Louis Blair wrote:
I wrote (31 Jan 2006 15:53:51 -0800):
The possibility that I was raising (for discussion)
was that (for purposes of television) European
chess be played in an atmosphere like that of
a Chinese Chess game.

Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

In my view, Louis Blair's choice of term,
'European chess', is unfortunate.

1) Was 'European chess' invented by Europeans?

Chess (or 'European chess' as Louis Blair
prefers to call it) was invented in Asia.

In a discussion where reference is made to both
European and Chinese chess,

As far as I know, *only Louis Blair* has been
using the term 'European chess' in this thread.

it strikes me as inappropriate for anyone to take
these as references to the invention of chess.

My implied comment about the *non-European
origins of chess* was intended to help point out
the inappropriate nature of Louis Blair's preferred
term 'European chess'.

I regard Louis Blair's term, 'European chess',
as *inappropriate*. It's ethnocentric at best,
and it may be perceived as having somewhat
racist connotations.

I have experienced overt racism in chess clubs.
I doubt that Louis Blair has had comparable
experiences.

Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

2) Are only Europeans the top players
in 'European chess'?

No, for example, Anand is not a European.

It strikes me as inappropriate for anyone
to take these "term"s as references to
the exclusive location of top players.

Again, what I wrote was intended to help point
out the inappropriate nature of Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'.

By the way, four FIDE World Champions
(Petrosian, Kasparov, Anand, Kasimdzhanov)
were born in Asia. (Armenia, Azeribaijan,
and Georgia are in Asia).

Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

3) Is there an International Federation
of 'European Chess'?

It strikes me as inappropriate for anyone
to take these "term"s as references to
any "Federation".

Again, what I wrote was intended to help point
out the inappropriate nature of Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess', particularly
in contrast to, simply, the term 'chess'.

Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

My suggestion is that we refer to 'European
chess' simply as 'chess'. I doubt that any
reader in rec.games.chess.* will be confused
by that term.

This newsgroup is not rec.games.European_chess.*

If it is a discussion where several versions of
the game are being considered, it seems to
me that such confusion is possible.

Again, my point is that it's inappropriate (being
ethnocentric and perhaps even somewhat racist) for
Louis Blair to refer to 'chess' as 'European chess'.

Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):
We should also refer to 'Chinese chess' as
'xiangqi' and to 'Japanese chess' as 'shogi'.
If necessary to insure clarity, we may write
of "xiangqi ('Chinese chess')" or of "shogi
('Japanese chess')".

I will consider these suggestions, but I do
not see Nick as having any authority to
decree how I "should" write.

I made a polite suggestion to Louis Blair, who
has decided to construe it as an attempt to
"decree how (he) 'should' write".

Louis Blair has the right to write however he
pleases. And other writers have the right to
criticise whatever Louis Blair writes.

In this case, I am noting that Louis Blair
apparently insists on using his preferred term,
'European chess', when some players would
perceive it as ethnocentric and inappropriate.

--Nick

Some of the relevant context has been snipped by Louis Blair.

Louis Blair wrote:
I wrote (31 Jan 2006 13:54:42 -0800):
In Sam Sloan's book on Chinese Chess, he described
the atmosphere of the game as being quite different
from that at a European chess event. Evidently, there
was a lot of crowd participation. Perhaps we need to
be more like the Chinese.
_
Nick wrote (31 Jan 2006 19:15:46 -0800):
If 'you' were perceived as 'more like the Chinese',
then 'you' would experience more racist stereotyping,
condescension, prejudice, and hatred in the West.
_
I wrote (1 Feb 2006 09:45:57 -0800):
Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?
If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

Louis Blair has deliberately snipped most of
what I wrote in response.
_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 15:53:44 -0800):
... To what extent is Louis Blair aware of the
existence of anti-Chinese racism in the West,
particularly in the United States (where Louis
Blair lives)? ...

I would rewrite that question now as:
"To what extent does Louis Blair *imagine* that
he's aware of the existence of anti-Chinese racism
in the West, particularly in the United States?"

My questions to Nick were based on his action:
reacting to my note, quoting my note, and
putting comments in his reaction about "racist
stereotyping, condescension, prejudice, and
hatred". Since Nick did not answer my questions
and HIS question is, as far as I can tell, unrelated
to my actions, I see no reason why I should bother
with his question.

On many occasions, I have discussed the cultural
differences between China and Western societies.
On many occasions, I have discussed anti-Chinese
racism in the West, including in the United States.
On many occasions, I have discussed both subjects
(above) with the same persons at the same times.

I have discussed these subjects with persons of
diverse backgrounds, including both Chinese and
Europeans. I have had these discussions in
Chinese and in some European languages.

On some occasions, I have discussed the cultural
differences between China and Western societies
without referring explicitly to anti-Chinese racism
in the West. I have done so when I have felt that
the other person(s) in the discussion already had
an adequate understanding (at least for the purposes
of discussion) of anti-Chinese racism in the West.
For examples, I have done so when in discussion
with a Chinese student who has lived in the United
States and experienced American racism in person.
I have done so when in discussion with a white
American friend of mine, who's married to a
Chinese woman who has experienced racism.

To answer Louis Blair, I have *sometimes* discussed
the cultural differences between China and Western
societies without referring explicitly to anti-Chinese
racism in the West.

But in any discussion with Louis Blair about the cultural
differences between China and Western societies,
I would emphasize the importance of anti-Chinese
racism in the West, particularly in the United States,
because I am far from convinced that Louis Blair
has an adequate understanding of *the facts about
anti-Chinese racism*. I also have to say that I
am not convinced that Louis Blair has shown
any substantial interest in gaining an adequate
understanding of the facts about anti-Chinese
racism.

I already know that the 'mainstream' US news media
hardly acknowledges the existence of any anti-Chinese
racism. I make no apology for writing accurately
about some of the facts of anti-Chinese racism.
If Louis Blair feels uncomfortable about those facts,
then that's his problem.

--Nick

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):

Chess ... was invented in Asia. ... My
implied comment about the *non-European
origins of chess* was intended to help point
out the inappropriate nature of ... 'European
chess'.

_
If "European chess" was a reference to the origins
of chess, then Nick's comment would have some
validity. Since it is not a reference to the origins
of chess, it seems to me that it has no validity.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):

I regard Louis Blair's term, 'European chess',
as *inappropriate*. It's ethnocentric at best,
and it may be perceived as having somewhat
racist connotations.

_
In a discussion of the multiple versions of chess,
it seems to me that singling out one of them to
be referred to as simply "chess" could also be
perceived as ethnocentric, etc.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):

Anand is not a European. ... Again, what I
wrote was intended to help point out the
inappropriate nature of Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'.

_
If "European chess" was a reference to the
exclusive location of top players, then Nick's
comment would have some validity. Since it
is not a reference to the exclusive location of
top players, it seems to me that it has no
validity.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):

I made a polite suggestion to Louis Blair, who
has decided to construe it as an attempt to
"decree how (he) 'should' write".

_
"We should also refer to ..." - Nick
(1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800)
_
"I do not see Nick as having any authority
to decree how I 'should' write." - Louis
Blair (2 Feb 2006 06:52:35 -0800)

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):

I am noting that Louis Blair apparently insists
on using ...

_
"I will consider these suggestions ..."
- Louis Blair (2 Feb 2006 06:52:35 -0800)

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):

To what extent does Louis Blair *imagine* that
he's aware of the existence of anti-Chinese
racism in the West, particularly in the United
States?

_
Since Nick presents no valid reason for me to
be obliged to take up such a topic, I shall not
do so.

_
I wrote (1 Feb 2006 09:45:57 -0800):
Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?
If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):

in any discussion with Louis Blair about the
cultural differences between China and
Western societies, I would emphasize the
importance of anti-Chinese racism in the
West, particularly in the United States,
because I am far from convinced that Louis
Blair has an adequate understanding of
*the facts about anti-Chinese racism*.

_
If I am following Nick correctly, his answer
to both of my questions is "no". He agrees
that there are differences of custom and
culture between Europe and China, but I am
not to be allowed to say anything related
to that subject without Nick taking it upon
himself to make sure that I have, in his
view, "an adequate understanding of *the
facts about anti-Chinese racism*." If that
is indeed his attitude, I can only regard it
with contempt and shall do so in the future.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):

I also have to say that I am not convinced
that Louis Blair has shown any substantial
interest in gaining an adequate understanding
of the facts about anti-Chinese racism.

_
And I have to say that I see absolutely no
reason why I should be obliged to demonstrate
such an interest to Nick.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):

I make no apology for writing accurately about
some of the facts of anti-Chinese racism. If
Louis Blair feels uncomfortable about those
facts, then that's his problem.

_
If Nick wants to put his writings on racism into
responses to my notes with the expectation
of me taking up subjects according to his
wishes, that is his problem. He is not going
to get his way.

Why should I be surprised that Louis Blair has
practised more of his disingenuous snipping?

Please read what I have written in its entirety,
not just the selective parts that Louis Blair
prefers to quote (sometimes out-of-context).

Louis Blair wrote:
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):
Chess ... was invented in Asia.

I wrote (Louis Blair has snipped part of it):
"Chess (or 'European chess' as Louis Blair
prefers to call it) was invented in Asia."

Again, *only Louis Blair* has been insisting on
using the term 'European chess' in this thread.

... My implied comment about the *non-European
origins of chess* was intended to help point
out the inappropriate nature of ... 'European
chess'.

Here's what Louis Blair chose to snip (above):
I wrote: "...was intended to help point out the
inappropriate nature of *Louis Blair's preferred term*
'European chess' ".

By deliberately snipping that part of what I wrote,
Louis Blair has distorted my meaning.

If "European chess" was a reference to the origins
of chess, then Nick's comment would have some
validity. Since it is not a reference to the origins
of chess, it seems to me that it has no validity.

Louis Blair prefers to ignore or to dismiss my point
that he should not refer to something as 'European
chess' when it does *not* have European origins.

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):
I regard Louis Blair's term, 'European chess',
as *inappropriate*. It's ethnocentric at best,
and it may be perceived as having somewhat
racist connotations.

In a discussion of the multiple versions of chess,
it seems to me that singling out one of them to
be referred to as simply "chess" could also be
perceived as ethnocentric, etc.

I have played chess with many non-Europeans.
I do *not* recall that any of us has ever said anything like:
"Would you like to play a game of European chess?"
It's always been: "Would you like to play a game of chess?"

In my conversations with Chinese players, I never
have known any confusion in asking something like:
"Would you like to play chess or xiangqi?"
In Chinese publications, I cannot ever recall reading
chess being described as 'European chess'.

Given that Louis Blair has asked me in this thread,
in an apparently condescending tone, about whether
or not I am aware of any cultural differences between
China and Western societies, would Louis Blair
(an eminent Sinologist?) like to enlighten me
about the attitudes of Chinese players toward
'European chess' (as Louis Blair prefers to
call it)?

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):
Anand is not a European. ... Again, what I
wrote was intended to help point out the
inappropriate nature of Louis Blair's
preferred term 'European chess'.

If "European chess" was a reference to the
exclusive location of top players, then Nick's
comment would have some validity. Since it
is not a reference to the exclusive location of
top players, it seems to me that it has no validity.

Louis Blair seems absolutely determined to keep
insisting that his preferred term 'European chess'
must be entirely appropriate. I do not expect
that I shall be able to persuade him to change.

Some people may regard Louis Blair as ethnocentric
at best, if not also as rather insensitive to some
potential racist connotations.

When will the USCF change its magazine's name
to 'European Chess Life'?

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):
I made a polite suggestion to Louis Blair, who
has decided to construe it as an attempt to
"decree how (he) 'should' write".
_
"We should also refer to ..." - Nick
(1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800)
_
"I do not see Nick as having any authority
to decree how I 'should' write." - Louis
Blair (2 Feb 2006 06:52:35 -0800)
_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:31:08 -0800):

I am noting that Louis Blair apparently insists
on using ...
_
"I will consider these suggestions ..."
- Louis Blair (2 Feb 2006 06:52:35 -0800)

Given what Louis Blair has been writing in this thread,
I doubt that Louis Blair will *sincerely and seriously*
consider my suggestion.

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
I wrote:
In Sam Sloan's book on Chinese Chess, he described
the atmosphere of the game as being quite different
from that at a European chess event. Evidently, there
was a lot of crowd participation. Perhaps we need to
be more like the Chinese.

Nick wrote (31 Jan 2006 19:15:46 -0800):

Some of my context was snipped by Louis Blair.

If 'you' were perceived as 'more like the Chinese',
then 'you' would experience more racist stereotyping,
condescension, prejudice, and hatred in the West.

In the interest of clarity, I have not noticed any racist
comments by Louis Blair in rec.games.chess.*
What I wrote was not intended as a personal criticism
of Louis Blair, and I regret it if Louis Blair got the
impression that it was such a personal criticism.

I have noticed racist comments (not necessarily against
the Chinese) from at least several American writers
in rec.games.chess.*. I also have noticed that
most writers in rec.games.chess.* tend to write
of the Chinese in terms of ignorant stereotypes.

But *it's true* that Chinese people have often, if not
usually, experienced racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, or hatred in the West. There's ample
evidence (including that cited in books by some
Western scholars) to support that statement.

I do not know to what extent Louis Blair
may or may not be aware of those facts.

Until a few years ago, I would hear some Western
chess players saying (with varying degrees of
euphemism) that it must be impossible for any
Chinese players ever to play chess as well as
strong Western GMs.

By the way, Chinese teams have dominated the
recent International Mathematical Olympiads.

Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?

I suspect that I understand more about 'the existence
of differences of custom and culture between Europe
and China' than Louis Blair does.

To what extent is Louis Blair aware of the existence
of anti-Chinese racism in the West, particularly in
the United States (where Louis Blair lives)?

If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

In fact, 'racist stereotyping, condescension, prejudice,
(or) hatred' have been common experiences of Chinese
people in Western societies. In fact, anti-Chinese
racism was long written into US laws (such as the
Chinese Exclusion Act).

A good general book about this subject is
"Chinese America: The Untold Story of America's
Oldest New Community" (2005)
by Peter Kwong and Dusanka Miscevic.
(Dusanka Miscevic is Peter Kwong's wife/partner).

The last sentence (above) may not necessarily be accurate.

As I recalled, the book described the backgrounds of
Peter Kwong and Dusanka Miscevic and mentioned
that they are living in New York City, in a context
that seemed to imply that they are living together.
After checking the book, it does not state explicitly
that they are living together, so the current status of
their relationship cannot be inferred with certainty.

I hope that Louis Blair will read that book,
though I don't expect him to do so.

--Nick

Predictably for him, Louis Blair has snipped
much of what was written out-of-context
in order to serve his polemical purposes.

Louis Blair wrote:
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):
To what extent does Louis Blair *imagine* that
he's aware of the existence of anti-Chinese
racism in the West, particularly in the United
States?

Since Nick presents no valid reason for me to be
obliged to take up such a topic, I shall not do so.

Evidently, Louis Blair regards the existence of
anti-Chinese racism in the West as irrelevant to
any discussion of cultural differences between
China and Western societies. Or Louis Blair
may regard the existence of anti-Chinese racism
in the West as a too uncomfortable subject for
himself to contemplate.

I wrote (1 Feb 2006 09:45:57 -0800):
Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?

What a condescending question from Louis Blair!

Would Louis Blair (an eminent Sinologist?) like
to pontificate about the cultural differences between
Europe and China? May I ask Louis Blair how I
should translate some more difficult Chinese texts?

If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):

Louis Blair has deliberately snipped what I wrote
about how I have discussed the cultural differences
between China and Western societies and
anti-Chinese racism in the West with other people.

*Louis Blair's deliberate snipping has seriously
distorted the context of what I wrote.*
Louis Blair prefers to begin quoting me
out-of-context (below):

in any discussion with Louis Blair about the
cultural differences between China and
Western societies, I would emphasize the
importance of anti-Chinese racism in the
West, particularly in the United States,
because I am far from convinced that Louis
Blair has an adequate understanding of
*the facts about anti-Chinese racism*.

If I am following Nick correctly,

Louis Blair has deliberately snipped what I wrote
out-of-context, thereby seriously distorting it.
I doubt that Louis Blair has any sincere interest
in understanding exactly what I mean.

his answer to both of my questions is "no".

Not exactly, but it's a waste of time to explain it
again to someone as disingenuous as Louis Blair.

He agrees that there are differences of custom
and culture between Europe and China,

Oh, really, I never had even considered that possibility
until the enlightened Louis Blair brought it up! (much
sarcasm intended)

but I am not to be allowed to say anything related
to that subject

That's not exactly what I wrote, but I have stopped
caring about what Louis Blair might think of it.

without Nick taking it upon himself to make sure that I
have, in his view, "an adequate understanding of *the
facts about anti-Chinese racism*."

As far as I can tell from what Louis Blair has written
(not necessarily only in this thread), Louis Blair seems
ignorant of or insensitive to racism, at least in some
contexts. I do not single Louis Blair out for criticism
on account of that. In my view, most people seem
ignorant of or insensitive to racism in some contexts.
If you have not experienced a lifetime of racism,
then you tend to be less sensitive to racism than
someone who has had such experiences.

Unfortunately, Louis Blair seems to believe that
'cultural differences' and racism must be necessarily
unrelated subjects, and he seems to feel quite
uncomfortable about considering the latter subject.

Would Louis Blair prefer to have, say, a discussion of
the cultural differences between Christians and Jews
in 1930s Germany without ever mentioning any facts
about anti-Semitism? That *could* be possible *if*
it's already accepted that *everyone* in the discussion
*already* has an adequate understanding of the facts
about anti-Semitism. But if someone in the discussion
does *not have that adequate understanding of the facts*,
then it seems extremely dishonest to discuss 'cultural
differences' without mentioning facts about anti-Semitism.

If that is indeed his attitude,

Not exactly. Perhaps Louis Blair should consider
reading more carefully what he chooses to snip.

I can only regard it with contempt
and shall do so in the future.

I can only regard Louis Blair with disdain on account of
his continuing disingenuous snipping and distortion of
other writer(s)'s meanings.

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):
I also have to say that I am not convinced
that Louis Blair has shown any substantial
interest in gaining an adequate understanding
of the facts about anti-Chinese racism.

And I have to say that I see absolutely no
reason why I should be obliged to demonstrate
such an interest to Nick.

Indeed, Louis Blair and I have no professional or
personal relationships, and each of us should be
free to regard the other with disdain.

I hardly would be surprised that Louis Blair may
take no interest in learning facts about racism.

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):
I make no apology for writing accurately about
some of the facts of anti-Chinese racism.
If Louis Blair feels uncomfortable about those
facts, then that's his problem.

If Nick wants to put his writings on racism into
responses to my notes with the expectation
of me taking up subjects according to his
wishes, that is his problem. He is not going
to get his way.

For the record, I did *not* expect Louis Blair to
'take up (the) subject' of racism because I have
no reason to believe that Louis Blair has any
particular knowledge of or interest in that subject.
What he has written since then has corroborated
my earlier impression of him.

I already have written that I regret the way in which
I initially introduced (I was writing too quickly) the
subject of racism, which I did not intend as a personal
criticism of Louis Blair. I can understand that
Louis Blair may have perceived it as a provocation,
which I did not intend. But I prefer not to censor
myself in writing about racism simply because
many other people evidently prefer to have
such writings censored.

Much of what Louis Blair has written since then has
been, in my view, disingenuous and inappropriate.

--Nick

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):

Why should I be surprised that Louis Blair has
practised more of his disingenuous snipping?
...
[Louis Blair's version of what I wrote:]
"the inappropriate nature of ...
'European chess'."
...
I wrote: "... the inappropriate nature of
*Louis Blair's preferred term* 'European
chess' ".
_
By deliberately snipping that part of what
I wrote, Louis Blair has distorted my meaning.

_
In what way? Does Nick deny that he
regards "European chess" as an inappropriate
term? As far as I can tell, the only thing that
I did was remove Nick's obviously false claim
that "European chess" is my preferred term.
I did this without comment in the hope that
he would reconsider his nonsense without
it being necessary for me to bluntly point
it out to him publicly. I should have known
better. So let me now bluntly suggest that
he do a google search and discover for himself
how often I write "chess" and how often I
write "European chess". If, in the future,
Nick dishonestly persists in this nonsense,
I shall certainly feel free to continue to refrain
from reproducing every repetition by Nick of his
nonsense.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):

Louis Blair prefers to ignore or to dismiss my point
that he should not refer to something as 'European
chess' when it does *not* have European origins.

_
If "European chess" was a reference to the origins
of chess, then Nick's comment would have some
validity. Since it is not a reference to the origins
of chess, it seems to me that it has no validity.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):

Given that Louis Blair has asked me in this
thread, in an apparently condescending tone,
about whether or not I am aware of any ...

_
The words, "aware of any", are the invention of
Nick. If he wants to accuse me of a "condescending
tone" he should use my words:
_
"Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?
If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about 'racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred'?"
_
I think my tone was not unreasonable for a person
who decided that it was time to give me a lecture
on racism. The first question was intended to lay
the groundwork for the second question (not mentioned
by Nick, of course).

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):

would Louis Blair (an eminent Sinologist?) like to
enlighten me about the attitudes of Chinese players
toward 'European chess' ...?

_
I see no reason why I should be obliged to take up
such a topic.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:38:37 -0800):

Louis Blair seems absolutely determined to keep
insisting that his preferred term 'European chess'
must be entirely appropriate.

_
What is actually happening is that I am taking
the time to tell Nick what I think of some of
his arguments.

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

Predictably for him, Louis Blair has snipped
much of what was written out-of-context
in order to serve his polemical purposes.

_
It seems to me, that, to properly support such
a claim, Nick should (1) identify something
specific and false that I have indicated to be
true, (2) identify a specific snipped item that
would have revealed that what I indicated was
false. Nick does not do this. I am not going
to reproduce every single time Nick repeats
a charge without backing it up. This
essentially is my response to all of his
charges of this sort.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):
To what extent does Louis Blair *imagine* that
he's aware of the existence of anti-Chinese
racism in the West, particularly in the United
States?
_
I wrote (2 Feb 2006 16:39:23 -0800):
Since Nick presents no valid reason for me to
be obliged to take up such a topic, I shall not
do so.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

Evidently, Louis Blair regards the existence of
anti-Chinese racism in the West as irrelevant to
any discussion of cultural differences between
China and Western societies. Or Louis Blair
may regard the existence of anti-Chinese racism
in the West as a too uncomfortable subject for
himself to contemplate.

_
Nick has absolutely no quote that would make any
of this "evident". He should acknowledge this and
apologize for his nonsense immediately.

_
I wrote (31 Jan 2006 13:54:42 -0800):
In Sam Sloan's book on Chinese Chess, he described
the atmosphere of the game as being quite different
from that at a European chess event. Evidently, there
was a lot of crowd participation. Perhaps we need to
be more like the Chinese.
_
Nick wrote (31 Jan 2006 19:15:46 -0800):
... If 'you' were perceived as 'more like the Chinese',
then 'you' would experience more racist stereotyping,
condescension, prejudice, and hatred in the West. ...
_
I wrote (1 Feb 2006 09:45:57 -0800):
Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?
If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

_
Referring to the first of the two questions in the
last paragraph, Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006
18:55:54 -0800):

What a condescending question from Louis Blair!

_
The first question was intended to lay the groundwork
for the second question. I think my tone was not
unreasonable for a response to a person who decided
that it was time to give me a lecture on racism (in a
way that he now regrets).

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

Would Louis Blair (an eminent Sinologist?) like
to pontificate about the cultural differences between
Europe and China? May I ask Louis Blair how I
should translate some more difficult Chinese texts?

_
I see no reason why I should be obliged to take up
such topics.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

Louis Blair has deliberately snipped what I
wrote about how I have discussed ...

_
I see no reason why I should write about or
reproduce descriptions by Nick of discussions
that I myself did not witness - discussions for
which I have access to no record other than
what Nick reports.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 15:59:16 -0800):
... in any discussion with Louis Blair about
the cultural differences between China and
Western societies, I would emphasize the
importance of anti-Chinese racism in the
West, particularly in the United States,
because I am far from convinced that Louis
Blair has an adequate understanding of
*the facts about anti-Chinese racism*. ...
_
I wrote (2 Feb 2006 16:39:23 -0800):
If I am following Nick correctly, his answer
to both of my questions is "no". He agrees
that there are differences of custom and
culture between Europe and China, but I am
not to be allowed to say anything related
to that subject without Nick taking it upon
himself to make sure that I have, in his
view, "an adequate understanding of *the
facts about anti-Chinese racism*." If that
is indeed his attitude, I can only regard it
with contempt and shall do so in the future.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

[That is] Not exactly [my attitude]. Perhaps
Louis Blair should consider reading more
carefully what he chooses to snip.

_
Perhaps Nick should indicate some specific
snipped item that would indicate in what
respect my interpretation is incorrect. In
any event, if I am incorrect - if I am, in
fact, to be allowed to say something related
to differences of custom and culture between
Europe and China without Nick taking it upon
himself to make sure that I have, in his view,
"an adequate understanding of *the facts
about anti-Chinese racism*", I can only hope
that future actions of Nick do in fact reflect
this.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

As far as I can tell from what Louis Blair has
written (not necessarily only in this thread),
Louis Blair seems ignorant of or insensitive
to racism, at least in some contexts.

_
Of course, no specific writing of mine is identified.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

Unfortunately, Louis Blair seems to believe that
'cultural differences' and racism must be necessarily
unrelated subjects,

_
Nick has no quote to back this up.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

he seems to feel quite uncomfortable about
considering [racism].

_
Nick uses "seems" when he should really be
including a clause, "I have nothing resembling
a rational argument to justify ..."

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

Would Louis Blair prefer to have, say, a discussion
of the cultural differences between Christians and
Jews in 1930s Germany without ...

_
Before Nick pesters me further about this digression,
I suggest that he ask himself what exactly the point
is. After identifying the point, I suggest he consider
whether or not it contradicts something that I have
WRITTEN. (Things that Nick thinks I "seem" to
believe, do not count.) If he is trying to contradict
something that I have written, I suggest that he
specifically identify it. If he is not contradicting
something that I have written, I suggest that he
clearly identify his point, and I shall let him know
if I want to pursue a discussion of the matter.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

I hardly would be surprised that Louis Blair may
take no interest in learning facts about racism.

_
I hardly would be surprised that Nick may fail to
perceive a difference between
_
"taking no interest in learning facts about racism"
_
and
_
"taking no interest in discussing the subject with
Nick".

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

... I have no reason to believe that Louis Blair
has any particular knowledge of or interest in
[the subject of racism.]

_
Of course Nick does not have any such reason
to believe this. I have given him none. What
Nick needs to consider is whether or not there
is any obligation for me to do so.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

What he has written since then has corroborated
my earlier impression of him.

_
No specific writings identified. No specifics about
the corroboration explained.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

I already have written that I regret the way in which
I initially introduced (I was writing too quickly) the
subject of racism,

_
This is the first time I have seen the word "regret"
used by Nick in connection with the way in which
he introduced the subject of racism.

_
Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 18:55:54 -0800):

I prefer not to censor myself in writing about
racism simply because many other people
evidently prefer to have such writings censored.

_
People who do not censor themselves often
find that they have written or said things in
a way which they later regret.

Nick wrote (2 Feb 2006 17:55:29 -0800):

I hope that Louis Blair will read that book,
though I don't expect him to do so.

_
There are many many things that I would
hope Nick would do. See previous notes
of mine for some indication. I would not
be so presumptious as to consider what
I "expect" in this situation to be worth
recording. Without help from me, people
can decide for themselves what they
think about the future.