The Things they Carried - Racist or Not?

[Indian Boy]

I just finished reading "Things They Carried" by Tom O'Brien. For those of you who haven't read it, the book is a collection of short stories, all of them about the trials and tribulations of the Vietnam War.

My main issue with the book is O'Brien's constant use of the word "gook". It's used practically on every single page over and over again. Tim O'Brien's prose are very good but when all you read is "gook this", and "that sneaky gook", "little gook that", it becomes difficult to focus on the beauty of the work, and not on the "gook" word. I have many Chinee friends and they all agree with me and refuse to read additional works written by this author which I fully understand.

Anyone else have this same issue with this book?

[Jair]

I recall post-colonial condemnation of Conrad for his constant use of the word "nigger" in Heart of Darkness. There was at least one black critic who suggested that Conrad was a deeply disturbed racist, which is ridiculous. These books must be read at least partially in context - otherwise you end up censoring Huckleberry Finn.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No, it's not racist. That's how soldiers talked.

[Calidore]

Is the author saying "gook" with his voice, or are the characters saying it?

[bw220]

I'm actually reading The Things They Carried right now and I can see how it could be seen as offensive. I don't think O'Brien means to be racist though, he is just trying to be realistic with how he portrays the men. Soldiers can definitely be vulgar, and I think trying to hide things like that could take away from the story.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is the author saying "gook" with his voice, or are the characters saying it?

The characters.

[OrphanPip]

To be fair, the characters being racist doesn't mean that the work is shielded as a whole from criticism as being racist. However, I don' really know anything about this book so I can't comment on it directly.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

To be fair, the characters being racist doesn't mean that the work is shielded as a whole from criticism as being racist. However, I don' really know anything about this book so I can't comment on it directly.

I read it a couple weeks ago. The author never shows any signs that he has prejudice against the Vietnamese . . . it's actually more of the opposite; he portrays them as victims of circumstance, just more casualties of war, neither good nor bad.

[cacian]

No, it's not racist. That's how soldiers talked.

That is a soldier's talk maybe...one cannot be sure but for a writer that is supposed to be literate and considerate towards a mixed audience this kind of 'demeaning dialect' does not give credit to a writer who is not a soldier himself.
The other thing one has to bear in mind is that a writer is just a writer and not a reporter.
I think people will notice and will feel that perhaps the only reason this writer wrote this book as because he wanted to insult chinese people.Who is to know?
This is a possibility that will cross the mind of many people and is not tobe taken lightely.
So I for one think inappropriate and ignorant of any writer who think they are beyond the rest and go on writing and selling books with offensive dialects throughout their 'stories'.

[cacian]

Is the author saying "gook" with his voice, or are the characters saying it?

the writer is ultimately and primarely responsible for the content of his or her book.

[Svidrigailov]

That is a soldier's talk maybe...one cannot be sure but for a writer that is supposed to be literate and considerate towards a mixed audience this kind of 'demeaning dialect' does not give credit to a writer who is not a soldier himself.
The other thing one has to bear in mind is that a writer is just a writer and not a reporter.
I think people will notice and will feel that perhaps the only reason this writer wrote this book as because he wanted to insult chinese people.Who is to know?
This is a possibility that will cross the mind of many people and is not tobe taken lightely.
So I for one think inappropriate and ignorant of any writer who think they are beyond the rest and go on writing and selling books with offensive dialects throughout their 'stories'.

And I believe it's hasty to start condemning a writer when you're ill-informed about their background. O'Brien was drafted in the 60s, and served right in the heart of that tragic war. He's drawing on his own experiences in much of his Vietnam-set fiction, and stories of the people who were there with him.

[FranzS]

the writer is ultimately and primarely responsible for the content of his or her book.

Oh for Heaven's sake! What's the point in writing a novel if you're going to sacrifice realism purely so as not to offend anyone?

If anything, I think it is more dangerous to portray characters as whiter-than-white, since it glosses over the grim realities of human conflict and could give the misleading impression that the Americans were unambiguously the "good guys".

I am sure that any intelligent Vietnamese would not take offence at the word "gook" in this context. Do you imagine the Vietnamese didn't have similarly derogatory terms for the Americans?

Besides, as others have pointed out, you have to view these things in context. My grandparents routinely used the word "nigger". Now it certainly wasn't a complimentary term even for their generation, but it didn't have the same vicious connotations that it does today.

I lived in Ireland for a while a couple of years ago. I was rather shocked to hear young, educated Irish people use the word "Paki" (in Britain, this is a derogatory term for Pakistanis). No English person would use the term except in an abusive way; in Ireland it was simply the usual word to use to describe that ethnic group - as it was in England until the 1960s. Yes, the word is mildly derogatory for the Irish, but not abusive as it is in England.

[Pierre Menard]

So I for one think inappropriate and ignorant of any writer who think they are beyond the rest and go on writing and selling books with offensive dialects throughout their 'stories'.


I think it's inappropriate and ignorant of a reader to jump to a conclusion without properly taking into consideration context and the reasons behind why language is used a certain way in specific circumstances.

Writers should write the story in the way they feel appropriate to tell it. People who lack critical reading ability can kiss my behind.

[KCurtis]

Oh for Heaven's sake! What's the point in writing a novel if you're going to sacrifice realism purely so as not to offend anyone?


I certainly agree with this. It is the responsibility of a good writer to write an accurate story, if it is historical fiction, etc. There are certainly black writers who have written historical fiction who used the N word also.


[/QUOTE]Besides, as others have pointed out, you have to view these things in context. My grandparents routinely used the word "nigger". Now it certainly wasn't a complimentary term even for their generation, but it didn't have the same vicious connotations that it does today.
[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with this at all. It had more vicious connotations back in your grandparents day, as it was much more acceptable to be racist. If my grandparents ever used that term in front of us, especially my father, they would have been shown the door.

[cacian]

I think it's inappropriate and ignorant of a reader to jump to a conclusion without properly taking into consideration context and the reasons behind why language is used a certain way in specific circumstances.

Writers should write the story in the way they feel appropriate to tell it. People who lack critical reading ability can kiss my behind.

well in that case those who feel that swearing throughout the story is appropriate to them should swear throughout regardless?!
I can't see a difference between calling people 'gook' and 'nigger' and swear words.
Readers are different in the same way that writers are.
It is certainly very ignorant of a writer to think that they can indulge in this kind of demeaning dialects regardless of how a reader feels.

[FranzS]

Besides, as others have pointed out, you have to view these things in context. My grandparents routinely used the word "nigger". Now it certainly wasn't a complimentary term even for their generation, but it didn't have the same vicious connotations that it does today.


I don't agree with this at all. It had more vicious connotations back in your grandparents day, as it was much more acceptable to be racist. If my grandparents ever used that term in front of us, especially my father, they would have been shown the door.

> Groan <

I don't know how it was in the USA, but in the UK before the 1960s "nigger" was the term ALL - and I mean ALL - working class people used to describe black people. My grandparents were working class and they wouldn't have known any other term to use.

When you're older, hopefully you'll acquire some historical and cultural sense, and come to understand that the overtones of words are different between times and places. You really don't believe me, do you, when I say that in the UK "nigger" really was not a shocking word for the older generation to use before the 1970s or even the 1980s? I suspect this was not the case in the USA, but please do not comment on life in countries you're not familiar with.

Certainly, "nigger" was a condescending term, but it wasn't abusive at all. (It is today; as I say, overtones change.) Attitudes were largely informed by a definite feeling people had of being threatened by a wave of immigration.

Even I experienced a twinge of this irrational feeling a few years ago, when I was in the kitchen at work and all the other people there were Indians, speaking in their own languages. I felt in a minority, isolated and excluded. Now of course the feeling was irrational - these were all decent people who were educated and non-hostile. I'm just pointing out how visceral these feelings can be. I can understand working-class communities feeling threatened by people of a completely different culture, as they saw it, squeezing them out.

I expect someone is going to jump down my throat now and call me a racist for simply stating some psychological and socio-cultural facts. For educated people of my generation, the presence of immigrants in the UK is a non-issue, because we've never known any different. It wasn't the same for my grandparents' generation. What is even the point of criticising a now mostly dead generation for its attitudes?

Race relations in Britain have generally been OK - not great, but they're not great anywhere. It helps that our minorities aren't descended from slaves. During the first wave of immigration, although there was considerable working-class suspicion of the immigrants, our political leaders generally did a good job of letting people know that they would come down hard on any overt prejuduce, let alone violence.

Another thing comes to my mind, a memory from school. I went to an overwhelmingly white school, and there was one black kid in our year. He was tall and strapping and was never picked on, in fact he was quite popular. I remember another pupil - a friend of the black kid - once calling him a "black b******". It was just schoolboy joshing, there was no malice behind it, and none was taken by the black kid - it was just like saying "you ginger git" or something. If a complete stranger had said this to the black kid, it would have been totally different. Context is important.

[FranzS]

well in that case those who feel that swearing throughout the story is appropriate to them should swear throughout regardless?!
I can't see a difference between calling people 'gook' and 'nigger' and swear words.
Readers are different in the same way that writers are.
It is certainly very ignorant of a writer to think that they can indulge in this kind of demeaning dialects regardless of how a reader feels.

Then the reader can f**k off.

I read for the truth, not for some bland, reassuring lie.

I'm bald. Suppose a character in a novel says, "Bald men are ugly", and I feel a bit put out. Should I write to the publisher to complain? Or should I just get a ****ing life?

[Pierre Menard]

well in that case those who feel that swearing throughout the story is appropriate to them should swear throughout regardless?!
I can't see a difference between calling people 'gook' and 'nigger' and swear words.
Readers are different in the same way that writers are.
It is certainly very ignorant of a writer to think that they can indulge in this kind of demeaning dialects regardless of how a reader feels.


The feelings of the reader don't matter, no. I don't believe the feelings of the reader should be an inherent concern of the author.

It's up to the reader to understand the context of what is being written and how it's being written. If they're too lazy to do it, then screw 'em.

If they understand the context but it still makes them uncomfortable, then stop reading, move on and read some of the 1000 other books out there.

[FranzS]

well in that case those who feel that swearing throughout the story is appropriate to them should swear throughout regardless?!
I can't see a difference between calling people 'gook' and 'nigger' and swear words.
Readers are different in the same way that writers are.
It is certainly very ignorant of a writer to think that they can indulge in this kind of demeaning dialects regardless of how a reader feels.

Jeez. What's wrong with swearing in a book if it's meant to be an accurate portrayal of how people talk?

To take an analogy with TV: one of my favourite series is "The Sopranos". In case you don't know, it's about New Jersey mobsters. It is full of swearing. Why? Because that's how the people it's about actually talk!!

Now in real life I generally detest gratuitous swearing. It sets me on edge and makes me uncomfortable, and, in public places, I think it totally unacceptable. You know what the difference is? It's that if I don't want to watch "The Sopranos", I don't have to!

If books with any kind of realism in them offend you, don't read 'em. It's not difficult.

[KCurtis]

I don't know how it was in the USA, but in the UK before the 1960s "nigger" was the term ALL - and I mean ALL - working class people used to describe black people. My grandparents were working class and they wouldn't have known any other term to use.
When you're older, hopefully you'll acquire some historical and cultural sense, and come to understand that the overtones of words are different between times and places. You really don't believe me, do you, when I say that in the UK "nigger" really was not a shocking word for the older generation to use before the 1970s or even the 1980s? I suspect this was not the case in the USA, but please do not comment on life in countries you're not familiar with.


I am 54 years old!!! And I am from the U.S., maybe when you are older and understand some historical and cultural sense, you will realize that in the United States in the 1960's and before, the term nigger used by white people was blatantly RACIST. I can criticize if I want to. My parents and grandparents were from Canada, I was brought up in the U.S. And ofcourse, using that word was forbidden in our household, as we were not [SIZE="4"]ignorant. To give you a bit of history, of which you are ignorant, black people at this time and for hundreds of years were killed for being vocal concerning civil rights.
So don't you dare use that condescending tone with me about a term that is offensive to use in reference to black people when used by whites, especially during a time period when there was so much awful discrimination. You can groan all you want, maybe you are arrogant, however, I firmly believe that in Britain too, that term was racist, and you also must know there was racism in Britain; I will not compare countries, as we all know they are quite different. And I did not know you were from Britain until you posted your alarming reaction to my post. I will not comment further on racism here, and I refuse to get into a discussion comparing/contrasting the U.S. and the U.K.
I have been to Britain twice, and have never met such nice people. Until now.
[/QUOTE]

[cacian]

Jeez. What's wrong with swearing in a book if it's meant to be an accurate portrayal of how people talk?

To take an analogy with TV: one of my favourite series is "The Sopranos". In case you don't know, it's about New Jersey mobsters. It is full of swearing. Why? Because that's how the people it's about actually talk!!

Now in real life I generally detest gratuitous swearing. It sets me on edge and makes me uncomfortable, and, in public places, I think it totally unacceptable. You know what the difference is? It's that if I don't want to watch "The Sopranos", I don't have to!

If books with any kind of realism in them offend you, don't read 'em. It's not difficult.

I am sorry realism has nothing to do deameaning dialects or swear words.
You don't do it in real life when in a company of people sharing a conversation why do it in a book.
Real life people do not talk in this way no matter what the situation is.
You have your views and I have mine.

[FranzS]

[SIZE="5"]I am 54 years old!!! And I am from the U.S., maybe when you are older and understand some historical and cultural sense, you will realize that in the United States in the 1960's and before, the term nigger used by white people was blatantly RACIST. I can criticize if I want to. My parents and grandparents were from Canada, I was brought up in the U.S. And ofcourse, using that word was forbidden in our household, as we were not ignorant.
So don't you dare use that condescending tone with me about a term that is offensive to use in reference to black people when used by whites, especially during a time period when there was so much awful discrimination. You can groan all you want, maybe you are arrogant, however, I firmly believe that in Britain too, that term was racist. And I did not know you were from Britain until you posted your alarming reaction to my post.
And furthermore, I don't believe you- unless I hear unanimous agreement from others from Britain, which, by the way, I have been to twice, and have never met such nice people. Until now.


OK, I apologise on two counts: for arrogantly assuming you were younger than you are, and for not making it absolutely clear that I live in the UK.

My parents would never have used the word "nigger" and they would have chastised me if I had done. Which I didn't, because by the 1970s the word was unacceptable, and I had it drilled into me that all people were of equal worth - a thing for which I am very glad. If anything, I sometimes find myself on the defensive these days for being too sympathetic to outsiders. (Perhaps like in the US, we are seeing an insidious rise in nationalism and Islamophobia in this country, partly encouraged, I'm ashamed to say, by our government.)

That was not true of my grandparents' generation. That is not to deny that my grandparents were somewhat racist. My father tells me that when he was growing up, it was taken as given that people of other races were inferior - without this being explicitly stated. But no right-thinking person in the UK would have argued that this perceived (and in reality of course non-existent) inferiority meant that minorities should be victimised.

But my parents would never have kicked my - not very well-educated - grandparents out of the house for using the n-word. My father did once have a fairly heated debate with his father about race. But my father wasn't so self-righteous as to imagine that kicking my grandfather out of the house for daring to voice his views would achieve anything constructive.

What on earth is the point of accusing an entire generation for their bigoted views when they just didn't know any better? What does it achieve? It's the height of self-righteousness. If my grandparents had been Nazis I'd accept your point, because I believe there a point is reached by everybody where they just know that what they're doing is wrong. But my grandparents would never have condoned violence against black people, and I'm sure they treated them decently when they met them.

We had no Klu Klux Clan in the UK. People grumbled about the immigrants, but for the most part did what they were told by the politicians, which was tolerate them. At the time, you could hardly have asked for more.

But I stand by my statement that "nigger" was the standard word among in my grandparents' milieu for a black person. If you don't believe me, well fine; all I'll say is that I'm speaking from experience while you're speaking from presumption. As I've mentioned, we don't have the same history of violent racial tension in Britain as the USA, because our ethnic minorities were not brought over as slaves but came of their own free will. (I'm not saying Britain has any better a record than the US when it comes to slavery, merely that for historical reasons there is less "baggage" between our racial communities.)

[FranzS]

I am sorry realism has nothing to do deameaning dialects or swear words.
You don't do it in real life when in a company of people sharing a conversation why do it in a book.
Real life people do not talk in this way no matter what the situation is.


Am I reading right? Are you telling me that people don't swear in real life? I can't imagine a life so sheltered that you really believe this.

Do you not believe that US soldiers in Vietnam used the word "gook"? If you do believe it, then why would you want to read a book about Vietnam that... er, actually isn't about Vietnam at all?

There are thousands of fantasy novels out there for anyone for whom reality is too much. Nobody is forcing you to read anything you don't want to. Unless you are paying an author to write for you, who are you to tell them how they should write?

[KCurtis]

OK, I apologise on two counts: for arrogantly assuming you were younger than you are, and for not making it absolutely clear that I live in the UK.

spoken like a true British gentleman!! I am impressed; I'm not being sarcastic.

[/QUOTE]
But my parents would never have kicked my - not very well-educated - grandparents out of the house for using the n-word. My father did once have a fairly heated debate with his father about race. But my father wasn't so self-righteous as to imagine that kicking my grandfather out of the house for daring to voice his views would achieve anything constructive.
[/QUOTE]

Actually my father gave my grandfather one chance, a warning. My grandfather, who was really anti-Jewish, always tried to steer the conversation to what he called "the Jewish problem", and my father told him if he continued, he would have to leave his house.

[/QUOTE]
What on earth is the point of accusing an entire generation for their bigoted views when they just didn't know any better? What does it achieve? It's the height of self-righteousness.
[/QUOTE]

This is where I think you are wrong. In the U.S., we HAD to accuse the generations for being wrong, and they did know better. I don't think it is self-righteous at all, I believe it is right to correct wrongs. Even in your grandparents case, I believe their views could and should have been challenged, and since they probably did treat others well as you say, their views about other ethnic groups being inferior were wrong and hopefully that was brought up to them.


[/QUOTE]
As I've mentioned, we don't have the same history of violent racial tension in Britain as the USA, because our ethnic minorities were not brought over as slaves but came of their own free will. (I'm not saying Britain has any better a record than the US when it comes to slavery, merely that for historical reasons there is less "baggage" between our racial communities.)
[/QUOTE]

Definitely true. There is a lot of baggage between what I call black and white cultures here. It is much better ofcourse than it was, but I think there is still a barrier between cultures which stems from a lack of true understanding, which in part is perpetuated by the media. The result is both groups are scared to talk to each other ( I am generalizing). Everyone is so afraid they will offend- I am over it. I just try to be sincere, and I don't worry so much if I refer to someone as black or african american- because it just doesn't matter.
Thankyou for your mature reply to my post- I do love everything British.

[Veho]

I think racism is a state of mind, not a word.

[ChicagoReader]

I am sorry realism has nothing to do deameaning dialects or swear words.
You don't do it in real life when in a company of people sharing a conversation why do it in a book.
Real life people do not talk in this way no matter what the situation is.
You have your views and I have mine.

I'm sorry but that it one of the most absurd posts I've ever seen on this site. To suggest that swearing doesn't take place in every day conversation is ridiculous, especially when considering the lifestyle that O'Brien is portraying in these stories (and O'Brien was a soldier in Vietnam, so he is more than justified in using the term "gook" to accurately portray soldier's vernacular). If you're offended by certain writing, fine, but don't claim that it isn't realistic simply because you don't subscribe to it.

[Charles Darnay]

There is a fairly relevant quote by James Joyce here: "If Ulysses isn’t fit to read, life isn’t fit to live"

He said this in response to Ulysses being banned in several countries for indecencies (Joyce describes Bloom doing such things as taking a ****, masturbating, and contemplating a teenage girl in a sexual manner) - all in attempts to portray the ordinary day of an ordinary man.

[FranzS]

There is a fairly relevant quote by James Joyce here: "If Ulysses isn’t fit to read, life isn’t fit to live"

He said this in response to Ulysses being banned in several countries for indecencies (Joyce describes Bloom doing such things as taking a ****, masturbating, and contemplating a teenage girl in a sexual manner) - all in attempts to portray the ordinary day of an ordinary man.

Yes... It depends what you want from literature: truth or reassurance? Be sure you can't have both, and good literature opts for truth every time.

This question can be extended to all abhorrent content in books. In "The Vatican Cellars" by Andre Gide, the hero throws an innocent man off a train. Gide passes no judgment on his hero, and shows no sympathy for the victim. It is disturbing to read, and that's part of why it's interesting.

In "Sword of Honour" by Evelyn Waugh, there is a character called Major Hound, who is inadequate and weak, but not fundamentally evil; nevertheless Waugh revels in his authorial contempt for him in a way that I found very distasteful. Moreover, another character, Ludovic, commits a terrible crime, yet is portrayed rather sympathetically. I found myself disliking Waugh for the distribution of his sympathies, but who am I to tell him he shouldn't disturb me, and should only corroborate my own moral views? I don't have to like an author to appreciate him, and I'd rather find a book interesting than reassuring. If I want reassurance, I cuddle my cat.

[FranzS]

There is a fairly relevant quote by James Joyce here: "If Ulysses isn’t fit to read, life isn’t fit to live"

He said this in response to Ulysses being banned in several countries for indecencies (Joyce describes Bloom doing such things as taking a ****, masturbating, and contemplating a teenage girl in a sexual manner) - all in attempts to portray the ordinary day of an ordinary man.

Yes... It depends what you want from literature: truth or reassurance? Be sure you can't have both, and good literature opts for truth every time.

It's not just swearing, either; this question can be extended to all abhorrent content in books. In "The Vatican Cellars" by Andre Gide, the hero throws an innocent man off a train. Gide passes no judgment on his hero, and shows no sympathy for the victim. It is disturbing to read, and that's part of why it's interesting.

In "Sword of Honour" by Evelyn Waugh, there is a character called Major Hound, who is inadequate and weak, but not fundamentally evil; nevertheless Waugh revels in his authorial contempt for him in a way that I found very distasteful. Moreover, another character, Ludovic, commits a terrible crime, yet is portrayed rather sympathetically. I found myself disliking Waugh for the distribution of his sympathies, but who am I to tell me he shouldn't disturb me, and should only corroborate my own moral views? I don't have to like an author to appreciate him, and I'd rather find a book interesting than reassuring. If I want reassurance, I cuddle my cat.

[Buh4Bee]

I read it a couple weeks ago. The author never shows any signs that he has prejudice against the Vietnamese . . . it's actually more of the opposite; he portrays them as victims of circumstance, just more casualties of war, neither good nor bad.

I agree with what you say. The author also shows a great deal of open-mindedness and creativity with the creation of the character Mary Anne Bell. As a work of historical fiction (although there is some blurriness as to how real the work is), he leads the reader to question the point of the Vietnam War and what purpose it served if any. O'Brien's a humanist and there is no place for racism in this work.

On the other hand, I came relate to the OP's complaint about the overuse of the word "gook"- it can be rather jarring. It's hard to get past it and enjoy the story, particularly if you are distracted by the offensive nature of its presentation in the story.

[FranzS]

Definitely true. There is a lot of baggage between what I call black and white cultures here. It is much better ofcourse than it was, but I think there is still a barrier between cultures which stems from a lack of true understanding, which in part is perpetuated by the media. The result is both groups are scared to talk to each other ( I am generalizing). Everyone is so afraid they will offend- I am over it. I just try to be sincere, and I don't worry so much if I refer to someone as black or african american- because it just doesn't matter.



Things are a little similar in the UK. I don't see the worst of it, because I work in a middle-class university town where there are a lot of foreigners. Most people here are very cosmopolitan in outlook. But in working-class areas, there is suspicion and tension - particularly Pakistani/Bangladeshi areas. There is a fair bit of bad behaviour on both sides of the racial line.

A few years ago there was a documentary on British TV, where a black man was made up to look white, and lived as a white man for (I think) a day. It was gimmicky, and in retrospect I suspect the story was manipulated... Anyway, at the time it was quite moving. The black bloke was asked to go to a greyhound race - an overwhelmingly white working-class venue - and see how he got on as a white man. Obviously, he had no problem. Then he went again without make-up, and was surprised that people were friendly to him when he asked for help, and didn't treat him as different. He'd just had the defensive assumption that white people wouldn't trust him or accept him on account of his skin colour. Ironically, suspicion on one side can breed suspicion on the other. (And suspicion also exists of course on the white side.)

The feeling of standing out visibly can count for a lot. A few years ago I visited Johannesburg with a friend. We'd been advised to steer clear of the city centre - reputedly very dangerous - but the cab driver we hired for the day drove us through it and took us up a building with a viewing platform. Below the viewing platform was a shopping mall. I was struck that out of all the hundreds of people in the shopping mall, my friend and I were the only white people. If it weren't for the presence of the cab driver, who obviously knew what he was doing, we'd have felt quite vulnerable.



Thankyou for your mature reply to my post- I do love everything British.[/COLOR]

Thanks for accepting my apologies - I realise the tone of a couple of my comments wasn't very helpful.

[ennison]

Might as well criticise The Wire for use of the "n" word. What has the opinion of a Chinese person got to do with it anyway? They ain't Vietnamese. They were chucked out of Vietnam in droves when scores were being settled. Epuration. There is too much of this feeling offended on someone else's behalf by those with little to genuinely worry them. Huns. Now there's a good old word that needs reintroduced.