Had a little conflict with a parent at my school due to her daughter’s poor behavior. Now this was a lady who became quite a friend to my wife. Not for nothing but my wife got baptized at her church. she was always making us cookies and shit. After said conflict my wife was informed that “baizhongren duoshao dou shi you youyuegan.” When it was pointed out as an example that my wife has never had any such experience with my mother for example, she received the retort “na shi duanzhan de er yi, ni gen ta zhu jiu jiu buyiyang.” now this was a conflict but an interesting attitude. i have to admit that certain negative prejudices of my own against crackpot religions have been reinforced.
what on earth are you talking about? dogs designed for eating human leftovers!! that is ridiculous.
chinese “racism” is not the same as what passes for racism in the west necessarily. sure, there is a general element of superiority, but generally speaking a given chinese person is racist based on an attitude of cultural superiority, not say racial superiority based on an idea of pure genes (strength, height, other physical features like blue eyes) that say, the Nazis had (although of course straight black hair is used as an identifying feature)
Then the French must be the most racist people on planet earth 
…and the Filipinos must be the least racist people on earth. No people hate their own country and culture more than they do down in the P.I.
A dog is basically the same thing as a wolf (they can interbreed), just frozen at what in the wolf would be adolescence. The big difference that led to all the cosmetic ones is that their fear of humans is suppressed enough to allow them to hang around us. Originally they probably followed our camps and ate garbage, then I guess some of our kids stole some of their puppies and raised them. Now we even let them in the house if they’re lucky
Chinese attitude toward surrounding peoples seems to be based mostly on lifestyle (nomadic, not Confucian), historical animosity (damn Japanese / Westerners) , and skin color (don’t want to be too dark). I don’t think they care about cheekbones, hair texture, or height (as an identity thing–yes, I know about the leg-lengthening operation). Do they?
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]A dog is basically the same thing as a wolf (they can interbreed), just frozen at what in the wolf would be adolescence. The big difference that led to all the cosmetic ones is that their fear of humans is suppressed enough to allow them to hang around us. Originally they probably followed our camps and ate garbage, then I guess some of our kids stole some of their puppies and raised them. Now we even let them in the house if they’re lucky
[/quote]
You are wandering away from your point which was dogs were designed for their niche. You stated their niche is eating human leftovers. I’m not so sure you understand how to use the word niche. What’s our niche? eating hamburgers and fries?
i dunno…we can be taught to fear/hate most anything. i seem to recall back in me undergrad days of reading about massacres done by the han killing people with big noses a long time ago.
demonizing the “other” to solidify status at home is an old, old trick.
didn’t the esteemed Dr. Sun Yat Sen espouse that Chinese were victims? to this day, isn’t this “victim-ology” at the heart of education system here? the local students are drilled on the transgressions of foreigners but the slights of the han on han and chinese on chinese violence is glossed to such an extent that sixth graders in taiwan in 2004 don’t know who killed who on 2-28.
You are right “mod lang” but also wrong. Filipino people are one of the least racist people in the world but I have never seen any people who love their home and homecountry like Filipinos.
Philippines is a wonderful country if they could stop killing each other, stop the corruption, start to work,…
Filipinos are extremely worm and kind people. Something I can’t always say about Taiwanese people.
Racism in Taiwan? No, they just dislike foreign influence. Taiwan has a balance in their society. Everybody accept their position in the system like good Confucian teaching. Foreigners come and disturb this system with their request for equal rights, freedom of speach, open attitudes and so on. Who the hell says that Western thinking is the right. Yes, people from the Western countries.
Everybody, open your minds and accept different way of thinking and behaving. I accept Taiwanese like they are but I don’t want to live and think the way they do.
Racism in Taiwan? NO! Even in my homecountry I have faced more racism than in Taiwan, just because I belong to a minority language group.
This is a scam by the way. don’t believe the hype. i’m not anti-taiwanese/chinese. i just feel sorry for them and disappointed that this cultural paralysis has weighed them down for so long.
I believe you are confused on this point. The persons held in Guantanamo Bay are “nonresident enemy aliens,” and as such there is no guarantee of Constitutional rights for them. There is a good discussion of this in the US Supreme Court case of JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), see laws.findlaw.com/us/339/763.html[/quote]
Not really, since I never claimed that it was the sole basis for holding the detainees. However, one of the elements that defines an “alien” would be citizenship. Compare how John Walker Lindh’s case was handled with those of the Guantanamo detainees. Lindh, a US citizen, was arrested, read his Miranda rights, provided access to legal counsel and then sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain. If he wasn’t a US citizen, would he be stuck in Guantanamo with the others?
The case you cite, Johnson v. Eisentrager, discusses the extension of constitutional protections beyond citizenry, and states that “the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act.”
The prisoners at issue in Johnson were never “within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.” Thus, no Constitutional protections applied to their case.
However, the question would remain as to whether the rights afforded Lindh extend to any of the Guantanamo detainees who are resident aliens of the US, particularly where the acts in question were conducted outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. I don’t think Johnson clearly answers that question. Perhaps, there are other cases that could provide an answer, but, unfortunately, I’ve got to get back to work. 
This is a scam by the way. don’t believe the hype. I’m not anti-Taiwanese/Chinese. I just feel sorry for them and disappointed that this cultural paralysis has weighed them down for so long.[/quote]
I totally agree (with my Western way of thinking)!
I believe you are confused on this point. The persons held in Guantanamo Bay are “nonresident enemy aliens,” and as such there is no guarantee of Constitutional rights for them. There is a good discussion of this in the US Supreme Court case of JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), see laws.findlaw.com/us/339/763.html[/quote]
Not really, since I never claimed that it was the sole basis for holding the detainees. However, one of the elements that defines an “alien” would be citizenship. Compare how John Walker Lindh’s case was handled with those of the Guantanamo detainees. Lindh, a US citizen, was arrested, read his Miranda rights, provided access to legal counsel and then sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain. If he wasn’t a US citizen, would he be stuck in Guantanamo with the others?
The case you cite, Johnson v. Eisentrager, discusses the extension of constitutional protections beyond citizenry, and states that “the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act.”
The prisoners at issue in Johnson were never “within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.” Thus, no Constitutional protections applied to their case.
However, the question would remain as to whether the rights afforded Lindh extend to any of the Guantanamo detainees who are resident aliens of the US, particularly where the acts in question were conducted outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. I don’t think Johnson clearly answers that question. Perhaps, there are other cases that could provide an answer, but, unfortunately, I’ve got to get back to work. [/quote]
The Constitution protects persons, not citizens nor residents only (within the territory of the US, blah blah). However, historically, the Supreme Court has given greater deference to military courts where national security may be a concern.
But what about in Taiwan? Does the Constitution here protect persons? Or only those with local nationality?
But what about in Taiwan? Does the Constitution here protect persons? Or only those with local nationality?[/quote]
I didn’t know there was one until recently when all this bruhaha with the referendum came up. but i’d be surprised if there was much constitutional legal development (and considering the lack of common law and a court specifically designed to determine constitutional matters). so i dunno.
But what about in Taiwan? Does the Constitution here protect persons? Or only those with local nationality?[/quote]
I didn’t know there was one until recently when all this bruhaha with the referendum came up. but I’d be surprised if there was much constitutional legal development (and considering the lack of common law and a court specifically designed to determine constitutional matters). so i dunno.[/quote]
The ROC’s constitution was ratified in 1947.
The Judicial Yuan has fifteen Grand Justices (including the President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan) who are nominated and, with the consent of the Legislative Yuan, appointed by the President of the Republic.
Beginning in the year 2003, the Grand Justices serve eight-year terms and may not be reappointed for consecutive terms. However, the President and the Vice President of the Judicial Yuan do not have the same term protection. Among the fifteen Justices nominated by the President in the year 2003, eight, including the President and the Vice President of the Judicial Yuan, serve four-year terms, while the others are serving eight-year terms. The Grand Justices hold meetings, presided over by the President of the Yuan, to interpret the Constitution and to unify the interpretation of laws and orders. They also form the Constitutional Court, sitting en bloc, to adjudicate cases concerning the dissolution of political parties violating the Constitution.
JAck Burton, by “niche” I just mean their place in the ecological system–what they characteristically eat, for example. For dogs this almost always means eating human leftovers, whether in the form of garbage or voluntary contributions in the form of table scraps, dog food, etc. Despite their ancestry most of them are really hopeless trying to live any other way, as we can see from the abandoned dogs. Humans are generalists rather than specialists, so are hard to pin down. I speculate that we have an instinctive tendency to imitate various species of largish animals, in order to broaden our food sources.
I don’t see Taiwanese as rejecting foreign CULTURAL influence. They’re crazy about Hello Kitty and Tom Cruise. What they resist is POLITICAL influence which might threaten their control of resources (such as jobs). Interestingly, Singapore has taken a slightly different route though it is still basically Chinese-centric.
“Confucian” influence is exaggerated, I think, at least when carried beyond the family level. I see very little evidence of regard or concern for any political leader here. Though some people will bow and scrape in search of favors, they switch sides very easily.
[quote=“Jack Burton”]
The Constitution protects persons, not citizens nor residents only (within the territory of the US, blah blah).[/quote]
True, and the US has consistently argued that the detainees are not “persons” within the Constitutional meaning. Lindh, however, is a “person” based on his citizenship. Thus, the different legal treatment.
You are right “mod lang” but also wrong. Filipino people are one of the least racist people in the world but I have never seen any people who love their home and homecountry like Filipinos.
Philippines is a wonderful country if they could stop killing each other, stop the corruption, start to work,…
[/quote]
If they loved their home so much, the Philippines wouldn’t be the largest exporter of emigrants in the world (after Mexico). It has beautiful scenery, great beaches, the people are warm…but it’s also a totally fucked up place where no one can find a job able to support a family and random violence (either terrorist bombs or street muggings) is a daily fact of life. Why do you think Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Gulf States, the U.S.A., have so many of them? The great Filipino Dream is to get the hell out.
Just heard this idiot radio announcer on the Jazz station. He was talking about black Jazz singers, saying that it’s impossible to imitate them because black people’s vocal chords are different. 
And after he has the audacity to say something so blatantly racist, he goes on to say that the same holds for German opera singers.
When people say and act stupid in Taiwan, your most appropriate reaction should be to feel sorry for them. Or if you encounter blatant racism, then the least you should do is acknowledge that you’re supposed to feel sorry for them.
Does my Chinese suck or did he just say that Mel Torme eventually became a drummer in his later years of jazz. Well, go research Mel Torme and tell me if my Chinese sucks.
I just got back from Shanghai, where we were training at a center that trains interpreters for the UN. You would assume that the students there would be cosmopolitan, educated, etc, and indeed most are. (Excellent English, too, despite never having been outside of China for the most part).
The thing that scared me was, we got on the subject of races somehow, and one of the girls – probably one of the best students in the group, with an MA, has taught college, outstanding English, reads “The Economist” and the international press etc. etc. regularly – said that she is afraid of Black people. I asked her why, and she replied, “One time I was in this dark hallway, and a Black guy was walking toward me, and I couldn’t even see him, just his teeth.” I asked her if she really believed that this guy was any more likely to hurt her than anyone else, and she said, “No. But I’m still afraid of Black people.”
Sheesh.
And the other scary thing was, this little girl (well, in her early 30s, probably) was spouting the straight Commie party line. I think that after actually meeting a couple of us who live in Taiwan, maybe she’ll think before pressing the missile button, but her views on Taiwan were scary as well. Maybe it’s better to have her interpreting for the UN instead of being a delegate there? 