why are you asking them?
Why do you say that, and what is the answer?
> I feel like the average defendent in a Chinese Court right now - apparently
> the verdicts have already been written.
If you would like. Let's see.... How would "is guilty of speaking
imprecisely and becomes angry when someone asks him clarify his
statements and to assert that he did not mean what he did not mean"?
Does that work for you?
>> 4.) What "vagaries of human opinion" are you referring to? (opinions
>> expressed by citizens of the People's Republic of China - approved or
>> disapproved of by the government of the People's Republic of China?
>> Opinions expressed by people who disagree with you? Your own
>> opinions?)
> None of the above.
Thus demonstrating the value of asking questions - if I hadn't asked
I would have never guessed that none of those were applicable.
> I was referring to the broad array of human opinions which makes the
> opinions of, as you put it, "every other human" hard to tell.
? The original quote was "I'm sorry, but comparing the vagaries of
human opinion to the basic inability to even express opinions (as is
true for the 25% of the world's population currently being repressed
in the PRC) is incredibly depressing." And it was said in response to
"like every other human does John. just like every other human
does.", and to Ritu Ko's "Bravo!".
I wasn't referring to 'the vagaries of human opinion', I was
referring to the fact that since they are human they think as all
humans do, speaking in contradiction to your statement - and the only
way that 'Bravo!' makes sense is if Ritu Ko was expressing approval
for my response. So where do you get "the vagaries of human opinion"
from?
>> 4A.) Do you feel that opinions expressed by people in territory
>> controlled by the People's Republic of China are not genuine opinions
>> if the expression of those opinions is being allowed by the
>> government or if they agree with a government position?
> The opinions are valid if allowed by the government. I would certainly
> accept the opinion of a PRC citizen on the day's weather.
???
How is the validity of an opinion dependent upon governmental
approval? Surely you didn't think that your own opinions were invalid
when Mr. Clinton was in office and the Democratic Party controlled
both the House and the Senate? Or that your opinions were
automatically invalid if you were to visit the PRC as a tourist or
embassy employee?
I am glad that you accept that PRC citizens have the basic ability
to express opinions on the weather. Perhaps they have the basic
ability to express other opinions - whether or not they do express
them, or express their own?
> There is no way of knowing if an opinion expressed by a citizen of the PRC
> that agrees with the official government position is genuine or coerced to
> some degree.
But not knowing if the opinion is their own doesn't mean that they
lack the ability to express an opinion - or that the opinion isn't
their own.
> "John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 07:44 AM 6/22/01 -0000 Ritu Ko wrote:
>> "Given that the context of the discussion clearly concerns nations, and not
>> races, I don't know how any interpretation other than "political system" is
>> possible."
>> Well, the answer lies in your original statement:
>> "Well, considering that 25% of the World is Chinese, and we don't know how
>> *they* really think."
>> I think if you had used the word 'what' instead of 'how', the confusion
>> wouldn't have arisen.
> Ummmmm........ o.k. In America, or at least the parts of America I am
> from, we have a colloquialism that equates "how you think" with "what you
> think" as sometimes being interchangeable phrases . At least among people
> I am used to talking to, the context should have tipped off the meaning
> that this was a political, and not a biological discussion.
It isn't a construction that I have heard before. Context is
important, but when a construction is used which doesn't fit with the
context it is very very easy to find oneself going with the statement
and not the context that it _seems_ to be embedded in. (After all 'he
actually did say.....')
> So I guess that explains how you became confused, Ritu, but I am still
> deeply disturbed as to how many other Brin-L'ers could seriously believe
> that I considered an entire race of people as incapable of thinking.
As far as I know no one except you has made that assumption. What I
was reacting to, and what I think other were reacting to was that you
essentially said that - a statement that I do not think you meant in
the way that you said it, but a statement that could not be let slip
by without comment.
It is interesting that instead of replying "Well, of course Chinese
do think like everyone else, but we do not know the views of PRC
citizens - approximately � to 1/5 of humanity, and the grand majority
of Chinese people - actually think about the values we would call
'American values'.", you got all angry and deviated from your point
still further.
> At 01:06 AM 6/22/01 -0700 Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> i do note that since there are people who call themselves 'Chinese'
>> (and who are referred to others as 'Chinese') living in Taiwan,
>> Indonesia, Vietnam, Australia, Britain, France, the U.S., Canada, and
>> elsewhere the term 'Chinese' does not clearly describes any political
>> grouping. (certainly not any 'non-racial' grouping.)
>
> Yes, the term Chinese can apply to a race or a citizenship.
Indeed. However 'race' is a concept that only makes sense in the
context of racism and has no scientific validity. And 'Chinese' as a
citizenship can apply to two different political entities - ones that
do not get along well with each other. (Why the U.S. government every
bought into that silly 'one China' idea and officially broke off
relations with the Republic of China I have no idea.)
> I would have
> hoped that the citizenship context would have immediately appeared much
> more logical coming from me than the racial context.
More logical in view of knowing you, but not more logical based upon
what you actually said. My point is about what you said and how it
didn't match up with what you probably meant.
> But apparently not.......
apparently not.
Cheers,
Christopher
> --
> Christopher Gwyn
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
