In America, liberal minded professors talk about ways to limit entrance to the qualified and allow the unqualified in. I witnessed this dumbing down of America many times during my thirty years as a public school teacher, and I refused to take part. I challenged my students and was always under attack from parents and administrators. Some parents demanded that their children be removed from my class so the child’s self-esteem wouldn’t suffer.
In China, students spend most of their school years intensely studying to take exams that will allow a few to get into college. The universities in China have room for only a few eligible students. For that reason, after school, many students are tutored or take private classes to get ready for the next school day.
Chinese elementary students where the pressure starts.
My wife told me a story about a boy she knew when she was growing up in Shanghai. His grades were horrible. When his parents found out, they took off their shoes and started to beat their son to death. The teacher had to step in and save the boy. The parents did not blame the teacher for the boy’s lack of success. They blamed themselves and the child.
Words are cheap. Actions speak loud, and the Chinese are not smarter than everyone else is. They just work harder and have different values than Americans. The best way to learn about another culture is by comparing and contrasting that culture with yours to see the similarities and differences.
With that in mind, let’s examine Christianity first. Emperor Constantine lived 280-337 AD. He ruled the Roman Empire and is responsible for Christianity eventually becoming the state religion a century later. From that time, Christianity, more than any other influence, set the tone for morality and ethics in the West.
One of my primary Biblical sources is a Concordance of the Holy Bible given to me by a student teacher in 1982. When I checked to see what that Concordance had to say about the importance of ‘education’, I found nothing in the index under that word. I then looked up the word ‘learning’ and discovered six passages. I also looked up ‘teacher’ and there were a few references but nothing significant. That hunt to discover the importance of learning to early Christians was a revelation. Those passages from the Bible will be covered in Part 2.
Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of the concubine saga, My Splendid Concubine & Our Hart. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too.
If you want to subscribe to iLook China, there is a “Subscribe” button at the top of the screen in the menu bar.
Before I start to talking about Chinese parents and children, first let us have a look of the currently pretty hot arguing book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which is a Chinese-AmericanYale law professor mom that wrote about how she was strict with her two daughters by making a lot of can’t doing rules, and she was acting like a wicked witch to push them to study.
I will not comment on which parenting method is better, Chinese or Western.
What I want to say is the book’s author Amy Chua’s way of parenting is typically Chinese though she is 4th-generation American.
Note from Blog host: Evidence of this may be found among reviews and comments on Amazon.UK. Rosie in the UK wrote, “I am Chinese now living in the UK and I admit I was outraged when I first read theWSJ excerpt of her (Amy Chua’s) book. My first thoughts were I can’t believe anyone would do something like that to their children. However, as I thought more about it and I guess living out here in the UK I’ve been so used to the numbing and dummying of our children’s perceived fragile self esteem and always making sure that their feelings and wants are met for fear of damaging them emotionally, I forgot that, hey, I was brought up pretty much the same way.”
Hanna says, “We Chinese have a long history of parents being strict with their children. From old days, the Ke Ju Kaoshi (official examination) was the only chance for people to change their fate and life.
“To achieve this, they must study really hard. We have an old saying about this “Shi Nian Han Chuang Ku Du Ri, Jin Chao Jin Bang Ti Ming Shi”, which means “Ten years of study at a cold window only for the day of passing the examination.”
“To study, students must be pushed even by using the stick.”
In addition, modern Chinese are also having many new chances but this still won’t change the way most Chinese parents raise children, because China now has the “Gaokao”, which is the high school examination to get into a university or college.
Because of the competition, parents can’t afford or wouldn’t dare to let the child just play and have fun. Children don’t know what is best for them.
Parents must force them to study but spoil them at the same time. When the child gets the great score, that means everything to parents. The kids don’t have to do anything else in life but study. Therefore, the story is the boy went into a famous college but didn’t know how to peal the eggshell.
Note from Blog host: Another review from Amazon.UK supports what Hanna is saying. The reviewer wrote, “I know how appalling some of those things sound to many. Not me, since I am Chinese myself and I have been brought up that same way, if not more strict.…. However when I grow up (now 40), I see the vast difference of parenting among other people in different countries (I live in UK now with my English husband), and what repercussions it has on the kids when they grow up. I am glad I was brought up the way I was.”
Hanna says, “Chinese parenting is not about ‘feelings’, but it’s not to say that the parents do not care.”
The child has to finish the school homework to 10 pm at night five days a week. Then after school, the child goes to the special training to develop other skills such as piano. This is not about what the the child is interested but it’s what the parents decided based on what they believe is necessary. What we learn in China is that the children have to attend eight different hobbies classes. There’s no free time.
In fact, in China, children should not argue with their parents and the child must do what the parents say.
When the child is good at studying, it means “Guang Zong Yao Zu”, (bring honor to your ancestors).
When you get the low score (100% score is best. 60% means you barely passed the exam. 90% is good. However, even just 1% lower and the child gets the “cold face”).
This not only means teachers calling parents endless times for meetings and punishment from the parents but it embarrasses your ancestors too.
This means when children are doing the homework, parents watch them until they finish to insure no mistakes.
Another recent review from Amazon.US points out an interesting thought. “The (Amy Chua) book raises an important question: Is America’s assumed educational mediocrity really the fault of our public schools (as some believe) or is it the fault of an epidemic of indulgent parenting (as others believe)? Asian kids seem to do remarkably well in the public schools… and raising little complaint about the quality of the schools.”
As for myself, Hanna writes, I think I’m the lucky one born in a family offering more freedom. Luckily I was a good student so my parents didn’t have to pay as much attention to me.
Did they spoil me? Sure. Did they care about my feelings? Yes, because they allowed me talk and argue with them.
If your child is no good at school, you must still love them. However, being strict so they have a good future is not worth it if they hate you later. No matter what kind of family you live in – strict or spoiled – the important thing is to love. Then the world can be better place.
Chua says, “My memoir — seen in the West as a story about “extreme” parenting — is being marketed the opposite way in China, as a story about the importance of giving kids more freedom. Amusingly, the book’s title in China is Parenting by a Yale Professor: Raising Kids in America, and I was asked by one Chinese women‘s magazine to give its readers tips on “how to be friends with your kids.”
Chris Bewley has taught English as a foreign language for the past 10 years all over the world, including Japan, Korea, Mexico and Brazil.
__________________________
When I first arrived in China as an English teacher, I had lofty scholastic goals: I wanted to try a creative variety of class activities and apply a broad spectrum of teaching methods that my students could benefit from to make them competitive in academia and, later, the international job market.
Almost 1 year later, my primary responsibility as a “Foreign Expert English Instructor” has been distilled down to little more than babysitting a bunch of spoiled, undisciplined children who for the most part want nothing to do with English.
At my crowded primary school in a small, semi-urban city in East China, there exists what I have coined the “20/20/20” split in each of my classes (60 kids per class): 20 eager/20 indifferent/20 bad. Basically, I’m teaching 20 while trying to control 40.
To make it fair for everyone, I have to dumb-it-down/ fun-it-up every class. Instead of actually teaching, I find myself playing games with them and jumping around for them like a monkey, which is the only way to retain their attention.
On the positive side, of the eager 20, there are several extremely smart students who I expect one day to be quite successful in what ever they do. Unfortunately, whenever those eager 20 are trying to learn, the other naughty 40 will try just as hard to spoil it for them.
In the past year, I’ve had only a handful of students ever raise their hand and ask ME a question about the English language. That’s 1,200 students/week x 30 weeks, which equals 36,000 (thirty-six thousand) chances for a student to raise a question, but only five ever have. On the rare occasion that my students do ask me questions, it’s usually regarding the price of my clothes or how much I get paid.
Criticism about my lessons that I have received from students, parents and Chinese teachers alike includes “it’s too difficult”, “it’s not fun enough”, “there’s not enough participation/activity,” but never have I ever heard that my classes are too easy, which in my opinion they most certainly are.
By now, I have figured out that English lessons in (urban) China are just a show; a clown show; a monkey show – starring myself as the foreign monkey.
For parents’ week last month, whilst dozens of “concerned” parents and school administrators observed my classes for 5 days in a row, rather than actually teach their children, I just played a bunch of silly games and sang some songs with them, and, guess what? That made all the parents really, really happy!
Most recently, I found myself having to literally, physically, throw out my Chinese teaching assistant (a recent college graduate with no classroom experience hired right off the street for a minimal salary) to avoid a mutiny from within.
You see, she absolutely refused to discipline the rowdiest students, and did nothing to help control their deafening volume when I was trying to teach.
A quarter of China’s rural youth overweight!
When I approached her about this, her response was: “you are not a real teacher!” I imagine that this assistant was once (11 years ago, to be precise) a spoiled, indifferent primary school student herself; how sadly ironic that at age 21 she still indentified with the students rather than with me, the teacher.
China’s universities are being touted with utilitarian promise, a promise that trickles down all the way to the elementary school level. The Chinese’s fear of poverty has undermined intellectual diversity; plagiarism and cheating are rampant and go unpunished, reading books is not encouraged, greater importance has been placed on math than any other subject starting in the earliest years of child development, and there are no other languages other than English offered until university.
The
English “industry” in China is what I call “C.O.O.C”: completely out of control! There is literally a new, privately run children’s English “school” popping up on every other corner every other week. Nor is it an industry that has grown in a healthy, steady way from its infantile beginning; it is a product for infants in hyper-drive.
A perfect parallel to this is the car situation in China, which is also out of control.
I hate to say it because it has become an international cliché, but, truly, nobody in China knows how to drive or even park properly. Automobile ownership in China has, along with its economy, bloomed at an alarming rate in the past 5 years, resulting in massive congestion everywhere from the smallest towns to the largest cities.
It’s obvious that the people who own these cars use them primarily as status symbols rather than for necessity; it rarely rains in my city and there are no hills, yet every single day, 6 times a day, hundreds of parents dropping off/picking up their children in new, black Audis will cause an hour-long gridlock directly
in front of my school rather than be seen walking or riding a bicycle.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not a “China-hater.”
Colorful street life, extremely friendly people, great food, affordable massage parlors, a handful of good friends both Chinese and foreign, and a decent income have been sufficient to keep me reasonably comfortable.
But in the end, I have to ask myself: what am I here for? Because it’s obvious that China doesn’t want me to actually teach anybody anything.
_____________________
Chris Bewley has taught English as a foreign language for the past 10 years all over the world, including Japan, Korea, Mexico and Brazil.
To subscribe to “iLook China”, look for the “Subscribe” button at the top of the screen in the menu bar, click on it then follow directions.
One way to learn about the depths of an individual’s character is to listen to what others have to say about him. Then we discover more by paying attention to the individual himself. (Note: This post was updated on February 29, 2012)
In PART ONE of this post, I have published all of Mr. Parfitt’s deleted comments in his own words.
You may find pull quotes from more than a dozen reviews of his second book in PART TWO that may reveal more about the individual we discovered in PART ONE.
PART THREE offers excerpts from an E-mail Mr. Parfitt sent me about half way through the debate. This is the E-mail Mr. Parfitt did not want anyone else to see. During the debate when I leaked some of his E-mail, he asked me to stop, but I refused to agree to his request.
PART FOUR comes from Mr. Parfitt’s Amazon reader reviews, which may reinforce the character of the individual that is emerging.
My own opinion should be well known by now, so I will stay out of this character study and allow readers to come to their own conclusions of Troy Parfitt the person from his own words and the opinions of others. If you wish to read my opinion, you may do so at Discovering Intellectual Dishonesty – Part 10
_____________________________________
PART ONE: the deleted comments of Mr. Troy Parfitt:
There is no such thing as weasal words. Again, that’s teenagese. You could never use the term weasal words in academic discourse, just like you could never use dude, LMAO, bittersweet, etc. There are proper – adult – terms for such things. That you used the phrase weasal words underscores a dearth of knowledge, juvenility, or both.
You can quote or copy-and-paste all the fallacy definitions you wish, but you’ll never be able to employ them in argument or rebuttal. You lack the wherewithal.
Ai li shan duo. Zhi dao ma? Ni shi Gong Chan Dang de gou tui er yi. Bai mu ni.
That’s not a long enough post Lloyd. We expect longer.
You can bar me from commenting. All hopeless CCP apologists are censors. It’s inevitable that you would try something like that. You lack the intelligence to argue, so you ban. What do all those books you’ve discovered say about that?
I don’t give a shit what those dictionaries say. It’s not called weasal words. It’s called begging the question language, or begging the question reasoning.
Ex. Mr. Parfitt and his ignorant ideas….
But are Mr. Parfitt’s ideas ignorant? This must be proven. The word ignorant represents begging the question language. It is not a weasal word, at least if you’re older than 14. The person who engages in this fallacy may not be acting like a weasal; they just using language that begs the question.
You might want to learn what those newfound logical fallacies mean before you copy and paste Lloyd.
So why is Sun called the father of Chinese democracy? Why did the government on Taiwan finally succumb to the demands of the Chinese people for democracy – by allowing democracy? Why was one of Sun’s three principle’s democracy?
I argued that it wasn’t by providing a couple of links.
You said ‘which is why Chinese people boil their water.’
I said, ‘That’s not true,’ and explained why Chinese people drink boiled water.
You then said your family members didn’t drink boiled water, adding that I’d insulted your family.
There is no red herring argument here. A red herring occurs when you divert from the main issue to a side issue. But if a side issue has been introduced (i.e. the boiling of water), you introduced it.
You can repeatedly delete my comments, but I will continue to post them. You’ve deleted more than four, and it’s not because they consist of questions. You just don’t know how to debate, so you cheat by deleting your opponents’ remarks.
There was no string of questions remark. Now, you’re lying to your readers.
You can repeatedly delete my comments, but I will continue to post them. You’ve deleted more than four, and it’s not because they consist of questions. You just don’t know how to debate, so you cheat by deleting your opponents’ remarks.
There was no string of questions remark. Now, you’re lying to your readers.
You can repeatedly delete my comments, but I will continue to post them. You’ve deleted more than four, and it’s not because they consist of questions. You just don’t know how to debate, so you cheat by deleting your opponents’ remarks.
There was no string of questions remark. Now, you’re lying to your readers.
“Mr. Parfitt’s comment that you responded to may have been deleted. I’ve deleted four so far. The last one I deleted was a string of questions. I will not accept any more questions from Mr. Parfitt or anything that comes with the logical fallacies he uses so often.”
And then,
“Since I notified Mr. Parfitt that I would be deleting his comments that used logical fallacies [Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics] to further his opinions and make it appear as if he is the winner in the argument, I have deleted ten but I have saved them in another file and will be using them as evidence in the post/s about Logical Fallacies I’m working on.”
“Mr. Parfitt’s comment that you responded to may have been deleted. I’ve deleted four so far. The last one I deleted was a string of questions. I will not accept any more questions from Mr. Parfitt or anything that comes with the logical fallacies he uses so often.”
And then,
“Since I notified Mr. Parfitt that I would be deleting his comments that used logical fallacies [Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics] to further his opinions and make it appear as if he is the winner in the argument, I have deleted ten but I have saved them in another file and will be using them as evidence in the post/s about Logical Fallacies I’m working on.”
“Mr. Parfitt’s comment that you responded to may have been deleted. I’ve deleted four so far. The last one I deleted was a string of questions. I will not accept any more questions from Mr. Parfitt or anything that comes with the logical fallacies he uses so often.”
And then,
“Since I notified Mr. Parfitt that I would be deleting his comments that used logical fallacies [Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics] to further his opinions and make it appear as if he is the winner in the argument, I have deleted ten but I have saved them in another file and will be using them as evidence in the post/s about Logical Fallacies I’m working on.”
“Mr. Parfitt’s comment that you responded to may have been deleted. I’ve deleted four so far. The last one I deleted was a string of questions. I will not accept any more questions from Mr. Parfitt or anything that comes with the logical fallacies he uses so often.”
And then,
“Since I notified Mr. Parfitt that I would be deleting his comments that used logical fallacies [Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics] to further his opinions and make it appear as if he is the winner in the argument, I have deleted ten but I have saved them in another file and will be using them as evidence in the post/s about Logical Fallacies I’m working on.”
It doesn’t make sense to say “As for checks and balances, the parliamentary system offers few effective checks and balances.” Actually, in a sense, parliamentary systems offer no checks and balances – that’s an American term and has nothing to do with a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, it’s called separation of powers. Those parliamentary systems you list do have separation of powers. Does that need explaining? Or should we crack open the textbook for Poly Sci. 101?
And who criticises parliamentary systems because leaders aren’t elected directly? I never hear anyone in Canada complaining about this. The voter choose the party, understanding who the party leader is. If the leader should die, etc., the party elects an interim leader and then another official leader. What’s the problem? It’s not the American way?
So, we’ve got, on the one hand, Yankee ignorance and sociocentrism, and on the other: another tacit endorsement of a brutal authoritarian regime.
Q. Who in their right mind would call a communist country a republic?
A. No one.
If China’s a republic, get to it. Explain how it’s a republic. You don’t make arguments through questions, you make them through statements. I’ll get you started. “China is a republic because….”
That’s rich Lloyd. You likely didn’t know what a logical fallacy was until our “debate.” Now, armed with a few labels you located on the interwebs, ones you don’t understand, you censor claiming my arguments are illogical.
What do these argumentative logic pages you’ve glanced at dimly say about engaging in rebuttal by deleting or censoring one’s propositions?
By deleting my statements, you reveal yourself for what you are: a mythomaniac and a censor. Certainly you see the grand irony. Or does that need explaining, too? Perchance in baby English along with, say, an explanation as to why checks and and balances do not pertain to non-American models of government.
Here’s the original post. People can see whether it’s “illogical” or not.
More propaganda.
It doesn’t make sense to say “As for checks and balances, the parliamentary system offers few effective checks and balances.” Actually, in a sense, parliamentary systems offer no checks and balances – that’s an American term and has nothing to do with a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, it’s called separation of powers. Those parliamentary systems you list do have separation of powers. Does that need explaining? Or should we crack open the textbook for Poly Sci. 101?
And who criticises parliamentary systems because leaders aren’t elected directly? I never hear anyone in Canada complaining about this. The voter choose the party, understanding who the party leader is. If the leader should die, etc., the party elects an interim leader and then another official leader. What’s the problem? It’s not the American way?
So, we’ve got, on the one hand, Yankee ignorance and sociocentrism, and on the other: another tacit endorsement of a brutal authoritarian regime.
Q. Who in their right mind would call a communist country a republic?
A. No one.
If China’s a republic, get to it. Explain how it’s a republic. You don’t make arguments through questions, you make them through statements. I’ll get you started. “China is a republic because….”
An alleged con artist? Who’s alleging I’m a con-artist?
I think the cheese has finally, and completely, slid off your cracker.
You echo some website’s sentiment that tact is just as important as logic. Is it tactful to call someone with opposing points of view a con-artist? Absolutely not. Is there evidence that I – Troy Parfitt, my isn’t Sid, mate – am attempting to con someone. What’s the con? Who’s the victim of the con? Where’s the proof?
And we ought to use reason with caution? What does that mean? Reason is all we have. A dim statement should invalidate that website you quote, and why not quote a book?
If you didn’t know about rhetoric or arguentative logic before you entered a so-called debate, it’s just not on to say your opponent took advantage of you. If you’re going to debate, or set down arguements, which is what a blog is, an understanding of how to formulate an effective argument – and how to refute a poor one – is imperative. It baffles me how someone could be your age and have been an educator for so many years (not to mention a journalist) and not be familiar with the basics of logic.
And, of course, like much of what you say, you’re accusation that I took advantage of you smacks of irony because it represents – wait for it – bad logic. It is an abusive ad hominem. Because you lack the knowledge and common sense to refute my arguments, you claim I’m a con-artist who took advantage of you.
And of course, when your circuits get overloaded, which doesn’t take much, you delete and censor. You censor, you recriminate, and then you invent: China’s a republic, China’s constitution is real hum-dinger of a document, Mao – he was just misunderstood. Not a bad guy really. All those academic have it wrong, don’t they Lloyd. There’s nothing their books say that you can’t refute with dubious websites and ironic statements about logic.
You’re a crank and so are your readers. And yes, I’m aware of the irony in saying that.
Looking at a bit of elementary logic on the internet won’t help, nor will it prevent you from lying. Above all, it cannot belie your not playing with a full deck.
It is unreasonable, and indeed strange, to claim that comments will be deleted because they, for example, fail to meet the rebuttal criterion or engage in equivocation.
The reader would assume, Lloyd, that you would illustrate why the comments were invalid hence illustrating your intellectual superiority, but no, you first warn that comments will be deleted if they contain questions or fallacies (you forgot to mention the questions bit in the above explanation), then you delete information that doesn’t contain faulty logic – it just annoys you, next you admit to not knowing much about logic, and finally you claim again that statements were deleted because they didn’t stand up to your logic standards; standards that, by your own admission, you don’t have.
You are left looking, quite frankly, loopy. You take figurative rope and hang yourself repeatedly. You make things up, try to justify things you’ve made up, and then you go on embellishing. The irony is rich, because as I’ve pointed out (not an argument, just a statement), you’re a champion, not of China or the Chinese people, but of the Chinese Communist Party. Its beliefs are your beliefs.
It does the same kind of thing. It was in the news today that the CCP has been lying about pollution and not disclosing related statistics for five years. What kind of country lies to its own people about weather and air quality?
You’re an aplogist to the regime and all its oppression. You’re a vulgar propagandist and a crackpot.
BTW, it’s not a logical fallacy to call somebody a name. Look it up.
Your talking about logic is a bit like a child disseminating wisdom on nuclear physics or quantum mechanics. You are so incredibly stupid it defies imagination. On the one hand you admit you have no background in formal logic, on the other you you pontificate on it. You are foolish, a grown man with the intelligence of a teenager.
“I don’t recall anyone appointing you as the Gestapo agent that polices how words are used and what they mean in a sentence.”
No, that’s called a dictionary.
… ravaged 1.3 billion Chinese people – ha ha ha.
Again, when not being a absolute amadan, to employ the Gaelic, high comedic value, and just the sort of dreck with which the internet brims.
When the US turns the Moon into a state, Lloyd, are you going to move there? Maybe words won’t have any meaning in space, or you can be elected chief censor or overseer of (internet) logic – you know – monitor the astronaut population for improper uses of a cliche, etc. You could wear a Mao suit while doing it. You should sign up. I think you’d feel right at home.
“I don’t recall anyone appointing you as the Gestapo agent that polices how words are used and what they mean in a sentence.”
No, that’s called a dictionary.
… ravaged 1.3 billion Chinese people – ha ha ha.
Again, when not being a absolute amadan, to employ the Gaelic, high comedic value, and just the sort of dreck with which the internet brims.
When the US turns the Moon into a state, Lloyd, are you going to move there? Maybe words won’t have any meaning in space, or you can be elected chief censor or overseer of (internet) logic – you know – monitor the astronaut population for improper uses of a cliche, etc. You could wear a Mao suit while doing it. You should sign up. I think you’d feel right at home.
But Ad hominem attacks are not the only thing you delete. Whenever you lose an exchange, like your defence of using the word ravage incorrectly – nay, absurdly – you delete that, too.
You’ll probably delete this as well, or snip bits to present it in a selective manner. That’s real cherry picking.
You’re a censor, highly ironic given your unfailing endorsement of China’s government. Like all censors, they think they’re positioning themselves ahead by staying in control, but in reality they are just making themselves look foolish.
That statement underscores just how little you know about logic.
Your two week internet crash course isn’t enough. And what do your lessons say about censoring and deleting an opponent’s arguments?
And you don’t endorse the CCP? Is that right? You don’t expect anyone who reads this daily drivel to believe that, do you?
‘The CCP works for the people…. They lift the populace out of poverty…. Mao? Did lots of good things. What? Endorse the CCP? Never! BTW, have you seen their constitution? Smashing!’
Go ahead. Edit, censor, delete, cut, do your worst. It only illustrates how pathetic you are. You cannot take me on in a proper debate, so you fiddle and manipulate, cutting out key arguments and points and (mis)labeling them as logical fallacies without explaining why or analysing them like a novice.
But not knowing much about your subject shouldn’t stop you from writing heaps on it. You can cite Jimmy Nobody, Motivational Speaker, author of You’re Great, I’m Great, post some dubious video clips, and other rubbish you find online, and presto – to your way of thinking, you’ve presented a proper case. It’s the same flimsy approach you apply to China, so why limit it to one subject, eh?
It’s not a red herring to point out your question is flawed and illustrates a lack of knowledge on the subject. You kick of the debate with the word mainland, but vis a vis Taiwan, there is no mainland. That’s China studies 101. I did answer the question re piety, saying it was more or less the same everywhere in the Chinese world, and if the 90 percent quote is not accurate,
1. What do your little internet crash courses tell you re the name of using statistics that cannot be substantiated? What’s that fallacy called, Aristotle? I’ll start you off: the fallacy of fake…. But such a claim can be substantiated. If it can’t, why not offer an alternative stat and a source? Or, alternatively, you could just ban this entire comment to give you a much needed advantage. It’s so much easier to argue when the audience cannot see your opponent’s points of view, eh Lloyd?
So you’re censoring everybody who has an opinion are you Floyd? You’re sorry, pathetic little censor, you know that? You’re a fucking worm.
[Note from Blog host: I suggest readers click on the link and go see what Mr. Parfitt is talking about. I left a note explaining what I was doing and when the series of posts mentioned appears, the censorship accusation will be proved wrong once again.]
I think if you spend another year or two studying logic, Lloyd, you might be, oh, 20 percent on your way to realizing what you should have said during our debate. Maybe in another four or five years, you’ll win the debate.
So, if people use logical falacies in their remarks, they will be deleted? Did you ever stop to think that people make logical fallacies all the time? Or that a comments section is for feedback and opinion, not proper rhetoric?
You’re saying people must construct logically sound comments seems a.) unncessary b.) unusual.
People will think you’re an ersatz pedant, a censor, or both.
It’s common knowledge that Chinese people – and people throughout East Asia – take midday naps. How is it that you didn’t know that? Oh, right you’ve never lived in Asia. Apparently, if one your family members doesn’t supply you with information or if you don’t find it on some questionable website, then you don’t have that information. What’s the next blog on? Chopsticks? Gunpowder?
Most of the smaller commercial trucks are blue—I have no idea why? I asked a couple of times but really did not receive an answer. Maybe there was a sale on blue paint? I am certain there is a reason, but since I don’t know it, I can’t share it with you—rather just make reference to it.”
Penetrating, absorbing, magnetic – really.
Hey everyone. Trucks in China are blue. Stay tuned for the next blog when we find out rice is white and trees are green.
“the visitors to this site may read those thirty-eight comments you made, which I finally posted in one place in an attempt to get you to stop harassing me,”
Liar.
I have so many IP addresses because K-Mart was having a blue light sale on them and I thought I’d stock up
Correction from Blog host: I’ve lived more than a year in Asia and have spent more time in China than Mr. Parfitt has. In addition, my wife and I have a three bedroom flat in Shanghai.
____________________________________________
PART TWO — These are the pull quotes from reviews of Mr. Parfitt’s second book, “Why China Will Never Rule the World”, which offer opinions of more than a dozen people that read his book that may reinforce aspects of Mr. Parfitt’s character .that were revealed in PART ONE. The links will take you to the reviews.
From the Vancouver Sun. “But all too often the book comes across as a 400-page rant. Although the rant is by and large well-founded, there were times when it took dedication to duty to keep on reading.”
The “South China Morning Post” reviewed Parfitt’s book on September 12, 2011, and said, “The literary magazine Foreword apparently judged Parfitt’s travelogue too ‘arrogant’ and ‘smug’ to review.” (could not find a direct link to the review. However, Troy Parfitt has posted the entire review on his Website.)
From My Take, we discover, “Far from being a Foreign Babe in Beijing, Troy Parfitt was like a Foreign Bear. Roaming around China from Harbin to Llasa, growling, grumbling and berating at mainlanders left and right… Now, the book is chock full of interesting encounters and sharp observations on places and Chinese behaviors and attitudes. But, and yes this is a big “but”, what prevents the book from being a stellar one is Parfitt’s reaction to China. Anybody who’s been to China can readily tell that it’s still a developing nation with a lot of poor people, and that the behavior of some people aren’t exactly very civilized. Parfitt notices this all right, and combined with some negative experiences, he basically vents right from the beginning of his trip, even before he actually enters mainland China as Macau is the first Chinese city to feel his rage and scorn.
“Again, while some of it has some truth, he overreaches and his critiques become broader and broader. Any negative experience sets him off, leading him to expound on the fallacies of Chinese civilization. This is supposed to be a travel book, but it’s kind of hard to really enjoy if the writer is heavily biased, especially virtually right from the start of the trip.”
Wordbasket says, “Unfortunately, he also sees them as real humans who primarily fail to uphold his Western standards. He wants
swift service, smiles all around, and cab drivers who can negotiate Hong Kong streets in English. He wants standards of professionalism that didn’t even exist in the Western world a century ago. And he looks down on Chinese who don’t snap to. Though I can’t call Parfitt racist (he denigrates everyone equally), he certainly sees the world through his own particular lenses.”
Peking Duck says, “I was appalled at Parfitt’s attitude toward both China and Taiwan. In spite of his finding some things to praise about each, it is more than clear from the very start that he harbors a good deal of contempt toward both countries.”
Zhang-Schmidt.com says, “As such an analysis “sine ira et studio” – without fear or favor – the book fails. Where Martin Jacques’ “When China Rules the World” (which I’m making my way through in follow-up) lays out arguments and describes historical developments, Troy Parfitt does bring in some historical background and references, but in highly opinionated ways which alone belie his supposed position as disinterested observer.
“Rather, he comes across like a China expat on what they somewhat affectionately call a “bad China day,” or as an angry traveler who cannot quite handle the many disappointments and oddities that China throws at the foreigner.”
Pacific Rimshots.com says, “I see more of negative attitude and communication problems than a profound understanding of the supposed problems of Chinese culture. This isn’t so much a book about China’s future standing in the world as the disgruntled traveller’s diary.”
The Opionator.com says, “This feels more like a book written by a man who’s falling out of love with a culture. He’s convincing himself of the rightness of his decision to leave and go back to his roots. Hence, he paints the picture with a broadly negative brush.”
Kathryn Pauli.com says, “The book disappointed in several ways. First is that Mr. Parfitt seemed to lack patience and was often just plain bad-tempered in his travels, quick to ascribe the worst motives to people (many of whom he, a stranger, must have caught off guard with his questions about Taiwan, democracy, and what China offers the world), and also unduly surprised when people were friendly and wanted nothing from him.
“A larger concern, however, is that the author reaches conclusions to very big questions in reliance on superficial encounters with people, not upon lasting relationships or ongoing conversations with people who have reason to be particularly thoughtful. (I shudder to imagine what one would learn about Canada or the United States simply by driving around from small town to big city and talking to random people in restaurants, at tourist sites, etc., about important issues of the day.) And when the author reaches a conclusion, he rants and exaggerate; one of many examples is: ‘Traditional Chinese culture is a shackle, and Chinese history is a dungeon from which it is impossible to escape.'”
Elliot’s Blog says, “Although he seems to hate everyone he meets, he still wants people to like him… Parfitt’s theme behind his title-statement, the theme which underlies the entire book, is that the Chinese people are too uneducated and ignorant to handle the responsibility of sustaining their nation as a world power, let alone as the world power. He focuses the majority of his research … on interminglings with the rank-and-file Chinese one might meet on a bus, at a cafe, or on very touristy tours… He also quite obviously hates that average, rank-and-file Chinese person, a quality heavily uncouth in a travel-writer. He despises their stares, considering it to be their own form of hatred to the “outsiders… the baggage he took along on his little research trip (baggage like the preconception that the mainland Chinese are a bunch of ignorant thieves too illiterate to ever lead, for example) prevented him from writing a solid piece of travel literature that could actually serve as a useful tool for an outsider seeking to learn more about China. Sadly, this just was not his goal.”
The China Law Blog says, “As I was reading this book, I found myself doing something I pretty much never do; I kept wondering about the motivations of the author and what what in his own life had caused him to see things the way he did. I kept wondering what it was that had caused the Parfitt to see China so unremittingly negatively and what motivated his need to besmirch it so. How much of Parfitt’s views are based on his mind-set going in and how much are based on an objective analysis? I go places expecting and wanting to like them and so I usually do. Parfitt seemed to go to China to prove how horrible it is and his own preconceptions gave him exactly what he sought.”
In a review by Richard R. Blake, he says, “It should come as no surprise to the reader that Troy’s own bias, personal philosophy and sometimes cynical outlook come through loud and clear in his writing.”
Taiwan East Coaster says, “At its worst, Parfitt has written a nit-picky tract that seems to hold no real purpose beyond vilifying two nations of people. I felt like he could have written a similar book about Canadians or Finnish people or the Masai tribe. It’s easy (if not cathartic) to be critical. If he had stuck to his larger, more sweeping conclusions and left his day-to-day irritants out it would have struck a grander chord. The ninth time he complains about being solicited for a massage in the middle of the night I just wanted to grab him and tell him to unplug his damned phone and quit complaining about non-issues.”
The Lost Laowai says, “You can’t exactly call it purple prose because that would be doing a disservice to 19th century writers of gothic novels. This is purpler than purple. One adjective will never suffice where 27 will do. I’m a wordy person who tends to repeat herself but this goes beyond even the worst excesses of my own somewhat excessive tendency to not realize I should have shut up with the irrelevant details and gotten on with the story 20 minutes ago… No matter where I randomly open the book to I don’t just find China bashing with an educated veneer, I also find the most godawful overuse of adjectives, similes, and purple prose that you can find outside of something written in a high school creative writing class. Were a decent editor to remove two out of every three adjectives and replace every word that requires a person of average intelligence to use the dictionary with a more common one, this book would not only be a lot shorter, it would also be a lot more readable… Hopefully, his third book will get that editor because unless it does, I don’t see myself wasting time, money, or energy on another book of his.”
Does Troy Parfitt’s cultivated media image in this video match his own comments (from the deleted file), E-mail and the opinions of others?
___________________________________________
PART THREE—excerpts from the E-mail Mr. Parfitt did not want me to share with anyone else
— December 1, 2011 excerpts from an E-mail that Mr. Parfitt sent me about half way through the debate.
Mr. Parfitt wrote, “Yeah, Koratsky’s full of shit. Alessandro is bitter, Aussie in China strikes me as being a cultural convert, but a nice guy (like yourself), Terry just doesn’t want to know (he feels, he doesn’t think; in Chinese wo juede… not wo xiang…. I feel vs. I think; whatever his grandparents told him is good enough for him.)…
“As a teacher, I spent a lot of time familiarizing myself with how Chinese people think, which is often quite different from how Western people think. Often, though not always…
[Note from Blog host—this is interesting. Mind reading is a great skill. I taught thousands of students for thirty years and never knew how my students thought as individuals. I find it fascinating how Mr. Parfitt reads minds and judges people. In fact, he judges an entire race of people ravaging more than 1.3 billion Chinese with his opinions.]
“if you don’t scare them, they won’t listen; that’s the Chinese way: fear commands attention…
“cheating is an art form in Chinese society; many Chinese students brag about what good cheaters they are – anything to get that higher mark…”
“They think apologizing means they’re on the shit list forever. So, when Michael in grade 10 writes ‘gan’ on the desk (fuck), and you ask him why he did that (you watched him do that), Michael just says, ‘No I didn’t. Teacher, no. No, you don’t understand.’ Some will deny it all day. Some will get their parents involved….
“It’s nutty. You’re got to train them to apologize and, in effect, start acting like an adult. This is confusing because in high school, marks are what’s important, not maturity…
“What ends up happening is that kids exhibit one type of behaviour with their foreign teachers and another kind with the Chinese ones.”
_________________________________________________
PART FOUR — The following link will take you to Troy Parfitt’s member review page on Amazon. Below the link are pull quotes from a few of his own reviews of other books, which may reinforce the character of the individual that is emerging.
For “Video Night in Kathmandu: And Other Reports from the Not-So-Far East” by Virginia Beahan
“I bought Mr. Iyer’s The Global Soul, read half of it, and dropped it off at a second-hand bookstore thinking, `Life’s too short.’ I was also happy in a way. Iyer wasn’t that good. I found The Global Soul boring (brush fires in California) and fawning (the city of Toronto). `I can write better,’ I thought…
“My go-to travel writer is Paul Theroux: opinionated, direct, fond of calling people fatsos; a cerebral and super-knowledgeable adventurer extraordinaire; a fascinating figure and fine writer who’s written about nearly every country on Earth, but an egotistical grump sure to have the last word.”
For “When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order” by Martin Jacques
“In this book, you’ll find academic prose, a massive select bibliography, 70 pages of notes, lovely maps and graphs, omissions of key evidence, wild speculation, unforgiveable leaps in logic, stupefying factual errors (Sun Yat-sen’s philosophy was not influenced by Mencius; it was influenced by Abraham Lincoln), and a thesis that, if you will, repeatedly repeats itself repeatedly, but offers little in the way of support…
“In addition to being a Marxist, Martin Jacques is a dyed-in-the-wool Sinophile, and in the end, Sinophiles are all the same: they are knowledgeable, articulate, dedicated embellishers…
“Martin Jacque’s When China Rules the World represents a wish, an exercise in pro-China propaganda, or both. The Englishman’s argument is unsubstantiated, graph-and-chart infused, pseudo-academic tosh.”
For “The Man Who Loved China: The Fantastic Story of the Eccentric Scientist Who Unlocked the Mysteries of the Middle Kingdom” by Simon Winchester
“Certainly, it’s impossible that an entire civilization could simply erase from memory and cease producing hundreds of its own innovations. What is more likely is that Chinese inventions remained very local, or at least were never mass produced or widely disseminated. It’s also likely that sketches of inventions Needham found were just those – sketches. I used to sketch some wicked spaceships when I was a kid. They had lasers, and even eyeballs and tentacles. Not sure if anyone who found them in 2525 would attribute them to historical Maritime Canadian ingenuity, though…
“I cannot recall being so enthralled by a book while being so put off by its subject. It’s true China invented many things never properly documented or given their due in the West, but Needham has fallen into history as most Sinophiles do: as a determined embellisher. Needham may have been a scientific genius, but he was also a fool. He was used by the Communist Party in a ruse to have the world believe the Americans had used germ warfare against China (and North Korea) during the Korean War, a bogus charge China maintains.”
For “Red Capitalism: The Fragile Financial Foundation of China’s Extraordinary Rise” by Carl E. Walter and Fraser J. T. Howie
“The book also repeats itself – often. It requires summaries, but not repetition. Using a one-chapter-per-topic approach, the structure of a chapter should have been: introduction, main body, conclusion – like a textbook. If one must repeat, one should at least reword statements and consult a thesaurus…
“Finally (and I hate to say it, but someone’s got to) there are too many interrogatives; sometimes they come in bunches, and it’s not always easy, or at least for a layperson like me, to know if they’re rhetorical or not.”
For “Riding the Iron Rooster: By Train Through China” by Paul Theroux
“There is no doubt that Theroux can be caustic, but his cold appraisals should ring true for anyone who has traveled in China, at least to some degree. The problem with many China books is that they are often penned by people who are besotted by the Middle Kingdom and don’t wish to offend. But Paul Theroux doesn’t care who he offends. In any of his books. Period. He’s just trying to be honest, a quality that, for some odd reason, irks people. Perhaps such individuals would be better off with fiction…
“Despite a penchant for intellectual snobbery and a misanthropic streak (and what writer worth their salt doesn’t exhibit these qualities?), one thing Theroux is exceptionally good at is getting in on the ground level and talking to the people. This makes for many of the volume’s brighter and more revealing moments, like when he asks to see a commune and a group of Cantonese laugh so hard they almost fall over.”
For “The Road to Wigan Pier” by George Orwell
“They say a good book tells you what you already know (or suspect), and it’s probably for that reason I enjoyed this one so much. I live in one of Canada’s poorest cities, thoroughly blue collar. It’s hard not to look at the poor and start conjuring up ideas about social engineering. Give them an education, you think. Give them purpose. Break the cycle of generational poverty. I recently reread Marx and even voted for and joined Canada’s democratic socialist party, though I quickly wished I hadn’t. The rally I attended was dominated by “vegetarians with wilting beards” (or at least many of the local university’s bearded faculty), sixties’ activists, and “earnest ladies in sandals.” I was, quite frankly, put off by this, and by discussions in the crowd about the bright spots of the Soviet Union and a few of communism’s “great” men, the handing out of hammer-and-sickle adorned propaganda rags, etc. As Orwell writes, “the thinking person, by intellect usually left-wing but by temperament often right-wing, hovers at the gate of the Socialist fold. He is no doubt aware that he ought to be a Socialist. But he observes first the dullness of individual Socialists, then the apparent flabbiness of Socialist ideals, and veers away…
“The observant reader sees Gollancz’s foreword for what it is: a wretched attempt at censorship and damage control, and the very sort of empty rhetoric, hare-brained we-know-best thinking, and militant jingoism Orwell so skilfully obliterates.”
For “Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World” by Steven W. Mosher
“This is a very good book and could have been excellent with a bit of tweaking. To begin with, Mosher understands the Chinese mindset. The Chinese don’t possess, for example, a linear view of history and they still consider themselves culturally superior to everyone everywhere. They were once a mighty empire and so will they be again. Or so they believe. The twentieth century was just a temporary setback, etc. China deeply resents the West, and the US in particular, and Mosher explains in detail why…
“When casual observers and leaders in the West begin commenting on China, they seldom have any idea what they are talking about. Westerners tend to view China through a filter, applying their own system of thought to a culture and psyche they have little grasp of.”
For “The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression” by Jim Mann
“China is still run by a ruthless Leninist clique and there is NO evidence to suggest this will change in the foreseeable future.”
For “Red China Blues: My Long March From Mao to Now” by Jan Wong
“If you want to understand China, you will need to read a considerable range of titles in order to see the country, its history, people, culture and so on from numerous and unique angles.”
For “The Good Women of China: Hidden Voices” by Xinran
“until they start treating each other (both men and women) humanely, they will never be anything but pathetic.”
For Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land” by Patrick French
I have been boning up on Chinese history and culture for nearly a decade now, and am to the point where I consider myself to be relatively well versed…
“Think Tibetans are a non-violent people? Read their history. Believe Buddhists to be a sagacious lot of semi-divine beings? Think again. Western leaders are going to stand up to China any day now, aren’t they? The author provides us with an overview of their sorry efforts to date. Not even the Dalai Lama, who French interviews (and deeply respects) is exempt from the writer’s newly found (compassionate) scrutiny.”
For “Lonely Planet China (Country Guide) by Robert Storey
“I spent two and a half months traveling around China and this is the book that I took with me.
Taiwan (Lonely Planet Taiwan: Travel Survival Kit) by Andrew Bender
“A couple of summers ago, I took nearly three weeks and travelled all around Taiwan, an excursion which included three additional (or outlying) islands: Kinmen, Orchid Island, and Green Island.”
For “Mr. China: A Memoir” by Tim Clissold
“Although he certainly never intended it as such (MR.CHINA is subtitled “A Memoir” and has a target audience of gung ho, wanna-get-rich-investing-in-China business types) this is probably the most accurate and the most devastating portrayal of authentic Chinese culture since Bo Yang’s THE UGLY CHINAMAN. For those looking at becoming better aquainted with Chinese business culure, or more precisely: Chinese business ethics, here’s a free starter lesson:
“There aren’t any.
“Foreigners shouldn’t take this personally. The Chinese have been cheating each other as a matter of course for centuries. What’s more, they have been so poor and so oppressed for so long that they will go to nearly any extent in order to make their bundle and head for the hills…
“Scheming, swindling, duplicity, and general dishonesty are deeply, deeply ingrained aspects of the national psyche in China.”
___________________________________________
Note from Blog Host: I suggest you take this advice from Professor Kevin deLaplante if and when you run into a Parfitt.
“When someone is willing to knowingly misrepresent an argument,” Professor deLaplante says, “they are no longer playing by the rules. They are more concerned with the appearance of winning than with argumentation itself. When you see this going on, you should correct the misrepresentation and get the discussion back on track. If it is an honest mistake and the arguer is willing to correct their misunderstanding, that is great. But if you catch them doing this again and again, then there is probably no point in engaging argumentatively with this person, because they have shown you that they are unwilling to play by the rules.”
In fact, Mr. Parfitt is no longer welcome on this site. If his comments appear, they will only appear on this post.
Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.
Subscribe to “iLook China” Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page.
Posted by Lloyd Lofthouse 
iLook China 