[news.groups] Call For Discussion about creating soc.culture.asean

underdog@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) (10/04/89)

In article <KIM.89Oct3204513@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes:
|...
| Perhaps it is my bias towards Vietnam and my distaste for
|ASEAN's condemnation of Vietnam's occupation of Kampuchea (along with
|the US and UN condemnations, in spite of the accepted evidence of the
|Khmer Rouge's slaughter of their fellow countrymen).
|...

You are quite right.  The figures vary, but one figure that I have seen
puts the slaughter at 1/3 of the population.

BTW, here we have a similar comparison that the exists between Chiang-Kai Shek
and Deng.  Neither are good or even acceptable in comparison with
a leader like President Bush.  However, Deng is a lesser evil than
Chiang-Kai Shek.                                  ^^^^^^

Similarly, the Vietnamese government's control of Cambodia is a lesser
evil than the Khmer Rouge's control of Cambodia.                ^^^^^^

a503049@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (uts) (10/06/89)

 Looking at and thinking about Asia is a importent issue for present time.
Setting a new newsgroup and exchanging views is a good idea!

gan@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kok Siew Gan) (10/09/89)

>cultural affairs rather than political.  And for that, naming it
>s.c.asean is really too exclusive. 
>
>If Harish insists on naming it asean, he should move over to
>talk.politics or something. 

I don't believe all this fuss about the name. From the of mails I read, I 
think it's safe to say that most people don't want a newsgroup fully
dedicated to political issues in soc.culture and asean may imply a 
political organization to some people. So most people would vote for
s.c.se-asian. 
Also, Harish does not sound like he wants the Indochina countries to be
included in s.c.asean but in his proposal suggested including them later.
Why not include them now?
As someone who have just recently started using USENET, the best name would
be one that is easiest to understand. Names of individual countries like
s.c.china etc. are best but since we are talking about several countries
the obvious name would be based on the geographical location,
s.c.[se-asian | asian.southeast]. So enough with all this fuss. 

Now, stop bugging all the other culture newsgroup and take a vote!!!!!

Once the newsgroup is up, we can discuss whether ASEAN is a political
organization.

gan

low@unc.cs.unc.edu (Kah-Chan Low) (10/10/89)

In article <31785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> timlee@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Timothy J. Lee) writes:
>In article <12947@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> harish@guille.ECE.ORST.EDU (Harish Pillay) writes:
> 
>|There are now groups such as soc.culture.china, .indian, .hongkong, .taiwan,
>|.japan, .korea, .sri-lanka, .greece, .turkish.  Pray tell me what these
>|mean?  Aren't these political entities?  Isn't a nation a political entity?
>
>Yes, BUT these also describe cultural groupings(*).  How do the cultures
>of the ASEAN nations have more in common with each other than they do
>with Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar?
>
Definitely.  Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (and to a certain extent
Thailand) are known collectively as Indochina, while malaysia, singapore,
phillipines, brunei, and indonesia are collectively known as the insular
part of south-east asia.

Traditionally, Indochina had been subject heavily to cultural influences
from India and China, while the insular south-east asia cultures reflect
a lot of Arabic/Islamic influence on top of the earlier Indian Influence.

The native languages spoken there belong to the family of Malayo-Polynesian
languages while those spoken in Indochina are definitely not Malayo-
Polynesian languages.

Because of different colonial experience and subsequent economic policies,
the insular south-east asia is now culturally much more westernized than
in Indochina, not to mention the fact that the legal, financial, and 
other systems which affect life in both big and small ways are modelled
along western european/american lines.  That is not the case in
Indochina.

The result is, presently, there are vast cultural and socio-economic 
differences between the ASEAN countries and Indochina countries.

Most importantly, we (the people from the 6 countries) do not perceive
the Indochina countries as "on the same boat" as ours.

If there's no justification for creating a newsgroup for the six countries
apart from one that covers the whole of south-east asia because "those
countries are all the same", then there is even less justification for
creating soc.culture.[japan china hongkong taiwan korea] as separate newsgroups.

kcl

low@unc.cs.unc.edu (Kah-Chan Low) (10/10/89)

In article <3916@helios.ee.lbl.gov> gunadhi@lbl-csam.arpa (Himawan Gunadhi) writes:
>In article <31785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> timlee@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Timothy J. Lee) writes:
>>In article <12947@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> harish@guille.ECE.ORST.EDU (Harish Pillay) writes:
>> 
]>|There are now groups such as soc.culture.china, .indian, .hongkong, .taiwan,
]>|.japan, .korea, .sri-lanka, .greece, .turkish.  Pray tell me what these
]>|mean?  Aren't these political entities?  Isn't a nation a political entity?
]>
]>Yes, BUT these also describe cultural groupings(*).  How do the cultures
]>of the ASEAN nations have more in common with each other than they do
]>with Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar?
]>
]>(*) As far as Taiwan and Hongkong are concerned, they may be less
]>appropriate in this context, although the 1 (Hongkong) to 3 (Taiwan)
]>century separation from the rest of China has been argued to create
]>some distinct cultural differences ("Taiwanese are[ not] Chinese", etc).
]>
]This question again shows your ignorance on the topic. Indonesia, Malaysia,
]Brunei, Singapore, southern Phillipines and southern Thailand are 
]heavily populated by the Malay-Indonesian ethnic groups. 
]They even share to a large extent, the Malay-Indonesian language. 
]The Malay language, which is spoken in Brunei,
]Malaysia and Singapore, is about 90% identical to Indonesian, spoken in
]Indonesia. Tagalog, the national language of Phillipines, has a great deal
]of similarities with Malay/Indonesian. In southern Thailand, the people are
]essentially identical to the Malays of neighboring Malaysia.
]Ethnic tribes from Borneo (Kalimantan to Indonesians) have been a source
]for the populations of 4 of these countries. In
]the last 2 centuries, there has been a large influx of Chinese to
]Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore, and in these countries the
]Chinese too have often taken up a distinct identity from those in 
]the PRC, ROC or HK. For example, I am an Indonesian Chinese whose 
]Indonesian lineage goes back over a century, 
]and despite the fact that there has been little mixing in my
]families, I share a lot culturally with the Indonesian Pribumis (i.e. those
]who are ethnic to Indonesia). Interestingly, in Singapore, Brunei and
]Malaysia, there are similar Chinese communities, i.e. those who have
]blended Chinese culture with Malay cultures to create a unique new culture.
]
]In Thailand and Phillipines, there has been a great deal of Chinese
]immigration too, in fact going back much longer than in the other 4
]countries. Further, there has also been large migrations of 
]Indians/Pakistanis/Sri Lankans from the Indian Subcontinent during 
]the British reign in Asia. So today, Indians are found in Malaysia, 
]Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei and have also made significant 
]contributions to the culture and other aspects of
]society. It is also interesting to note the Indian cultural influence upon
]Indonesia, which at one time had great Hindu and Buddhist empires, and
]whose language is based on Sanskrit. My name for example, is almost
]as likely to be an Indian name as it is Indonesian.
]Similar influences can be seen in the case of Thai culture.
]In fact the dances and music of Indonesia are remarkably close to
]those of Thailand; even the themes are basically those from the Hindu
]classics of Mahabratha and Ramayana. And we have not even spoken about
]food! Have you ever tried Chinese food from these countries-- it puts to
]shame the stuff I eat here (which supposedly are more authentic Chinese!). 
]Thus, in terms of ethnicity, languages, history, arts and folklore, and
]current aspirations, there are many common strands running through these 
]six nations.
]
]I am one of the early supporters of setting up this group. I did not
]realize that the proposal would be seen as an attempt to start a political
]discussion, especially wrt the 6 ASEAN nations versus Indochina etc. It is
]too bad, because the thought did not even occur to me. Many people here
]obviously first heard of ASEAN wrt its Indochina policies (i.e. Vietnamese
]occupation of Cambodia). But as has been stressed by Harish Pillay,
]that has been about the only cohesive action the members put together that
]has been political in nature. Otherwise, the term "ASEAN" as most of us
]from the region use it, is meant purely as a way of labeling ourselves. In
]fact it is due to the fact that we seem to know so little about ourselves
]and our shared values, that inspires the setting up of this group. Back in
]our home nations, there is too much sensitivity against offending one
]another, and overall too much censorship of the media, for us to be more
]familiar with the others. People forget that Indonesia was technically at war
]with Malaysia and Singapore in the 60's, and that Brunei has been coveted
]on and off by the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia. 
]
]In fact, the person who claimed that ASEAN, which he insists is political
]in nature, is a farce, is correct in the sense that he has defined the
]organization! It has not been a political force, because it was not
]intended to be one. If the nature of the discussions in the proposed
]newsgroup soc.culture.asean were purely political, I doubt 
]if many citizens of those six members would come forth and say much, 
]let alone bother to vote "yes"! Thus, the presumptions of 
]most of the proposed group's critics, of our intentions, 
]are way off the mark. The only valid criticism I concede is over the
]naming convention. Perhaps someone can propose the creation of an
]Indochina group, and in that way we can simultaneously create, say,
]a soc.culture.se-asia.indochina and soc.culture.se-asia.asean. 
]We did not intend to exclude Indochina or Myanmar, or slight the people 
]from those nations. We did not claim that we are creating a SE Asian group
]to begin with! We are simply too different from the Indochinese/Burmese,
]to have many shared interests.
]--
]Himawan Gunadhi
]gunadhi@csam.lbl.gov
]phgun@ucbviolet.bitnet

chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (10/11/89)

According to harish@guille.ece.orst.edu (Harish Pillay):
>According to chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg):
>|According to harish@guille.ece.orst.edu (Harish Pillay):
>||there is insufficient familiarity of ASEAN in this part of the world -
>||something this newsgroup will be able to address.
>|
>|Newsgroups don't exist to "address" problems.
>
>So what do the USENET newsgroups (to use your quotes) "address"?  For eg.,
>comp.sys.ibm.pc addresses problems people have using the IBM pc.  They share 
>solutions and ideas.

No, newsgroups do not "address" _anything_.  Rather, people sometimes
address problems in their articles that they post to Usenet.  This
distinction is important.  You, Harish Pillay, can post your ASEAN articles
to misc.misc.  You will there address whatever problems you like.  You don't
need an ASEAN newsgroup to do it.

>Isn't it a contradiction of terms in what you say?  If there are "already
>support discussions" why provide another location?  A USENET newsgroup is a
>avenue for discussing issues that have no known and/or logical "locations".

Not at all.  That's what ".misc" newsgroups are for.  If you can't find
soc.culture.misc or soc.misc, use misc.misc.  Then demonstrate that the
volume follows the subject, by generating volume in misc.misc.  If you don't
get the volume then you don't need the newsgroup.  Simple.

Further, discussion is often supported in a mailing list before it is
proposed as a newsgroup.  I'm quite sure that "soc.culture.asean" will fail
its vote because of its awful name.  When that happens, you may want to
start a mailing list.  (Too much work?  Aww, too bad...)

>|Further, as has been pointed out by others, ASEAN is not a _social_
>|organization, so it doesn't belong in the soc.all hierarchy at all.
>
>What makes something that was "pointed out" by someone TRUE over the
>contrary?

The simple fact is that Harish Pillay's definition of "social" is at odds
with most everyone else's.
-- 
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering;  <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
"'Why do we post to Usenet?'  Naturally, the answer is, 'To get a response.'"
                        -- Brad "Flame Me" Templeton

khai@babar.uucp (S. Khai Mong) (10/11/89)

In article <9895@thorin.cs.unc.edu> low@unc.cs.unc.edu (Kah-Chan Low) writes:

>   Definitely.  Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (and to a certain extent
>   Thailand) are known collectively as Indochina, while malaysia, singapore,
>   phillipines, brunei, and indonesia are collectively known as the insular
>   part of south-east asia.

Rubbish.  Burma has never been known as part of being Indochina;
neither has Thailand.  And I don't believe that Thailand has been
known to be part of ``insular Southeast Asia'' either.

>   Traditionally, Indochina had been subject heavily to cultural influences
>   from India and China, while the insular south-east asia cultures reflect
>   a lot of Arabic/Islamic influence on top of the earlier Indian Influence.

In your words, the majority of the Phillipines, an Asean, an insular
south-east asican culture, ``reflect a lot of Arabic/Islamic influence
on top of the earlier Indian Influence.'' ?  Thailand?

>   The native languages spoken there belong to the family of Malayo-Polynesian
>   languages while those spoken in Indochina are definitely not Malayo-
>   Polynesian languages.

The Thai language is not Malayo-polynesian either.  In fact the Thai
language is much closer to Laos, and to the Shans of Burma. 

>   Because of different colonial experience and subsequent economic policies,
>   the insular south-east asia is now culturally much more westernized than
>   in Indochina, not to mention the fact that the legal, financial, and 

Would you care to explain how insular southeast asia as a group has a
different colonial experience than mainland southeast as a whole?
Malaya, Indonesia, Philipines, and Thailand, all Asean countries have
totally different colonial experiences.  Absolutely nothing in common.

>   other systems which affect life in both big and small ways are modelled
>   along western european/american lines.  That is not the case in
>   Indochina.
>   The result is, presently, there are vast cultural and socio-economic 
>   differences between the ASEAN countries and Indochina countries.

To the credit of the *people* of the ASEAN countries.  This has not much
to do with colonial heritage.  If it weren't for despotic rulers, I am
sure that the people of other countries of SE Asia would love to be as
prosperous as ASEAN.  The fact that the ASEAN countires recognize the
savage rulers (the Khmer Rouge), and continue to give military
supplies (to Burma) doesn't help the situation either. 

>   Most importantly, we (the people from the 6 countries) do not perceive
>   the Indochina countries as "on the same boat" as ours.

Oh yeah?  Stinks of elitism.  And I have the opinion that this is what all
pro-s.c.asean people are advocating.  ``We don't want to have anything
to do with those poor and opressed masses . . . we have nothing in
common with them . . . Keep them out''.  And I wonder why you have to
use the pronoun ``we'' rather than ``I''.

>   If there's no justification for creating a newsgroup for the six countries
>   apart from one that covers the whole of south-east asia because "those
>   countries are all the same" . . .

Again, they are hardly the same, not any more so than other SE Asian
nations.

--
Sao Khai Mong:   Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108
(313)973-1300 (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai  khai%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu

hac@ix1.cc.utexas.edu (Alejandro A Hu-Quixote) (10/13/89)

low@unc.cs.unc.edu (Kah-Chan Low) in article <9895@thorin.cs.unc.edu>:
>>   The result is, presently, there are vast cultural and socio-economic 
>>   differences between the ASEAN countries and Indochina countries.

khai@babar.uucp (S. Khai Mong) in article <KHAI.89Oct11111719@babar.uucp>:
>To the credit of the *people* of the ASEAN countries.  This has not much
>to do with colonial heritage.  If it weren't for despotic rulers, I am
>sure that the people of other countries of SE Asia would love to be as
>prosperous as ASEAN.  The fact that the ASEAN countires recognize the
>savage rulers (the Khmer Rouge), and continue to give military
>supplies (to Burma) doesn't help the situation either. 

This newsgroup (news.groups) is not a
proper place to criticize the policies
of ASEAN.  Probably the proposed
soc.culture.asean will be.  Why don't
y'all wait till the proposed newsgroup
gets created, and continue the
discussions there?

Kah-Chan Low:
>>   Most importantly, we (the people from the 6 countries) do not perceive
>>   the Indochina countries as "on the same boat" as ours.

S. Khai Mong:
>Oh yeah?  Stinks of elitism.  And I have the opinion that this is what all
>pro-s.c.asean people are advocating.  ``We don't want to have anything
>to do with those poor and opressed masses . . . we have nothing in
>common with them . . . Keep them out''.  And I wonder why you have to
>use the pronoun ``we'' rather than ``I''.

A ha, I see. You get upset because
you are not invited to the party!
But we don't have the obligation
to invite all our neighbors!

--
Alex Hu
for a liberal and unbiased s.c.asean

pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) (10/13/89)

hac@ix1.cc.utexas.edu (Alejandro A Hu-Quixote) writes:
>Why don't
>y'all wait till the proposed newsgroup
>gets created, and continue the
>discussions there?

Better yet-- why don't you move this to soc.misc until the conversation runs
out.  Then decide if you still want the bloody newsgroup?

hac@ix1.cc.utexas.edu (Alejandro A Hu-Quixote) (10/13/89)

I, Alex Hu-Quixote, wrote:
>>Why don't
>>y'all wait till the proposed newsgroup
>>gets created, and continue the
>>discussions there?

pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) in <1989Oct12.203938.27763@ginger.acc.com>:
>Better yet-- why don't you move this to soc.misc until the conversation runs
>out.  Then decide if you still want the bloody newsgroup?

This is a funny logical way of making
decisions. If the conversation runs
out, what is the purpose of wanting
a bloody newsgroup any more?

We decide we want the bloody newsgroup
now. And it shall be created.

--
Alex Hu
for the creation of a liberal and unbiased soc.culture.asean

pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) (10/13/89)

hac@ix1.cc.utexas.edu (Alejandro A Hu-Quixote) writes:
>This is a funny logical way of making
>decisions. If the conversation runs
>out, what is the purpose of wanting
>a bloody newsgroup any more?

Aha!  Now you understand!  I _still_ think you folk should try a mailing
list first.  *Then* if the traffic warrants it,  create a news group.
If you're so stuck on hitting every single usenet node in the world with
your newsgroup,  then give it a month or so in the proper .misc group.

>We decide we want the bloody newsgroup
>now. And it shall be created.

Umm...you're forgetting something...a liberal and unbiased vote.

>--
>Alex Hu
>for the creation of a liberal and unbiased soc.culture.asean

fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (10/16/89)

In article <8910121943.AA29942@ix2.cc.utexas.edu> hac@ix1.cc.utexas.edu (Alejandro A Hu-Quixote) writes:
->
->low@unc.cs.unc.edu (Kah-Chan Low) in article <9895@thorin.cs.unc.edu>:
->>>   The result is, presently, there are vast cultural and socio-economic
->>>   differences between the ASEAN countries and Indochina countries.
->
->khai@babar.uucp (S. Khai Mong) in article <KHAI.89Oct11111719@babar.uucp>:
->>To the credit of the *people* of the ASEAN countries.  This has not much
->>to do with colonial heritage.  If it weren't for despotic rulers, I am
->
->Kah-Chan Low:
->>>   Most importantly, we (the people from the 6 countries) do not perceive
->>>   the Indochina countries as "on the same boat" as ours.
->
->S. Khai Mong:
->>Oh yeah?  Stinks of elitism.  And I have the opinion that this is what all
->>pro-s.c.asean people are advocating.  ``We don't want to have anything


Oh, this is fun.
I really think we should all have our own group. That way we could talk to
ourselves all day and no one would argue.

Now that we have a handful of messages in *.*.[korea,taiwan,hongkong] we still
need singapore and tailand. Then after asean we'll need one for the four
dragons as a group. Then we'll jump to the EEC and NATO and pretty soon soon
we'll petition the UN for it's own group too. Pretty soon we'll be back to
talk.politics.misc which always has been a rather interesting group to listen
to anyway. One can at least get the status of world affairs from all kinds of
angles.

I don't even bother voting no anymore.
fred rump
-- 
This is my house.   My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 
26 Warren St.             uucp:          ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010       domain:  fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846          "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..."  -  Schiller