Daniel Hong is Back!

I have to give a hat tip to one of my commenters for tipping me off to the latest Daniel Hong article. The Korea Times will just publish anything now a days. Many of you may remember Mr. Hong from my posting a couple of weeks ago. In the latest Daniel Hong article he actually admits to the charge of being a plagarist that was actually uncovered by the blogosphere, but downs plays it by saying it is only a minor charge:

Before I offer my thought on racism, however, let me comment en passant on the minor charge against me being a plagiarist.

Since when is plagarism a minor charge? I seen people get kicked out of college for plagarism and people fired from newspapers for plagarism. The funniest part of his defense for plagarism is that he tries to justify it by using fancy words and quotes from not to famous people:

I may have followed too closely after the French writer Anatole France who quipped, “When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it.’’ Before turning to racism, I just wish readers to compare the following quotes to see if any insight you can draw from them. “Copy from one, it’s plagiarism; copy from two, it’s research.’’ (Wilson Mizner, American writer) “To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism _ to steal from many is research.’’ (Steven Wright, Canadian comedian) “Nothing is said which has not been said before.’’ (Terrence, Roman writer of comedies)

His defense of racism is just as humorous. He tries to make the case he is not a racist by using big words and quotes again to I guess to demonstrate to people he is to smart to be a racist. The first thing he quotes is a United Nations definition of racism:

“In this Convention, the term `racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.’’ (Part I, Article 1)

I don’t know about you but I’m a product of the American public educational system and tend to understand plain simple English instead of the fancy diplomatic speak above. So I turned to Dictionary.com for the definition of racism. Here it is:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Now this is something that is easy to understand. Let’s compare this definition with what is easily the most inflammatory portion of Daniel Hong’s original article.

Later in the discussion session after her lecture, I raised several questions: “Who are those Western men or Americans chasing after Asian female? Aren’t they what the Southern Californians would call, UCLA (Ugly Caucasians Living with Asians)? Aren’t they at the bottom of the Darwin’s food chain that they couldn’t get what they want in their own land because of their low social status and therefore only option left for them is to chase after those Asians?

The UCLA comment though insensitive wouldn’t be so bad if he didn’t follow it with the bottom of the food chain comment. Using my Dictionary.com definition I definitely believe this guy has let his anger make him a racist because his comments are definitely discrimatory and prejudice based on race. However, it is not only discriminatory against white men but also Asian women. If these so called UCLA’s are at the bottom of the food chain than that means Asian females must be at the bottom of the food chain too, to want to date them. If Mr. Hong thinks that Asian women are at the bottom of the food chain that may explain why he can’t get a date and all these UCLAs out there can.

Mr. Hong goes on to try to draw parrallels with the Bill Cosby case. At least he quoted somebody everyone knows. Anyway he then added this passage I got a good laugh from:

In any debate, when the opponent sees the other point is rather logical and reasonable and thus becomes too strong to defeat, they will seek to attack the character of the opponent, thinking that the exposure will cause the reader not to listen to what the opponent has to say. Thus calling me as racist without any substantial evidence becomes the glib and thus liable to be called as a propagandistic pitch to shape the readers? opinion.

Mr. Hong thinks there is no evidence to call him a racist. He should heed his own words. He had no problem labeling white males with his “UCLA” and “bottom of the food chain” comments without any evidence which he even admits to not having in the article.

I only have his own words to use to judge his character which I feel definitely could lead one to suspect he has racist thoughts towards white males. If he apologized for the inflammatory comments that would be one thing, but he actually seems proud of them and that is why I still feel he is a racist.

He concludes his article with more fancy words from not so famous people and then drops this bomb here:

But my article to report the findings that there exist Asian female stereotypes within the Western perspectives can?t be disposed as racist?s campaign to attack Western men. Who then becomes a real racist here? You know better than I do since I can?t read your crystal ball.

Of course there are stereotypes about Asian women just like there are stereotypes about White Males and everyone else out there. However, Mr. Hong article only reinforces the negative stereotype of Asian females he thinks he is helping. If Mr. Hong wants to complain about stereotypes I got a stereotype for him. Not only am I an American but I’m a US soldier in Korea of top of it. Think how many stereotypes about me Korean people have when they first meet me that I have to over come. I don’t get all pissed off and bitter. A good first impression goes along way to over coming a bad stereotype. Mr. Hong has a lot to learn about good first impressions after reading his article.

Then the last snipe about people accusing him of being racist are the real racists contradicts the earlier part of his article that states that people label others as being racist to cause other people to not listen to what their opponents have to say. I know one thing, I’m done listening to what Daniel Hong has to say.

UPDATE:

Go over to the Asia Pages where Jodi has got more on the latest Daniel Hong article. Ms. Prasso has also sent out an e-mail responding to Daniel Hong’s quotes from her and she pretty much says she was misquoted by Mr. Hong probably due to language difficulties.

Assuming she was misquoted by Mr. Hong I apologize to Ms. Prasso for calling her a racist in my earlier post. Make sure to check out the Asia Pages for the latest on this issue. She has even offered Mr. Hong a chance to guest blog on her site. I know I said that I was done listening to what Daniel Hong has to say, but I would love to see a debate between Mr. Hong and Jodi.