With regards to Josh Hong's article on Chinese racism, I can't help but point out that although the Han Chinese displayed tendencies of supremacy throughout the dynasties, this should be seen in a historical context rather than a modern-day perspective as adopted by Hong.

Anybody with a knowledge of Chinese history will know and agree that the so-called barbarians were indeed a much uncivilised lot what with the looting and sacking of the Han Chinese territories and even the overthrowing of their kingdoms many times over.

But instead of imposing their own culture, the conquerors all chose to assimilate Chinese culture and this is the main reason why the Chinese feel 'superior'. Even at their heights, the Han Chinese never ventured far to conquer other races preferring instead to build walls around themselves.

Secondly, Hong says there is no difference between Tuoba Hong and his people and the ultra-Malays here. Well, it is plain that Tuoba Hong and his people decided to sinicise themselves on their own free will whereas the ultra-Malays want to force their ways onto others.

Thirdly, I wonder about Hong's theory that the Chinese were jealous of the Japanese for playing second fiddle in Asia. Is this a quote from a respected scholar or is it his own analysis?

I don't think anybody should simply 'culture analyse' a nation and a race like how Hong has done. If this his way of ' bridging the cultural difference', then I have to say such unwarranted analyses are precisely the bane of good racial relationships.