| Author |
Message |
Petter Hesselberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
Areff wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Petter Hesselberg typed thus:
That reminds me of a M*A*S*H episode that has a Korean saying, "You
palefaces all look the same to us." (Quoting from memory; the
wording is probably off.)
If it's the episode I'm thinking of, it's a Korean friend of Hawkeye
who impersonates a Korean General, and then returns shortly
afterwards as a civilian. The Colonel says "Do I recognise you from
somewhere?" and he replies, "You know how it is - we all look alike."
|
I think it was Major Burns, not the Colonel. Anyway, I was thinking of
a different episode, where they did indeed turn the tables on the
look-alike thingy. (Or my brains may be addled. If so, would I realize
it?)
| Quote: | Hmm. I remember it slightly differently:
Korean: You know how it is - we all look alike.
[LAUGH TRACK]
|
--
Petter Hesselberg
http://www.petterhesselberg.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2004 18:46:51 GMT, Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
As for variety in faces, that sounds fine to me, theoretically. What
though if the variety leads not to increase the aggregate beauty of
the group being viewed but to decrease it? Too much variety, and that
is bound to happen. I say this because features that vary far from the
expected norm are not considered attractive by most people. You know,
huge noses, unmatched ears, extremely bushy eyebrows outside of
Russia, that sort of thing.
Do you see much variety oop in Bellingham? I ask because I have had some
experience of temporarily residing in the Puget Sound region and one thing
I have been struck by is that, if you focus on the regional natives of
visible European descent, there seems to me to be a lot of uniformity of
appearance -- a vaguely "Appalachian" look that seems to predominate (=
TCE "seems to be predominate").
|
I'm not sure what characterizes an Appalachian look. Superficial stuff
such as beards and informal dress? Is so, then yes.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | Do you see much variety oop in Bellingham? I ask because I have had some
experience of temporarily residing in the Puget Sound region and one thing
I have been struck by is that, if you focus on the regional natives of
visible European descent, there seems to me to be a lot of uniformity of
appearance -- a vaguely "Appalachian" look that seems to predominate (=
TCE "seems to be predominate").
I'm not sure what characterizes an Appalachian look. Superficial stuff
such as beards and informal dress?
|
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I find that natives of the
Seattle region, if they're white, look, in a sort of visible ethnic sense,
like, you know, West Virginians or Arkansans.
--
Steny '08!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rzed
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:2vhninF2ktou2U2@uni-berlin.de:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
Do you see much variety oop in Bellingham? I ask because I
have had some experience of temporarily residing in the Puget
Sound region and one thing I have been struck by is that, if
you focus on the regional natives of visible European descent,
there seems to me to be a lot of uniformity of appearance -- a
vaguely "Appalachian" look that seems to predominate (= TCE
"seems to be predominate").
I'm not sure what characterizes an Appalachian look.
Superficial stuff such as beards and informal dress?
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I find that
natives of the Seattle region, if they're white, look, in a sort
of visible ethnic sense, like, you know, West Virginians or
Arkansans.
|
Like Jay or Winthrop Rockefeller, then?
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
rzed wrote:
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:2vhninF2ktou2U2@uni-berlin.de:
Charles Riggs wrote:
Do you see much variety oop in Bellingham? I ask because I
have had some experience of temporarily residing in the Puget
Sound region and one thing I have been struck by is that, if
you focus on the regional natives of visible European descent,
there seems to me to be a lot of uniformity of appearance -- a
vaguely "Appalachian" look that seems to predominate (= TCE
"seems to be predominate").
I'm not sure what characterizes an Appalachian look.
Superficial stuff such as beards and informal dress?
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I find that
natives of the Seattle region, if they're white, look, in a sort
of visible ethnic sense, like, you know, West Virginians or
Arkansans.
Like Jay or Winthrop Rockefeller, then?
|
No, I mean natives.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2004 17:58:47 GMT, Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
Do you see much variety oop in Bellingham? I ask because I have had some
experience of temporarily residing in the Puget Sound region and one thing
I have been struck by is that, if you focus on the regional natives of
visible European descent, there seems to me to be a lot of uniformity of
appearance -- a vaguely "Appalachian" look that seems to predominate (=
TCE "seems to be predominate").
I'm not sure what characterizes an Appalachian look. Superficial stuff
such as beards and informal dress?
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I find that natives of the
Seattle region, if they're white, look, in a sort of visible ethnic sense,
like, you know, West Virginians or Arkansans.
|
When thinking about what you might have meant by Appalachian while in
my new local yesterday, I studied the faces of the clients there.
Yup. Not that different from the faces Big George and I saw while on
one of our canoeing adventures in West Virginia. Hard to specify
exactly what that look is, so we might want to leave it at "an
Appalachian look".
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On 11 Nov 2004 17:58:47 GMT, Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
Do you see much variety oop in Bellingham? I ask because I have had some
experience of temporarily residing in the Puget Sound region and one thing
I have been struck by is that, if you focus on the regional natives of
visible European descent, there seems to me to be a lot of uniformity of
appearance -- a vaguely "Appalachian" look that seems to predominate (=
TCE "seems to be predominate").
I'm not sure what characterizes an Appalachian look. Superficial stuff
such as beards and informal dress?
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I find that natives of the
Seattle region, if they're white, look, in a sort of visible ethnic sense,
like, you know, West Virginians or Arkansans.
When thinking about what you might have meant by Appalachian while in
my new local yesterday, I studied the faces of the clients there.
Yup. Not that different from the faces Big George and I saw while on
one of our canoeing adventures in West Virginia. Hard to specify
exactly what that look is, so we might want to leave it at "an
Appalachian look".
|
Thanks, Chuck. I knew (= TCE "new") you'd see it my way.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hagrinas Mivali
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:05 am
Post subject: Re: Mongrels |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:13:02 -0800, "Hagrinas Mivali"
remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
A mongrel dog, as opposed to a purebred, may make for a better dog
as some claim, but if a parallel can be drawn between dogs and men
(Hi, Dena), I wouldn't say the mixing of breeds, or "races",
improves the appearance of the offspring in either case.
Humans are not only all of the same genus and species, they are also
all of the same subspecies. If you want to classify people by race,
it's up to you to be a racist. Biologically, there's no such concept.
You'll note I put "races" in quotes. You won't deny that Swedes don't
often look like Chinese.
|
Many people put the word in quotes simply to emphasize that the word is
problematic. I don't know enough about Sweden to answer the assertion. I
live in America where many Americans do look Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in