*deep breath*
'Was about to rant about a certain group of people, and their poor education, lack of articulation and scrambled lexicons. 'Wanted to complain about how communicating with them is more a labour than it is a pleasantry. 'Wanted to make a rebuttal to their attitudes that I, Captain Grammar, am being unnecessarily proper and strict with their [disastrously imperfect] English. And in fact, I actually did. I just deleted it immediately after. Why? 'Cause I already have enough enemies. And most of you already know my stance on languages anyways.
Instead, I'll talk about something more exciting: This Monday (August 22nd), Toyich International Projects will be hosting the Toronto Gala Monster Concert at Nathan Phillip Square. Why is it a Monster Concert? Because it'll be 20 pianists on 10 pianos!! It'll be a blast! I caught their Mel Lastman Square performance, and I was totally riveted with their arrangements of such orchestral suites as Mozart's Symphony 40 (1st Movement) and Rossini's various operas. So, for those of you who enjoy and celebrate the richness of the arts that our cultural centre, Toronto, has to offer, come on out on monday! It starts at 7:30pm! And I don't have a cellphone, so good luck finding me there! haha...
2005/08/18
2005/08/14
Filters
It has often been postulated that the world would be a better place to live if people were honest and open with their thoughts and feelings. That social intercourse would be easier if we didn't have these "filters".
What is considered a filter? A filter is a conscious effort to either enforce or discourage any number of things. A diction filter, for example, would restrict the language one uses. (e.g. filtering out swear words for the elderly, or big-words for children, etc.) There can be conversational filters, i.e. avoid talking about death or marriage to a recently widowed woman, or avoid vulgar jokes and crude humour with the "clean, christian crew". There can be gesticulatory filters, not slouching in public, or tapping one's foot on another's chair. Avoid eating foods with one's fingers, if possible. There can be clothing filters -- avoiding pink clothes, or refusing to wear baggy jeans, rejecting anything that isn't from the GAP. Many, many filters which seem to restrict our speech and manner when speaking with other people. Why can't we just be honest and do away with them?
Isn't that a filter? Since when does a filter have to exclude things? As people who [hopefully] seek to progress and improve themselves in some way or fashion, tend to focus on one thing at a time. These are filters that are designed to exude some manner or quality of that person. There are therefore grammatical filters, in which students of a second language carefully form their sentences. There are dialectic filters, in which people consciously try to speak a certain way in order to fit in, or not stand out. There can be even diction filters, in which people try to display their pomp and pretension -- middle managers who try to use "professional" language in an effort to impress their colleagues. Students who seek to impress their peers by speaking only in slang. And yes, there can even be filters to use only "big words".
Most of the time, these people are blissfully unaware of their efforts, and find it "natural" to use those words, or to wear those clothes, or to act in those ways. But here's a concept: manners, clothing and language itself isn't natural. They're all man-made. They are, therefore, all filters. There are those who have been with a filter for so long that they have refined it. E.g., people who are the pinnacle of good manners, or those who possess diction of lethal accuracy and precision. But those of opposite disposition, who suddenly seek to turn around their habits, while commendable, is somewhat laughable that they would claim that such a new habit is "natural".
There are people who find the rules of etiquette to be formulaic and insincere, when they themselves use the same, formulaic responses. "Hey dawg," "haha... icic," "o i c k," "hey 'sup?" etc, etc. They may not carry the same flavour as "how do you do," or "it was a pleasure to have met you," but really, their usage is exactly the same. It is an autonomic, dry response just as sincere (or insincere) as those who would use the older phrases.
To take it a step further, I am willing to go as far as to say that it is shere lunacy and idiocy to truely remove all filters from one's being. Speaking consistently in one language is a filter. Dressing clothes from the same era is a filter. Seeing people as humans is a filter. A lot of perspective is used through these filters. In other words, with assumptions. Yes, we shouldn't make certain assumptions, but it is quite impossible to live without any sort of assumption. (That you or I exist is a very nice assumption. That this world is real is another comforting assumption.) So those who think that people shouldn't use filters are like the epistemological skeptics (who were nicely disproved by St Thomas Aquinas).
In short, these people who are against filters in general are like "moral imperialists" who impose their morals of calling it wrong to imposing ones morals upon another.
And no, I'm not saying that all filters are good and valid, but just that it's somewhat silly to think that we can exist without any filters at all.
What is considered a filter? A filter is a conscious effort to either enforce or discourage any number of things. A diction filter, for example, would restrict the language one uses. (e.g. filtering out swear words for the elderly, or big-words for children, etc.) There can be conversational filters, i.e. avoid talking about death or marriage to a recently widowed woman, or avoid vulgar jokes and crude humour with the "clean, christian crew". There can be gesticulatory filters, not slouching in public, or tapping one's foot on another's chair. Avoid eating foods with one's fingers, if possible. There can be clothing filters -- avoiding pink clothes, or refusing to wear baggy jeans, rejecting anything that isn't from the GAP. Many, many filters which seem to restrict our speech and manner when speaking with other people. Why can't we just be honest and do away with them?
Isn't that a filter? Since when does a filter have to exclude things? As people who [hopefully] seek to progress and improve themselves in some way or fashion, tend to focus on one thing at a time. These are filters that are designed to exude some manner or quality of that person. There are therefore grammatical filters, in which students of a second language carefully form their sentences. There are dialectic filters, in which people consciously try to speak a certain way in order to fit in, or not stand out. There can be even diction filters, in which people try to display their pomp and pretension -- middle managers who try to use "professional" language in an effort to impress their colleagues. Students who seek to impress their peers by speaking only in slang. And yes, there can even be filters to use only "big words".
Most of the time, these people are blissfully unaware of their efforts, and find it "natural" to use those words, or to wear those clothes, or to act in those ways. But here's a concept: manners, clothing and language itself isn't natural. They're all man-made. They are, therefore, all filters. There are those who have been with a filter for so long that they have refined it. E.g., people who are the pinnacle of good manners, or those who possess diction of lethal accuracy and precision. But those of opposite disposition, who suddenly seek to turn around their habits, while commendable, is somewhat laughable that they would claim that such a new habit is "natural".
There are people who find the rules of etiquette to be formulaic and insincere, when they themselves use the same, formulaic responses. "Hey dawg," "haha... icic," "o i c k," "hey 'sup?" etc, etc. They may not carry the same flavour as "how do you do," or "it was a pleasure to have met you," but really, their usage is exactly the same. It is an autonomic, dry response just as sincere (or insincere) as those who would use the older phrases.
To take it a step further, I am willing to go as far as to say that it is shere lunacy and idiocy to truely remove all filters from one's being. Speaking consistently in one language is a filter. Dressing clothes from the same era is a filter. Seeing people as humans is a filter. A lot of perspective is used through these filters. In other words, with assumptions. Yes, we shouldn't make certain assumptions, but it is quite impossible to live without any sort of assumption. (That you or I exist is a very nice assumption. That this world is real is another comforting assumption.) So those who think that people shouldn't use filters are like the epistemological skeptics (who were nicely disproved by St Thomas Aquinas).
In short, these people who are against filters in general are like "moral imperialists" who impose their morals of calling it wrong to imposing ones morals upon another.
And no, I'm not saying that all filters are good and valid, but just that it's somewhat silly to think that we can exist without any filters at all.
2005/08/11
Distinction and Discrimination
Living in a multicultural centre like Toronto makes it easy for one to regard the issue of racism as a thing of the past. Others, spurned by such prejudice often make the erroneous stance of equating lack of discrimination with lack of distinction. To not judge a book by its cover does not mean to pretend the cover doesn't exist.
As all of you (most of you should) know, I am a Canadian-Born Chinese (CBC). This means that I speak, read, write and understand English to an equal, if not better, proficiency as my Chinese. This also means that despite the North American clothing and decent education, I will still be regarded as an oriental male.
Now, having been obsessed with some sort of discrimination for the better part of my life, I've become familiar with certain concepts and motifs that crop up. I've noticed certain people (who shall remain nameless) who are hyper-sensitive to any hint of racism to the point of (what I personally find) idiocy. When asked to describe a person, they will give height, weight, body-type and shape, age and gender, but will consciously refuse to mention race. This is sheer idiocy, in my opinion, because if I want to know if I've met someone, I'm very likely to notice the approximate realm in the world whence this individual (or the individual's forefathers) came.
To consider the converse, let us assume that it is racist to identify the race of an individual. (So I am racist for describing someone as being Swahili, or Russian, or Malaysian, because it clearly does not serve any purpose in helping to recall the physical characteristics of the person.) And if one is to be non-discriminate of race, then one must also be non-discriminate of others -- of gender, because that would be sexist. So we cannot mention the sex of the individual in question. Because clearly, when we do, we've already imposed certain biases and stigmas that we associate between sex and personality. Therefore, we cannot also mention "trivial" things, such as height and weight, for who are we, that such superficial things would matter? We certainly aren't authoritative judges of beauty, certainly, and therefore cannot be as prejudiced as to describe someone as being "tall" or "fat". And we definitely cannot comment on the clothes one wears, because that is superficiality to the extreme. Fashion changes by the minute, and who are we to discriminate between those who can and cannot afford good taste in clothes?
What, then, do we have left to use to describe a person? Personality, clearly. Because it is obviously personality that one first notices when meeting a person. And obviously people would always give out personal details at the first meeting.
Hopefully you gleaned my point through that emotional, sarcastic rant.
It is NOT racist to identify one to be of a race (if only by appearance). I may be Canadian, but I certainly *look* Chinese (unless you're one of those asian-racists who insist that there is a *clear* distinction between the east-asian countries, in which case you might think I'm Japanese or Korean). Is it racist to have a culture? Is it racist to speak another language? Please...
Now, there are times when it *can* be racist to call someone by their race. Here are some examples of what I find to be acceptable and unacceptable statements involving a person's race:
1. a) Have you met Tom? He's my age, jewish, and about 5'8, with blue eyes, and short, gelled-back hair.
1. b) Bah, Tom's always trying to save money; he's Jewish!
2. a) I'm not sure if I've met Nancy. Is she the one from Ethiopia?
2. b) No, I'm not friends with Nancy; I don't have any Ethiopian friends.
It should be obvious which ones I find acceptable and which I don't but just in case, the first of the two sets (that is, the a) lines) are fine to use, in my opinion, whereas the b) lines are slightly dangerous ground.
Now, that was a very long introduction to the actual topic I wanted to write. Having established that racism is a bad thing, but that culture is a good thing, consider what happens when you mix the two. CBC literati sneeringly label Caucasians with East-Asian interests as sinophiles or japanophiles. Chinese parents of CBC's call their English-proficient children "bananas" (yellow on the outside; white on the inside).
Despite the alleged antiquity of racism, most of us still retain a curious sentiment concerning those of culture. It doesn't "seem right" when one of Chinese descent is instructing an English class in a Canadian highschool. It's "just wrong" when a Russian gentleman is tutoring CBC children the many characters in the Chinese written language. A Japanese TA's authority on the language is discredited because he is not Japanese. Caucasian students are discouraged from taking Korean because they "can never be Korean".
Where does this ideology come from? Why does it exist? Is there a genetic correlation between the knowledge of the (very arbitrary) rules of conduct for any given culture, or the linguistic knowledge of any given language? No. It just requires a degree of intelligence and some memory, two things that every race possess.
But sadly, these arguments only have a hope of being heard in such an open place as here in North America. The Japanese couldn't care less if you had an IQ of 300 and PhD in English; if you aren't a [natural] blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian female, odds are, they don't want you teaching English in their classrooms.
It's just lucky for most of us who are enamoured by other cultures (invariably the older, ancient version of that culture), that most older cultures share many common points. Parents of these older cultures are all considered "conservative" -- a term that seems to be internationally recognised. The jokes of saving money equally applies to the Indians as it does to the Chinese, as it does to the Jewish, as it does to the Russians. Why? Because we were there when war waged through the world. We weren't idling by in our infancy while the rest of the world slowly slaughtered itself, waiting for the most opportune moment to strike and become the world's leading economic power.
*cough*
Politics aside...
Yes, the world is slowly becoming more multicultural. Even if most of China isn't used to seeing a caucasian on the streets, the Chinese still recognise that English is pretty useful to use in the world outside their [very, very large] borders. Almost all countries of note have tours available in almost any language imaginable. And yet...
How would the people react if I, a Chinese, were to start dressing like an English gentleman? What if I somehow managed to marry the daughter of a Duke or Earl and became an English noble myself? Somehow, I doubt the British public would be so forgiving. It's all very well for me to know the history, culture and language of England better than most of the English would, but yet it would be unacceptable for me to actually live the part. For whether I have a British citizenship, I still wouldn't be English.
It's reassuring to see how far we've come in the past century. Here is a poem written by Thomas Burke in around 1920, called An English Gentleman:
I determined yesterday to become English gentleman;
And I have this morning bought a bowler hat.
I have bought brown boots and a suit of rare blue serge,
Which the affable one who supplied me with it
Spoke of as Natty, and added his assurance
That I would look Quite the Gentleman.
I have bought white collars and many-coloured ties,
And a walking-stick and a blue-spotted shirt.
Apparelled thus, I strolled this evening down Pennyfields,
And the old men came out with expressions of no-kindness.
They made ugly mouths,
And passed words one to the other of a derisive nature.
But I am young Quong Lee,
Who write verse in the English tongue,
And am quite English gentleman.
And English gentleman
Not suffer himself to be disturbed by hooting of owls.
As all of you (most of you should) know, I am a Canadian-Born Chinese (CBC). This means that I speak, read, write and understand English to an equal, if not better, proficiency as my Chinese. This also means that despite the North American clothing and decent education, I will still be regarded as an oriental male.
Now, having been obsessed with some sort of discrimination for the better part of my life, I've become familiar with certain concepts and motifs that crop up. I've noticed certain people (who shall remain nameless) who are hyper-sensitive to any hint of racism to the point of (what I personally find) idiocy. When asked to describe a person, they will give height, weight, body-type and shape, age and gender, but will consciously refuse to mention race. This is sheer idiocy, in my opinion, because if I want to know if I've met someone, I'm very likely to notice the approximate realm in the world whence this individual (or the individual's forefathers) came.
To consider the converse, let us assume that it is racist to identify the race of an individual. (So I am racist for describing someone as being Swahili, or Russian, or Malaysian, because it clearly does not serve any purpose in helping to recall the physical characteristics of the person.) And if one is to be non-discriminate of race, then one must also be non-discriminate of others -- of gender, because that would be sexist. So we cannot mention the sex of the individual in question. Because clearly, when we do, we've already imposed certain biases and stigmas that we associate between sex and personality. Therefore, we cannot also mention "trivial" things, such as height and weight, for who are we, that such superficial things would matter? We certainly aren't authoritative judges of beauty, certainly, and therefore cannot be as prejudiced as to describe someone as being "tall" or "fat". And we definitely cannot comment on the clothes one wears, because that is superficiality to the extreme. Fashion changes by the minute, and who are we to discriminate between those who can and cannot afford good taste in clothes?
What, then, do we have left to use to describe a person? Personality, clearly. Because it is obviously personality that one first notices when meeting a person. And obviously people would always give out personal details at the first meeting.
Hopefully you gleaned my point through that emotional, sarcastic rant.
It is NOT racist to identify one to be of a race (if only by appearance). I may be Canadian, but I certainly *look* Chinese (unless you're one of those asian-racists who insist that there is a *clear* distinction between the east-asian countries, in which case you might think I'm Japanese or Korean). Is it racist to have a culture? Is it racist to speak another language? Please...
Now, there are times when it *can* be racist to call someone by their race. Here are some examples of what I find to be acceptable and unacceptable statements involving a person's race:
1. a) Have you met Tom? He's my age, jewish, and about 5'8, with blue eyes, and short, gelled-back hair.
1. b) Bah, Tom's always trying to save money; he's Jewish!
2. a) I'm not sure if I've met Nancy. Is she the one from Ethiopia?
2. b) No, I'm not friends with Nancy; I don't have any Ethiopian friends.
It should be obvious which ones I find acceptable and which I don't but just in case, the first of the two sets (that is, the a) lines) are fine to use, in my opinion, whereas the b) lines are slightly dangerous ground.
Now, that was a very long introduction to the actual topic I wanted to write. Having established that racism is a bad thing, but that culture is a good thing, consider what happens when you mix the two. CBC literati sneeringly label Caucasians with East-Asian interests as sinophiles or japanophiles. Chinese parents of CBC's call their English-proficient children "bananas" (yellow on the outside; white on the inside).
Despite the alleged antiquity of racism, most of us still retain a curious sentiment concerning those of culture. It doesn't "seem right" when one of Chinese descent is instructing an English class in a Canadian highschool. It's "just wrong" when a Russian gentleman is tutoring CBC children the many characters in the Chinese written language. A Japanese TA's authority on the language is discredited because he is not Japanese. Caucasian students are discouraged from taking Korean because they "can never be Korean".
Where does this ideology come from? Why does it exist? Is there a genetic correlation between the knowledge of the (very arbitrary) rules of conduct for any given culture, or the linguistic knowledge of any given language? No. It just requires a degree of intelligence and some memory, two things that every race possess.
But sadly, these arguments only have a hope of being heard in such an open place as here in North America. The Japanese couldn't care less if you had an IQ of 300 and PhD in English; if you aren't a [natural] blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian female, odds are, they don't want you teaching English in their classrooms.
It's just lucky for most of us who are enamoured by other cultures (invariably the older, ancient version of that culture), that most older cultures share many common points. Parents of these older cultures are all considered "conservative" -- a term that seems to be internationally recognised. The jokes of saving money equally applies to the Indians as it does to the Chinese, as it does to the Jewish, as it does to the Russians. Why? Because we were there when war waged through the world. We weren't idling by in our infancy while the rest of the world slowly slaughtered itself, waiting for the most opportune moment to strike and become the world's leading economic power.
*cough*
Politics aside...
Yes, the world is slowly becoming more multicultural. Even if most of China isn't used to seeing a caucasian on the streets, the Chinese still recognise that English is pretty useful to use in the world outside their [very, very large] borders. Almost all countries of note have tours available in almost any language imaginable. And yet...
How would the people react if I, a Chinese, were to start dressing like an English gentleman? What if I somehow managed to marry the daughter of a Duke or Earl and became an English noble myself? Somehow, I doubt the British public would be so forgiving. It's all very well for me to know the history, culture and language of England better than most of the English would, but yet it would be unacceptable for me to actually live the part. For whether I have a British citizenship, I still wouldn't be English.
It's reassuring to see how far we've come in the past century. Here is a poem written by Thomas Burke in around 1920, called An English Gentleman:
I determined yesterday to become English gentleman;
And I have this morning bought a bowler hat.
I have bought brown boots and a suit of rare blue serge,
Which the affable one who supplied me with it
Spoke of as Natty, and added his assurance
That I would look Quite the Gentleman.
I have bought white collars and many-coloured ties,
And a walking-stick and a blue-spotted shirt.
Apparelled thus, I strolled this evening down Pennyfields,
And the old men came out with expressions of no-kindness.
They made ugly mouths,
And passed words one to the other of a derisive nature.
But I am young Quong Lee,
Who write verse in the English tongue,
And am quite English gentleman.
And English gentleman
Not suffer himself to be disturbed by hooting of owls.
2005/08/03
Hacker
I'm so proud of myself; I made my first successful Firefox search engine! Had to look at some source code of some other search engines (like the default google one), but all in all, I did it ... my way~♪
So now I can look things up in a japanese dictionary. yey. If I ever find a decent online Chinese dictionary, I'll be sure to add it. :P
So now I can look things up in a japanese dictionary. yey. If I ever find a decent online Chinese dictionary, I'll be sure to add it. :P
2005/08/01
Komm, Süsser Tod
I know, I know I've let you down
I've been a fool to myself
I thought that I could
live for no one else
But now, through all the hurt and pain
Its time for me to respect
the ones you love
mean more than anything
So with sadness in my heart
'feel the best thing I could do
is end it all and leave forever
whats done is done, it feels so bad
what once was happy now is sad
I'll never love again
my world is ending
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now the guilt is all mine
can't live without the trust from the ones you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it all comes
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
It all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
In my heart of hearts,
I know that I called never love again
I've lost everything, everything
that matters to me,
matters in this world
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now all the guilt is mine
can't live without
the trust from those you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that, it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
I've been a fool to myself
I thought that I could
live for no one else
But now, through all the hurt and pain
Its time for me to respect
the ones you love
mean more than anything
So with sadness in my heart
'feel the best thing I could do
is end it all and leave forever
whats done is done, it feels so bad
what once was happy now is sad
I'll never love again
my world is ending
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now the guilt is all mine
can't live without the trust from the ones you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it all comes
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
It all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
In my heart of hearts,
I know that I called never love again
I've lost everything, everything
that matters to me,
matters in this world
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now all the guilt is mine
can't live without
the trust from those you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that, it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)