Re: [tlug] Re: [CoLoCo] RESPECT MICROSOFT

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

CL writes:

 > Not sure I understand the connection between China and Vietnam. 

The same as the connection between the U.S. and Ho Chi Minh in the
immediate post-WWII period: an alliance of convenience, allowing the,
er, passive partner to fight a proxy and/or plausibly deniable war
against a real enemy (also probably fighting through proxies).  True,
the main force that through the circuit drove the current was the
Russians, but the Chinese and North Vietnam got along on a "so, what
have you done for me since this morning?" basis.

 > Historically, the two do not like each other at all and have fought 
 > several wars since the eleventh Century, or so, which the Chinese 
 > routinely lose.

11th century BCE, you mean? :-)  Although up until about 900 CE, the
Chinese more or less consistently occupied Vietnam.

 > Problem is that the Sioux and Chippewa had been the whipping boys for 
 > the Hurons and a couple of other more violent tribes for over 200 years 
 > before the white settlers arrived.

Yup.  The warlike "Indian" and the peaceful "Indian" are both myths.
You need to specify the tribe before you can even start to think about
any general statement beyond "2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose, ... he's human".

Amusing aside about tribes: I was talking to our mover today, making
the kind of weird smalltalk that often happens between gaijin and
houjin, and for some reason I was explaining that there is not really
a Sunni or Shia bloc, let alone an "Iraq", that explains the politics
there.  This didn't get very far until I posed the analogy, "the Sunni
are like the LDP, the real loyalty is to the Imam (resp. habatsu)
inside, not to the denomination (resp. party) as a whole."

That he got, big-time.  I dunno whether to laugh or cry.