h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What does it say, if anything, that it's apparently acceptable to be a "twinky", or a "banana", i.e. to behave and aspire to "whiteness", whatever that means, if you're Asian/Oriental, but imputing such aspirations to a black person is a dire insult?

It seems a strange reversal of what I might naively expect, given my near-zero state of knowledge of these things.

On the one hand, you've got people with a background in the Far East, a background in a culture (or cultures, if we include Japan and Korea) of discovery, invention and exploration, of conquest, of knowledge, of literature, stretching back thousands of years... and they're very happy to admit to being "white on the inside", which seems to me a cheerful rejection of this enormously significant, deep and rich cultural background.

And on the other hand, you've got black people, apparently indignant if you imply that they don't fully respect and wish to be identified with their enslaved, subjugated ancestors.

Am I just naive to think that in a rational world it would be the other way round? That in a rational world, Chinese people would be proud of their culture and wish to identify with it, and be offended if anyone implied they were moving away from it? And in a rational world, black people might like to perhaps, oh, I don't know, try to forget that their ancestors were dragged here in chains and start thinking about the present and the future? That they might, possibly, think that being "white on the inside" is a sign of commendable aspiration and ambition and not something to be slapped down as a betrayal of... something?

What am I saying? Rational world? Hah.

In Japan at least we're regarded as just as exotic and unusual as we regard them. They have English resturants (with their own version of Worcester Sauce, which they pronounce correctly... I learned that in the Guide...), and whole subcultures and youth movements have formed around slightly skewed versions of Western thingies... just as you get people here who are obsessed with a rose-tinted ideal of Japanese culture.

I'm not sure it is acceptable to use "oriental" to refer to people, but I could be wrong. Certainly it's not an expression I'd use. 'Asian' tends to be India/Pakistan in the UK, and 'China/Japan' in the US, but we've got 'Far East' if we want to differentiate. Not sure I'd call someone 'Far Eastern', though. And perhaps 'Far East' itself is problematic because it implies a Euro-centric view of the world. But then the same could be said of 'Middle East' and even 'Antipodes'. It's all very complicated.

"What does it say, if anything, that it's apparently acceptable to be a "twinky", or a "banana", i.e. to behave and aspire to "whiteness", whatever that means, if you're Asian/Oriental, but imputing such aspirations to a black person is a dire insult?"

Does 'twinky' or 'banana' really mean 'aspire' in quite that sense? Isn't it more like being an Anglophile or a Francophile and having an affinity and appreciation and interest in a particular foreign culture than wanting to *be* part of that culture, or rejecting your own in favour of theirs? I think it might just be that racial differences allow for (quite witty) playful terms like 'twinky' and 'banana'. I don't think they should be taken too seriously.

As for 'coconut' being an insult in the Black-British community (and very possibly elsewhere).... I think it's because saying that someone is a coconut is perhaps *not* understood as just someone who likes 'white culture', but someone who's sold out I don't honestly know if it's used as a dire insult or as a joke - probably both and anywhere in between. As should really be obvious, there's far more to 'black culture' than the history of slavery, especially in the UK.

Does anyone else remember a series of sketches on 'Goodness Gracious Me'? I think I recall two British-Asian families who were trying to out-English each other, but never quite getting it right.

SoRB:

>>What am I saying? Rational world? Hah.

Actually...I think that what you're finding it hard to come to terms with here is that the world is *complicated*. People are subject to a myriad of overlapping socio-economic influences and adopt interlocking, mutable identities.

In terms of isolated interactions, humans may well act rationally (at least according to the Rational Choice Theorists in economics), but such is the complexity of life that it is damned difficult to isolate the individual choices they are making. Accordingly there are no easy algebraic formulae which allow us to predict what people will feel or how they will react at a given time or in a given situation.

As I've said before, the Hari Seldon model is unhelpful.

Try sociology.

Oh, yes - the Kapoors (it's pronounced "COOPER!") and the Rabindranaths ("ROBINSON!"). Classic, especially Kulvinder Ghir. The faces he'd pull when Dennis Cooper called him out on something killed me every time.

If you'd not use the expression "Oriental", how would you refer to someone of far eastern origin? When I was a child, I would probably have simply called them "Chinese", and in fairness would probably have been right. But the world is a bit more complicated nowadays, and I wouldn't want to offend a Japanese or Korean person by calling them "Chinese" out of ignorance. "Oriental" is, in my experience, a perfectly reasonable analogue for "Northern European", say.

As to whether "twinky" implies aspiration or liking... hard to say. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside, is what it means. What THAT means is probably as individual as the person saying it. The impression given, though, is that such people are simply less precious about their culture of origin, presumably believing it can get along without them, whereas black people seem particularly prickly about their "culture", as though their culture was somehow homogenous and universal.

And sure, there's more to black culture than the history of slavery. Think of all the great works of literature that have come out of central and southern Africa. Think of their history of education and science, of the great thinkers and philosophers they produced, of their contributions to the arts and science. Think of their humane traditions, their important world religions, their enlightened values, their sophisticated and exemplary political and economic doctrines. Think of all that central and southern Africa has given the human race. There's, er, fire. And the wheel, probably. And then after that there was... er... (I'd be grateful if someone could fill in some more things here, it kind of looks bad that I can't think of anything else...)

I loved that show. Very, very funny, and I expect it did quite a lot of good for social integration and cultural understanding.

Three other sketches stand out in my mind. One had an obnoxious group of Indian lads went out for an 'English' ("Get me the blandest food you have") getting drunk and racially abusing the English waiter. Another was a white Englishman working in India with colleagues who couldn't understand his name, and kept trying to change it or shortening it. The third was a school nativity play spoof, which had sections about why the angels were always blonde haired and blue eyes. ("Oh why can't we play angels... instead of sheep?" to the tune of 'Oh Come all Ye Faithful'). All very funny, all thought provoking for members of a majority culture. But most importantly, funny.

SoRB.

>>If you'd not use the expression "Oriental", how would you refer to someone of far eastern origin?

I'd possibly ask them what they preferred.

Are there many occasions when we need a blanket term for Chinese + Japanese + Korean? I'm genuinely struggling to think of examples. One *might* talk about 'Pacific Rim Nations', but that also include Californians et al, British Columbians, Australians...

Generally I'd use various terms depending on the circumstances, such as 'Chinese' or 'Japanese' or 'Korean'.

>>As to whether "twinky" implies aspiration or liking... hard to say. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside, is what it means. What THAT means is probably as individual as the person saying it.

I certainly always understood it to have connotations of 'You've forgotten where you came from' or 'You're siding with the wrong guys.' But there are bound to be additional layers of subtlety.

>>whereas black people seem particularly prickly about their "culture", as though their culture was somehow homogenous and universal.

Well I think if that's true, the sentence itself explains why. Black people as a homogenous whole are universally prickly, are they? My oh my.

"Are there many occasions when we need a blanket term for Chinese + Japanese + Korean? "

Depends on your life, I suppose. I had to describe a colleague to another colleague who didn't know him but had to meet him somewhere. Target's name was European sounding so it gave no clue to his identity, but his description, as I gave it, was "About five ten, 80 kilos, Oriental guy, little goatee beard." Said guy is of Korean origin. I did not know this at the time, and didn't want to seem insensitive. Description seemed to work. If he'd been black, I'd have said "black guy". If he'd been fat, I'd have said "fat guy". If he'd been called Kim Park or something, I'd probably have said "Korean guy", on the basis he probably was. As it was, I went for what seemed to me to be an accurate descriptive word without offensive connotations.



"Black people as a homogenous whole are universally prickly, are they?"

Hmm. Not precisely what I said, is it?

What I *meant* was - oriental people in my experience *never* seem particularly prickly about their culture, to the point that some of them even embrace the "twinky"/"banana" label. The majority simply seem indifferent.

In contrast, *some* black people do seem very prickly about "their culture".

Understand?

Why..thank you most sincerely for adding that 'some'. It's a start.

Your original sentence did look particularly daft, you know. Hence my satire.

It is tiresome when someone persistently and deliberately interprets things in the very worst possible light specifically so that they can then haughtily take offence and the moral high ground.

I picture such a person making regular trips to their local bookstore, permanent marker pen in hand, finding books like this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Listen-Women-Cant-Read/dp/0752846191

... and diligently adding the word "SOME" to the cover of every copy, all the while pursing their lips into a shape resembling what you find under a dog's tail.

When someone says "group X does this thing", in my experience they mean "SOME members of group X do this thing", or possibly "MOST people in group X do this thing", or possibly even "all the people in group X that I've ever had personal dealings with do this thing". Every. Single. Time.

I've never, ever, heard anyone, ever, say "this group of people do this thing", and mean "every single member of this group of people, without exception, do this thing".

And most *normal* people are perfectly well aware of this. They don't require the "some" to be added to the sentence. They're content to infer it, since the alternative is simply stupid.

But I observe a perverse pleasure being taken in pretending that someone's a bigot, or an idiot, by pointing out to them that the absolutely literal meaning of what they've just said isn't 100% factually accurate.

If I thought you were unable to make these inferences, I'd pity you for not having a fully functional mind. I don't, however, believe that for a second. You do it on purpose, and consider it clever. Whatever leadens your pencil, I guess.

"I've never, ever, heard anyone, ever, say "this group of people do this thing", and mean "every single member of this group of people, without exception, do this thing"."

I have. You.

Really? Regarding which group, and what behaviour?

>>It is tiresome when someone persistently and deliberately interprets things in the very worst possible light specifically so that they can then haughtily take offence and the moral high ground.



Not the least offence was taken. I simply thought it was the height of hilarity that you were talking about 'blacks' as though they were a homogenous culture who were universally >>prickly about their "culture", as though their culture was somehow homogenous and universal.<<

Do you really, truly not see the deliciously hilarious auto-satirising irony in your sentence?

Wow.

I can't remember the exact behaviour you mentioned (and no, I'm not going to go looking for the thread) but you made some gross generalisation about women and when challenged, by me, insisted that you were correct based purely on the idea that because all the women you've met were like that, *all* women were like that.

You were pretty emphatic about it.

He's generally a bit more subtle, Mr D. Generally he likes to make inferences about the whole from the characteristics of a sample. E.g. Men are more likely to rape than women, therefore it's entirely reasonable to treat men as potential rapists.

I mean...not that *particular* example, of course. That would be grossly unfair.

That's sort of what happened, but the sample wasn't mentioned until the challenge came.

Incidentally...is it just me or has YET ANOTHER thread been derailed by SoRB riding his political hobby horse?

We're al long way from plain chocolate Bounty bars. There are plenty of other sites where he will be welcomed with his schtick.

Not exactly. It was Effers that started off this particular diversion, I think.

Ah yes:

F19585?thread=8287280&skip=80&show=20#p110509754


Geggs

I apologise for derailment.