You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2008.
I wrote the following to the editor of New York Times:
Dear Editor,
I find the article, “Let the Meals Begin: Finding Beijing in Flushing,” which appeared in the Dining section July 30, insensitive.
Take the title to begin with. I understand the need to draw eyeballs in times when many are focused on the Olympics in Beijing, but to use Beijing synonymously with China ignores the variety in Chinese cuisine. This synonymy again reinforces the unfortunate notion that there is a singular Chinese cuisine, rather than multiple interrelated, yet distinct, culinary traditions.
The insensitivity betrayed by the careless headline unfortunately extends into the article itself. The report, as well as the recommendations, included a number of Taiwanese restaurants and dishes. Given the controversial (to say the least) status of the Taiwan-China relation, it is inappropriate to lump Taiwanese cuisine with the other Chinese cuisines in the article. Politics aside, Taiwanese cuisine is a distinct tradition that includes Japanese and aboriginal influences. (Uyghur, or Xinjiang, could make a similar political and culinary claim also.) To illustrate why doing so is insensitive, consider how inappropriate it would be to include Singaporean restaurants and dishes in this article, despite the country’s majority of ethnic Han-Chinese.
While my complaints may seem semantic, they are not merely so. As Orwell reminds us in “Politics and the English Language”, the words we use can have profound political implications. This fact holds true even in the Dining section, especially for a publication as important as the Times.
Sincerely,
Shen-yi Liao
If you care about this issue as much as I do, a letter to the Times editor would be much appreciated. The email address is letters@nytimes.com.
The Initial Claim:
The word ‘home’ does not refer to where the heart is because the referent it takes on is not any location but a direction. It’s not where, but which way.
Some Evidence:
Consider words that refer to some location, even indeterminate ones, such as ‘the bar’. Aino and Cade is talking to Maite. Aino says, “We’re going to the bar.” The natural way for Maite to understand this assertion is that Aino and Cade together are going to some bar, whose location may or may not be determined already. However, it would be very weird for Maite to understand Aino to be saying that Aino is going to the bar and Cade is going to the bar, but they might be going to different bars, i.e. different locations.
In contrast, consider words that refer directionally, like ‘left’. Aino* and Cade* is talking to Maite*. Aino* says, “We’re going left.” The natural way for Maite* to understand this assertion is still that Aino* and Cade* are going in some direction together. But it would be less weird for Maite* to understand Aino* and Cade* are going toward different locations if, say, Aino* is facing west and Cade* is facing east. In that case, it is plausible that what Aino* means is that Aino* will go toward south and Cade* will go toward north.
Finally, consider ‘home’.
I spent the last month in Australia. First at RSSS where I did a satisfactory bit of work and enjoyed good tea time conversations. I only wish I could have stayed there longer! Then I traveled to Melbourne to attend the 2008 AAP conference.
I presented my paper on centered worlds, and an argument in the paper was met with a devastating objection from Josh Parsons and Wolfgang Schwarz. Unfortunately for me, their criticisms were right on, so that part of the paper has to go back to the drawing board and I need to do some more reading and re-reading. However, the ensuing discussions with Wo was particularly helpful in figuring out some options and also how a Lewisian might respond. In addition to that crushing blow, I also received other useful suggestions and comments from people at the conference and ANU. Let’s call it a learning experience.
Given the packed schedule, I could not even make it to every talk I wanted to go to. But the ones I did go to were all quite interesting. I was especially happy to finally learn about Stuart Brock’s experiments on the fictionality/alethic puzzle of resistance.
In non-philosophy news, I became enamored with Melbourne partially because of my newfound Aussie rules football fandom. Through some arbitrary, arational decision procedure, I am now a fan of Collingwood Magpies and enjoyed watching them come from behind and beat Adelaide at MCG. (In most domains I defer my judgment to David Lewis, but not the domain of the AFL team to support! I was told that Lewis was a lifetime Essendon supporter. Boo.)
Back to the states soon.
