Assimilation vs acceptance (#222, Topic A)

Ever since a senator seeking reelection first used the word macaca (#199), but denied knowing its meaning (a racial slur in French to refer to a person with dark skin), claiming that he made the word up, his credibility seems at issue, since his mother was from French-influenced Tunisia. It was not long before his heritage was written up in the Jewish press. Last Monday (9/18/06), during a debate, he was asked, point blank, whether his ancestors included people of Jewish background. At first, he became angry and refused to answer the question, contending that it was an "aspersion." When unrefutable evidence prevented him from further evading, he admitted his ancestry, claiming that he knew his background only recently, and that he was proud of his ancestry. Well done. However, many were puzzled by his sudden turnaround; to me, it is simple; it is a matter between assimilation and acceptance (#203). It seems that Jewish people have physical features that, after a generation or two of inter-marriage, can be readily assimilated into, thus undistinguishable from, Caucasoids -- particularly if they renounce Judaism to convert to Christianity, as is the case with the senator's mother, a point the senator took pain to emphasize. Still, it is a dark secret. Why? Again, it is the simple difference between assimilation and acceptance. A Jew may be assimilated (a physiological phenomenom), but he/she, given the environment in USA, may not be fully accepted (a social issue). Thus, saying a person is a Jew is, judging from the senator's initial reaction, ipso facto, an aspersion, whether he/she is or not. People of Chinese ancestry do not have this problem -- we cannot be assimilated through inter-marriage, certainly not in a generation or two. Thus, we do not have to hide our identity; we do not have dark secrets in our closets. Given that, even seeking acceptance is a tall order. Speaking only for myself, I only hope to be tolerated -- nothing more. If one asks me: "Are you a Chinese?" (a racial-identity inquiry, not a citizenship issue), I would not consider it as an aspersion. My answer is likely to be: "Yes, I am, and I am proud of it." After all, only people of Chinese ancestry can claim a civilization that is both uninterrupted and unrivaled.

Congressional Briefing: Japan's emperor as pimp (#221, Topic J)

While doing research at the Library of Congress, I was invited to attend a Congressional briefing on House Resolution 759, which has passed its Committee on International Relations yesterday. The bill reads, in part, as follows: "Whereas the enslavement of comfort women was officially commissioned and orchestrated by the Government of Japan to include gang rape, forced abortion, sexual violence, human trafficking, and numerous other crimes against humanity ... Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of Japan (1) should formally acknowledge and accept responsibility for its sexual enslavement of young women, known to the world as "comfort women", during its colonial occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s through the duration of World War II ..." In effect, Japan's emperor was a pimp, but would admit it -- either he was too ashamed or, more likely, he was subhuman and had no sense of shame. The briefing, held in a House meeting room to a standing-room-only full-house of 50+ attendees, was opened with brief comments by each of the bill's three co-sponsors: Lane Evans, Chris Smith, and Mike Honda. The president of the Washington Coalition for Comfort Women Issues, with whom I sat at the same table in a dinner honoring the late Iris Chang (author of The Rape of Nanking) a few years back, then gave a background briefing -- among other points, the number of comfort women was 200,000+. Another speaker, an European-American woman, then urged Japan to acknowlege and accept responsibility, lest Japan be viewed as "small minded, petty, unreliable" as to be unfit to be USA's ally in Asia -- her tone was surprisingly frank, considering that her previous employment was with a pro-Japan research organization. (She actually opened her remarks by wishing Japan's prime-minister-to-be a happy birthday, which, along with the speaker herself, happened to be today.) The highlight of this briefing was the screening of a 20-minute segment of a documentary, Silence Broken: Korean Comfort Women, produced by a Korean-American director (who was also present and gave an excellent introduction), with original footages taken at "rape camps" as well as those taken specifically for this documentary. I was moved by a comment by a surviving victim, now in her 70s (there are only 100 still living -- most died over the 60-year period, others committed suicide, shortly after WWII, for the dishonor), that she wanted to live so that she could tell her story to the world. Her courage commands my respect. Another scene showed that each of these women received a shot in the arm every day -- it turned out to be opium. So, in addition to being a pimp, Japan's emperor was also an opium peddler. From remarks by the three congressmen and the three speakers, I got the impression that Japan was/is unwilling to acknowledge its responsibilities. To me, a simple way to convey our disgust is to refuse buying products made in Japan -- as I have been doing for decades. As it turns out, this might come without any urging -- just today, I read a Reuters report to the effect that the public now judge the quality of Japanese products to be inferior to those made in China, citing as an example the recall of Japanese-made batteries in computers by Dell, Mac, and a Japanese brand.

Jesse Owens (#220, Topic G)

I generally just glance at headlines in Washington Post's Sports section. However, one of today's headlines -- Another Owens Runs in Berlin, But on Hardwood, Not Track -- puzzles me, so I read it. It turns out that Another Owens refers to Chris Owens, a basketball player, whose great uncle is Jesse Owens, whose 4 gold medals at the 1936 Olympic Games (100 meters, 200 meters, long jump, and 4x100 meter relay) held in Berlin, made him an icon. It was also the occasion where Hitler refused to shake his hand, as his outstanding performance made a mockery of Aryan supremacy. I, however, did have an occasion to shake Owen's hand. It was 1953, in Chicago, where Owens was the owner-manager of an insurance agency in Chicago's south side. At that time, he was probably in his late 30s; still, he had a very fit physique, and his grip was very firm. I do/did not know how Owens fared as an entrepreneur. I do know that, at that time, discrimination in Chicago was rampant. I recall vividly my calling a hotel in Chicago's south side (where U of Chicago is located, in the midst of African-American neighborhoods); the reservation clerk would not honor a called-in reservation; I must present myself in person -- meaning, simply, that the hotel would not rent rooms to an African-American. I did not know how I would fare were I to present myself at the reservation desk -- I simply elected not to pursue the matter further. I did, however, have experience from an incident that was quite similar. At that time, I just bought a new car, and it was suggested that I join the American Automobile Association. So I called. Knowing my name, the person at the receiving end of my phone call asked me, point blank, whether I was of Chinese ancestry. Upon hearing my positive answer, he said: "I'm sorry. You cannot join AAA." So, USA -- at least Chicago -- in the 1950s was no better than Germany under Hitler in the 1930s. Enough said.

You are stupid either way (#219, Topic A)

In doing entries in this blog, I cannot help thinking that, in important utterances by important westerners for consumption by people of Chinese ancestry, there is an implicit -- perhaps even explicit -- conviction that the recipients of these utterances are stupid. An example is an utterance I quoted earlier -- by Britain's foreign secretary, back in 1839, instructing his trade representative in China to "strong impress upon the Chinese plenipotentiaries how much it would be to the interest of that Government to legalize the [opium] trade" (Hanes, Opium Wars, p 149). If the Chinese government did not take this sage advice, ipso facto, she was stupid. If she did take the advice, thereby ruining her citizens' health and exhausting her treasury's silver reserve, she would be viewed as even more stupid -- indeed, the utterer would be laughing all the way to the bank. Either way, the recipient is stupid. Another example is an utterance by US' new treasury secretary, who arrived in China just today to advise that her currency be revalued "for China's own good." (#217) Again, if China did not take this sage advice, which is for her own good, ipso facto, she is stupid. If China did take this advice, producing a result similar to that produced in Japan after taking a similar "it is for your own good" advice two decades ago (16 years of recession, from which it barely emerged), she would be viewed as even more stupid. Again, either way, the addressee is stupid. It is win-win to the utterer, and stupid-stupid to the addressee. What a lovely scheme!

Tchaikovsky's Symphonies 5 and 6 (#218, Topic N)

Last week, on my way to the Post Office, my car radio, set to WGMS, was just ready to broadcast the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony #5. When I was at the U of Illinois, beginning with 1950 for three years, I used to like this piece, but I have not listened to it for several decades. So I paid some attention to its playing. I noted that the movement was dominated by wood instruments, played in a minor key -- slow, wooden, and moody -- and, frankly, it did not leave a positive impression. From this hearing, I realized that my general mood has also changed in the interim five decades. I recalled that, then, I liked Tchaikovsky's Symphony #6, the Pathetique, even better; it was even moodier, even more depressing, perhaps reflecting my general mood at the time. However, I did not have a chance to listen to it for just as long, and made a mental note to listen to a DVD soon. In today's Washington Post, there is a review of the Fairfax Symphony Orchestra's 50th anniversary performance over the weekend. It began with Tchaikovsky's Symphony #6 -- and the reviewer wondered why the musical director selected that moody piece for this joyful celebratory occasion. Regardless, it seems that the reviewer shares my view that that piece is depressing. The FSO's performance continued with Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #3. I first heard this piece at the Kennedy Center a couple of years ago, when my sister and brother-in-law was visiting us from Los Angeles -- the soloist was China's Lang Lang, and the concert hall was full. The piece was said to be a very difficult one to play. In an attempt to understand this piece better, after that KC performance, I borrowed several DVDs from the local library, featuring this piece played by other pianits. The more I listened to it, the more unbearably depressing I felt. I realized that more listening would not be good to my mental health, so I stopped listening to it. All in all, it seems that my general mood has, over the last 50+ years, moved away from a pessimistic one to one less so. Perhaps it is good.

"It is for China's own good" (#217, Topic B)

US's new treasury secretary, said to be an old China hand in his previous Wall Street role, has embarked on his first mission to China, trying to persuade her to revalue her currency, the RMB. Before going there, he made a stopover in Singapore to give talks at high-level multinational meetings. On Friday, before an ASEAN ministers' meeting, he talked, wishfully, that a RMB revaluation "is for China's own good." What a magnanimous gesture! A VIP from USA is willing to travel 10,000+ miles just to deliver a "good for you" advice, face-to-face, to -- how shall I phrase it? -- a friend? a competitor? As I am doing research on the Opium Wars, this statement reminds me of another "it is good for you" statement, uttered by a similarly high-ranking British government official a century and half ago. In 1839, Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary, urged Sir Henry Pottinger, Superintendent of [Opium] Trade [in China], to "strongly impress upon the Chinese plenipotentiaries how much it would be to the interest of that Government to legalize the [opium] trade" (Hanes, Opium Wars, 2002, p 149) In the 1980s, US also gave a similar advice to Japan -- revalue the yen, "it is good for you". The latter, being the former's best ally in Asia, readily complied. The result was to put Japan in 16 years of recession -- it just barely came out of it. Yesterday, before a joint WB/IMF meeting, the new treasury secretary said that he wanted China "to succeed." Another magnanimous gesture, no doubt. To coincide with this WB/IMF meeting, the current issue of the Economist (9/16/06) has a 19-page special report on the world economy. A chart therein shows that, by 2040, China will replace US as the world's largest economy. Is this what the treasury secretary has in mind? -- wishing another country to succeed so that USA could take the runner-up spot? Perish the thought.

Movie: Akeelah and the Bee (#216, Topic D)

On the 1st and 3rd Saturday evenings, our retirement community hosts a free movie, complete with refreshments. Tonight's offering was Akeelah and the Bee, on an 11-year-old African-American girl's experience in Spelling Bee contests. I have seen two other movies with this theme; I did not like them because I felt/feel that SP contests constitute torture. Thus, I went in tonight's screening half-heartedly. As it turned out, it was a most heart-warming movie I have seen in a long while. It was difficult for a disadvantaged teen from a run-down school district to survive, let alone to shine. Thus, it was not surprising that, at first, our heroine, Akeelah, did not want to enter her school's inaugural SP contest. Shy and introverted, she did not want to appear and be laughed at in front of a large number of onlookers. With the death of her father when she was only 6, her working mother had her hands full in taking care of several children single-handedly; she was against Akeelah's involvement in SP, particularly her attendance at the school was less than satisfactory. But, Akeelah survived her school's SP contest; with little support, she almost did not survive the next round, a regional contest. By that time, an African-American English professor became her coach (SP training is indeed tough); her mother also relented. When she survived the next round, she was on her way to the National SP Contest, in DC. The last 5 contestants in the National SP contest included a Mexican-American (who, from a prosperous family, was 15th the year before), a Chinese-American (who, the runner-up in the two previous contests, had a stereotyped harsh disciplinarian as father). After the Mexican-American and two other contestants dropped out, the championship was between Akeelah and the Chinese-American. During a break, Akeelah saw her opponent being harshly reprimanded by his father. Realizing that her opponent was making his last appearance and that he would likely face a difficult time from his father were he again the runner-up, Akeelah deliberately spelled a relatively easy word (on which she had been drilled earlier) incorrectly. The Chinese-American, realizing what she was trying to do (the earlier drill was done by them together), much to his credit, refused to cooperate, but spelled that same word incorrectly as well. After exhausting 25 difficult words (which never happened before), the two were declared co-champions. The beauty of this movie is on the African-American community, which was proud of what Akeelah accomplished and was backing her all the way. In a touching scene, her mother revealed that she had to drop out from college to take care of her family; she wanted Akeelah to succeed, saying that "you have 50,000 tutors [to build her vocabulary every way she could], beginning with me." Indeed, they were rooting for her in front of TVs. A truly beautiful movie, well played by the three youngsters, Akeelah's mother, and the English professor. My eyes were moist during the last quarter of this movie.

LC Seminar on "HK After 9 Years" (#215, Topic P)

Today at noon, there was a seminar on "Hong Kong after 9 years" at the Library of Congress. Being of great interest to me, I took time out from my research on the Opium War to attend it. After a few words in English, the speaker, an activist from HK, turned the podium to an interpreter who read an English version of his speech, synchronized with a PowerPoint presentation, also in English, on key words being read. (His speech, in Chinese, was available at the entrance; I got a copy.) The tone of his presentation was quite critical. During the Q&A period, the speaker came to the podium, speaking in Cantonese, with the interpreter doing the English-to-Cantonese (for the speaker's benefit) and Cantonese-to-English (for the benefit of non-Chinese-speaking members of the audience) interpretation. There was time for only 4 or 5 questions (since most attendees were LC staff members, who had to return to their posts after the lunch hour); after two LC staff asked questions, I could not contain myself and asked the third one. Since the first 2 questions were polite and irrelevant (suggesting that they had never been to HK), I felt that I had to tune down. I asked: "I am curious. Before HK was returned to China, was there democracy? Was there demonstration?" As to the former, he was forced to admit that there was none. As to the second part of my question, its lack of specificity (I meant demonstration against UK) allowed him to mention one demonstration, against mainland China, in 1994. (I happened to be in Beijing to see the demonstration there, as well as in HK to see the demonstration our speaker talked about. He exaggerated the magnitude.) My question seemed to open the door for tougher questions; indeed, a young lady, probably an LC staff member from China not too long ago, first chided him for not appreciating his being a "lost son" returning to his biological mother and being treated better than her other offsprings, and then asked him, point blank, whether he preferred to have HK still in UK hands. He argued that, as a lost son, he expected better treatment; as to the query, he had to answer in the negative. In his presentation, he used the word "enemy" at least four times -- twice in the reading and twice in the PowerPoint presentation. The very use of this word betrayed his negative answer. All in all, his audience was less than friendly. I presume he would be making similar presentations at the Hill, to more receptive audiences.

"Christian Governments" as opium peddlers (#214, Topic R)

The dramatic event that led to the first Opium War (1839-1842) is undoubtedly the public burning of 20,000+ cases of opium (each containing some 120 pounds), under the personal supervision of Commissioner Lin Zexu (#140, #141), to which members of the public were invited to witness. Afterward, W.C. King, a Rhode Island merchant, wrote: "while Christian Goverments were growing and farming this deleterious drug, this Pagan monach should nobly disdain to enrich his treasury with a sale which could not fall short of $20,000,000." (Hsin-pao Chang, Commissioner Lin and the Opium War, 1964, p177) In terms of valuation in the 21st century, this $20 million would be more than $400 million. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission, in a flyer addressed to "Christian Brethen and Friends" concluded with the following: "For tens of years past, those who ought to have introduced the gospel, with all its happy accompaniment, have instead been bringing in a flood of desolation. ... The destruction by the Chinese government of twenty thousand chests of opium, which if sold would have brought into its treasury ten or fifteen million of dollars, will long be referred to as an act, illustrative of the combined power of conscience and correct principle, operating even in pagan hearts." (Chang, pp177-8) Even? No. Only. Only a country with unrivaled civilization and Confucian teaching would place what is moral over how much money an illicit activity could bring in.

Clashes of civilizations or of religions? (#213, Topic R)

Ever since I initiated this blog, I debated whether I should set up a topic R, for Religion. My preference has been a resounding negative, but recent events suggest otherwise, to which I have unavoidably succumbed. Our retirement community has a Fireside Forum, a monthly lecture series where interesting topics/speakers are featured. Sunday, 9/10, a professor of government at a local university talked about "American Foreign Folicy: Myth and Reality," to an almost full-house (with some 500 attendeeds). He began by offering three factors: (1) threats have become deadly, (2) there are limits to international organizations such as the United Nations, and (3) USA, as a superpower, has a unique role to play. These factors, it seems to me, are code-names for interventionism, unilateralism, and exceptionalism, respectively. (Our speaker was introduced as a "Truman democrat.") After some 25 minutes, he concluded his talk and began a Q&A period. Since the speaker earned his PhD in Political Science from Harvard, I could not resist not asking a question (which turned out to be the next to last for the evening), on the assumption that the professor named in my question might be our speaker's dissertation adviser. I asked: Samuel Huntington talks about clashes of civilizations; in effect, they are clashes of religions. Given that both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions, how do you reconcile the two in terms of world peace? He looked at me (I was sitting at the 3rd seat on the 2nd row), and answered by citing struggles in India and said that the problems nowadays are within a religion rather than between religions. Realizing that this answere might not be satisfactory (since India's religions are not monotheistic and my question was on Christianity and Islam), he quickly added: "I disagree with Huntingthon." Why so or in what aspects he disagrees with Huntington, our speaker did not say. He then moved to the last question and called an evening.
During his talk, our speaker touched upon the Pew Foundation. It so happens that, just a day or two before, I read, on-line, an interview of Huntington by the Pew Foundation on Reglion. The interviewer's questions were rather sharp, putting Huntington in a corner. At the end, he had to admit: "Christianity is a missionary religion." As to my question to the speaker for the evening, which is relevant to a long-term research project I am doing, I have to wait for another occasion.

9/11/2001 (#212, Topic D)

At about 9 am on 9/11/01, our son called from NYC. "Is your TV on?" "No" -- I was busy writing about a research project, and did not bother to turn on the TV. "Please turn it on; the World Trade Center is on fire," he said. I turned the TV on, just in time to see the second World Trade Center being hit by another airplane. It came down at an angle approximating 45 degrees; the point of impact appeared to be about one-third from the top of this high-rise. Fire broke out immediately; soon, the building began to collapse. At that time, I recalled reading, from the papers, a Congressional testimony to the effect that, were the WTC hit between 80th and 120th floors, the whole building would collapse. The airplane appeared to be doing just that, and the end result was exactly what had been predicted. Thinking back, I wonder why such critical information was so publicly disclosed. At one time, my son worked in a financial institution that occupied a couples of floors above 130th of one of the WTC towers. More interested in non-profit organizations, after a few years, he resigned to become the executive director of a small NP. His new office was merely a block and half from the WTC, so, on that day, he saw these first-hand. Our son told us that all staff members of this financial institution -- his ex-colleagues -- perished, perhaps unnecessarily. This was because, after the first tower was hit, these staff members, occupying the second tower, came down safely. Sensing that their building was unaffected, their managers urged the staff to return to work -- just in time to be hit by the second airplane. Our son mentioned that, for the several months following, he was busy attending funeral services of many of his ex-colleagues, which, needless to say, affected him adversely. But, for us, his dad and mom, we are lucky to see him safe and sound. Were he with that financial institution, he probably would incur the same fate accorded his ex-colleagues. What a narrow escape!

Lord Elgin: "I am not a thief" (#211, Topic H)

A story in last week's papers stated that the Getty Museum in LA and other leading museums had decided to return artifacts taken from the Parthenon in Athens back to Greece. The story then mentioned that the most famous piece of artifacts taken from the Parthenon, commonly known as the Elgin Marble, in honor of its perpetrator, Britain's Lord Elgin VII, now in display at the British Museum, was/is still awaiting return -- this is not surprising, since the British government has refused to entertain this idea for centuries. What is surprising is an account, I read yesterday, on the ransaking of the Summer Palace in Beijing at the end of the second Opium War (1856-1860) by Anglo-French troops -- the ring leader was no less than Lord Elgin VIII, the son of the Lord Elgin of the Parthenon marble fame! The account reads as follows: "Growing up the son of a bankrupt peer widely considered the vandal, not conservator, of the Parthenon, Elgin had an aesthetic inferiority complex. Watching the precious stones and sculptures, etc., ripped from their settings must have seemed like deja vu all over again from the son of the pillager of the Parthenon. [He wrote a] plaintive entry in his diary: 'I am not a thief.'" (Hanes and Sanello, The Opium Wars [2002], p 277) Of course not. A thief is usually prefaced with the adjective petty; this was big time -- a pearl necklace given to the Empress Eugenie of France was valued at 72,000 pounds (or 1,440,000 pounds in terms of 2001 valuation); a diamond necklace, 90,000 pounds (or 1,800,000 pounds in 2001 valuation).

English as 1st language and as 2nd language (#210, Topic L)

This morning, I attended a breakfast briefing at the Carneige Endowment for International Peace, on US-China Interparliamentary Exchange, by the chief of staff of a House committee responsible for this home-and-home exercise. He made many points worthy of separate blogs. For this one, let me focus on language education in USA and in China. (His children were home-schooled, reflecting his assessment of the quality of primary/secondary education in USA.) Though he had not visited China until some five years ago (when he was given this assignment), he seemed to have a good impression of China when he did visit, several times (in each visit, he was given a free rein as to where to go and which speciific house to knock to gain admittance). At one point, somewhat agitated, he said that students in China are learning English as a second language better than students in USA learning English as their first language! For emphasis, he repeated this observation. I certainly occur. Indeed, it reminds of an incident some four decades ago. When I was a lowly assistant professor at the U of Southern California, one year, our department chairman wanted to include a test of English for seniors as a graduation requirement. At one of departmental faculty meetings, he produced a sample test for attendees to review. Upon seeing it, I could not believe my eyes. The test, designed for university seniors ready to receive their baccalaureate degrees whose first language was English, was easier than tests of English given as entrance examinations for high-school graduates applying for admission to colleges in China! Still, that sample test our department chairman prepared reflected the competence level of these college seniors. At another point, our speaker this morning expressed the concern that, some day, USA might not be able to retain its number 1 spot. If language competence is an indication of countries' competitiveness, I certainly share his concern.

Football in Dallas (#209, Topic G)

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has a half-page review of a book entitled Running With the Big Dogs. It is on a football rivalry between U of Texas and U of Oklahoma, now 100 years old. The game is invariably played in Dallas, a neutral site between these two universities. For several years, I was a professor at U of Texas at Dallas, so I am reasonably familiar with this annual affair. It is quite clear that Texas is very fond of -- perhaps crazy about -- football. Another ritualistic match would be professional football games between Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins. The first year we were in Dallas, my wife and I happened to be shopping in downtown Dallas one day, and found the downtown areas deserted -- very few cars, practically no pedestrians, few shoppers in stores. Reason: the Cowboys-Redskins game was on, and everyone was watching the game on TV (I think that game was an away game for Cowboys). In addition to the professional and college varieties, Texas was/is also big on high-school football, which invariably was/is played on Friday evenings. On occasions when I drove by one of these high schools when the game was on, the stadium would be well lit and packed with spectators. When we moved to Bethesda, we were only a block-and-half from Whitman High School. Though its stadium would be well lit on Friday evenings when a football game was on, the noise level was subdued. Texas in general and Dallas in particular are, in terms of their fondness for football, in a league by themselves.

"14 men were captured in a Chinese restaurant" (#208, Topic A)

Yesterday at 6 am, the time my alarm clock was set, I woke to an NPR report that "14 men were captured in a Chinese restaurant" by London police. Later that same morning, I heard the same message -- always "in a Chinese restaurant" -- at least 3 times, over CNN. I was puzzled as to the emphasis placed upon "in a Chinese restaurant", but no further details were given in these reports. Today, the Washington Post's London correspondent files a report on this story, which also prominenttly states, in his second paragraph, "a Chinese restaurant south of the Thames River". Reading the story further, the so-called Chinese restaurant is owned by a Medhi Belyani. A person of Chinese ancestry is unlikely to have a name like this. The story then says that "the restaurant, which serves meat prepared in a halal manner and no alcohol, is popular with Muslim customers." Well, as an Old Man Out Of China, I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable in Chinese cuisine -- and "meat prepared in a halal manner" is not Chinese cuisine. The restaurant's only relation to China is its name: The Bridge to China Town restaurant. Does this make the restaurant a Chinese restaurant? I doubt it. Why the London police, the NPR, and the WP repeatedly emphasize "Chinese restaurant"? My guess: they want the listener or viewer to develop a guilt-by-association mentality. This is objectionable. In the past, when WP published a story I considered offensive, I would send in a "Letter to the Editor." With my batting average less than .100, I realized that I am not in the league and stopping doing so. Let me use this vehicle to register my objection. This unnecessary guilt-by-association scheme is unprofessional, whether done by the police or by journalists. Please stop and, perhaps, offer an apology to people of Chinese ancestry.