How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Americans   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Americans

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


50 posted 08-20-2001 01:15 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

"That is, unless I am wrong.....lol...and the equivalent of crowd-behaviour?cuts in somewhere, and makes groups behave irrationally even when they know better as individuals?"

This is what I think happens. Given a certain situation, people respond a certain way, and it's predictable (if not always that important). The difference is that Americans then claim in the same sentence their own individuality. When questioned on that they usually respond with 'whatever'.

To me, this means that Americans follow similar tendential rules that other cultures follow but are uncomfortable in realizing that it is their culture, that they are manipulated.

They avoid any real reflection as individuals by claiming individuality.

Not all of course but a lot seem to follow this pattern.

I assume that the English have similar patterns but that they concede it as specifically English?

No?

Brad

PS America's legacy may go the same way as the Liberal party in England. It'll be so successful that the need to call it American will simply disappear.

furlong
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 128


51 posted 08-20-2001 06:49 AM       View Profile for furlong   Email furlong   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for furlong

"That is, unless I am wrong.....lol...and the equivalent of "crowd-behaviour?cuts in somewhere, and makes groups behave irrationally even when they know better as individuals?"

This is what I think happens. Given a certain situation, people respond a certain way, and it's predictable (if not always that important). The difference is that Americans then claim in the same sentence their own individuality. When questioned on that they usually respond with 'whatever'.

>>> I see what you mean.  It maybe that embryonic nations have until very recently (when I would still argue that the effect of "globalization" is negating this effect) displayed a much greater propensity to "stick together", "toe the party line"or  "present a united front".  I guess that there has often been a certain amount of coercion involved - military dictatorships spring to mind.  

>>>Take England which I suppose has been there done that etc ... and now lies quietly decomposing in a pool of self satisfaction, immersed as it were in centuries of solid and comforting traditions and institutions.  The effect of this has been to make the English in general rather conceited, adopting a quietly superior attitude while at the same time secretly dismayed at their declining fortunes to the point where is it fairly common to find English commentators and individuals lambasting their own country.  It's almost as if we have given up being a nation.  America on the other hand is perhaps at or just past a zenith of nationalism.  A friend of mine was nearly arrested last year for (accidentally) hoisting the Union flag above the Stars and Stripes (heaven forbid!) at a wedding party near Boston.  He is still coming to terms with the intensity of reaction that that act provoked...lol.  As a young growing nation the US has perhaps deliberately and willingly subordinated individualism in favour of a pulling together on all levels and in all areas of society and therefore perhaps the apparent irrationality of the behaviour you describe ie claiming a collective identity which maybe conflicts with an equally strongly claimed individual one, is symptomatic of the changes which are to come where individuals will increasingly exert their own identities and beliefs even if these conflict with those of "the good American".  And, furthermore, possibly this trend is indicative of the fact that America has "come of age" in the sense that it is secure in its global superiority and unchallengeable.  This is surely, as I said before, the first signs that the cycle is moving on.  Watch China.

"America's legacy may go the same way as the Liberal party in England. It'll be so successful that the need to call it American will simply disappear."

>>> er....Brad I hate to tell this but its happened!   America's legacy is called MacDonalds and my 7 year old niece thinks it originated in Glasgow.......  

>>> Liberal party .......... who?           Seriously, you don't want to get me onto the convergence of political thought and why the Liberals will rise again.  Alicat will certainly pounce on an off-topic rodent.

F
BrightStar
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 228


52 posted 08-20-2001 09:55 PM       View Profile for BrightStar   Email BrightStar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for BrightStar

Here is an article from the July/August, 2001 issue of TSRA Sportsman:

"The following was an editorial in a Toronto, Canada, newspaper.

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous people on all the earth.

German, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.  None of those coutnries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris.  I was there,  I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help.  This spring, 59 american communities were flattened by tornadoes.  Nobody helped.

The Marshal Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries.  Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane.  Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?  If so, why don't they fly them?  Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon?  You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios.  You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.  You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at.  Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded.  They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany, and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them.  When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose.  Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.  Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?  I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is tired of hearing them get kicked around.  They will come out of this thing with their flag high.  And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present trobules.  I hope Canada is not one of those.

Stand proud, America!"

This is what I was trying to say, before, in my poor manner.  This Canadian said it far better than I did or could.
furlong
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 128


53 posted 08-21-2001 06:41 AM       View Profile for furlong   Email furlong   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for furlong

I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that the vast majority of Americans individually and, in many many instances, collectively are a wonderful people.   This would also perhaps apply to practically every other nation on earth.  So I would simply say to your Canadian commentator: Very well done for painting a positive and uplifting picture of American achievements and generosity, it's great to read positive press instead of the usual negative diatribe.  But quite what the piece adds to the current debate I'm at a loss to see.

The point is that Elizabeth started the thread in a way which suggested that she felt that the people (and the country?), were unjustly and frequently denigrated.  Surely what we need to discuss is:

firstly, is it, by any objective standard, true that Americans are denigrated any more than other nations; secondly, why do Americans like Elizabeth (and yourself?) get so agitated about real or perceived slights to the nation; and thirdly, does it achieve anything to analyse "national" behaviour and acts and then impute that somehow these are an extrapolation of individual thought and behaviour?

To the first question for reasons which have been well aired above I guess I would say that my bet is that every nation is subjected to a good deal of flak of vastly varying degrees of maliciousness, but America is up there (just as Britain once was) as the big coconut in the shy.  An easy target and moreover a target that people can attack without the feelings of guilt that undoubtedly assail us when we go for an underdog.  So yes, probably more verbals fly your way.

The second question I'd try to answer by saying that clearly, people as individuals respond differently to slights.  There are two strands here.  Firstly the possibility of a feeling of outrage on behalf of yourself, and secondly indignation about a slur on the nation, the national identity.  You have to be pretty narrow minded and paranoiac to respond in the first way.  For instance, when Mr Putin (for example) says: "Americans are hot-heads" most people won't think to themselves, "Blimey, Mr Putin thinks that I, Bright Star, am a hot-head, what a cheeky man".  On the other hand it seems to be the case (from what I've read above and what Brad wrote) that Americans do exhibit a "greater than average" tendency to express outrage on behalf of their nation in such circumstances.  As I suggested above, possibly this has to do with the immaturity of the US coupled with the insecurity often engendered by being at the top.  There are obvious parallels at an individual level with a teen star for instance.

As to the third question I'd simply say that personally I find it difficult to "lay claim" to national acts anymore.  The world is far too complex a place to list a plethora of positive "British" achievements and then say "Therefore England is Good".  My first question would be: "What is England?"

Think of England, or any other country, as a mountain.  On the south east side the forest is lush and the streams pure, the wildlife abundant and the weather mild.  Over on the north face storms lash a treacherous rocky scree, raging torrents wash poor little furred creatures to watery deaths and the woods are sparse and dank.  So is the mountain "bad" or "good"?  

The perception the little creatures dwelling on the south side have is that it's good, but the point is that they are not in a position to comprehend the mountain, let alone the wider world and the other mountains surrounding all of which interact to produce a climate and weather systems which make an attempted analysis of the one mountain pretty futile.  Does the mountain (the nation) even really exist as an entity worthy of analysis, worthy of loyalty or emotion?

[This message has been edited by furlong (edited 08-21-2001).]

BrightStar
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 228


54 posted 08-21-2001 09:43 AM       View Profile for BrightStar   Email BrightStar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for BrightStar

What an excellent reply, Furlong.  Let me try to be half as good in my reply.

In this world there are "good" countries and "bad" countries.  Which countries are included in those categories rest solely in the mind of the categorizer.  I, for instance, think the USA is a "good" country.  That is not based upon what I thik of the people, it is based upon how the USA interacts with the other countries of the world.  

For instance, we don't generally invade other countries, kill indiscriminately, rape and pillage, then set fire to that country's resources.  Our leaders don't live in resplendant luxury while we starve. We don't say all the citizens of a certain country are devils and should be killed on sight.

You will probably find, that most (I don't want to get in trouble here) "patriotic" people, especially those who have walked in harm's way for their country, have a tendency to take those "insults" personally because they feel they have a somewhat larger stake in their country's reputation.  They also have a tendency to wave the flag a little higher and a little longer than others.  That can be a good thing and it can also be bad;  there are extremes and extremists that can tarnish a country's reputation from within.  The USA is no different than any other contry in that regard.

The USA, like Britain, and other countries, has taken great pains to be a good neighbor and a staunch ally.  Those countries provide an atmosphere of almost unlimited freedom of speech and action.  Now the question rises, as you and others have noted, about the "rise and fall" of great nations.  Specifically noted were the Roman Empire and the British Empire.

The USA does not have an "empire."  We all know how the Roman empire fell.  We all know how the British Empire shrank.  We also know that British influence is strong in the world today.  While the Empire shrank, the goodness and proudness of Britain never diminished.  Her flag waves high in the councils of the world.

The USA has become the undisputed military and economic leader in the world.  That is a terrible burden for any country, let alone one as young as ours, to bear.  We will make mistakes, yet, with council from our allies and friends, we hope they will not be large errors and we hope they will not be detrimental to the world family.  No action will please all people, here or around the world, or all countries.  So, the world family (and I do NOT mean the UN) must decide in council how to proceed on any question of sovereign encroachment by any other country.  

The USA has been a part of that world family and should continue therein.  I believe if the USA were to go back to a laissez-faire policy there would be dire international consequences.

So, I think your mountain, on average, is good.  I think most mountains in this world are good.  I think my mountain, on average, is good.

I also think your thoughts are very good
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


55 posted 08-21-2001 10:49 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Can anyone even imagine the scathing review any sitting President of the United States would receive if or when the US started accepting foreign aid to clean up natural disasters, prop up the economy, or defend our borders?

Even though it's veering off topic a tad the revisionism that's expressed by our northern friend needs to be addressed if for no other reason than the many young people that come to Passions who may not yet have an understanding of those events.

He's only told half of the story -- and merely rendered an opinion -- something that doesn't go through fact checking at magazines or newspapers.  

His ability to be outright wrong undermines his credibility. First and most blantant spurious point is a small company (tongue in cheek) called Airbus.  Northwest Airlines just added its 100th Airbus jet.

With its Central Office in Toulouse, France, Airbus boasts the most modern and comprehensive airliner family in the world and consistently captures about half of all commercial airliner orders. More than 2,500 Airbus aircraft are currently in operation with 189 operators in all regions of the globe. It produces more than one aircraft every working day and this rate keeps increasing.

After World War II was won -- the peace had to be won.  What does this mean?  Scattered around the globe there were dozens of war-torn nations that had to be rebuilt -- including Germany and Japan. The Marshal Plan and Truman policy were crucial foreign policy instruments to assist our allies and former enemies in rebuilding to avoid a post-war global depression.  But, moreover, the Red Scare was on and in order to curtail Communist expansion these nations were critical strategic interests as well.

This means that as altruistic as America seems we had ulterior motives -- ones that were understood by all the parties involved.  Our payback was containing the Soviet Union and economic growth for our trading partners.  Aid was distributed in the form of 'Loans' to protect the dignity of foreign leaders who did not want to appear to have their hands out.

One of our most treasured rights in this country is that of free speech -- why would we deny it to the world?  Why would we expect just because we've done nice things --that buys us the right to not be criticized?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-21-2001).]

furlong
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 128


56 posted 08-21-2001 12:16 PM       View Profile for furlong   Email furlong   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for furlong

"What an excellent reply, Furlong. Let me try to be half as good in my reply."

>>>   thank you BS (er..  am I allowed to use that acronym? ... lol) for the compliment.  And let me say that you have been very lucid in your reply as well  

"In this world there are "good" countries and "bad" countries. Which countries are included in those categories rest solely in the mind of the categorizer. I, for instance, think the USA is a "good" country. That is not based upon what I thik of the people, it is based upon how the USA interacts with the other countries of the world."

>>> yes, I see what you are saying.  What I was trying to suggest however is that we are no longer (if we ever were) in a position to make that judgement with any degree of validity.  Using my analogy of the mountain, you would be , say, the field mouse or wombat or what ever you have over there on the sunny side, pottering around doing whatever field mice or wombats do but in any event enjoying it.  Whereas in darkest Harlem, or whatever your equivalent of the slums of London are, you might find your average young rat has a very different view and is, metaphorically, on the north side of the mountain.  But I went kind of further and I'm suggesting that its probably inappropriate to make sweeping judgements about a particular nation, but more particularly that its entirely inappropriate for individuals within that nation to react adversely or positively over any judgements that may be made by "outsiders" in a way that suggests they are taking such judgments personally.  As you say, I don't doubt that people DO I'm just trying to make a logical argument as to why they shouldn't  .

" Now the question rises, as you and others have noted, about the "rise and fall" of great nations. Specifically noted were the Roman Empire and the British Empire.

The USA does not have an "empire.""


>>> Sure you have an Empire.  In the widest sense of the word you have an Empire.  Maybe not gained or sustained by military might as in the old days, but in many ways powerful and influential.  Your Empire is built upon wealth, trade agreements, dependency, politics, geographical dominance and yes, fear as well - England I suspect is vassal to the US just as surely as she was to Rome, and as you say, England herself has her dependants.  This is a very different world and a much more complex one Empires exist but they are not the overt power bases of before and the shifts are constant and rapid.

"We all know how the Roman empire fell. We all know how the British Empire shrank. We also know that British influence is strong in the world today. While the Empire shrank, the goodness and proudness of Britain never diminished. Her flag waves high in the councils of the world."

>>> very kind of you to say so   but also I regret to say a simplistic (no disrespect to you BS  ) and inaccurate portrayal.  Not to mention, as I keep trying to suggest, irrelevant.

"The USA has become the undisputed military and economic leader in the world. That is a terrible burden for any country, let alone one as young as ours, to bear. We will make mistakes, yet, with council from our allies and friends, we hope they will not be large errors and we hope they will not be detrimental to the world family. No action will please all people, here or around the world, or all countries. So, the world family (and I do NOT mean the UN) must decide in council how to proceed on any question of sovereign encroachment by any other country.

The USA has been a part of that world family and should continue therein. I believe if the USA were to go back to a laissez-faire policy there would be dire international consequences.

So, I think your mountain, on average, is good. I think most mountains in this world are good. I think my mountain, on average, is good.
I also think your thoughts are very good"

>>> and I still think my mountain is irrelevant ...lol ...........

...... and most people on this earth are lovely, and surely that's what really matters  .
Rex
Member
since 06-29-2000
Posts 484
Houston, Texas


57 posted 08-21-2001 12:42 PM       View Profile for Rex   Email Rex   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Rex's Home Page   View IP for Rex

LR...Just a few comments:

1. Yes, I can imagine such a scathing review of a sitting President. It makes little difference anymore what a sitting President does, he will be roundly and loudly criticized by one group or another.

2. If you are going to "educate" the young people who come to Passions, please give them the full story.

3. The Airbus company of which you write was, in actuality, a consortium... but is now made up of two entities...and under a single management system. The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company owns 80% and British Aerospace owns 20%. It should also be noted that the specifics you wrote about the company is a direct quote from their promotional page on the net. The statements made therein may, or may not, be entirely correct.

4. As to the post war situation...the American participation certainly had "ulterior" motives, the most compelling of which was long term survival. The point here being that who could have done it but America?  Furthermore, at that time in world history, America could have enslaved the world if she had such a desire.

5. As to "free speech"...no one that I know of is attempting to deny it to the rest of the world. However since the advent of "political correctness" we are certainly doing a great job on ourselves!  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


58 posted 08-21-2001 01:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

"1. Yes, I can imagine such a scathing review of a sitting President. It makes little difference anymore what a sitting President does, he will be roundly and loudly criticized by one group or another."

So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing that the US would not even consider accepting foriegn aid?

"2. If you are going to "educate" the young people who come to Passions, please give them the full story.

3. The Airbus company of which you write was, in actuality, a consortium... but is now made up of two entities...and under a single management system. The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company owns 80% and British Aerospace owns 20%. It should also be noted that the specifics you wrote about the company is a direct quote from their promotional page on the net. The statements made therein may, or may not, be entirely correct."

What part of the story that's pertinent didn't I give -- what difference does it make who makes up the ownership of Airbus -- it is still not an American company -- and the quotes I made are accurate in that Airbus "boasts"

so -- what is your point here?

"4. As to the post war situation...the American participation certainly had "ulterior" motives, the most compelling of which was long term survival. The point here being that who could have done it but America?  Furthermore, at that time in world history, America could have enslaved the world if she had such a desire."

Doubtful -- First of all -- why would we?  Second -- how could we have possibly maintained control?  

"5. As to "free speech"...no one that I know of is attempting to deny it to the rest of the world. However since the advent of "political correctness" we are certainly doing a great job on ourselves!"

Correct -- no one is attempting to -- but our Canadian friend in his editorial seemed to feel countries who recieve aid from America have no right to free speech -- which is the point of my comment.

As to political correctness -- I don't see where that issue has any bearing here whatsoever.  

BrightStar
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 228


59 posted 08-21-2001 06:04 PM       View Profile for BrightStar   Email BrightStar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for BrightStar

LR - You might notice that this piece by a Canadian was written as an editorial.  Therefore, he is voicing his opinion in the proper forum.  It holds just as much water as your opinion.

That you took the time to research and copy information from Airbus to post in your reply is interesting.  We all know of Airbus and I propose this editorial was origianlly written prior to the forming of the consortium.  In any case, the preponderance of aircraft, even today, flying for the major international airlines are American made.

The point about helping nations was, I submit, NOT that the USA would, could, or should accept aid.  The point was that not one single nation even offered to help.

With regard to giving the "full story," who could give every single fact about anything.  Certainly your statements and claims do not give the "full story."  Maybe we need Paul Harvey here to give us the "rest of the story."

I love your use of the word ulterior and the phrase "ulterior motives."   Do you mean the USA was trying to intentionally conceal their motives for the Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy?  That would be ludicrous.  The whole world was aware of what was going on and why.  That was the beginning of the Cold War.  Besides, that was not the bottom line for our Canadian friend.  He rightfully noted (as you conveniently failed to mention ... telling the whole story, eh?) that the USA forgave those debts and yet loaned out even more monies which have remained unpaid with regard to principal or interest.

You felt "our Canadian friend seemed to feel countries who recieve aid from America have no right to free speech."  Would you please quote which part of his editorial gave you that feeling?  I did not see that at all, but I could have missed it.
============================================

Greetings 1/8 (furlong)      
God bless the Queen and God bless the USA.  In fact, God bless humankind.

[This message has been edited by BrightStar (edited 08-21-2001).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


60 posted 08-21-2001 06:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Yes,

I agree.

It is interesting that I research facts before I post willy nilly on the internet.

I'm so glad you noticed.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


61 posted 08-21-2001 06:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

and I will answer the part of the Canadian's editorial (and I apologize for not specifically using that word if it makes a difference to you) that deals with limiting the speech of aided nations since it deals directly with the thread topic:

"The Marshal Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries.  Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering americans."

He, ostensibly, is saying they don't get to have opinions since we helped them 50 years ago.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


62 posted 08-21-2001 07:40 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Don't quite know where this thread is going anymore. Furlong's comments on maturity and immaturity were interesting and wanted to explore that a bit more but, BrightStar, you seem to agree:

Americans are immature.

---------------
The article is fascinating, not because it proves anything, but because it's a classic case study of reactive thinking. If I thought anybody would read what I wrote, I'd dive into it and try to figure out the connections between airplanes, going to the moon, etc. and what makes a country 'good'.

------------------

"Good" and "bad" countries make no sense to me.

Following the metaphor, is K-2 good or bad?

Good and bad governments do.

"Good" and "bad" peoples make no sense to me.

Good and bad aspects of culture do.

I'm pretty sure 'ulterior' simply means self-interested motives here.

Why would a country or government do something that was not in it's own self-interest?

The interesting thing then is not that it was a secret (we all seem to agree at least with respect to the Marshall plan) but that everybody 'knows' the reasoning and people still expect -- what? -- gratititude?

-------------------

The funny thing, to my mind, is that trading lists of good and bad things America has done, trying to prove America is good, doesn't go anywhere. Most Americans already see America as good or are angry because it is not as good as it's supposed to be but I honestly think that these feelings are far more dependent on the rhetoric than on any empirical fact. The problem with the rhetoric, of course, is that it limits thought to an either/or kind of thinking.

--------------

Political Correctness is a great topic. I wish someone would start a thread on that. In theory, it makes perfect sense (Why offend someone if they don't want to be called 'blind' for example?)  In practice, it does seem to be used as a power play to hinder rather than help conversation.

Just random thoughts,
Brad
BrightStar
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 228


63 posted 08-22-2001 12:50 PM       View Profile for BrightStar   Email BrightStar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for BrightStar

LR - You said ""The Marshal Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries.  Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering americans."

He, ostensibly, is saying they don't get to have opinions since we helped them 50 years ago."

I thought he was actually reporting that the newspapers were writing "bad" things about us.  I got no indication that he felt they did not have the right to write whatever they wished.  You may, of course, impute any meaning you wish.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Brad -  Interesting thoughts, questions, and observations.

K-2 is just a mountain.  K-2s are good skis. K-s, in and of itself (themselves) is (are) not good or bad.

I totally agree that very few, if any, countries do anything that is not in their best self-interest.  Still, gratitude is not a bad thing ... neither is making at least a token effort in repaying a loan.

So, what branch of the service are you in and what is your rank, if you care to share.

[This message has been edited by BrightStar (edited 08-22-2001).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


64 posted 08-23-2001 03:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Gratitude is an interesting point. In Korea, many in the older generation still express gratitude (at least publically) to America, the older brother -- yeah, sometimes the big brother.  

The gratitude is interesting because they will also share stories about hiding their sisters when American soldiers came through their house.

The younger generation, for obvious reasons, have quite a different outlook.

Brightstar,

Whatever gave you the idea that I'm in the service?

I'm not.

People gave me money to come to Korea and study and for a number of different reasons I stayed.

The most important reason was my wife of course.  

Brad

BrightStar
Member
since 04-08-2001
Posts 228


65 posted 08-27-2001 01:00 PM       View Profile for BrightStar   Email BrightStar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for BrightStar

Brad - Couldn't be a much better reason
ahn yung nee gae saeo(?)
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Americans   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors