Here’s to the Chinaman, intelligent and ancient
Here’s to the Eskimo, valiant and warm
Here’s to the Jew in the sacred area
Here’s to the Arab in his wagon
Here’s to the American, strong and proudTodd rundgren
What the heck is a” Pajeet”? Before recognizing that the word was an racial slur directed at Indians, Han Feizi may have read it a few days on Twitter. When you’re not more on the cutting edge of racial slurs, you’re able to tell when you’re getting older. The term “global politics” is most likely to have been tossed about by creepy crawly accounts with ethnic flame wars, according to Denizens of Twitter ( now X ).
Some Indians have been caught off-guard by the fresh condescending. Indians have a history of being the target of small-ball prejudice, much like Apu and Mujibur in David Letterman and Sirajul on David Letterman.
The new epithet is conceitedly directed at Hindus despite the fact that many Indians have suffered from post-9/11 anti-Muslim credit damage. Somewhat suddenly, harmful anti-brown discrimination has unexpectedly become , all the rage on social media.
Only yesterday, ethnic Indians basked in the global sun while:
- serving as British prime minister, first minister of Scotland and taoiseach ( prime minister ) of Ireland,
- running for US leader, and
- gracing the CEO couches of major global firms ( Google, Microsoft, IBM, Pepsi among some ).
And now we’re dealing with a” Pajeet” situation. We can drill down and discover fast causes, such as the recent rise in Indian immigrants to the Anglo-Western earth, the China-India boundary issue, and millions of newly online Indians who engage in raucous trolling on social media.
On some rates, this insult means Indians have arrived. Indians ‘ responses to this innovative prejudice range from being horrified by the sudden vitriol to feeling sorry for the suffering Indians must endure, before frightened diving headlong into a Psychological sludge of self-loathing, telling everyone who will listen that Indians deserve all the hatred and more.  ,  ,
This part will not concentrate on Indians and their Pajeet position, about which Han Feizi has much experience. It will be about the” Chinaman” condition, which has dogged the Chinese for 150 years.
Pajeets may consider themselves lucky because, according to internet origins, the slur first appeared in the dark of 4Chan and then spread like wildfire through Twitter’s cesspool. It is less than a decade old.
As a slur, a” Pajeet” and a” Chinaman” are pretty much the same creature – a quasi-human living in squalor, benighted by despotism, unscrupulous in character, out of step with the modern world and ineffectual in all endeavors. Despite these shortcomings, both Pajeets and Chinamen are prone to foolish confidence and boastfulness, facile in their aspirations and self-delusion.
The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis in Chinese Culture, a self-flagellating series of articles about the depressing state of Taiwanese people, was Bo Yang’s most well-known reserve in 1992. Bo Yang’s analysis of Chinese tradition is less lurid screed than it does a revered contemporary writer’s work that has themes akin to those of Lu Xun.
Contrary to what happened with Lu Xun, who simply blared around the bush, the idea was to surprise the Chinese consciousness. Bo Yang’s contemporaneous responses to him were either a vitriolic defensiveness ( which of course confirmed his point ) or a eureka recognition that he was completely correct ( and frequently both at the same time, which further confirmed his even more correct ).  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,
” The Taiwanese people continue to grow extremely basic and despicable”, Bo Yang wrote,” How can a country whose conscience has degenerated to this stage ever regain its self-respect”?
Han Feizi and all Gen-X Chinamen have crowd-shoving, queue-jumping and open quarreling knowledge that, although they may include atrophied since we were in our prime, would have matched those of the most vulgar Pajeet. We paid money, hustled each other in company, came to brawls in the streets and behaved boorishly at intoxicated dinners. What could have caused Bo Yang to be incorrect?
Let us begin these:” Chinese people’s ability to co-operate and their proclivity for fighting among themselves are deep-rooted, dangerous traits”. Sure there was much fighting, up stabbing and unnecessary elections. But, by heaven, did fighting obstinate Chinamen walk heaven and earth! If that’s what Chinamen you achieve by bickering and failing to engage, finally let’s have a lot more of it!  ,
The Ugly Chinaman , has no aged properly. The essays band wooden on a 2024 reading. It’s not just that delicate 2024 China is unidentifiable from the chaos of the 1990s and the depravity of the 2000s, rather, it’s that the change was humdrum and mundane. China’s thinking changed from one of abundance to one of scarcity as a result of economic growth.  ,  ,
The Chinese did not undergo a national spirit searching, prodding people to maintain taste and judgment, as Bo Yang insisted they had:
Each of us must develop our own unique personality and wisdom in order to improve the situation of the Ugly Chinaman. If we’re bad stars, we can at least like going to works. Those who do n’t understand what’s happening on stage can enjoy the music, lights, costumes and scenery, while those who do understand can appreciate drama as an art form. Making these similarities is a great accomplishment in and of itself. Whether the federal grants me my freedoms and rights or not, I do.
While it resonated in the 1990s, Bo Yang’s prescribing for China’s forgiveness is cringeworthy in 2024. For dressed infection by the Westoid mind-virus. Thus romantic. But awkward. If anything, Bo Yang saw China’s transition from a swarm of misbehaving Ugly Chinamen to its present elegant order, where city murder is nonexistent, excellent service is expected, and self-driving Vehicles follow all the traffic laws.
Bo Yang was a delicate person, deflecting his private ressentiment onto contrived failings of his comrades, writing:  ,  ,
Narrow-mindedness and a lack of altruism can create an unequal personality which frequently wavers between two extremes: a persistent feeling of inferiority, and extraordinary arrogance. In his inferiority, a Chinese person is a slave, in his arrogance, he is a tyrant.
Such a cliché, to be honest, is the above lamentation. Han Feizi has heard versions of it used to describe Indians, Germans, Nigerians, American Southerners, investment bankers and Koreans. Bo Yang must have owned the unbalanced personality because it is so unoriginal.
If Bo Yang had been born in the 1990s, he would have avoided many historical indignities. In fact, his youth would have coincided with China’s epic rise. A young 2024 Bo Yang would undoubtedly be a nationalist who would ostensibly champion” the supreme greatness of the Han Chinese people” and continue to gloat about the promotion of Chinese traditional culture worldwide. ” Living in the 1990s, Lu Xun would have felt no need to celebrate or denounce the Chinese people, making a good young doctor and not a writer for the nation.”
Bo Yang would be regarded by supporters of China’s Industrial Party as an example of the Sentimental Party, ineffective crybabies who constantly complain about nebulous inadequacies of the Chinese nation and for which a” change in mentality” is required to “become powerless to usher in.
Sentimental Party members waded idiotic about how one or more of China’s impoverished public latrines represented a character flaw or defect in the 1990s. The loos have been spotless ever since Shanghai mayor Zhu Rongji’s directive to personally clean the subpar ones that were available to city officials.  ,
Under President Hu Jintao, Sentimental Party members worked to create market-based non-resolutions to China’s widespread corruption for ten years. President Xi Jinping prosecuted 2.3 million officials, imprisoning thousands and executing dozens. Significantly lessening corruption is happening.  ,  ,  ,
Pajeets have their own Bo Yangs, whose armchair sociology reveals at least as much about India’s illnesses as their own tortured psychology. Tagore and the Bhagavad Gita are also present in pajeets, just as Confucius and Lu Xun are present in Chinamen. Han Feizi wo n’t go further in the comparisons because he is not an expert on India. The way” Chinaman “lost its resonance may or may not be replicable with” Pajeet” – every slur is different. India evolved into its new slur and, in contrast to China and” Chinaman,” will also develop.  ,  ,  ,
In the meantime, Pajeets and Chinamen can take a moment to smack our chins, turn on the amateur sociology, and talk about the insane train wrecks known as” Wypipos,” in the spirit of lessening tensions on the China-India border.