Misrepresenting one's nationality - a clarification on forum rules

[Wolfwind]

Who is talking about 'masquerading' ? YOU are.

All this time I have been talking about Chinese-Americans supporting China. If I and others know they are Chinese-Americans, that means they said so. Supporting for does not equate to pretending to be someone else. The mainland Chinese know who these Chinese-Americans are and welcome the support from these traitors.

There are plenty of Chinese supporters on this forum, and from them, I have seen even the laws of physics violated with no one from the Chinese camp correcting them, so why should the mainland Chinese cares if someone supports China say something that they know is wrong about China ? It is about the numbers of supporters a country can muster up. There are few Americans here and we do not care. But for the juvenile Chinese, how many cheerleaders they can call upon matters. It has never been about 'masquerading' and I never said so. The words were 'support' and 'speaks for'. Never said 'pretend' or anything similar.

You lectured me about my English but you are the one who have been confused all this time ?

Um excuse me, but like I said from the very beginning I don't think they should speak for China. They can support whoever they want but they shouldn't act like they are spokespeople or legal representatives of the country they are supporting or are from that country because that's a bit selfish to people that are actually from that country. That's why it might be useful to have two flags, which you didn't seem to understand. I think you are now arguing about pointless semantics when the crux of the matter was perfectly clear from the beginning.

Bear in mind that this thread is about misrepresentation, and not your subjective views on traitors.

 

[haviZsultan]

hey @haviZsultan sir, I finally made sense of what you had replied when I asked if you'd ever been to Lucknow.

iska matlab aap kaafi senior ho, chalo maan li aapki baat, now I can kind of understand your sentiment, still think it's a bit crazy and given just how long it's been, perhaps you should try and accept things how they are now.

got a question for you, what about the younger generation of muhajirs that was born in Pakistan, I can't imagine them sharing your sentiment about their ancestral city/land or wherever their parents/grandparents migrated from, do they ?

It is incorrect that I am very old. I have travelled a lot luckily and I have had the opportunity to stay in Lucknow. Most muhajirs find themselves wallowing in their sense of superiority and seek extra rights. This has diluted our ability or will to speak for our regions which should have gone to Pakistan. I believe the big problem of muhajirs today is we have lost our real identity-like pashtun, Lucknowi, Bihari etc and have adopted an over arching muhajir identity. Nationalism is now based on this weak ideology even though it is not a real identity.

Most muhajirs being the 2nd and 3rd generation. They share little or few links with the regions they moved from and many have never been to Lucknow to notice older generations still supporting Pakistan. This has weakened our ability to speak for and to support those areas we have moved from. I think our biggest mistake was failing to merge people left in our regions occupied by India to merge as Pakistanis.

 

[Barrel-Bomba]

It is incorrect that I am very old. I have travelled a lot luckily and I have had the opportunity to stay in Lucknow. Most muhajirs find themselves wallowing in their sense of superiority and seek extra rights. This has diluted our ability or will to speak for our regions which should have gone to Pakistan. I believe the big problem of muhajirs today is we have lost our real identity-like pashtun, Lucknowi, Bihari etc and have adopted an over arching muhajir identity. Nationalism is now based on this weak ideology even though it is not a real identity.

Most muhajirs being the 2nd and 3rd generation. They share little or few links with the regions they moved from and many have never been to Lucknow to notice older generations still supporting Pakistan. This has weakened our ability to speak for and to support those areas we have moved from. I think our biggest mistake was failing to merge people left in our regions occupied by India to merge as Pakistanis.

wait, now I'm confused again. I was thinking you were born in Lucknow and your parents moved to Pakistan when you were still an infant ?

just to clear this up, you've traveled to Lucknow as an adult on a Pakistani passport stamped with an Indian visa ? correct ? when was this ?

and please, Lucknow isn't "occupied" by India, that just sounds so ridiculous, it'll sound ridiculous to your own countrymen too.

 

[gambit]

Um excuse me, but like I said from the very beginning I don't think they should speak for China.

Then lecture to them. Not to me.

They can support whoever they want but they shouldn't act like they are spokespeople or legal representatives of the country they are supporting or are from that country because that's a bit selfish to people that are actually from that country. That's why it might be useful to have two flags, which you didn't seem to understand. I think you are now arguing about pointless semantics when the crux of the matter was perfectly clear from the beginning.

Bear in mind that this thread is about misrepresentation, and not your subjective views on traitors.

One definition of 'nationality' is: 'the status of belonging to a particular nation.'

The word 'nation' have two common usages and contexts:

1- A people that shares common bonds.
2- A geographical locale that is under the political and physical control of a people.

Jews make up a 'nation' before the existence of the political entity called Israel, that is the first context. Now there is Israel, the word 'nation' is often used to describe that country in the second context.

A Chinese-American who made clear what he is and supports China is not misleading anyone. He is not lying about himself. He is not deceiving the forum. Just as there were Americans who supported the Soviet Union, there are Chinese-Americans who feels greater empathy and sympathy towards China and Chinese than towards the US and Americans. If the forum insists that one's nationality means one MUST support one's country of citizenship, the forum is wrong. One SHOULD -- yes.

Viet Nam is neither my country of citizenship nor ideological allegiance. It is the US that holds my allegiance. So what is the point of me sporting the Vietnamese flag, especially when that flag came from an antagonistic ideology -- Marxism -- and it is that ideology that I spent a decade in uniform to defend against ?

In fact, the Chinese-American who consistently supports China admitted his ancestry is Taiwanese. So if there is any misrepresentation on his part, it is that he should display the Taiwanese flag and not China. And if one's flag means one MUST support said country, then this man should be supporting Taiwan in every issue, but he does not. China have not done a single thing for his benefits. Much, if not most, of what make up China is the antithesis of what he is comfortable with in the US. But the man supports China purely out of racial reasons and the 'China Chinese' applauds him for it. So what is the point of having two flags when anyone can say in support of any country he want ?

The theme of this forum is military in general and Pakistani in particular. In the general theme, given my yrs in the USAF, there is no demographic in the world's many societies where the flag have a more powerful influence -- the military. In the military -- any military -- you wear your country literally on your person and you do it via a powerful symbol -- a flag.

If the forum want a person to display a flag, it should be just one flag and it should be the flag of a country that holds his ideological, psychological, and emotional allegiance. That is common sense.

 

[Wolfwind]

Then lecture to them. Not to me.


One definition of 'nationality' is: 'the status of belonging to a particular nation.'

The word 'nation' have two common usages and contexts:

1- A people that shares common bonds.
2- A geographical locale that is under the political and physical control of a people.

Jews make up a 'nation' before the existence of the political entity called Israel, that is the first context. Now there is Israel, the word 'nation' is often used to describe that country in the second context.

A Chinese-American who made clear what he is and supports China is not misleading anyone. He is not lying about himself. He is not deceiving the forum. Just as there were Americans who supported the Soviet Union, there are Chinese-Americans who feels greater empathy and sympathy towards China and Chinese than towards the US and Americans. If the forum insists that one's nationality means one MUST support one's country of citizenship, the forum is wrong. One SHOULD -- yes.

Viet Nam is neither my country of citizenship nor ideological allegiance. It is the US that holds my allegiance. So what is the point of me sporting the Vietnamese flag, especially when that flag came from an antagonistic ideology -- Marxism -- and it is that ideology that I spent a decade in uniform to defend against ?

In fact, the Chinese-American who consistently supports China admitted his ancestry is Taiwanese. So if there is any misrepresentation on his part, it is that he should display the Taiwanese flag and not China. And if one's flag means one MUST support said country, then this man should be supporting Taiwan in every issue, but he does not. China have not done a single thing for his benefits. Much, if not most, of what make up China is the antithesis of what he is comfortable with in the US. But the man supports China purely out of racial reasons and the 'China Chinese' applauds him for it. So what is the point of having two flags when anyone can say in support of any country he want ?

The theme of this forum is military in general and Pakistani in particular. In the general theme, given my yrs in the USAF, there is no demographic in the world's many societies where the flag have a more powerful influence -- the military. In the military -- any military -- you wear your country literally on your person and you do it via a powerful symbol -- a flag.

If the forum want a person to display a flag, it should be just one flag and it should be the flag of a country that holds his ideological, psychological, and emotional allegiance. That is common sense.

But I'm telling you because you didn't get it. Nobody else is discussing this issue and I don't even know who you're making references to anyway.

But anyway that's why there are two flags. "Country" is subjective. It can mean the country you feel most attached to, whether it be culturally, ethnically, politically, or militarily. So for the Taiwanese guy he can list China if that's what he feels closer to. Like if someone identifies as Chinese then they can put the country as China if they choose to. Like since you're Vietnamese by ethnicity / culture / heritage / identity you can put Vietnam if you choose to.

BUT residence isn't a choice. It wants you to list where you reside. And that's actually important because like I said many times, where you grew up is going to shape your experiences so you'll probably have a different outlook to someone native to another country (which you might support).