Insightful or patronising?

October 7, 2006

Reveller, who says he is a trained linguist with a special interest in semantics and semiotics, has said in an earlier posting (Bules like pembantus?) that “no matter how good a user of a language one may be, if you are not a native speaker you cannot get inside the feelings that haunt words, the attitudes and emotions they convey to native speakers.

“Fluent, even bilingual, users of a tongue that is not their native language may use words with great technical precision (denotation), but be unaware of the shades of feeling they convey (connotation).”

These statements remind me of a thought experiment called The Eyes Have It in the book The Pig That Wants to be Eaten by Julian Baggini, which opens up questions as to whether we can ever see the reality the other person perceives. In this sense Reveller’s statements could be insightful.

But if you were a “non-native” English writer like VS Naipaul, Anita Desai, Vikram Seth et al you’d probably think that these statements are patronising.

Which is it? I’ll let readers weigh in and hold my judgement until later.

unspun

communications

Culture Clash

37 responses to “Insightful or patronising?”

Reveller

October 7, 2006 at 5:29 pm

On a small but important point of information, Naipaul, Desai and Seth are in fact native speakers of English – albeit regional varieties of the language. My comments are therefore not applicable to them.

LikeLike

Reply
Priyadi

October 7, 2006 at 7:23 pm

even as a native speaker of bahasa indonesia, i do make the mistake from time to time: using words but unaware of their connotative meanings.

ps. i don’t find your (or thang’s) post on the matter offensive. people do come up with this discussion from time to time and i find the topic interesting. i remember it was once the topic in one of those uncle JC show (sp?). it was hillarious and they also mentioned terms like ‘bules’ or ‘pembantus’ or ‘item’. i was in a traffic jam with no less than 5 friends and i don’t remember anyone get deeply insulted by that.

still, bahasa indonesia is where calling someone younger ‘kamu’ is acceptable, but calling ‘kamu’ to an older/respected person might get you into trouble. it is even worse in ethnic languages. in bahasa sunda we literally have a dozen of words which translate to ‘makan’. how we use them depends on the context: who is doing ‘makan’ and who is making the words.

LikeLike

Reply
Priyadi

October 7, 2006 at 7:45 pm

oh ya, regarding the term ‘bule’, i think it is undergoing the euphemism treadmill effect. thanks for my last post about ‘difable’, now i know a little about this thing :).

now, apparently some people find the term ‘bule’ acceptable, and some will consider it offensive. wait 10-15 years from now and most will consider it offensive. same thing with ‘cina’, it is now considered offensive to say ‘si X orang cina’, we resort to more subtle ‘si X orang keturunan’ or ‘si X orang oriental’.

it is the same reason why we don’t call a crippled person crippled, but ‘disabled’ and now even ‘differently-abled’. same reason why we don’t call a blind person ‘orang buta’, but we call them now ‘tuna netra’. and now that ‘blind’ itself is now considered offensive, we are now more likely to use ‘sight impaired’.

gee, linguistics is hard and complicated. don’t you agree? 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 8, 2006 at 12:58 am

Ah, euphemisms! The coyness about naming the small room where we perform our excretary functions has always amused me, especially in the USA where in ‘polite’ society you have to be rather careful. So I now say to my American friends “Excuse me, where’s the euphemism?”

LikeLike

Reply
Thalassa

October 8, 2006 at 1:34 am

Reveller, presumably then, if an Indonesian writes prose or poetry in English that is comparable to that produced by Seth, Desai et. al, would he/she be considered a native speaker?

As far as I know, Naipaul doesn’t write in Caribbean English, and neither does Seth use idiomatic Indian English. If you would like to read prose written in Indian English, RK Narayan or some of the expressions in Rushdie’s novels are a better choice.

LikeLike

Reply
Sudogiman

October 8, 2006 at 1:53 am

By “trained linguist” does Reveller mean he or she has done a few units of college linguistics or studied the discipline at a graduate level with research in the field?
Dude, you don’t need to know your dipthong from your dipstick to know that words may have connotations beyond their literal meaning. In other words, no shit, Sherlock.
Comments fall into the patronising camp. The connotation of someone parading their credentials as a “trained linguist” (maybe you just mean English teacher), are to say:”I’m smarter than everyone else.”
Connotation clear enough ?

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 8, 2006 at 2:12 am

Thalassa, I think we’ve hit a major misunderstanding here. Being a native speaker has nothing to do with education, creativity or linguistic prowess. It is, quite simply, the language of your home, your parents and your local community. It’s not something you can obtain, achieve, or aspire to. It might most aptly be called a birthright.

Many writers who are not native speakers achieve such a mastery of the language through their genius that they are recognised as pre-eminent figures of English literature – Joseph Conrad is perhaps the most famous example. His native language was Polish, he learnt French as a lad when he went to sea, and adopted English when he settled to live and write in England.

The thing about regional varieties of English is that they are just that, varieties – they share so many of the cultural roots, as well as the linguistic ones, that their users are genuinely native speakers. Whatever their local variety, they have consciously chosen to write in ‘standard’ or ‘mainstream’ British English.

Now I’m from ‘up North’ in England, and my own dialect is a foreign language to ‘them down South’. That Scottish comedian of genius, Billy Connelly, is virtually unintelligible to anyone outside Glasgow, but – like me – he is a native speaker of English.

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 8, 2006 at 2:47 am

Sudogiman, I am indeed by profession an English teacher, and as such I perceive that you need my services. “the connotation … are to say …” ? – tut tut my dear fellow, the subject-verb agreement is wrong! 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Thang D. Nguyen

October 8, 2006 at 3:14 am

I just realized that Ong has created a separate thread for this discussion, so I’m pasting here what I wrote in response to Reveller’s comment in the “Beauty in the Eyes of the Beholder” thread.

deep and cool headed insightful analysis. how colourful.

Thang D. Nguyen Says:
October 8th, 2006 at 3:08 am
Reveller –

Thank you for your kind words on my command of the English language. I disagree, however, with your argument that

“Because no matter how good a user of a language one may be, if you are not a native speaker you cannot get inside the feelings that haunt words, the attitudes and emotions they convey to native speakers. Fluent, even bilingual, users of a tongue that is not their native language may use words with great technical precision (denotation), but be unaware of the shades of feeling they convey (connotation).”

Not for me, mate! I know the power of every word I choose and the emotional impact it has on a reader–especially someone who happens to be my opponent in a debate like this. My pen is, indeed, a double-edged knife: I use it to spread butter on a piece of bread and serve it nicely to you, or I can stab it right into your heart (or rectum, for that matter) and twist it.

Unlike most average persons, writers like myself don’t have much space in print publications to say what we have to say clearly; we can’t afford to be wordy (who wants to be, really?). Therefore, we choose our words selectively and use them effectively. So, every word I use in my writing is there for a reason.

Cheers,

LikeLike

Reply
Sudogiman

October 8, 2006 at 3:56 am

Reveller,

If you must nit-pick on a second glance, that sentence does indeed need correcting. It’s called dashing off a reply on a Blog.

But back on to the main point: connotations. I wonder what sort of connotation “English Teacher” has versus “Trained Linguist” in this town (Jakarta) and many others in Asia. (Cant resist the cliched joke that my training has just made me a cunning linguist).

Sudogiman

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 8, 2006 at 4:52 am

Sudogiman, notice the smiley at the end of my comment! Over the years I’ve learnt (a) never to dash off a hasty reply, and (b) to proof-read my replies very carefully – but more importantly, to keep the tone friendly and light-hearted.

The reason I mentioned the ‘trained linguist’ thing is precisely because there are so many underqualified and unqualified people posing as English teachers or educational experts here in Jakarta that it’s enough to make one weep.

I think it’s useful to know a little about other correspondents in an open forum like this, especially their professional competence in the area of discussion – even though, as you rightly point out, at the risk of appearing to be claiming that they’re “smarter”!

LikeLike

Reply
Sudogiman

October 8, 2006 at 5:33 am

Dear Reveller,

All too true. Don’t get me wrong; teaching is one of the highest callings, and vastly under rewarded in alot of the Anglo Saxon world. It’s tragic that many attach more prestige to derivatives trading than to nursing and especially teaching.

True kudos and as Ali G says, maximum respect to you if you’re treating it as a vocation rather than an alternative to backpacking.

Good to see an uplifting thread emerging from all the discussion of ‘pembantus,’ ‘bules’, ‘high foreheads’ and buck-teeth.

Sudogiman

LikeLike

Reply
Thalassa

October 8, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Reveller, I did understand what you were referring to in your use of “native speaker”, but I was puzzled by your examples. Naipaul is certainly a native speaker, because most Caribbean Indians speak English as a first language at home.

However Seth’s first language is Punjabi, and if my experience of growing up in a similar milieu in India is anything to go by, he most probably spoke Hindi or Punjabi at home with a smattering of English thrown in.

India’s a bit peculiar in this sense. A lot of Indians attend schools where English is the medium of instruction and attain a fair bit of proficiency in English. However generally, their mother tongue is the dominant language at home.

LikeLike

Reply
treespotter

October 8, 2006 at 9:49 pm

there’s euphemism and there’s political correctness gone amok, one should learn to tell the difference. To navigate from what was a fallacious debate into one of linguistic, i will applaud Upspun’s mastery of spins.

Quoting Bierce, LANGUAGE, is the music with which we charm the serpents guarding another’s treasure.

I’m keen to see how we will understand treasure next. In a world where people all sorts of background blends together in digitzed pipes, their ultimate treasure really will be who they think they are.

I should just add Gibran into the mix.

and oh, the distinction between all those smart names above, most will really involve their ethnic origin, no? I’m not even sure what the talk is all about up there. I think it sounds a little racist.

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 8, 2006 at 11:46 pm

Thalassa, these three writers were first mentioned by Unspun in the first posting to this thread, I just followed the lead.

I’ve mentioned (in another thread) the example of Joseph Conrad as a non-native speaker of English who mastered the language to a level of genius, and he’s not alone. English is, after all, an international language, and it’s not surprising that gifted writers from many backgrounds choose it as their medium.

India is a rich, diverse and historically complex case, and outside my realm of knowledge. I’m glad that this thread is generating discussion by contributors with a special knowledge of the place and its languages.

LikeLike

Reply
unspun

October 9, 2006 at 10:30 am

Reveller: I think you are dissembling.

The point you wanted to make was “no matter how good a user of a language one may be, if you are not a native speaker you cannot get inside the feelings that haunt words, the attitudes and emotions they convey to native speakers.

“Fluent, even bilingual, users of a tongue that is not their native language may use words with great technical precision (denotation), but be unaware of the shades of feeling they convey (connotation).”

Yet when I asked how could “non-native” English writers like VS Naipaul, Anita Desai, Vikram Seth get away with being considered very fine English writers if they can never get to griops with the connotation of words, you modcified your stand to say that they “are in fact native speakers of English – albeit regional varieties of the language. My comments are therefore not applicable to them.”

When Thalassa (bright person, her) asked if an Indonesian writes prose or poetry in English that is comparable to that produced by Seth, Desai et. al, would he/she be considered a native speaker, you dissembled again.

You answer was: “Being a native speaker has nothing to do with education, creativity or linguistic prowess.”

So what is it about native speakers that gives them the ability to understand connotations of words in English that non-native speakers are locked out of.

I would argue that our Mr Thang’s mastery of the English language and understanding of the connotations of words surpasses that of many native speakers and indeed of many English teachers.

You may take issue with his abrasive style of argument but you certainly cannot dismiss him as a poor soul who, deprived of having grown up in an English-native environment since he was an itsy bitsy baby, is somehow beyond the pale. To do so would lead me, sadly, to the conclusion that you were patronising him.

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 9, 2006 at 11:09 am

Unspun,

A correction – I have never “taken issue with his [Thang’s] abrasive style of argument”, so please don’t impute that to me!

I’m a bit puzzled by your use of the word “dissembling”, which means “hiding or disguising one’s true motives or feelings” – is this what you meant? If it is, I don’t agree that I’ve dissembling.

You say “So what is it about native speakers that gives them the ability to understand connotations of words in English that non-native speakers are locked out of?” My reply would be that the connotations of words do not come about by accident or design, but are the product of social, class, educational, cultural, historical and many other factors that unite and bind a speech community. I think this is what Winston Churchill meant when talking about Americans and the British: “We are separated by a common language”.

I partly agree with your comment that “Mr Thang’s mastery of the English language and understanding of the connotations of words surpasses that of many native speakers and indeed of many English teachers”, and my previous references to Joseph Conrad in this and another thread make my position quite clear. But connotations exist on many levels, some of which you can glean from a good dictionary or extensive reading, but others you cannot.

So the wheel has turned full circle, and I repeat my first argument that the use of ‘colour words’ raises hackles in native speakers because they are nowadays considered to be indicative of a racist mindset, and have acquired deeply pejorative connotations.

Now if Thang used these words knowing full well that this is their current connotation, then he may (and I repeat may) be open to the charge of knowingly using words that are sure to cause offence to a great many British and American native speakers. I would prefer to think that he used them without being aware of the furore they would unleash, as to him they were factual, and neutral, words. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt should not be mistaken for being patronising.

LikeLike

Reply
treespotter

October 9, 2006 at 12:39 pm

i’m very tempted to try to elaborate the difference between euphemism and political correctness. however the word that comes to mind at the moment is ‘mutt dance’ (self invented).

so what is this, is someone out there trying to say that Mr. Thang’s command of english ain’t gut enuff to appropriately dress the subject of expats ugly taste?

or are we all really have inherent limitations in our communication skills so that we shall continue dancing around whatever it is we’re trying to say without saying it so that someone else wouldn’t call a duck a duck for fear of offending the duck?

come to think of it, the word in question was ‘bule’ or ‘pembantu’ – both indonesian words, none of you lot here are native speakers in Indonesians and yet everyone do their mutt dance anyway.

my humblest apology to unspun for this outburst as it tickles me too much. a bunch of very, very smart guys – many with background in communication and education – debating on an anonymous medium and frankly, where the issue becomes so much muddled it’s now looking like a high school arcade.

unless of course, you guys are actually talking about Indian culture, in which case i am just so totally lost and will now humbly retreat back to my cave and re-educate myself.

LikeLike

Reply
treespotter

October 9, 2006 at 12:40 pm

i meant among the words in question. let’s not go semantics on me. i’m not native.

LikeLike

Reply
Thang D. Nguyen

October 9, 2006 at 4:13 pm

Reveller –

While I appreciate your agreement with Ong on my command (or mastery, as he put it) of the English language, I find it condescending because of your usage of the word “partly”. The word you should have used is “totally” because what Ong wrote–no bias here–is flat-out true. In case you are in doubt, I’d invite you, or any other native-born British or American, to join me in a grammar and punctuation contest. Anyone?

Since you have apparently failed to understand my first comment, let me reiterate it: I know the meanings and emotional impacts of each word I use full well; I foresaw the pain that many readers, particularly bule like yourself, would get from my article and have enjoyed the seeing it in their irresistable reactions so far. So, please stop recycling your vacuous claim that I use my words without knowing or being aware of their impacts on readers!

LikeLike

Reply
treespotter

October 9, 2006 at 4:57 pm

I did ask if anybody wanted to play scrabble before but nobody wants to. now there’s a contest. is there a winning prize?

LikeLike

Reply
Preman

October 9, 2006 at 5:06 pm

Yuuz a funny lil’ Thang; simply IRRESISTIBLE, even. I’ll take you up on any sort of contest you want — ANYTHING. Spelling might be problematic for you, I imagine. You know nearly as much about language or writing or the world as my little pinkie (that’s a finger).

But if, as I suspect, this is all a ruse and you’re not who/what you say you are, then I gotta say you are darn good. You’re a friggin genius! You have played this role as a stereotypical-inferior-Asian-wannabe-intellectual to a tee. And Ong has either fallen for it OR is just your clueless cheerleader –all too priceless. You guys gotta start doing some standup.

LikeLike

Reply
treespotter

October 9, 2006 at 5:28 pm

nobody wants to play scrabble with me? still?

how lame. maybe chess?

LikeLike

Reply
Jan

October 10, 2006 at 12:26 am

This is too darned IRRESISTIBLE — I’ll do any contest you want. What a funny little Thang you are. So funny, that I’ve got this whole thing pegged. This Thang and his/her cheerleader, Unspun/Ong, are incredibly cheap cliches of the stereotypical, nerdy Asian male with serious inferiority problems. So, it dawned on me that you guys/gals are just winding people up with these fictional caricatures. That’s funny. A bit sophmoric and not very PC or original, but indeed humorous.

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 10, 2006 at 11:22 am

Mr Thang,

I have over the course of the last few days come to certain conclusions.

The first is that your knee-jerk reaction to anything that smacks of criticism is to dismiss it out of hand as ‘patronising’ or ‘condescending’.

The second is that you are vain about your linguistic prowess to the point of hubris. To claim that you know the “meanings and emotional impacts of each word you use” is breathtakingly arrogant. You know what a word means to you, and the connotations it carries for you, but you cannot know the shades of meaning and connotation it has for your interlocutors. Communication is a two-way street. You are a linguistic absolutist.

The third is that get your kicks by goading people through the deliberately provocative use of racist language. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Is it surprising then that you have been labeled racist.

It’s been a nice ride, but I’m not overly impressed by the standard of discussion in this forum. It’s time to move on to pastures new. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.

LikeLike

Reply
Sudogiman

October 10, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Reveller,

I feel a bit hurt that you’re saying these things to Thang, who’s just trying to stand up for the rights of us Asians. I feel like I suddenly had a hero, when before no-one would speak out for us. I thought you also understood this. Don’t tell me you’re just like all the other Bules ?

Why does everyone pick on Thang so much when he’s just trying to tell the truth ? Is it because some people can’t take the truth from a Yellow Man ? Is it because they prefer to have a Vietnamese man serve them noodles and parade them around on a rickshaw ?

I think Thang’s coming up against the same resistance that Bruce Lee did in Hollywood, that Ho Chi Minh did at the U.N., and even Martin Luther King did in the ’50s and ’60s in America. Thang is just trying to live Martin Luther’s dream of standing side-by-side, and all these people keep trying to tear him down.

Fortunately, like Ho Chi Minh, I know Thang will never stop. Never. Viva ! Viva ! Viva ! Keep fighting the good fight Thang, don’t let these Blok M Bules stop you !

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 10, 2006 at 2:07 pm

Mr Thang,

As a parting gesture of goodwill here’s a language lesson for you:

“usage of the word” – “use” is a more appropriate word, as usage (at least in British English) conveys a sense of habitual use.
“native-born British or American” – British is an adjective; you need a noun, such as “Britisher”, or the abbreviation “Brit”.
“and have enjoyed the seeing it in their irresistable reactions” – this should either be “and have enjoyed seeing it” or “enjoyed the seeing of it”.

Cheers old bean,

Reveller.

LikeLike

Reply
Reveller

October 10, 2006 at 11:29 pm

Dear Sudogiman,

I can appreciate your feelings, and I’m sorry that this thread took the ugly turn that it did.

I joined in this discussion without any prejudice or personal axe to grind, in an attempt to help defuse the heated arguments on both sides. However, for my pains I get accused of “dissembling”, am branded as being “patronising” and “condescending”, and my reasoned arguments are dismissed as “vacuous”.

How do you think I feel about these comments? It seems the sensitivity in here is very one-sided. I can be criticised with very harsh words, but I may not raise the slightest murmur of criticism against certain individuals. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

I’m especially sorry that the discussion has degenerated, once again, to racial stereotypes, and that colour words have once more raised their ugly head.

My best wishes,

Reveller

LikeLike

Reply
unspun

October 11, 2006 at 10:40 am

Reveller: I’m sorry you felt hurt by all that went on in this blog. That was certainly not the intention, at least on my part. Still, in a blog, one needs to be less than thin skinned to bear with the cut and thrust of (hopefully but not always) intellectual parrying.

Now that the dust has somewhat settled and the rather excitable chaps have retreated to their Jakchatroom to badmoouth the world, perhaps we can have a more rational argument here.

I felt that you did take a position that was not defensible. To say that unless someone was a native speaker they can never understand the connotations of a language was, I contend, an overextended statement.

I can see what you are driving at:that unless you grew up within a specific culture, your understanding of the words it uses can never be completely like that of the residents.

While it is true up to a point, English is so widespread, varied and international that there is virtually a universal understanding of the connotations of its words. On top of that there are the cultural layers, so collaboratorused by Germans may not have the same meaning if the word is used in, say, a scientific community in America.

My argument is that someone like Thang, and probably myself, understands fully the connotations of this international English, as well as the connotations some of its words may have in other Western cultures. Therefore your statement cannot stand.

I think the confusion comes in when people mistake Thang’s style of argument – which is by no means subtle – and his propensity to bait others with carefully selected provocative words — with his command of the English language. That is why you (a collective you and not you specifically) may argue with his style of argument but not his command of the language.

And, with all respect, I did think that you shifted positions several times during the discussion that followed your original post. Hence the accusation that you dissembled.

In all this, I think the ironic part of it is that Thang managed to secure his objective: to bait and stir up the easily excitable and then watch them make fools of themselves as they get angrier and angrier by his provocations. There is a lesson here for all of us somewhere.

LikeLike

Reply
treespotter

October 11, 2006 at 11:38 am

concurring with unspun’s latest comment. i think the language was provocative and chauvinist. but the reaction just went so totally far off the mark, then it becomes amusing.

well, at least for me, it’s quite funny.

LikeLike

Reply
Sudogiman

October 11, 2006 at 11:40 am

Unspun !

How DARE you accuse Thang of baiting the unwary ? Thang gives a voice to those who have none. 😛 He stands up for the meek, the bullied and the disaffected. :P.
In short, Thang fulfills the central mission of the journalist: to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.
How can you, of all people, belittle his achievements by saying that his objective was to: “bait and stir up the easily excitable and then watch them make fools of themselves?”… : P
Sudogiman

LikeLike

Reply
indcoup

October 12, 2006 at 5:35 am

unspun: if you feel that white man’s taste in Asian women is worthy of such coverage, do you not also agree that you should devote some time to Asian men’s taste in white women? Just to be fair of course.

PS: communism is a nasty Godless ideology in my opinion and those devils should be rooted out

PPS: my mate is half black half white. Is he a bule? Or a half bule? Please let me know.

regards

LikeLike

Reply
unspun

October 12, 2006 at 6:50 am

Indcoup: I fear you missed the point I was trying to make in these discussions. I take the responsibility of not being absolutely clear but it was difficult with the Jakchat boys yelling and running around the blog.

My point is that there is a perception among many Asians that bules like women with pembantu looks. I am not saying whether it is right or not but that there exists such a perception.

If we accept this then the next question to ask is how this perception came about? Is it a reasonable perception or is it a manifestation of other deep seated emotions among the Asians.

Why bule men and Asian women? Well, as explained earlier,white guys stand out in a brown crowd, just as a brown guy would stand out in a pink crowd. But we are in asia so the former is more topical.

Communism? I don’t follow your reference.

Your mate being half black and half white: easy. Kopi Susu. ;-D

LikeLike

Reply
Polar Bear

October 12, 2006 at 11:55 am

Speaking a language is like reading a book. You can know many languages at a basic level, or know one in depth, just as you can read one book in its entirety or read a single page out of a number of books.

The sad fact is that many people who speak English as a first language, and even those who teach it, miss much of its sheer beauty. Popularity has reduced it to a minimum communication level. Sadly I place myself firmly in this class.

Read Wild Swans, Jung Changs description of her life in China, then read Sword of honour Evelyn Waughs semi autobiographical description of his WW2 experiences.

One is a pleasant read, with interesting content. The other is a work of art.

LikeLike

Reply
Sudogiman

October 13, 2006 at 2:03 am

Big Fella (that’s Polar Bear), there hasn’t been much that’s beautiful about this thread, harping on about skin colour, dental status and ethnic stereotypes. That said, it’s good to have restored a measure of decorum and respect.

Why would you even compare Jung Chang with Evelyn Waugh ? That’s like comparing your prose (basic, functional), with Thang’s (insightful, nuanced, elegant).

Thang, like Joseph Conrad, has achieved mastery of the English language precisely because (italics), it’s not his native tongue, Big Fella. He’s explicitly studied grammar and syntax, unlike many native-speakers such as yourself and others, who spend their leisure time conversing with the swarthy Blok M skanks.

In terms of breadth, insight and sheer literary force, Thang has few rivals among the columnists in Asia. Lately, he’s shown a new versatility and sensitivy branching out into relationship issues. That people whose idea of a relationship is handing over Rp.200,000 for “taxi money” in the morning is impertinent at best !

Yours respectfully, Sudogiman.

LikeLike

Reply
Yu Phuc

October 30, 2006 at 9:08 am

Well, folks, in case you have not heard, the JP ran Thang’s piece yesterday. It is not as sharp as it was originally, however.

Here is how it appeared:

Beauty, indeed, is in the eyes of the beholder!
The Jakarta Post
Sunday, 28 October 2006
LIFEBITES

By Thang D. Nguyen

As my friend and I sipped our coffees oneSunday afternoon at Plaza Indonesia, he asked, “Don’t you think that many of the Indonesian women that white foreigners (buleh) go out with or marry are so unattractive?”

“Not necessarily so,” I replied.

Beauty, like many things in life, is bound by the rule of relativity. In other words, what one man considers beautiful is ugly in the eyes of another.

Being an Indonesian himself, my friend’s view of a beautiful woman is that of a fair-skinned one, who has the look of a financially independent, educated, and classy lady.

Thus, in his eyes, an Indonesian woman with a dark complexion is not beautiful.

While my friend is entitled to his opinion of what is a beautiful woman and what is not, I don’t find anything wrong with foreign (white) men being attracted to dark-skinned Indonesian women.

For an Asian man like my friend, these women surely look like maids.

In most Asian societies, a dark complexion is the symbol of peasantry, hard labor, and life in a rural area. By contrast, a fair complexion is the symbol of high-society status, leisure, and life a cosmopolitan city.

To a western man, however, a dark-skinned woman is beautiful.

For one thing, this is because opposites attract. Ethnically speaking, western peoples are white by default. So, it is understandable that a western man finds a dark-skinned Indonesian woman “exotic”, or a white woman finds a black man attractive—if not sexy.

Furthermore, a dark complexion now is considered a sign of leisure, or class, in most western societies, particularly in America.

Before the Industrial Revolution and many technological inventions thereafter, farming in the West required hard labor and long hours in the sun. Thus, a westerner with a dark complexion would be looked upon as a farmer.

Today, however, farming in the West is done with machines. Therefore, even white farmers don’t get a dark complexion.

As a matter of fact, many westerners with a fair complexion now have to work hard to get a dark one. They spend hours in the sun or spas to get a tan.

This is, of course, not something that a laborer or farmer has time or money for.

It is no wonder, then, that white westerners desire a dark complexion or are attracted to others who have one.

As I left my friend after our meeting, I passed by a few white men walking around Plaza Indonesia with chocolate-skinned Indonesian women and couldn’t help thinking of what my friend had said about beauty.

Looking at these women, I could see why my friend would consider them unattractive.

But, the men they were with could not have looked happier; perhaps, they found in these women the beauty they had been seeing in fashion shows or magazines in their respective countries.

As for me, I was—and still am—just glad that we all have a different taste for different things in life.

Indeed, the world would be a horrible place to live if we all liked or disliked the same things, wouldn’t it?

Fortunately, the world is not like that, thanks to relativity.

LikeLike

Reply
Unspun

October 31, 2006 at 12:57 am

[…] Recent Comments unspun on Monte spins again!Yu Phuc on Insightful or patronising?Kay on Monte spins again!Monte spins again! « Unspun on Chutzpah and the Bali swimmer780CSR » Haze and CSR on Hazing the argument […]

LikeLike

Reply