http://blog.creaders.net/connie/user_blog_diary.php?did=6589
我痛恨歧视。受到歧视时,心中的不快很久不能平复。4.16枪击案我和不少同胞心情一样,害怕枪手是中国人。为什么?我觉得丢不起那个脸。更怕因此招来西方社会对国人更多的歧视。那么,我真的像有人论述的那样,有奴才心理吗?非也!
我想说的一句话,就叫“设身处地”。在国内,北京人瞧不起外地人,我常去北京,身受其害。城里人瞧不起民工,视其为下里巴人。我痛恨北京歧视我的那些人,也同情那些谋生为艰的乡下人。可北京人说,都是外地人给北京搞乱了,城里人说民工破坏了治安。哥哥搬家照顾不过来,收拾家的时候才发现羽绒服丢了,剪刀不见了…… 只要你没看住,人家能偷什么偷什么。哥哥大骂乡下人,我也说不出什么,只怨民工不争气:让人尊重你,请你给个让人尊重的理由!可不是所有外地人都搞坏了北京,也不是所有民工非偷即盗。一旦这样的事多了,难免让人按类歧视。所以“良民”受到歧视,心理的不平和对同类人恶徒的憎恨就可想而知。
美国篮球明星“大鲨鱼”奥尼尔中学时个子很高,参加帮派,以欺凌弱小同学为乐。一次他辱骂了一位小个子同学,那同学看也没看他一眼,他清楚地听那个同学说,他根本不值得我抬起头。奥尼尔的父亲看到了这一幕,告诉儿子:“你只有尊重别人,才会得到别人的尊重;既然大家都要仰头和你说话,请给他们一个仰视的理由。” 奥尼尔羞愧难当,从此洗心革面,退出帮派,向所有伤害过的同学道歉。他参加了篮球队,不久当上校篮球队长。他终于给别人一个仰视他的理由。
中华民族是个奇怪的民族,很爱面子,任何时候都不能让自己丢脸。大汉族的民族主义在国内在国外都甚嚣尘上。说起自己的长处,趾高气昂,外族都是受到中华民族的恩惠长大的;别人提到短处,一触即跳:种族歧视!我们怕人家歧视,可让人家尊重,请给个理由先!
在温哥华,曾有华人孩子夜里飙车,撞上了巡逻的警车,而且至受伤的警员于不顾,弃车逃走,警员因此丧生。肇事的孩子,已经是在危险驾驶的停牌期间,又闯下大祸。孩子的父母,千方百计,替儿子洗刷罪名,官司打到高法,终于保释出狱。舆论哗然。我走在街上,灯柱上有人贴着大大的标语:Teach your children well! Respect lives! 我的眼睛被刺痛,心被刀扎,不敢抬起头,好像脸皮被刮掉!我为同胞的所为而羞耻。牺牲的警员是第二代华人,葬礼有三千多人参加。他父母收到很多捐款,他们把这些钱捐到儿子读过的中学成立了一个基金会。西温哥华有个13岁的华人男孩,上学带刀割伤了同学的颈项。父亲说因为他在校受到歧视。再说上学带刀算什么,唐人街都带刀。带刀是中国文化的一部分。本地主流大报Vancouver Sun 原话登载,社会震惊…… 孩子住在寄居家庭里等待开庭期间仍旧酗酒吸毒,法官的愤怒难以自制…… 别说同学是不是歧视,我都看不起!
还有:华人驾校贿赂华人考官,贩卖驾照。多次车祸引起保险公司的注意,结果当事人入狱,所有该驾校毕业的司机(全是华人)驾照作废,重新考牌;华人父母团聚移民填报假材料骗领福利金被大量追查,勒令退款;华人开办的私立学校鼓动新移民填报虚假信息骗取政府助学金,现被追讨;华人开办废旧金属收购站,收购了大量铝制路牌,下水道井盖,电力设备铜材…,运回中国,可想而知公共设备的遭遇!
常听到同胞说,洋人很傻,很好骗。我没拿证件他就给我办了借书证,回头我借一大堆书就可以不还。只有我一个人申请难民,申领资金补助时我填了三个人,居然连查都没查就给了三个人的钱…… 别人对你的信任被你当作骗人的手段,还沾沾自喜地卖弄!洋人真的那么傻吗?当这些小伎俩被戳穿的时候,是整个族裔蒙羞,整个华人社会受辱。曾有新移民上ESL课的课间,经常到教师办公室偷打长途电话,电话打到北京,自然是华人干的事。老师问,没有一个人承认。老师发火,我不是让你们赔钱,只希望你们诚实。可没有人承担。几天后,老师借口华人的成绩好,让所有华人毕业。在机场过海关,机场的检查人员让那么多人走过了,只把我留下来开箱检查。虽然人家微笑客气,但我心里还是不快,为什么不检查别人偏偏检查我?我无辜,我也无奈,谁让咱同胞给人留下印象喜欢假报关偷漏税呢?
华人爱面子。别人说什么的时候,总为自己找借口。人家说华人爱赌博,华人马上说各族裔都有人赌博,要告人家歧视。如果你好信儿真到赌场看看,绝大多数是黄面孔,而且香港大耳隆就在赌场放高利贷!提到留学生绑架并杀害了小女孩,可人家说这男孩子在国内时可好了,怎么到加拿大就变成这样了呢?人家说中国腐败,华人说美国就没有吗?中国人权差,华人说美国也强不到哪里去…… 自己可以唱“黑头发,黑眼睛,黄皮肤,世世代代都是龙的传人……”,我敢说人家如果唱“金发碧眼白皮肤……”肯定骂人家纳粹,上街抗议!
有些华人把礼貌看作是巴结,耀武扬威举止粗俗当作是有志气,动辄必称反歧视。自卑和自尊只有一线之差。当你不尊重别人的时候很难得到别人的尊重。我礼貌待人,人家以礼待我,我尊重别人,别人敬重我。这不是奴性,是修养。我出示车票给司机,他说thanks. 下车我说Thank you, sir.他说Have a good day. 虽然他服务,我付费,但我们谁都不欠谁,谁都彼此感谢谁。
我希望我的同胞礼貌待人,奉公守法,勤奋向上,受人敬仰。让我们不再羞愧,让我们不再抬不起头,让我们在各族裔中间平等相处,和睦安宁。还是那句话:想让人尊重你,给个理由先!
我写这些不是恨,而是爱。希望我们华人堂堂正正,给人一个尊重的理由。让人家每提起华人就说一句好样的!爱之深,责之切。我写这篇文字准备挨砖头,可我如哽在喉,不吐不快!
- Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 04/28/2007
给一束鲜花先! - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 04/28/2007
Connie deserves to be 歧视 and should enjoy it.
Enjoy it, those self-loath perverts.
- posted on 04/29/2007
Connie is wrong.
Mutual respect among human beings should be a principle in the society. Respect others and expect respect from others, there should be no other reasons given.
Racism is a form of discrimination that stems from the belief that groups should be treated differently according to phenotypic difference.
Racism has many forms; direct attack is less common nowadays than perceived discrimination in interpersonal communication, or inequity in the receipt of services or justice.
It is easier to measure discriminatory acts such as racist attacks, but some believe that everyday minor incidents or slights (micro-aggressions) and the perception that society is discriminatory may have a greater impact on the individual's health.
The impact of discrimination is influenced by individual factors (such as socio-economic status, skin colour, and coping style), context (for example, where the incident happens, the extent of integration within an area, and the history of the minority group) as well as macro-economics, political ideologies and history. Longitudinally, racism produces and perpetuates socio-economic difference.
No excuse is a good excuse for racism or discrimination.
Not even the excuse that says "because you don't behave so you don't deserve respect".
- Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 04/30/2007
康妮是感性地谈,Sands是理性地谈。
我觉得discrimination无处不存,就连孩子幼儿教育,都有不少。
人与人之间,文化与文化之间,物种与物种之间。
有一定程度的交流很重要,但总不能根除的。在这些地方,也许维护
人权,一定的反歧视法律条令就显得更重要。
- Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/01/2007
尊重不需要理由,不尊重才需要理由。
尊重一个不值得尊重的人,我们不损失什么。侮辱一个值得尊重的人却是一件很悲哀的事。
除非你能证明一个群体里连一个例外都没有,全是垃圾,这个群体就该受到尊重。 - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/01/2007
that is funny logic.
how about 纳粹党徒们,侵华日本兵们, do you respect them as a 群体?
行人 wrote:
尊重不需要理由,不尊重才需要理由。
尊重一个不值得尊重的人,我们不损失什么。侮辱一个值得尊重的人却是一件很悲哀的事。
除非你能证明一个群体里连一个例外都没有,全是垃圾,这个群体就该受到尊重。 - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/01/2007
大概我没说清楚。不是尊重这个群体,而是尊重这个群体中的个体(听着象绕口令)。
比如说日本兵吧,我如果知道他也犯过多数日本兵犯过的那些罪行,我会对他不尊重。但是我不会在对他(个人)一无所知的情况下,仅仅因为他当过日本兵就对他不尊重。
LM wrote:
that is funny logic.
how about 纳粹党徒们,侵华日本兵们, do you respect them as a 群体? - posted on 05/01/2007
也就是说, 象纳粹党徒们,侵华日本兵们这样的群体,不值得尊重, 然而却不能对来自这种群体的个人,在一无所知的情况下不尊重。这当然是对的。
但在实际生活中,有时候会很tricky. 比如你进入了一个很糟的neighborhood, 你会很警惕,迎面来了一个年轻人,你可能会避开,尽管你知道并不是所有糟neighborhood的人都抢,你的警惕, 避开, 都没有错,如果那个年人觉得没有受到尊重, 则是个很无奈的事情。
行人 wrote:
大概我没说清楚。不是尊重这个群体,而是尊重这个群体中的个体(听着象绕口令)。
比如说日本兵吧,我如果知道他也犯过多数日本兵犯过的那些罪行,我会对他不尊重。但是我不会在对他(个人)一无所知的情况下,仅仅因为他当过日本兵就对他不尊重。
LM wrote:
that is funny logic.
how about 纳粹党徒们,侵华日本兵们, do you respect them as a 群体? - posted on 05/01/2007
看起来我们的观点没什么不同,就是表述不太一样,语气有差别。
我跟这个帖,是觉得康妮的文章低估了洋人,也低估了我们自己。应对的方式也消极了点。
LM wrote:
也就是说, 象纳粹党徒们,侵华日本兵们这样的群体,不值得尊重, 然而却不能对来自这种群体的个人,在一无所知的情况下不尊重。这当然是对的。
但在实际生活中,有时候会很tricky. 比如你进入了一个很糟的neighborhood, 你会很警惕,迎面来了一个年轻人,你可能会避开,尽管你知道并不是所有糟neighborhood的人都抢,你的警惕, 避开, 都没有错,如果那个年人觉得没有受到尊重, 则是个很无奈的事情。 - posted on 05/02/2007
xw wrote:
康妮是感性地谈,Sands是理性地谈。
我觉得discrimination无处不存,就连孩子幼儿教育,都有不少。
人与人之间,文化与文化之间,物种与物种之间。
有一定程度的交流很重要,但总不能根除的。在这些地方,也许维护
人权,一定的反歧视法律条令就显得更重要。
Do you mean discrimination is acceptable if 感性地谈,but unacceptable if 理性地谈?
行人 wrote:
我跟这个帖,是觉得康妮的文章低估了洋人,也低估了我们自己。应对的方式也消极了点。Right!
- posted on 05/02/2007
“Connie is wrong.”
---Whether or not Connie’s wrong, you are wrong. You are wrong in misunderstanding or misleading what Connie said.
“Mutual respect among human beings should be a principle in the society. Respect others and expect respect from others, there should be no other reasons given.”
---Connie is talking about “Mutual respect “ too. You and she talk about this “Mutual respect” principle from different layers. There are 2 groups of people, Connie tells us in her post that inside the group we should mutually respect. Your post talks about each group should mutually respect each other. Both of you are correct. But Connie’s “mutual respect” principle focuses on each individual and more fundamental therefore is “bolt and nut”. Your “mutual respect” principle is advanced machine made of those bolts and nuts
The bottom line is, Connie’s point is based on same principle as yours.
“Mutual respect among human beings should be a principle in the society. Respect others and expect respect from others, there should be no other reasons given.”
---Yes. But again, same principle, different applications between you and connie. Connie emphasizes on applying this principle to each individual person. You emphasizes on applying this principle to each individual group.
”Racism is a form of discrimination that stems from the belief that groups should be treated differently according to phenotypic difference.
Racism has many forms; direct attack is less common nowadays than perceived discrimination in interpersonal communication, or inequity in the receipt of services or justice.
It is easier to measure discriminatory acts such as racist attacks, but some believe that everyday minor incidents or slights (micro-aggressions) and the perception that society is discriminatory may have a greater impact on the individual's health. “
---You’re talking about (race-based) group discrimination, completely ignore what Connie’s point about individual person based discrimination.
”The impact of discrimination is influenced by individual factors (such as socio-economic status, skin colour, and coping style), context (for example, where the incident happens, the extent of integration within an area, and the history of the minority group) as well as macro-economics, political ideologies and history. Longitudinally, racism produces and perpetuates socio-economic difference.
No excuse is a good excuse for racism or discrimination.”
---You are still targeting on the group discrimination and avoid fundamentals: without mutual respect among each individual person, any other kinds of discrimination could happen.
”Not even the excuse that says "because you don't behave so you don't deserve respect".”
---If a person doesn’t respect himself/herself, He/she doesn’t deserve respect. But I know what you meant. However you should know we are not living in a utopia world. Reality is if you don’t respect yourself, it doesn’t make any sense to expect others to respect you.
sands wrote:
Connie is wrong.
- posted on 05/02/2007
sands wrote:
xw wrote:Do you mean discrimination is acceptable if 感性地谈,but unacceptable if 理性地谈?
康妮是感性地谈,Sands是理性地谈。
我觉得discrimination无处不存,就连孩子幼儿教育,都有不少。
人与人之间,文化与文化之间,物种与物种之间。
有一定程度的交流很重要,但总不能根除的。在这些地方,也许维护
人权,一定的反歧视法律条令就显得更重要。
我倒没考虑到这一层。
Sands谈得在理,康妮谈得也真。
我也只是说说我自己的感觉。 - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/02/2007
I think both Connie and sands are rational in their views. Connie is more personally and fundementally down to the level of each individual person; sands stays at the level of group-to-group. Connie is deeper, sands is bigger. Connie sounds like a small potato, sands sounds like a big leader.
xw wrote:
康妮是感性地谈,Sands是理性地谈。 - posted on 05/02/2007
st dude wrote: .... you are wrong
[see “Connie is wrong.”
---Whether or not Connie’s wrong, you are wrong. ]
st dude wrote again: ... (you) are rational...
[see "I think both Connie and sands are rational in their views. Connie is more personally and fundementally down to the level of each individual person; sands stays at the level of group-to-group. Connie is deeper, sands is bigger. Connie sounds like a small potato, sands sounds like a big leader."]
I hope you make up your mind on what is right and what is wrong.
Connie's opinion basically says it's all right to discriminate against people because of their fault. I say it's absolutely wrong to discriminate against people, even they are not perfect.
btw, your interpretation that I meant "group" is not right, I mean every individual has the right to be treated equally with everyone else, that is, with respect.
We presume everyone innocent until proved guilty. Yet with Connie's and your mindset, things are the other way around: You have to be proved "not guilty" to be considered "innocent" therefore deserving others' respect.
How wrong can that be?
And how sad if everyone thinks that way!
st dude wrote: "Connie sounds like a small potato, sands sounds like a big leader."
I don't feel like a big leader, I am a "small potato", too. And no matter how unimportant we are, as ordinary citizens, we condemn racism, prejudice, and discrimination.
- posted on 05/02/2007
种族歧视的根就来自这样的集体主义精神(collectivism)。 弗州理工的事发生之后, 韩国人不断道歉, 表现的也是这种集体主义精神。 反过来你可以推想, 如果枪击者是中国人, 强调集体主义精神的族群也最有可能因此而歧视中国人, 把一个人的过失归罪到一群人身上。
彼康妮的思维没有挑出这个怪圈。她可能没有意识到藏在她的集体主义责任感背后的东西可能正是族群歧视的观念 - 她极有可能因为某些个人的坏行为而鄙夷一个群体。
尊重他人(单个人也好集体也好)不需要理由。 只有纳粹才需要这样的理由。 但即使是纳粹, 他们因为罪刑被惩罚, 而他们的人格还是应该被尊重。
彼康妮给的那些例子, 在我看也和集体主义文化有关。 集体主义文化不注重个人尊严和个人责任。 缺少self-esteem 人往往干些萎萎缩缩的事。
请淡化一下这种集体主义精神吧。痛恨歧视就先痛恨collectivism吧.
引一段Anne Rand的话. 西草地有人在讨论她:
"There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism. Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights-and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."
- posted on 05/03/2007
哦,我明白了, 原来有一种人可以不被尊重, 就是强调集体主义精神的人,他们往往干些萎萎缩缩的事。
C2 wrote:
种族歧视的根就来自这样的集体主义精神(collectivism)。 弗州理工的事发生之后, 韩国人不断道歉, 表现的也是这种集体主义精神。 反过来你可以推想, 如果枪击者是中国人, 强调集体主义精神的族群也最有可能因此而歧视中国人, 把一个人的过失归罪到一群人身上。
彼康妮的思维没有挑出这个怪圈。她可能没有意识到藏在她的集体主义责任感背后的东西可能正是族群歧视的观念 - 她极有可能因为某些个人的坏行为而鄙夷一个群体。
尊重他人(单个人也好集体也好)不需要理由。 只有纳粹才需要这样的理由。 但即使是纳粹, 他们因为罪刑被惩罚, 而他们的人格还是应该被尊重。
彼康妮给的那些例子, 在我看也和集体主义文化有关。 集体主义文化不注重个人尊严和个人责任。 缺少self-esteem 人往往干些萎萎缩缩的事。
请淡化一下这种集体主义精神吧。痛恨歧视就先痛恨collectivism吧.
引一段Anne Rand的话. 西草地有人在讨论她:
"There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism. Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights-and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."
- posted on 05/03/2007
LM wrote:
哦,我明白了, 原来有一种人可以不被尊重, 就是强调集体主义精神的人,他们往往干些萎萎缩缩的事。
"尊重他人(单个人也好集体也好)不需要理由。 只有纳粹才需要这样的理由。 但即使是纳粹, 他们因为罪刑被惩罚, 而他们的人格还是应该被尊重." - C2
"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being." - Anne Rand
BTY, 强调集体主义精神的人≠ 缺少self-esteem的人, (who往往干些萎萎缩缩的事) - C2 - posted on 05/03/2007
读你的原文, 我没看出你对强调集体主义文化的这一群人有所尊重, 谆谆告诫这群人, 要淡化你们的这种文化。
缺少self-esteem的人/人群是不是不值得尊重?
C2 wrote:
LM wrote:"尊重他人(单个人也好集体也好)不需要理由。 只有纳粹才需要这样的理由。 但即使是纳粹, 他们因为罪刑被惩罚, 而他们的人格还是应该被尊重." - C2
哦,我明白了, 原来有一种人可以不被尊重, 就是强调集体主义精神的人,他们往往干些萎萎缩缩的事。
"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being." - Anne Rand
BTY, 强调集体主义精神的人≠ 缺少self-esteem的人, (who往往干些萎萎缩缩的事) - C2 - posted on 05/03/2007
LM wrote:
读你的原文, 我没看出你对强调集体主义文化的这一群人有所尊重, 谆谆告诫这群人, 要淡化你们的这种文化。
Please let me know how you define "尊重." - C2
BTY, I said "淡化...精神" (consciousness), not 文化(culture) - It is different. - C2
缺少self-esteem的人/人群是不是不值得尊重?
"尊重他人(单个人也好集体也好)不需要理由。 只有纳粹才需要这样的理由。 但即使是纳粹, 他们因为罪刑被惩罚, 而他们的人格还是应该被尊重." - C2
- posted on 05/03/2007
from wiki:
Respect is a psychological construct involving interaction. This interaction is positive in that to be held in great respect infers admiration and good opinion, the state of being honoured, admired or well thought of.
Ok, let's clear some logic here, people who 强调集体主义文化 have 集体主义精神, right? and you ask them to 淡化集体主义精神, is that a way showing respect to 集体主义精神的人who 强调集体主义文化?
when you say those who lack of self-esteem "往往干些萎萎缩缩的事", do you think it is a respective ?
C2 wrote:
LM wrote:Please let me know how you define "尊重." - C2
读你的原文, 我没看出你对强调集体主义文化的这一群人有所尊重, 谆谆告诫这群人, 要淡化你们的这种文化。
BTY, I said "淡化...精神" (consciousness), not 文化(culture) - It is different. - C2
缺少self-esteem的人/人群是不是不值得尊重?"尊重他人(单个人也好集体也好)不需要理由。 只有纳粹才需要这样的理由。 但即使是纳粹, 他们因为罪刑被惩罚, 而他们的人格还是应该被尊重." - C2
- posted on 05/03/2007
”I hope you make up your mind on what is right and what is wrong.”
---I made it very clear: both you and Connie are right in principle. Mutual respect should be both group to group and person to person. I also made it clear: you are wrong in misunderstanding or misleading Connie’s point.
”Connie's opinion basically says it's all right to discriminate against people because of their fault. I say it's absolutely wrong to discriminate against people, even they are not perfect.”
---Again, you continue misunderstanding or misleading what Connie said. The first thing in her article she said is 我痛恨歧视。. It’s not all right to discriminate. You negatively reacted Connie’s point by adding your words to her view. The message sent by Connie is very clear: she used the example of NBA star Shaq O’Neal to tell us that the true meaning of respect is mutual, is a 2-side coin, and is a 2-way bridge to connect people.
”btw, your interpretation that I meant "group" is not right, I mean every individual has the right to be treated equally with everyone else, that is, with respect.”
---90% of content in your post is about racism, which is group-based discrimination. I didn’t see anything you talked about individual person’s respect. If you did, you would have shared same view with Connie.
”We presume everyone innocent until proved guilty. Yet with Connie's and your mindset, things are the other way around: You have to be proved "not guilty" to be considered "innocent" therefore deserving others' respect.”
---Even I am not comfortable with your analogy of “innocent” and "proved guilty", I understand what you meant. Didn't Connie, for most part of her article, talk about “proved guilty “? She gave many "proved guilty" examples. If you don’t agree with those “proved guilty”, that’s one thing. You can rebuke her with your examples. I have no objection. Perhaps I may even agree with you on some examples.
I guess what you intended to talk about is stereotyping thing, which is far away from main subject of Connie’s
"How wrong can that be?
And how sad if everyone thinks that way!"
---Let me tell you, EVERYONE thinks that way, including you. Maybe Jesus and Buddha are the only exceptions. Yes, it is really sad that some people, often some well-educated people, lost common sense and failed to speak out their minds. The common sense is, if you act like a king, people treat you like a king; if you act like good person, people treat you like a good person; if you act like a bad person, people treat you like a bad person; if you act like a friend, people treat you like a friend, if you act like a boss/leader, people treat you like a boss/leader; if you act like a kid, people treat you like a kid; if you act like a jerk, people treat you like a jerk…… For every kind of respect people give you, there is a reason behind it--how you behave yourself. Respect is earned, every mature person knows it.
sands wrote: - posted on 05/03/2007
pepper_john wrote:I can understand why pepper_john has such a strong reaction toward Connie's statement.
Connie deserves to be 歧视 and should enjoy it.
Enjoy it, those self-loath perverts.
Let me reiterate why I think Connie is wrong:
1. She is wrong in being judgemental to her fellow Chinese countrymen, assuming she is on a moral high ground, superior to other Chinese who commited "crimes" of this or that kind or behavior that's not so "respectable";
2. She is wrong in doing the preacher's job, telling people what to do and how to behave; (Well, maybe she could, if she is indeed a preacher in some sort of churce, though--the problem is people may not accept her religion)
3. She is wrong in condoning discrimination and giving excuses to racism. Look, she said to her Chinese friends: "想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!" which means: Don't blame others if they treat you differently (showing no resepct), because you don't deserve to be treated with respect (as some of you did the so called "crime").
Or: If you are discriminated against, you'd better first examine yourself to see where you did something wrong, something that's not so respectable because it must be your fault.
This attitude (#3) of justifying racism is the one I am particularly having problem with.
When my friend is treated badly (ie. with no respect, or discriminated against), the thing for me to do is not to say "if you want respect from others, give them a reason first!" I would trust my friend that she did not do the wrong thing, and try to fight against the racism and discrimination that did my friend injustice.
On the other hand, if unfortunately it is she who did the wrong thing (which is very unlikely), I leave it to her to sort out with her conscience or with her God/Allah/Buddha, hoping she would someday realize it's wrong and stop doing it, because I know it's not my place to wag my finger at her.
Meanwhile I still give respect to people, regardless of their skin colour, regardless of their being perfect or imperfect in conduct, including Connie (well, you know, she is not the imperfect kind).
- posted on 05/03/2007
Then think further: What should you respect? What can you interact with? beings? things? behaviors?
I only respect beings, not things.
If there is a being who did a bad thing, such as "萎萎缩缩的事," I condemn the thing, the behaivior, but still repect the being for his or her diginity.
Every culture has drawbacks. Pointing out these drawbacks does not mean disrespectful.
Collectivism is the theory that the group has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the group - the community, the nation, the race, - is the unit of reality and the standard of value. Nazism and Communism ideologies share a common underpinning in collectivism. I ask for dilution of the spirit of collectivism for fear of human tragedies, such as racial discrimination and China's Cultural Revolution.
LM wrote:
from wiki:
Respect is a psychological construct involving interaction. This interaction is positive in that to be held in great respect infers admiration and good opinion, the state of being honoured, admired or well thought of.
Ok, let's clear some logic here, people who 强调集体主义文化 have 集体主义精神, right? and you ask them to 淡化集体主义精神, is that a way showing respect to 集体主义精神的人who 强调集体主义文化?
when you say those who lack of self-esteem "往往干些萎萎缩缩的事", do you think it is a respective ? - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/03/2007
so, you do respect Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden.... as a being for their diginity.
C2 wrote:
Then think further: What should you respect? What can you interact with? beings? things? behaviors?
I only respect beings, not things.
If there is a being who did a bad thing, such as "萎萎缩缩的事," I condemn the thing, the behaivior, but still repect the being for his or her diginity.
- posted on 05/03/2007
There are two forms of respect:
The first form is the recognition of the dignity of the individual. Every human being has a right to be respected because each person is a human being. Criminals have a right to be treated with justice and to be respected as human beings...
The second form of respect is based on a person’s achievements and conducts. It is earned.
So you know my answer.
LM wrote:
so, you do respect Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden.... as a being for their diginity.
C2 wrote:
Then think further: What should you respect? What can you interact with? beings? things? behaviors?
I only respect beings, not things.
If there is a being who did a bad thing, such as "萎萎缩缩的事," I condemn the thing, the behaivior, but still repect the being for his or her diginity.
- Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/03/2007
st dude wrote:
“Mutual respect among human beings should be a principle in the society. Respect others and expect respect from others, there should be no other reasons given.”
Sorry, wrong. DIS-respect is mutual. Self-esteem rather than self-loath leads to respect (mutual or otherwise). - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/04/2007
这条线讨论得挺好的。 最近咖啡店来了不少观点成熟的朋友。 欢迎。:) - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/04/2007
I am not a new comer ^_^
BEN BEN wrote:
这条线讨论得挺好的。 最近咖啡店来了不少观点成熟的朋友。 欢迎。:) - posted on 05/04/2007
if I understand correct, you pay the first form of respect to anybody without condition.
but you do NOT pay the 2nd form of respect to somebody if their conducts do not fall into your standards. right?
so, what's your view different from Connie's ?
C2 wrote:
There are two forms of respect:
The first form is the recognition of the dignity of the individual. Every human being has a right to be respected because each person is a human being. Criminals have a right to be treated with justice and to be respected as human beings...
The second form of respect is based on a person’s achievements and conducts. It is earned.
So you know my answer.
LM wrote:
so, you do respect Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden.... as a being for their diginity.
C2 wrote:
Then think further: What should you respect? What can you interact with? beings? things? behaviors?
I only respect beings, not things.
If there is a being who did a bad thing, such as "萎萎缩缩的事," I condemn the thing, the behaivior, but still repect the being for his or her diginity.
- posted on 05/04/2007
I might read your post literally, do you mean that if a person, who is NOT your friend, does bad thing, you will NOT leave it to the person and WILL wag your finger at him.her?
sands wrote:
When my friend is treated badly (ie. with no respect, or discriminated against), the thing for me to do is not to say "if you want respect from others, give them a reason first!" I would trust my friend that she did not do the wrong thing, and try to fight against the racism and discrimination that did my friend injustice.
On the other hand, if unfortunately it is she who did the wrong thing (which is very unlikely), I leave it to her to sort out with her conscience or with her God/Allah/Buddha, hoping she would someday realize it's wrong and stop doing it, because I know it's not my place to wag my finger at her.
- posted on 05/04/2007
I am losing patient here ...
Let's make sentences (造句):
I repect EVERY individul even "their conducts do not fall into my standards."
I repect you, LM, no metter what you think, no metter what you say.
I admire individuls who have good conducts.
I do not admire you, LM, because you do not have a clear mind.
BTY, it is really bad if you do not repect others just because they do not meet YOUR standards. Really bad ^_^
LM wrote:
if I understand correct, you pay the first form of respect to anybody without condition.
but you do NOT pay the 2nd form of respect to somebody if their conducts do not fall into your standards. right?
so, what's your view different from Connie's ?
- posted on 05/04/2007
then why waste time to explain 1st form, 2nd form...?
you do RESPECT Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden,... right?
C2 wrote:
I am losing patient here ...
I admire (尊敬) individuls who have good conducts.
I repect (尊重) every individul even "their conducts do not fall into my standards." Every Every Every Every Every Every.....
BTY, it is really bad if you do not repect others just because they do not meet YOUR standards. Really bad ^_^
LM wrote:
if I understand correct, you pay the first form of respect to anybody without condition.
but you do NOT pay the 2nd form of respect to somebody if their conducts do not fall into your standards. right?
so, what's your view different from Connie's ?
- posted on 05/04/2007
Sigh ...
Are you the Connie who wrote the piece?
LM wrote:
then why waste time to explain 1st form, 2nd form...?
you do RESPECT Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden,... right?
C2 wrote:
I am losing patient here ...
I admire (尊敬) individuls who have good conducts.
I repect (尊重) every individul even "their conducts do not fall into my standards." Every Every Every Every Every Every.....
BTY, it is really bad if you do not repect others just because they do not meet YOUR standards. Really bad ^_^
LM wrote:
if I understand correct, you pay the first form of respect to anybody without condition.
but you do NOT pay the 2nd form of respect to somebody if their conducts do not fall into your standards. right?
so, what's your view different from Connie's ?
- posted on 05/04/2007
No, I am not, I just want to point out your view is too extrem, even yourself can not 自圆其说。
It IS fine to disrespect somebody based on common/basic human code/standard, it is NOT right to disrespect anybody without knowing anything about this person, in some cases, it sad, or compicated to show certain degree of disrespect to sombody without knowing him/her, that's my point.
C2 wrote:
Sigh ...
Are you the Connie who wrote the piece?
LM wrote:
then why waste time to explain 1st form, 2nd form...?
you do RESPECT Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden,... right?
C2 wrote:
I am losing patient here ...
I admire (尊敬) individuls who have good conducts.
I repect (尊重) every individul even "their conducts do not fall into my standards." Every Every Every Every Every Every.....
BTY, it is really bad if you do not repect others just because they do not meet YOUR standards. Really bad ^_^
LM wrote:
if I understand correct, you pay the first form of respect to anybody without condition.
but you do NOT pay the 2nd form of respect to somebody if their conducts do not fall into your standards. right?
so, what's your view different from Connie's ?
- posted on 05/04/2007
Your reading is unfortunately incorrect. But thanks for reading it.
In order to prevent your misreading, let me answer your question following your format:
If a person who is NOT my friend does a bad thing, I will leave it to the person's mom or government or conscience or God/Allah/Buddha to sort it out. I WILL NOT wag my finger at him.her.
LM wrote:
I might read your post literally, do you mean that if a person, who is NOT your friend, does bad thing, you will NOT leave it to the person and WILL wag your finger at him.her?
sands wrote:
When my friend is treated badly (ie. with no respect, or discriminated against), the thing for me to do is not to say "if you want respect from others, give them a reason first!" I would trust my friend that she did not do the wrong thing, and try to fight against the racism and discrimination that did my friend injustice.
On the other hand, if unfortunately it is she who did the wrong thing (which is very unlikely), I leave it to her to sort out with her conscience or with her God/Allah/Buddha, hoping she would someday realize it's wrong and stop doing it, because I know it's not my place to wag my finger at her.
- posted on 05/04/2007
you never critisize anybody, except your own children?
it is perfectly fine NOT to critisize anybody, it is also perfectly fine to critisize somebody, in my opinion of course.
sands wrote:
Your reading is unfortunately incorrect. But thanks for reading it.
In order to prevent your misreading, let me answer your question following your format:
If a person who is NOT my friend does a bad thing, I will leave it to the person's mom or government or conscience or God/Allah/Buddha to sort it out. I WILL NOT wag my finger at him.her.
LM wrote:
I might read your post literally, do you mean that if a person, who is NOT your friend, does bad thing, you will NOT leave it to the person and WILL wag your finger at him.her?
sands wrote:
When my friend is treated badly (ie. with no respect, or discriminated against), the thing for me to do is not to say "if you want respect from others, give them a reason first!" I would trust my friend that she did not do the wrong thing, and try to fight against the racism and discrimination that did my friend injustice.
On the other hand, if unfortunately it is she who did the wrong thing (which is very unlikely), I leave it to her to sort out with her conscience or with her God/Allah/Buddha, hoping she would someday realize it's wrong and stop doing it, because I know it's not my place to wag my finger at her.
- Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/04/2007
even better. Welcome back :)
C2 wrote:
I am not a new comer ^_^
BEN BEN wrote:
这条线讨论得挺好的。 最近咖啡店来了不少观点成熟的朋友。 欢迎。:) - Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/04/2007
. - posted on 05/04/2007
LM wrote:Never?
you never critisize anybody, except your own children?
it is perfectly fine NOT to critisize anybody, it is also perfectly fine to critisize somebody, in my opinion of course.
Never say never.
[quietly ask--What do you think I’ve been doing?]
Of course I do criticize.
My criticism goes to those who are in power, but not those who are powerless, who are vulnerable, and who are new in a place (such as new immigrants and peasant- laborers).
I criticize the public figure who does wrong things, such as the one who started a preemptive war to cause so much loss of precious lives, but I know not all white people are Bush.
Let me return to what Connie said: “希望我们华人堂堂正正,给人一个尊重的理由。让人家每提起华人就说一句好样的!”
It sounds as if we Chinese are not yet 堂堂正正, and haven’t given 人一个尊重的理由. That’s where I’m finding faults with.
I believe plenty of 我们华人 are already 堂堂正正, we have 给人 many 尊重的理由 already. So there is no need to put “希望” here.
Connie said:“让人家每提起华人就说一句好样的!”This is not necessary.
Such a hat of model minority is too heavy to wear.
Let people understand instead we are a group of people of a spectrum of various moral characters, just like any other ethnic groups.
Chinese people are just as respectable as White people, as black people, as Hispanics, and others. Respect others and expect others to respect you, no reasons needed to be given.
- posted on 05/04/2007
My philosophy is I do not respect people who do not respect me( does not mean I don't forgive :) ).
The way I read Connie’s post is to those who do not pay respect to others, yet asking respect in return, then those people do need give a good reason, I admit that some sentences in Connie’s post seems she extends that to the whole ethnic group, but I do not believe that’s the true thought in her mind.
sands wrote:
LM wrote:Never?
you never critisize anybody, except your own children?
it is perfectly fine NOT to critisize anybody, it is also perfectly fine to critisize somebody, in my opinion of course.
Never say never.
[quietly ask--What do you think I’ve been doing?]
Of course I do criticize.
My criticism goes to those who are in power, but not those who are powerless, who are vulnerable, and who are new in a place (such as new immigrants and peasant- laborers).
I criticize the public figure who does wrong things, such as the one who started a preemptive war to cause so much loss of precious lives, but I know not all white people are Bush.
Let me return to what Connie said: “希望我们华人堂堂正正,给人一个尊重的理由。让人家每提起华人就说一句好样的!”
It sounds as if we Chinese are not yet 堂堂正正, and haven’t given 人一个尊重的理由. That’s where I’m finding faults with.
I believe plenty of 我们华人 are already 堂堂正正, we have 给人 many 尊重的理由 already. So there is no need to put “希望” here.
Connie said:“让人家每提起华人就说一句好样的!”This is not necessary.
Such a hat of model minority is too heavy to wear.
Let people understand instead we are a group of people of a spectrum of various moral characters, just like any other ethnic groups.
Chinese people are just as respectable as White people, as black people, as Hispanics, and others. Respect others and expect others to respect you, no reasons needed to be given.
- posted on 05/05/2007
I can understand what Connie says--I can respect you, but there must be some reason! Yes, when it comes to respect, it doesn't occur in isolation but is closely related to the individuals concerned. But the problem is, respect doesn't necessarily mean the opposite of discrimination! Among different opinions on certain individuals, from which respect stems, one may admire or not admire or just be impartial or even be ambiguous or indifferent, and then there must be some reason why one respects--an attitude that people with self-consciousness expect from others.
However many different opinions one may have about a certain individual, there is one one absolute principle that must stand between to ensure successful social communication, that is respect, an absolute attitude every one should take towards others. This is what sands means, I think.
- posted on 05/05/2007
Rioeureka wrote:
I can understand what Connie says--I can respect you, but there must be some reason! Yes, when it comes to respect, it doesn't occur in isolation but is closely related to the individuals concerned. But the problem is, respect doesn't necessarily mean the opposite of discrimination! Among different opinions on certain individuals, from which respect stems, one may admire or not admire or just be impartial or even be ambiguous or indifferent, and then there must be some reason why one respects--an attitude that people with self-consciousness expect from others.
However many different opinions one may have about a certain individual, there is one one absolute principle that must stand between to ensure successful social communication, that is respect, an absolute attitude every one should take towars others. This is what sands means, I think.
Unfortunately, Connie was not refering to an individual when discussing "respect".
Dis-respect a whole race of people = racial discrimination - posted on 05/05/2007
Good for you--you've got a nice philosophy: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--an ancient one!
I am always in awe of those who are so knowledgeable of things, those who have MonkeyKing's "golden fire eyes" that can see through people at just one sight to discern they are actually "white-bone demons" or they've got past history of dishonorable conducts.
Those knowledgeable people are able to determine who deserves to be respected and who does not very quickly. Naturally they show respect to the respectables and look down upon those who are not.
I just can't do that. I don't have that penetrating vision. It takes me quite a while to get to know one person and accumulate information to form my judgement about that person's worthiness. Normally the more I get to know them, the more I find really they are more or less just like me. And since I am respectable (I'd better be--haha...), I guess they are, too. In my humble existense of 40 some years I have had my fair shares of happy and unhappy moments, at least 99% people I've met in my life so far are good people--they either treated me kindly or they didn't do anything to hurt/harm me. So I have a good chance to predict the next person I meet will be a respectable one and I would show respect to him/her, even though he/she may look very different from me, and I don't need them to give me a reason.
LM wrote:
My philosophy is I do not respect people who do not respect me( does not mean I don't forgive :) ).
The way I read Connie’s post is to those who do not pay respect to others, yet asking respect in return, then those people do need give a good reason, I admit that some sentences in Connie’s post seems she extends that to the whole ethnic group, but I do not believe that’s the true thought in her mind.
- posted on 05/06/2007
大家在国内一定都见过批斗罪犯和游街. 人被尊重如果需要理由, 以这种方式羞辱罪犯就很合理. 对不对? CONNIE/LM们看着这些羞辱人的场面一定很坦然, 对不对? 反正每次我想起那些场面, 心都会痛.
近一点的, 有美军虐囚为例.
我是不是尊重本拉登, 希特勒这样的人? 其实我已经说得很明白, 可LM还是不懂. 那我再来打个比方: 假如有一天我抓住了本拉登, 我会把他当做人来对待, 送他上法庭, 接受法律的裁决. 死就让他体面的去死, 不会有五花大绑的游斗, 也不会有身体上的残害和人格上的羞辱. 这就是尊重, 尊重人格, 也包括罪犯的人格, 任何人的人格. 这是文明社会所遵循的一种理念, 代表着一个社会的健康心态.
懂得尊重的社会就会有懂得尊重的人民, 尊重自我, 尊重他人, 尊重法规, 尊重社会公德… 人的很多劣行其实都源自缺少自尊, 源自对人的尊严问题的漠视.
被尊重是人的一种权利. 世界上的每一个人每一个种族每一个群体, 不需要任何理由, 都有被尊重的权利. …尊重中国人尽管中国人有暇疵有缺点, 尊重黑人尽管事实上黑人犯罪率较高, 尊重艾滋病患者尽管他们中有人生活不检点, 尊重穆斯林教徒尽管他们中有人为了信仰对无辜的人施暴, 尊重移民尽管有人是非法偷渡 …. 反过来, 以Connie/LM的理论, 这个世界上不值得尊重的人群是不是就太多了.
尊重(respect)有不止一层含义. 现代汉语词典有两个注释, 1)尊敬, 敬重, 2)重视并严肃对待. Webster’s Dictionary也有两个注释: 1)To hold in esteem or honor. 2)To refrain from intruding upon or interfering with. 所以我说尊重有两种形式, 一种是不需要理由的基本人权, 一种是通过努力赢得的特权. Connie/LM把一个族群被尊重看做是需要努力赢得的特权, 其实就是承认歧视的合理.
- Re: 想让别人尊重你,给个理由先!by Connieposted on 05/06/2007
C2 wrote:把一个族群被尊重看做是需要努力赢得的特权, 其实就是承认歧视的合理.
Agree! - posted on 05/06/2007
first of all, please read ALL my posts, word by word.
弄了半天, 你所定义的尊重就是不批斗,不游街, 不羞辱, 不五花大绑.
建议你仔细理解你自己翻出来的Webster’s Dictionary两个注释。
C2 wrote:
大家在国内一定都见过批斗罪犯和游街. 人被尊重如果需要理由, 以这种方式羞辱罪犯就很合理. 对不对? CONNIE/LM们看着这些羞辱人的场面一定很坦然, 对不对? 反正每次我想起那些场面, 心都会痛.
近一点的, 有美军虐囚为例.
我是不是尊重本拉登, 希特勒这样的人? 其实我已经说得很明白, 可LM还是不懂. 那我再来打个比方: 假如有一天我抓住了本拉登, 我会把他当做人来对待, 送他上法庭, 接受法律的裁决. 死就让他体面的去死, 不会有五花大绑的游斗, 也不会有身体上的残害和人格上的羞辱. 这就是尊重, 尊重人格, 也包括罪犯的人格, 任何人的人格. 这是文明社会所遵循的一种理念, 代表着一个社会的健康心态.
懂得尊重的社会就会有懂得尊重的人民, 尊重自我, 尊重他人, 尊重法规, 尊重社会公德… 人的很多劣行其实都源自缺少自尊, 源自对人的尊严问题的漠视.
被尊重是人的一种权利. 世界上的每一个人每一个种族每一个群体, 不需要任何理由, 都有被尊重的权利. …尊重中国人尽管中国人有暇疵有缺点, 尊重黑人尽管事实上黑人犯罪率较高, 尊重艾滋病患者尽管他们中有人生活不检点, 尊重穆斯林教徒尽管他们中有人为了信仰对无辜的人施暴, 尊重移民尽管有人是非法偷渡 …. 反过来, 以Connie/LM的理论, 这个世界上不值得尊重的人群是不是就太多了.
尊重(respect)有不止一层含义. 现代汉语词典有两个注释, 1)尊敬, 敬重, 2)重视并严肃对待. Webster’s Dictionary也有两个注释: 1)To hold in esteem or honor. 2)To refrain from intruding upon or interfering with. 所以我说尊重有两种形式, 一种是不需要理由的基本人权, 一种是通过努力赢得的特权. Connie/LM把一个族群被尊重看做是需要努力赢得的特权, 其实就是承认歧视的合理.
- posted on 05/06/2007
C2 wrote:
大家在国内一定都见过批斗罪犯和游街. 人被尊重如果需要理由, 以这种方式羞辱罪犯就很合理. 对不对? CONNIE/LM们看着这些羞辱人的场面一定很坦然, 对不对? 反正每次我想起那些场面, 心都会痛.
近一点的, 有美军虐囚为例.
我是不是尊重本拉登, 希特勒这样的人? 其实我已经说得很明白, 可LM还是不懂. 那我再来打个比方: 假如有一天我抓住了本拉登, 我会把他当做人来对待, 送他上法庭, 接受法律的裁决. 死就让他体面的去死, 不会有五花大绑的游斗, 也不会有身体上的残害和人格上的羞辱. 这就是尊重, 尊重人格, 也包括罪犯的人格, 任何人的人格. 这是文明社会所遵循的一种理念, 代表着一个社会的健康心态.
懂得尊重的社会就会有懂得尊重的人民, 尊重自我, 尊重他人, 尊重法规, 尊重社会公德… 人的很多劣行其实都源自缺少自尊, 源自对人的尊严问题的漠视.
被尊重是人的一种权利. 世界上的每一个人每一个种族每一个群体, 不需要任何理由, 都有被尊重的权利. …尊重中国人尽管中国人有暇疵有缺点, 尊重黑人尽管事实上黑人犯罪率较高, 尊重艾滋病患者尽管他们中有人生活不检点, 尊重穆斯林教徒尽管他们中有人为了信仰对无辜的人施暴, 尊重移民尽管有人是非法偷渡 …. 反过来, 以Connie/LM的理论, 这个世界上不值得尊重的人群是不是就太多了.
尊重(respect)有不止一层含义. 现代汉语词典有两个注释, 1)尊敬, 敬重, 2)重视并严肃对待. Webster’s Dictionary也有两个注释: 1)To hold in esteem or honor. 2)To refrain from intruding upon or interfering with. 所以我说尊重有两种形式, 一种是不需要理由的基本人权, 一种是通过努力赢得的特权. Connie/LM把一个族群被尊重看做是需要努力赢得的特权, 其实就是承认歧视的合理.
I agree!
We probably need to define "respect" before we debate.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- BC
- #1 潜水
- #2 pepper_john
- #3 sands
- #4 xw
- #5 行人
- #6 LM
- #7 行人
- #8 LM
- #9 行人
- #10 sands
- #11 st dude
- #12 xw
- #13 st dude
- #14 sands
- #15 C2
- #16 LM
- #17 C2
- #18 LM
- #19 C2
- #20 LM
- #21 st dude
- #22 sands
- #23 C2
- #24 LM
- #25 C2
- #26 pepper_john
- #27 BEN BEN
- #28 C2
- #29 LM
- #30 LM
- #31 C2
- #32 LM
- #33 C2
- #34 LM
- #35 sands
- #36 LM
- #37 ben ben
- #38 nobody
- #39 sands
- #40 LM
- #41 Rioeureka
- #42 pepper_john
- #43 sands
- #44 C2
- #45 sands
- #46 LM
- #47 Rioeureka
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation