This post was originally a result of a comment on the China Law Blog, which chastised me because, “He wanted me to provide a super-quick summary of The Economist cover story comparing India with China, but it (I) did not,” which was correct then.
At one point, Mr. Parfitt mentioned reviews of his book in Publisher’s Weekly in defense of his book not being racisit. He claimed the South China Morning Post didn’t say that. Neither did Publishers Weekly, the Korean Herald, The Vancouver Sun… and none of the Amazon reviewers [that may change].
However, Publisher’s Weekly [PW] did say this of his book, “The result is mostly traveloguetold from an outsider’s perspective, contextualized with overviews of major events in Chinese history. Parfitt argues that China will not rule the world, because as a nation it is more interested in the appearance of success than actual substance. He suggests that culturally, China has little to offer…” In addition, PW says, “his book lacks the precise facts and figures that he decries in other books promoting Chinese dominance.”
The facts and figures missing from Mr. Parfitt’s “Why China Will Never Rule the World – Travels in the Two Chinas” are important as the China Law Blog says. To judge one country without comparing its government, economy and culture to other countries offers no balance for readers to make informed decisions.
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.
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 