Talk:Jook-sing

To avoid the warning at the top of this article, I'd like to suggest we reduce this to a definition article and have a separate article entitled Culture of Westernized Chinese. Yes it's multicultural "trivia" but significant literature (c.f. Joy Luck Club or Double Happiness) are rooted in this culture and it's a very important topic for families caught up in this culture. Samw 02:56 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could you put in who uses the term Jook-sing? I've never heard of it, so it must be common in communities that I don't have contact with.

Also, I'd prefer to put in the cultural aspects into the articles on American-born Chinese or Canadian-born Chinese. the problem with "Westernized Chinese" is that it contains a huge number of assumptions for the term to make sense.

User:Roadrunner

How about changing this to North American, because it's not only Canada. I'm surprised it was changed to that. - Fuzheado 02:22 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that I've never heard the term so I don't know where it is used. I know where it not used and that's in any of the social circles I'm familiar with.

Could this be a West Coast thing?

Roadrunner

FYI the term is widely used in Hong Kong. --218.191.131.92 13:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I immigrated to the USA almost 30 years ago, I'd never heard of it in Hong Kong. But it was widely used in the East Coast and San Francisco. I'd say the usage in Hong Kong is an import from the USA. Kowloonese 01:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The term is also used in New York City amongst Chinese-speaking communities.

Not sure what the point of the disclaimer is.....

Warning: "multicultural trivia" or "ethnic stereotypes", though fairly interesting sometimes, are by no means edifying subjects, and may distort serious understanding of reality and erode respect for individuals.

I don't get the metaphor. Water poured in one end of a bamboo container doesn't come out the other... fine... but what does that have to do with not being in either culture? --ESP 08:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I jut tried expanding the explanation in the article. I don't claim I understand it either. Samw 12:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wiktionary

There's been an attempt to move this to Wiktionary. Please continue discussion at Talk:Egg (person). Samw 03:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who m:transwiki'd this article to Wiktionary and replaced the current version with a soft-redirect. Instantnood reverted that edit with the comment Reverted. More than dictionary definitions.

I don't think we can consolidate these discussions. Each article will stand or fall on the basis of the specific facts and content of the article. Some articles are expandable past mere dic-def status. Others are not.

I've read and now re-read the article. The contents of this article are a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word. It includes synonyms and related words. Those are components of a dictionary definition. It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia. It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. I believe that the content belongs in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary has been established policy since long before I joined the project.

I see no possibility that this article can be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though. If you can show me what in this article is more than a discussion of the meanings, origins and/or usage of the word or if you can expand the article past that state, I will withdraw my objections. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think FOB is perjorative any more. When you see a CBC use the term "fobby" non-perjoratively, it is very difficult to justify calling "FOB" "perjorative". —Wing 00:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Feel free to elaborate the article. Samw 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in HK

The article content here does not seem to agree with the usage I see in HK. Jook-sing is not terribly perjorative and there are several other points of disagreement with the facts in this article. Thoughts anyone? novacatz 11:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative isn't "terrible" but it's definitely not intended to be positive/praise. See the first reference. (It's available under Google Print, per the first footnote). However, I'm surprised this term would be used in HK; presumably everyone in HK is fluent in Cantonese? :-) And yes, by all means start re-writing some of the generic stereotypes in the rest of the article. Samw 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

----

Why is the usage in Hong Kong significant to this American term? The word originated from Chinatowns outside of China. How this term evolved after being imported back to China is really irrelavant to the original meaning. Kowloonese 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jook-sing represent different status in different place. In the original meaning coming from Chinatown, Jook-sing means someone who cannot fit in which by definition is perjorative. When a Jook-sing goes to Hong Kong (which has been a Chinese community welcoming Western things), he/she receives a special status. A jook-sing represents someone who could speak better English, has experienced more than just the 400 square miles territory known as Hong Kong. To some people of Hong Kong, Jook-sing is someone special and admirable. Of course, by definition, jook-sing in Hong Kong is not pejorative. Should this wikipedia written in the English speaking people's perspective? Or in the Hong Kong people's perspective? Kowloonese 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that the term is used in HK as some form of praise and that a Jook-sing is considered "special and admirable". Firstly, the term isn't in very common usage to begin with. Jook-sings or Westernised Chinese in HK is much more commonly referred to as simply Gwailo or Gwaijai, meaning, locals in HK refer to Westernised Chinese as simply westerners. Some do it because they feel it is a matter of fact, others to make fun of Westernised Chinese. Hong Qi Gong 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it's equally common in Hong Kong to call such people jook sing jai. — Insta ntnood 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Associated term

Isn't there a slightly different term for Western-born Chinese who are also ignorant of their ancestral culture? I'm sure I've heard it. 24.92.241.215 21:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? As far as I know, jook sing are western-born. What is jook kiew? Is that 竹僑? I've never heard of this term.

Also, as far as I know, immigrants are the ones that are considered "first generation". Immigrant children are called "second generation". Hong Qi Gong 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--No, first generation is immigrants, be they adult or children. An entire family of grandparents, parents and children immigrating at the same time would all be first generation Chinese-Americans, not first, second and third generation. You're second generation only if you were American-born to immigrant parents. Which is why the two aren't lumped together into one term even when both are equally ignorant of Chinese culture. Jook sing refers to the first, and it's the more pejorative of the terms, because it applies to someone who had at least some first-hand exposure to China but rejected it in favor of Western culture. The native-born Chinese-Americans carry less of a stigma since they weren't born in the old country and thus aren't really expected to know as much about it. 24.92.241.215 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]