At 08:30 PM 6/22/01 -0700 Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>(Largely unsnipped in order to avoid further misunderstandings.)
And apparently also to give you the opportunity to beat me over the head
with repetitive arguments against points you already know that I have
conceded from posts that occurred after this one......
But never the less, I will once again try my best to play nice. I am a
very naive person, sometimes, Chris, and I very much want to believe that
you are being serious - but quite honestly, you are very much trying my
patience.
>"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>> 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.
The above constructions are all equivalent - at least in the form of
English that I commonly use everyday. As I have already noted to Ritu,
English colloquialism makes "how do you think" and "what do you think"
equally valid ways of expressing the same concept in certain constructions.
I have already noted the confusion caused by this language difference, and
I would have hoped that somebody like you could have recognized this, and
not posted a 16k post that repeatedly beats me over the head for causing
this language difference.
>> 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.
Again this is a problem caused by my familiarity with colloquialisms, which
in retrospect, many Brinellers are not familiar with. As you might now, I
have been deeply involvedin a program known as Model United Nations for the
past ten years. In these simulations, the delegate from China very often
finds them holding a minority position, and to garner support for their
proposition, they will say something to the effect of "25% of the World's
people say X!"
More to the point, though, I hope that you can recognize that term
"Chinese" is equally valid as a reference to a racial group and as a
reference to a citizen of the PRC.
Thus, as a reasonable reader of my post, you would be forced to assess
which meaning of "Chinese" makes more sense. Given that the discussion
was part of a greater context of world nations, given that the term 25% of
the world's people makes a great deal of sense in a citizenship context,
and given what you know of my personal views on race and humanity - a
reasonable person should have assumed that the "citizenship" context was
more reasonable. Even if you were not sure, a reasonable person could
have asked, rather than posting a flame which assumed that the least
reasonable meaning represented my true thoughts on the matter.
>> Do you have any idea how incredibly demeaning these questions are?
> None whatsoever. Why do you feel that they are demeaning?
I will duly note that you do not find inquisitions that begin "You're
really racist, aren't you? Admit it!" not demeaning. (See questions #1
combined with question #3)
> 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....
But if there was confusion, why bost the zinger in the first place? Your
very first post on this matter was a bald-faced accusation of racism by
your own admission. That calls into question everything else that you
have to say.
> 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?
This willfully ignores my post to Ritu, and I will not dignify it with
further comment.
>> 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?
I think that would be a very basic question towards asserting whether
citizens of the PRC share "American Values."
> 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.
Given that extreme unreasonableness of asserting that the citizens of the
PRC have a physical inability to express opinions, a reasonable person
should be able to determine what I meant. If reasonable people can
determine what I mean, then there is nothing wrong with my language.
>>> 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?
Because the need to post that opinion as a one-line zinger to my post,
clearly implies that you think that I would disagree with that opinion.
That is depressing, and insulting.
>> 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?
Because, myself, being so naiive, never contemplated that a serious member
of Brin-L could ever accuse me of considering all people of Chinese
ancestry to be sub-human. I interpreted your zinger as meaning that since
all humans are different, the opinions of all of us are "difficult to tell."
(tell = read in this context, for those of you in Rio Linda :)
> 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?
As evil as Bill Clinton was, he never once prevented me, personally, from
expressing an opinion on any matter. (Even if he did try to intimidate an
entire class of people from expressing opinions in the wake of Oklahoma
City.) I would hope that you know enough about the World to recognize
that a citizen of the PRC does not have the same freedom to express
political opinions without intimidation that you or I do. I would also
hope that you would recognize that if I were a tourist in Beijing that any
opinions I would express regarding the government of the PRC would be
invalid. I think that the Chinese people need to rise up and overthrow
their government. You will never hear me say that in Beijing.
> 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?
Again, this willfully ignores my post to Ritu, and I will not dignify it
with further comment.
>> 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.
See my last sentence.
Oh wait...... you apparently *did* read my post to Ritu, because here it
is! Of course, this only further calls into question your integrity, in
my mind.....
>> "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.....')
That's fine. English is spoken from one end of the planet to another. I
am sure that there are a great many expressions that you and I have never
heard. I am also sure that you and I use many expressions without even
thinking that these expressions would be universally recognized by
English-speakers in *all* places. So why can't you just accept that I was
using an expression that you simply had never heard before, agree that we
both know now what I meant, and move on?
>> 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.
It is more interesting that instead of replying to my first point "John, I
really don't think you would ever call all people of Chinese ancestry as
lacking the basic human ability to express opinions, but that is what it
sounds like to me - perhaps you could explain yourself?" Instead, you
posted a vitrolic one-liner that sought to put me down for being a racist,
without any expression of doubt on your part about my racist opinions. In
my humble opinion, that was degrading, insulting, and positively shameful
on your part.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
