»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Americans
| The Alley |
|
Americans |
|
Elizabeth
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 1999-06-07
Posts 6871Minnesota |
I have had it with people disparaging those of us who are United States citizens. For crying out loud....WHAT is wrong with being American? Is it really that bad of a country? Are the people really that terrible? Will someone please explain to me why America and its citizens are really so awful?  |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Elizabeth A. Larson - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Dopey Dope
Moderator
Member Patricius
since 2000-08-30
Posts 11132San Juan, Puerto Rico |
Well......the reputation of Americans is that when they go visit other countries they act like they are all big and powerful and they treat the locals like crap. Some do, some don't. I mean it's a whole generalized opinion anyways. I can tell you this though, since I'm not American I do have a general opinion on them. They aren't like Puerto Ricans....that's about it. Some are nice, and some aren't. Things work differently in the states than they do in other countries......you guys are raised differently......but hey everybody is. Anyway I don't know....some people are just bitter towards the way certain Americans have treated them. If YOU aren't one of those evil tempered, ignorant Americans who like to do nothing but bash others then yer ok. Key note: I'm not saying there isn't an evil tempered, ignorant Puerto Rican, yogoslavian, english, auzzie, chinese person out there....... But since this was directed to Americans I pointed it out like it was. Anyhow, it's nothing to worry about. It's a generalized opinion that truly doesn't apply to all. It's a stereotype...get over it. I have to deal with tons of crap everyday cuz i'm Puerto Rican. These are just things to ignore.  I was born myself, raised myself, and will continue to be myself. The world will just have to adjust. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
America, and it's citizens, have often been the scapegoat used by other countries to inflame their people's sentiments to refocus attention elsewhere instead of on the problems those countries face at home. It's also a generalization, propogated in part, I believe, by the American expansionistic policies followed during the 19th and 20th centuries. Those who headed the expansions and takeovers, like the overthrow of the Hawaiian queen, were generally not nice people to the native inhabitants. Just like the former British colonies, like India, poor sentiment is focused on the occupiers, even decades and decades after autonomous self-rule. In addition, I doubt the World Policeman attitude or Monroe Doctrine really helps matters, especially when diplomats and lawmakers try to inforce American ideals, morals, and ethics upon another country. Also, I suppose you could see it all as a nationalistic temper tantrum. A country wants something from the US. The US refuses. So, the country in question throws a large scale hissy fit, blaming the US for all the country's ills, real and imagined, current and past. |
||
|
Titia Geertman Member Ascendant
since 2001-05-07
Posts 5182Netherlands |
I just loved the Americans when I lived in the States (long ago), at least the people I met. Don't worry about it. So many people behave awsome when on vacation, but those behave probably awsome too in their own country. When I'm in France, I really dislike the behaviour of most Dutch people, makes me sometimes ashamed being Dutch myself. People just generalize too easely. For I myself for instance am a very sweet Dutchie  Titia A rose is a rose is a rose...I guess... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yep, generalizations, bigotry, prejudice and sometimes jealousy. Don't give it another thought, Elizabeth, it's their problem. Nothing you or I can do will change their opinion. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
How much time do you have? Of course, it is the sheer dominance of America itself. No country has ever had the military, the economic, and the cultural strength America does indeed have. Don't we all resent the big kid on the block when he starts bullying other people. And he bullies all the time. But Alicat and DD are also correct. Nobody likes to need but not feel needed and this is how America makes many people feel. It is never an equal relationship with other countries and America's recent unilateral moves only strengthen the idea that America can and wants to go alone. Many people legitimately resent this. They live here too, you know. Don't get me wrong, America is a fine country but it promotes the 'city on the hill' image of itself incessantly and can't live up to it. This is often called American exceptionalism and there's nothing really wrong with it (all countries think they're unique and they are) but America and Americans often look as they are trying to slam their own individualism down other people's throats. Look at DD's quote: "I was born myself, raised myself, and will continue to be myself. The world will just have to adjust." DD, I know you're Puerto Rican, but I still consider this philosophy American; it would be interesting to see how that quote fits into a particularly Puerto Rican tradition. Put this quote on the international scene, and you'll see what I'm getting at. "Individualism" when translated into Japanese and Korean has strong selfish connotations. This philosophy is combined with an anti-intellectualism, an anti-intellectualism that confuses a cultural tradition (yes, America has one) with the 'natural' or 'best' way of doing things. Americans always think they're right (even when they think all those other Americans are wrong, when they think America is the worst), but won't discuss possible differences because they've put it under the guise of common sense. Other traditions argue that it's the "Korean" way or the "Chinese" way. This has it's own problems of course but at least it implicity admits a pluralistic world. Americans already think they have a pluralistic society so don't need to address these issues. From my point of view, Americans, even with their diverse histories and ethnic backgrounds, sound remarkably similar when they talk (Didn't Steinbeck say much the same thing in "Travels with Charley"?). Because we already think we're different, we don't really talk about difference. Because we're all already individuals, we really never discuss individuality. How can you respect other cultures when you're claiming this space, the space of difference, that other cultures wish to occupy? I can already hear the screams of protest (or the screaming silence of apathy) so I'll stop here for now. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, No doubt you are correct to some extent but you also have the luxury of being able to ignore it. Others can't. I want to say two more things to clarify the above: 1. I don't know if it was clear but I was trying to counter the usual distinction between America and Americans. I think many of the problems (certainly not all) result from the specifically arrogant way that the American government and the American people present themselves. 2. It seems that many Americans want to phrase this question in terms of 'best' country or 'worst' country. Why is that important? Let's discuss the differences between countries and see what happens. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The math is... The USA consists of roughly 5% of the world's population. At the same time it owns or controls up to 35% of the world's resources. We dominate the globe economically and militarily and... we police the globe as well. Recall about 18 months ago when there was some virus the FBI traced back to a kid in the Phillipines. Do you remember seeing footage of the FBI arresting him? Ask yourself this: What was the FBI doing in the Phillipines? |
||
|
RSWells Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533 |
Americans and indeed America is the melting pot of the world. In this capacity it is representative of the entire planet, all it's peoples and all it's cultures, as well as all it's religion. The planet is populated by people and therein lies the problem. It is acceptable to criticise Americans where elsewhere one would be ostracized or have a body part removed for the gesture. I see it not as an "American" thing but of human conditions in all it's vulgar glory. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
That, I think, is part of the problem. I just don't hear statements like that from Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Britons, and others. Let alone more homogenous societies like Japan and Korea. I think they laugh when they hear statements like America is representative of the world. Besides that, it too often slides into meaning America represents the world. Neither is true. Also, I'm not sure the ability to criticize means we don't have to listen to that criticism (America is not the only country with free speech laws). A little more humility might do us some good. Brad |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think ANYONE who criticizes a nationality because of the actions of a few are not really worth their weight in donuts. When I was living in Venezuela, one day some of my co-workers said, "What's with you Americans? The men are marrying each other!!" (this was from a situation in California where the first gay marriage was performed in the U.S.). How idiotic that they would judge all Americans by one act. So anyone who would make general judgements to cover an entire country is way off-base and arrogant, even when they say "the way the American people represent themselves"  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, what a recipe for silence. Does that mean when someone compliments a nationality, it is also idiotic? When you came back from Venezuela and someone asked you, "How was Venezuela?" Did you omit any mention of the people, did you simply respond, "I don't know, I didn't go everywhere. I don't know, I didn't meet all the people." Not particularly helpful for someone who might want to travel to Venezuela. When the Venezuelan man asked you that question, did you respond in silence, did you respond with, "Yeah some Americans are pretty silly," or "It's not my place to judge others," or "If it makes them happy, it's fine with me."? Did you lecture him on his idiocy in making that particular generalization or on making generalizations at all? Really like to know how you responded. I don't see how we can avoid generalizations given the way language works. I do think some generalizations are better than others and if you disagree with mine or others, that's fine. Is it useful or useless to say that Americans speak English (even though all Americans do not)? Is it useful or useless to say that Americans have a culture that differentiates them from, say, Britain (even though the edges of course are blurry)? Is it useful to see patterns in the language and in the culture that others also might see if they are pointed out? Is it useful to see that other cultures might actually have some substance to their criticism? Of course I can be wrong here, maybe these patterns are a figment of my imagination but the only way I can find out is by talking about them with other people. Silence gets me nowhere. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think there is an important part of the equation that's being overlooked by almost everyone here and that is all Americans are indeed -- not the same -- as has been pointed out. You see -- hearing foreiners say things like -- Yankee go home! -- doesn't bother me -- because I am from the south --lol... and in the south -- being from Tennessee I am much superior to say -- an Alabaman, or a Georgian... Much like India and Pakaistan get along so well.. or Koreans and Japanese -- why -- we know Brad we'd never hear a Korean say anything bad about Japan? So, yes -- I agree -- to some extent that criticism from abroad SHOULD be taken lightly because nationalism runs rampant in the world -- but just because there are generalized slights passed against Americans doesn't mean that we don't bully the rest of the world around. And -- when you consider that the toys we expect to obtain for less and less money (yes -- the wealthy always set the price) are not affordable and cannot be purchased for the CHILDREN abroad who make them in countries like India and China -- is it any wonder there is resentment folks? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-09-2001).] |
||
|
Dopey Dope
Moderator
Member Patricius
since 2000-08-30
Posts 11132San Juan, Puerto Rico |
My quote? hehe. I really don't think that INDIVIDUALISM is only an Americanized philosophy or train of thought. It'd be a bit closed minded to assume it was. I wasn't raised an American and out of 18yrs only lived there 3yrs (2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade) in which nothing of importance occurred. I think that my train of thought stemmed from my own internal desire of not wanting to mesh within the hoard of individuals who conformed to an unexamined, everyday life. The quote does praise individualism, but more so states the fact that I am who I am, and the world will have to accept that just like *I* accept the world for what it is. Anyhow, i'd like to hear a response but won't be able to get back to you until early Sep. seeing as how I'm leaving for University in Atlanta. See you soon! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
DD, Have a great time in Atlanta. True, I don't think Individualism is solely the province of America but I do think it is associated with the country. In the same way, that, say, Zen -- although originating in China -- is associated with Japan. Is that a better way of putting it? I think Americans, quite simply, are taught to believe in this individualism to the point where Americans say strikingly similar things when asked similar questions. If they were all individuals (moreso than anybody else that is) then I would think they would be saying many different things. I don't see it. If everybody says I'm an individual, then at what point does that become the passing mark for conformity? I mean, how diverse are we when everybody is saying the same thing or if it can be pinned down to three or four different things. I think we get in trouble when we try to apply this same way of talking outside of our culture (it seems to work fine on the inside). True, it may apply to a number of different countries as well, I'm not sure but it doesn't apply everywhere and therein lies the problem. It's offensive to some people. It also backfires -- "Oh, you're an American, an individual, you don't care about your family, only about yourself, only about money." I've had to explain why Americans (generally) do care about their families, their friends, and not only about money on a number of occassions. I also believe this to be true. My conclusion is simply that we are under the same community and society pressures as everybody else, they simply lead to this way of speaking rather than the Korean, "our nation, our language," the Japanese, "we Japanese" and presumably different ways of doing the same thing in other countries. But this, combined with a common sense view of the world, and, of course, the power not to care (the main point) that other people see the world in different ways gets us in trouble. If only because they have to see it from an American point of view, shouldn't we at least try to understand if from another's view? I don't think it takes that much of an effort to at least glimpse other possibilities. Brad |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
I believe that there's a distinction that MUST be made between a 'country' (i.e. its government) and its 'people'. We also have to consider the effects of modern media upon our perceptions of each other. Many references in this thread allude to isolated incidents which contribute to the formulation of opinion - We can certainly thank the media for that one, can't we? Geesh - If any country's flavor is based upon the incidences we see on the evening news, we're ALL in trouble. We see what the media and/or the government WANTS us to see... I certainly don't consider those incidences to be typical of our societies... As for country vs. its peoples... There are many countries with poor governments in our world (topic for another discussion). Every country is full of PEOPLE - good ones, bad ones, and in-between ones. I prefer to make my judgments upon the individual before me - not the government under which that person may reside...  |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Well Liz...no time to expound deeply... NZers, while following American trends faithfully, have a lot of negative things to say about the institute of America and the people who live there: most of it stems from ignorance. A lot of comes from media portrayal... Of course, all the kiwis I know (including myself) who have actually been to America (oh and anthropologists heh) know that people are people everywhere, and further - Americans are generally lovely...  KI am a refugee of logic...insisting on unlikely land with every step. [This message has been edited by Severn (edited 08-09-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nan, You're right. The distinction has to be kept. I certainly don't want to blame the Cambodians for their own genocide by the Khmer Rouge. But what bothers me is the loop presented by making this distinction: If American citizens are not responsible for the American government, then what does representative government mean? If we keep the distinction, what does it mean when Dubya responded in Europe to criticism of the death penalty, "It's the will of the American people." Who takes responsibility? I know, I know you're rolling your eyes and saying that's just what is said (or a similar phrase), but it bothers me that that is just what is said. On the other hand, if we're keeping this distinction, who is screaming that they hate United States citizens? I thought Elizabeth was referring to the demonstrations that happen here or in Iran or Iraq but these almost always refer to Uncle Sam or America or some such thing. True, some of the more radical areas will want retribution -- a citizen for citizen logic -- but that's because groups fight groups with their individual members. Severn, I want more, I want more. I don't care if you agree with me or not, I just want to here your view and other New Zealanders (the "ignorant" ones too) on America and Americans. But I know your busy. Damn, I hate it when people are busy. Brad |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Like it or not, every country will be judged on generalities, and ironically to this discussion--not individuals. It is our governments and media which project our image, thought on a smaller scale many tourist destinations will base their judgement on the travellers from other countries. One should remember- tourists aren't representitive of the society from which they come..when spending money on holiday/vacation people tend to show their worst sides when they feel they aren't getting full value. As far as media portrayal goes, many things can influence us. For instance I was watching a rugby match on ESPN late last night-- Wellington was playing Canterbury, and in the beginning I was pulling for Wellington but for no other reason than I liked their uniforms better. As the game progressed I began to pull for Canterbury. Why? Because of the announcer of all things. He seemed to be overly biased in the favour of Wellington, making excuses for them,, pointing out bad calls by the officials when they were against Wellington, etc.... The point?.. Through no actions of their own, but because of the media-- I no longer liked them very much-- and looking back now, I realise I had actually began to look for more reasons to dislike them. btw-- I went to bed shortly after Wellington went up by 15 points... should have known I would pick a loser...lol There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
BrightStar Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
A lot of good things said here and a lot of empty, pseudo-philosophy. My family and I have travelled most everywhere in the world, with the exception of Africa, the near East, and Russia. Most everyone you meet will treat you kindly and, if you attempt to communicate with them in their own language, most times you are greeted with open arms. As a "representative" of America when travelling most people in other countries you visit will tell you that you must be different from most Americans. There are many more reasons for this than this thread will hold ... political, religious, economic, etc. And, as previously stated, the global media will tell these people just exactly what they want them to hear. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Orient, Brad, so I will only express sadness if you, as I believe you have stated, feel that the Korean, Japanese, or Chinese cultures (not leaving Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, among others out for any particular purpose) are in any way superior to our own. We could discuss that in another thread. For all it's shortcomings the United States of America is the only place in which I would want to live. I say that for many reasons. It wouldn't take anyone long to figure out why ... just ask me specific questions or check our history. We sprang from a European mother and have grown to be the "greatest" nation on earth. We withstood attack and occupation by what was the "greatest" nation on earth in the 1770's and we overcame. We withstood a second such attack in 1812 and overcame. We survived a horrible Civil War and overcame. We went to Europe in 1917 and helped England and France (and others) overcome. We withstood a horrific attack in 1941 and overcame while again helping England and France (and others) overcome. We could neve have done that without the homogeneity of the American people who worked together for a common cause ... a world-wide cause. We could never have done it if we had not grown our economy with the sacrifice of the American people. That all stems from our birthright as evidenced by our Constitution. Now our country is a true melting pot, moreso than ever before in our short history, and that to be an American is special to Americans. That's why people flock here from Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, the Phillipines, South America and Mexico, Eastern Europe and Russia, and Africa to name but a few. The face of the United States of America has changed greatly over the years and that has only made her stonger. Whether we like it or not, we are a world leader that has obligations to the rest of the world via treaties and other agreements. Would anyone have us go back on our solemn word and violate those treaties and agreements? I think not. Sometimes it is difficult to accept your responsibilites, but in the end that is the only honorable thing to do. Now I will stop, yet I could write on for many pages. Liz, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being a citizen of the United States of America. The United States of America is NOT a bad country. Our citizens are NOT bad people and we are really not awful people. [This message has been edited by BrightStar (edited 08-09-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jaime, Yeah, I didn't see the game though. Brightstar, Never said Korea or Japan was better. I don't believe that. I don't think it's "sad" to think they are though. I just think some people do. How do we deal with that? You are "agreeing" with me far more than you apparently realize. I'm saying that Americans say things just like you said. Others are telling me they don't or that we shouldn't or can't talk about it. Curious what your response was when a "foreigner" told you, you were different from other Americans: 1. Yes, I am. 2. No, I'm not. 3. I don't know. 4. It's a difficult question. I'll be back, Brad |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
OK - here I am, taking time out of my busy world. I just noticed RSWell's comment that America is representative of the world. (I didn't read anyone's replies yesterday...) Well...I have to say my first thought was...oh really - is it??? Is that right? Where does your evidence come from? You know...NZ has only 3.5 million people but within that population - and particularly within my city of Auckland (1.4 million people) - we have multitudes of other ethnicities (not race - because I object to that word) represented. We have a large Asian population - Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Sri Lankan, Pakistani etc. We have a huge community from the Pacific Islands (Tonga, Nuie, Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa)...a large population from the United Kingdom, Australians, People from the Near and Middle East, Dutch people, Mexicans, South Americans, Canadians, Russians, Africans. We have a very successful refugee program for people who suffered in the Balkan Wars...yes, we even have many Americans... I think your statement RSWells is ridiculously inaccurate..perhaps because of the sheer size (and I don't just mean size of the land) of America it looks like you represent the world. NZ has been referred to as the ultimate melting pot by dint of it's small population accomodating so many ethnicities. But my point is not to create a competition.. But aside from your first blanket statement, frankly, this one: quote: galls me. The entire planet huh? Yes, I wonder how many Bambuti tribesmen you have living in America? How many Peruvian shamans inhabit American soil...??? I'd be interested to know your definition of 'religion' - or were you referring solely to the world religions such as Christianity, Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism etc? (You will find all of those in NZ btw - in fact, the latest reincartion of the Tibetan spiritual leader is a 7 year old boy who was born here.) Do you believe that expressions of magic and myth count as religion? Simply, you will not find all the world's religions in America because there are thousands and thousands and thousands of them... You might like to think about what you mean when you use hyperbolic statements such as 'entire world.' Brad - what happened to your spelling mate? Heh. Here my opinion?? Off with you to CA please...you need help. HAHAHA. j/k. I just like getting in cheap shots... Well. I don't have time to write an essay here though I could (and want to heh). Firstly, it's difficult to view the institution of America without attaching some arrogance to it I'm afraid. There we have all the presidents of America sending aid all around the world, making patronising speeches about how brother America is there to hold the world's hand.... The thing for me is that I know that foreign aid is actually a capitalistic ideological function...so I can't help but view America as the biggest capitalist criminal in some ways - continuing the cycle...Just as third world countries are dependent on the first world, it is true to say that the first world depends on the third world for their continuing economic superiority. Yet, to be fair, NZ sends 'aid' regularly to Tonga...Tonga's infrastructure has changed markedly since NZ started 'helping.' And not really for the better either. I agree that America bullies when it needs to. I believe that America manipulates regularly. For example, I have had a recent discussion with a middle eastern friend about Saudi Arabia's relations with America during the gulf war and after: He claims that they are in serious debt to America because America stripped their resources considerably during the gulf war. His major gripe - why doesn't America help with the Israeli and Palastinian situation??? It's undeniable that we live in a world economy now - of course the country with the most moolah is going to influence all other countries... Where does that leave the opinions of the everyday NZer then??? This is what NZers see: (I've had many discussions with many NZers with America so I'm not just talking from my opinion), America is a country that divides its central govts up from state to state - where is the cohesion? America refuses to convert to the metric system like the rest of the Western world - hence you distance yourself from international relations. You have scores and scores of homeless people. The drug problem is off the wall. Racism is ridiculous. Americans speak of control...sometimes it's hard to see it. Basically, people here who have never been to America view the country and inevitably its citizens as a bunch of people who just don't have it all together yet claim they do. Americans are loud. Americans are selfish. Americans are fat. You name it - it's been said. (The latter statements are NOT my personal opinions). A lot of it stems from the media and ignorance like I said. It's unfortunate but a country's leaders - especially of a country the size (and again I don't just refer to land size) of America - really do colour the way the ordinary people are seen. And when all we have on our 4 little non-cable tv stations are American cop and lawyer shows can you blame NZers for thinking America is utterly violent?? There you go Brad - an elaboration... K[This message has been edited by Severn (edited 08-11-2001).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I would have said, Thank You. As ending on a positive note always makes my Mother proud. I don't claim to know anything about anyone but myself and my children. And sometimes I wonder about them. I was born here in America. I love being an American, but then I could have fun in a paper bag. It's in the attitude for sure. Which I could only hope the entire world could have the attitude which I have adopted. Live and let live! By the freedom of trial and error. Whether you are born an American, or a Russian I only hope that you lived. That's all we are trying to do. With freedom to do so. And as far as the politics go....The Art Is In The Science....infinity. I don't think our forefathers fought the good fight so every generation thereafter could talk shop. Just my opinion To be proud to be an American is just as Okay as being proud to be Polish. I'm a proud parent, a proud wife too. No one takes offense to the last two. I'm proud of this forum and the discussions we can have! As I am once again making my Mother proud.Sincerely, Regina Incidentally: My father was a Navy man, and believe me we traveled. I learned that Simplicity truly is best in dealing with issues of getting along. Either you do, or you don't and no discussion is necessary. I found the world has enough hairy messes than to think too hard and create one. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Methinks this conversation has proved everyone's point.. I've particularly enjoyed reading Severn, Brad, and DD.. Sometime I'd like to address some of the mis-conceptions Severn brought up -- but I think it's sufficient to say they make Nan's point rather well -- that basically without knowing each other and actually visiting a place -- all we know about a country halfway around the globe is what the various forms of availiable media tell us. How about this? The internet is the ultimate melting pot. P.S. The internet was, of course, invented in America by former Vice President Al Gore. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-11-2001).] |
||
|
Rex Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 482Houston, Texas |
Not to worry folks, there are not too many Americans left these days. There are fewer each passing day. What we have are enclaves of hyphenated Americans who are less concerned about America as a nation than they are about their particular ethnic background. The immigrants of the current times and the recent past have little interest in assimilating into American society (what there is left of it). They are much more interested in the opportunities America presents and maintaining their ethnic heritage than they are in being an American. |
||
|
BrightStar Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
OK, Severn, since you like cheap shots ... Today, instead of having some Japanese living in NZ, you would be a Japanese territory and you would be speaking Japanese were it not for the United States of America and all her gallant men and women who gave their lives to protect your country. Now, you can call me an "Ugly American" and be absolutely correct. Just as can the peoples of other countries whose "bacon" we pulled out of the fire in various armed conflicts worldwide. Oh, and who have yet to repay the USA their war "debts" ... some for over 80 years. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm confused. I fail to see where this type of jingoism actually helps us understand each other better. By the way, I've had this conversation before as well. Usually with the English and usually over drinks and usually never taken very seriously. Severn never mentioned war, she simply pointed out some things I already knew and, happily, some things I didn't. I found her piece interesting. But as I said, I'm confused. As LR pointed out, most of the points have been made (except mine about Americans who are reactive anti-America -- nobody seems to hold that opinion here. Too bad. I wanted to show that their points revolve around the same tri-partite scheme as pro-Americans.). And they have been shown to have some validity. So, what are you looking for? Gratitude? Money tribute? Complete subservience to your "natural rightness"? Brad PS Because we can criticize, we can now safely ignore criticism? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well I don't think Severn took any cheap shots at anyone -- and I'm not sure what 'debt' is owed to America for our participation in WWII. As a student of that war, and war in general, it was fought by Americans to protect American interests just as it was fought by participants from all over the world to protect themselves -- I believe that's why it was called 'World' war? America was scared as [edit] that Japan was going to invade the west coast. It's questionable what involvement we'd ever had if there hadn't been an attack on Pearl Harbor. It's always in our economic interest to protect our trading partners around the globe -- and in our human interest to stand up for human rights. However, democracy; imposed from without -- is the severest form of tyranny. So when we do go on 'policing' actions around the globe it's very important for us as the world's last remaining superpower -- to use that power with the utmost wisdom and respect for the native cultures of the people involved. Building the economic strength of developing nations is of paramount (selfish) economic interest of the United States as well as being a nice neighborly thing to do. And we, as Americans 'owed' our 'freedom' in the first place to the French and Prussians who helped us outlast the English in the Revolutionary War. What about Viet Nam -- we didn't 'liberate' that nation -- do WE OWE them a REFUND? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Yes, to your P.S. It's boring to criticize, especially since I am enjoying others points of views here. I am confused Brad by this statement. quote: Would you please, explain this quote in simpler terms, for it sounds laced with criticism. So I don't think I understand it properly. Thank you. Sincerely, Regina |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Regina, "Yes, to your P.S. It's boring to criticize, especially since I am enjoying others points of views here." Sorry, I was speaking in reference to America. Didn't you say we had the right to criticize? I think there are times when we should exercise that right. As far as the other statement, that was probably my fault as well. I love statements that weave repetition in ways that look initially contradictory. Not always the best way to go. When faced with an American action, one type says, "This is right." and the other says, "This is wrong." Some Americans, certainly not all, react one way or the other but I think they argue the same thing: One thinks America IS the greatest country ever to grace the planet. One thinks America SHOULD be the greatest country ever to grace the planet. I believe America is a country, not unlike many other countries. It sometimes makes good decisions and sometimes bad decisions. Now, if you read the above statement, doesn't it seem common sensical? The problem occurs when national pride enters the picture. People on both the left and the right work from a reactive point of view. Brad |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Brad, I was agreeing with your statement which I took out of context. I felt you were stating that it is safe to ignore criticism in this discussion, and get to more important matters of thought. I apologize. Of course exercising a right doesn't necessarily make it right. Constructive criticism is the only type that allows growth and learning. I feel the other is very destructive for both parties. Thank you for clarifying the statement. I'm just trying to understand other's point of view. I think you are right to say that (reaction and pride) can terribly divide a people. I believe in action not reaction. And pride is a funny thing. As I'm sure you are proud of your belonging. As I am the same. It's the personal attacks no one fairs well under. That's why I say constructive, and not destructive. For when asked in this way: Are you proud to be an American? Yes I am. Are you proud of yourself just because you are an American and you think you are the greatest country to grace the earth? No, I'm not, because I am a human before I am an American, and what I think is that all countries have a great people. And all countries have bad seeds. We could dig up controversy and adversity in a jungle inside a Pygmy hut. But why? I think some people thrive on fueling the fire and dig for a reaction. I feel being positive is the only reaction we should allow ourselves, but we make mistakes and we screw up and get mouthy and pride takes over and the action inadvertently turns into reaction. At least for my sake. But a person shouldn't judge a whole country for one persons mistakes. But I would have to comment on provocation. Which is what I feel Elizabeth was expressing in her initial question. Why? Was she seemingly attacked for being an American? What? was the purpose? I can't find anything positive in the purpose, so therefore it's a mute point. It's distressing. It's like being attacked for having red hair. So I must be Irish, and I'm from Tennessee, so I must be illiterate. We assume too much. Being judgmental is never an answer to anything. I think we have a great planet, full of suffering, full of controversy, and tabloid headlines, that really put the tail on the donkey. But we are alive. One would never judge a child for the sins of his father, would he? The same should go for a people. I thank you again for reiterating on the statement. Sincerely, Regina [This message has been edited by rwood (edited 08-13-2001).] |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
I don't think accusing anyone of taking cheap shots, or of taking undo credit for deeds of others will go very far in vindicating one's position. And for the record, though Severn is indeed a proud patriot of New Zealand, you will not find a more open and fair minded person when it comes to world affairs. I am sure if you get to know her you will agree. I feel an apology is in order. Thank you. There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hi there Bright star. One question - did you actually read what I wrote correctly? I doubt it. Not entirely sure what got you so agitated - an elaboration would be great...oh and as for these: OK, Severn, since you like cheap shots ... - yes...in jest... Today, instead of having some Japanese living in NZ, you would be a Japanese territory and you would be speaking Japanese were it not for the United States of America and all her gallant men and women who gave their lives to protect your country. - Your point? History is history...and anyway...'gallant' NZers had quite a lot of input in protecting their own country as well...not to mention being dragged into a war solely because they were part of the commonwealth and whatnot...but still...what was your point? Now, you can call me an "Ugly American" and be absolutely correct. - Hmmm. Seems like you think I called Americans ugly. Please quote me on that? Just as can the peoples of other countries whose "bacon" we pulled out of the fire in various armed conflicts worldwide. Oh, and who have yet to repay the USA their war "debts" ... some for over 80 years. - I assume you have that information from the perspective of the American govt? Certainly not from the perspective of the countries themselves...and aren't we getting a tad political here. If you do decide to read what I wrote properly you'll find that I recited a series of motivating factors for why the 'rest' of the world views America as it does...and mentioned that it's inevitable people tend to understand the commoners in terms of its leaders - and not always for the better. I find it ironic you are now helping to prove my point... K |
||
|
BrightStar Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
Severn, please forgive what was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment. I expected the accusations of jingoism but I did not expect that it would be taken personally or as a "slam" to the fine country of New Zealand. If I have offended you, please accept my apology. Now, Brad, your liberal, psuedo-intellectual comments certainly have their rightful place. Please allow that my conservative lack of intellect also has its place with the same rights afforded your views. You ask, Brad, and the Rebel also, what "debts" are due the USA. It might help to read up on your history to determine just what I meant. Now, Brad, you say "I believe America is a country, not unlike many other countries. It sometimes makes good decisions and sometimes bad decisions. Now, if you read the above statement, doesn't it seem common sensical? The problem occurs when national pride enters the picture." Your comment is too general to determine if it has any common sense. It is a perfect example of "double-speak" that says nothing and then asks others to draw conclusions therefrom. Why is it a problem when anyone in any country displays national pride? Local Rebel, if you are a student of WWII, you should know very well what "debts" are owed. Of course, they are monetary. How could any country, including the USA, ever repay the debt of freedom? Could we Repay the French for their help in obtaining freedom in any other way than monetarily? That was/is the measurement of "debt" and probably always will be. Thank God we had the chance to "repay" an unrepayable debt to France in both WWI and WWII. Furthermore, you say "However, democracy; imposed from without -- is the severest form of tyranny." You wouldn't care to rephrase that, would you? I mean, do you really believe that democracy (Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives), what most of the known world desires, would be "the severest form of tyranny?" And, how could we, or anyone, impose democracy from without? Democracy either thrives or fails, as the people choose. You question about Vietnam is improper and uneducated. Why would we owe a country a "rebate," even for failure, when we were asked to uphold our promise under SEATO? Severn - Yes isn't it ironic; And isn't it just exactly what I intended when I wrote the words? Too bad we get so involved with the thread that we forget the rights we all have to say what we wish, within certain boundaries. Even the stupid, uninformed, psuedo-intellectual, or downright ornery comments that may or may not be found within this thread. Again, if my comments offend/offended anyone on a personal basis, I give my apology. [This message has been edited by BrightStar (edited 08-14-2001).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It always amazes me how some people are able to walk into a room -- tell everyone exactly what they think... then say -- oops just kidding.. didn't mean to offend.. and expect that anyone cares. |
||
|
Nicole Senior Member
since 1999-06-23
Posts 1835Florida |
"Even the stupid, uninformed, psuedo-intellectual, or downright ornery comments that may or may not be found within this thread." What a childish retort. By making it, you lower yourself to the very level you condemn. Congratulations. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh.. by the way.. No I don't care to rephrase anything I've said -- Democracy imposed from without is not government by the people -- it's government by big brother -- in order to be 'democracy' it must be homegrown and the desire of the people. |
||
|
BrightStar Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
Local Rebel - I do not care whether you care or not. "The Alley" is a place to comment as we please. You have certainly made good use of that privilege, have you not? Isn't it iteresting you choose not ro repond to the area where you claim to be most informed ... WWII and the debts incurred by the Allied powers? With regard to "imposing democracy" upon others, the very definition of democracy precludes the existence of "big brother." How can you have (Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives) "imposed" by "big brother?" Nicole - Just where did I aim my comment to others and not include myself? Too bad you choose to condemn without understanding the nuances of the written word. It is I who should congratulate you. Gee, some folks just take a discussion, begun to elicit opinions, and move it to a personal level. Opinions are like navels, almost everyone has one. Either we can defend them or we cannot ... it is not the end of the world either way. [This message has been edited by BrightStar (edited 08-14-2001).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I believe I now see your point. I think we can do better than this people. Please think about it. Thank you. Sincerely, Regina |
||
|
JBaker515
since 2001-02-28
Posts 458Dartmouth College |
OK.. Lets not all get mad at each other. This is a forum, where we chat, disagree, show different sides of opinions. There is no need to make shots at people, I think some people just have different opinions, its just human nature. Right?? So everyone, be gentle...its fun to argue, but lets try and be respectful. Thanks, Jeff ~Jeff~ |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Regina, Thanks, you've made my day. Regarding personal national pride: Recently, we picked up my daughter's American passport and I felt very proud (that warm, fuzzy feeling where your eyes tear up kind of thing) to be giving my daughter American citizenship. I don't think this feeling can or should be changed. What I'm not going to do however is argue that her blue passport is always better than her green passport. It's not in Korea. But it is in America. ------------------- BrightStar: --Well, I don't know if I should be flattered or annoyed that so much is directed at me. Just curious but are you saying that you don't mean the things you said in your 'jingoist' rant? --Great! --The following are specific responses: Now, Brad, your liberal, --How is anything I've said here liberal (in the American sense)? If you mean Liberal (in the philosophical sense), you're probably one too. psuedo-intellectual comments --What would be an intellectual comment? Something you agree with? Comments without 'ism' words? I really have said nothing here particularly controversial (I didn't make anything up.) certainly have their rightful place. --What exactly do you think my views are? Please allow that my conservative lack of intellect --Why do you think conservatives lack intellect? I've read many conservatives that I find persuasive. I actually prefer discussion with conservatives because we actually agree on 80 or 90 percent of the facts. Liberals, the ones I've met personally, argue from the "You've got to be kidding," point of view. also has its place with the same rights afforded your views. --Why would I disagree with this? When did I ever say you couldn't say your point of view? I didn't see any value in what you said in your 'jingoist' rant given the context of this thread. Apparently you don't either. You ask, Brad, and the Rebel also, what "debts" are due the USA. --No, I didn't. I've avoided historical arguments in this whole thread. They have nothing to do with what I want to say. You've misinterpreted me in your haste to disagree. It might help to read up on your history to determine just what I meant. --It might help if you read what I wrote. If you're unsure what I mean, ask. I'm not always as clear as I'd like to be because what I consider obvious, you don't, and vice versa. Now, Brad, you say "I believe America is a country, not unlike many other countries. It sometimes makes good decisions and sometimes bad decisions. Now, if you read the above statement, doesn't it seem common sensical? The problem occurs when national pride enters the picture." Your comment is too general to determine if it has any common sense. --It's general because in my first comment, I stated, more or less, the empirical strengths of America. What more are you looking for? --My point here is that we should discuss specific issues and events and stop worrying about the 'manifest destiny' of America. --My general point is that Americans often use a kind of rhetoric that can anger other nationalities. I tried to give reasons why this is so. It is a perfect example of "double-speak" that says nothing and then asks others to draw conclusions therefrom. --No, it doesn't. It makes the question "Is America Good? Are Americans Good?" irrelevant. It means yes if you want or no if you want. --I want to talk about what people say sometimes and whether that is good or bad and if it indeed causes a reaction in non-Americans. Through your example, you are making my case. Even as a joke or as a "tongue in cheek" spoof, nobody else seemed to get it so please explain to me how a non-American or a non-English speaker will? That's all I have time for now but I'll be back. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The United States of America is a fabulous nation composed of fine, decent, well-meaning people -- and some not so fine, not so decent, and not so well meaning people. Many of those in the fine column disagree with each other on issues and some of them choose to believe that if someone does disagree with them they must be from the not so fine, not so decent, and not so well meaning camp of people. Somehow or another we manage to arrive at majority rule in our representative republic without civil wars breaking out every fifty years or so. This is accomplished because the framers of the Constitution knew that there was an inherent danger in majority rule. Mel Gibson voiced it best in 'The Patriot' when his character asked the question, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants a mile away?" The danger is this: just because a majority of people think it is so -- doesn't make it so. Knowing this the framers set out to be very careful with checks and balances to ensure that minority rights were not trampled by majority rule. One of the mechanisms for this is the bill of rights that outlines our most basic civic liberties and a carefully phrased clause that ensures that something they may have overlooked as being a right of the people was not necessarially fair game by either the Federal or Local legislatures. (This doesn't prevent lawmakers from trying though -- which is why we have the Supreme Court) Another device deemed paramount -- since the President of the U.S. is the only commonly elected position -- that is -- the only one wherein every registered voter regardless of jurisdiction has the opportunity to vote for a presidential candidate -- was the Electoral College -- a device conservatives were happy to reap the benefits of in the last election. We are very fortunate to have had a set of founding fathers like ours because they drafted a very well written document. It gave rise to a spectacularly successful nation that engendered pride in almost every man woman and child that claims citizenship. I doubt they could have imagined what their fledgling nation would become -- especially the military state that was born as a result of WWII and the Cold War -- but during the Cold War our nation became so bent on making the world safe for 'democracy' that we violated our own principals in order to do that. It was ends justifies means thinking. The way to impose democracy from without is to go into a nation and provide support(aka money, arms, training, subtrefuge) for a minority group to undermine the power of that nation's government -- whatever form it may be -- which is what we've done countless times. That's why now, since we're more enlightened than we used to be -- we just do things to countries we don't agree with like imposing economic sanctions and embargoes to starve the innocent into uprising against their unfavorable governments -- and -- policies like those have worked so well against Castro and Saddam Hussein that we should be sure to do it the next time too. Now if anyone wants to discuss debt -- lets be sure to include our trillion dollar national debt that we piled up fighting that cold war -- The loans, grants, and aid given to nations during WWII were foreign policy devices that were effective in meeting our ends -- namely -- keeping our own um.. things.. out of the wickett. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-15-2001).] |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Brightstar, just a few things to say about this - well it sure didn't read tongue in cheek It sounded like you were mightily annoyed..but hey - what you say is what you say right? Further - it's ok to be annoyed. I get annoyed all the time heh - it's how we express it that matters I think, in the context of a public forum at any rate.A question: Did you intend to be ironic, or were you merely being convenient when you agreed?...I interpret that in itself as your own example of 'doublespeak' in a sense. One final thing - and I say this very gently. 'Gee, some folks just take a discussion, begun to elicit opinions, and move it to a personal level.' Honestly, Bright - what you addressed to me initially, no matter the 'tongue in cheek' slant you purport it had, seemed very personal indeed. Can you not see how you might bear responsibility for starting something 'personal'? Finally - I agree with Jeff - let's chill out here eh? Let's not ruin a great discussion by slanging it out... Local Rebel - something you said earlier struck a chord with me and I've been thinking about it ever since - the internet as the ultimate melting pot. And, funnily enough, as these things seem to happen, my university magazine had a short piece in the 'Webshyte' column this week about just that - so I'll quote some of it here: From WEB with Thomas Scovell In Craccum, Auckland University Magazine, Issue 16, 13 August. Sections from 'One World.' (I've chosen to leave out the links that riddle his text - considering it is the Web column lol). quote: quote: That is the essential thing for me - we have to rely on similarities in order to effectively communicate. Thomas goes on to say: quote: [This message has been edited by Severn (edited 08-14-2001).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks for passing that along Severn.. I always enjoy reading what you have to say... and if I were a NZer I'd probably have some of the same concerns. The USA is a nation that was once rich in regional cultures and we've seen our dialects, customs, and landscape blurred by two things -- television and franchises...we've become very homoginized and the strange thing is -- it seems we get along with each other less and less all the time -- as you pointed out -- we are a violent country with road rage and such. To Nan's point though, the reason things like road rage incedents and school shootings are in the news to begin with is because they don't happen every day. Most Americans (like most people in the world) don't commit crimes and aren't doing anything particularly spectacular on any given day. So viewing through the camera lens, even though true enough problems and events, presents a skewed look at our fruited plain here. I don't want to get into a full blown civics lesson either -- but there was one question you asked about the 'cohesion' of the USA with power vested in the States.. First: It is the Federal Constitution that provides the framework for all law in the USA. That Constitution is the final word and the cohesion of our country. Second: It is the division of power between branches of the Federal Government -- and then the rights of States to execute for themselves their own affairs within the framework of the Constitution that does give us our greatest strength. The US is a Federal Republic -- not a Confederation like the EU -- it is a stratified government. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Brad, quote: Point taken and well understood. I would feel the same way, if my children traveled abroad. I for one would not argue that fact as an American and would be very happy to see them venture the world. I think this helps greatly, for I don't understand why even my neighbors act the way they do socially sometimes, but it helps to well round a person to meet and greet every kind. Thank you all for the latter discussions ending the foul note. I appreciate all of your input and opinions. Severn: Just to add a note here, My father spent several years in NZ as a naval man. He honestly said he loved it there. He felt in many ways it was untouched by much of the Americanized ways. That it was "Somewhere back in time" of a great reverie. Not in an intellect sense but a commercial one of course. So from an American point of personal opinion, it is odd that even he would tire of our ways, but he has. And no one could be a more proud American than he, but respectfully he is simply human first. Which leads me to LR's post, which he speaks of our constitution. Which I believe is the wonderful foundation of our country. Brought about by great humans. Without all the hoopla and media circus that we have now. I think that is what we miss here in American, the simplicity of the handshake and honor. Now it's mud slinging contests from everything to Jerry Springer to Missing Persons and Murder accusations, to A house divided by Who slept with who and what is the definition of "Slept" on National TV. I for one and I know My father would agree, would love to hear everyone's accent spoken loudly in everything done. My accent is Southern in drawl and I'm proud of that. For it's the voice of my little world, which always wants and needs to hear others in theirs. For in keeping up with the times, We always seem to end up in the TIMES, or Newsweek, USA Today what have you. And I prefer the smaller voices, as you all have expressed here in this forum. It seems that in our advancement of a nation, we become "Too big for our britches" sometimes, but there are still some of us here that proudly hold on to the "Hand Me Downs". From our great forefathers. The USA is a nation that was once rich in regional cultures and we've seen our dialects, customs, and landscape blurred by two things -- television and franchises...we've become very homoginized and the strange thing is -- it seems we get along with each other less and less all the time -- So very true! "Yall Come Back Now, Ya Hear!" Thank you! Sincerely, Regina |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Some replies have been removed. This is a very good topic, and has shown us many different opinions and thoughts concerning worldviews and philosophies, as well as a good dose of history. Let's try to keep the more social replies to the Lounge, okay? Alicat Alley/Lounge Mod |
||
|
citizenx Member
since 2001-07-31
Posts 189motorcade |
nothing, when they stay in their own country... JOKING. I don't know, I think it is because America is this huge country that has effected very other culture in some way. Everyone's heard of the term Americanisation. Other cultures do get assimilated by the american influence, it is a natural target.. the centre point of the West. Personally I have no problems with Americans, I don't think I would like to live there though. shadows flicker sweet end tame |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
quote: Surely not Brad. Taken in geographical and social context the Roman Empire (and possibly the British) was certainly more "powerful" and influential. Sure, the geographical sphere of influence might have been smaller in each case but then so was the geographical sphere of "civilisation" and the size of the global economy. All "empires" are strong and all strength is generally envied by most and hated by some. quote: what a surprise!! But the net is helping us Brits to see that all Americans are not epitomised by the loudmouth in the multi coloured short sleeved shirt, piqued when they won't take his dollars at a Cornish iced cream booth ... lol I've learned that if you focus on people as individuals rather than some supposed national characteristic suddenly we are all the same. F PS Rule Britannia Land of Hope and Glory ... multiple 's[This message has been edited by furlong (edited 08-17-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"civilization"? Getting just a wee bit euro-centric there, aren't you? However, I'll concede that both the Roman and the British (and a whole bunch of others) have left a stronger legacy than America has so far. We'll have to wait and see on that one. Will that placate that English pride of yours? Should people be treated as individuals? Yes, on an individual level. But if we see tendencies, shouldn't we talk about them? Or simply pretend they don't exist? Talking about them can make people aware of things they may not realize they're doing (and then they can decide whether to continue or not) and/or can show that the tendencies we supposedly see are rubbish. Either way, I see something valuable resulting. Brad |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
"civilization"? Getting just a wee bit euro-centric there, aren't you? >>> er.... is it too late to say I meant just the Romans?.. However, I'll concede that both the Roman and the British (and a whole bunch of others) have left a stronger legacy than America has so far. We'll have to wait and see on that one. >>> I wasn’t so much pointing out the legacy as much as, inter alia, underlining the point that’s already been made several times in this thread that powerful nations or empires engender powerful negative reactions from other weaker nations (and in passing that this is also just as true at an individual level), and that imho this explains 99.9% of any anti-US feeling that there is in the world. Take the tetchiness arising out of Bush’s decision not to sign up to most of the recently agreed measures to (perhaps) combat global warming. You could say that the outrage is a result of disappointment that the largest and most polluting nation isn’t on board, but if you’ve seen the European press you’ll know that this has been taken very “personally”: Yet one more example of the USA’s cavalier: "we’ll do what the hell we like and wotcha goin’ to do about it?” attitude. >>> As for the future: Don’t you think that America’s influence will fade quickly from now on? No cataclysmic military or political events, as has been the case historically, but simply the increasing pace of boundary disintegration on every social, political and economic level everywhere hastened, I might say, by the waning of the ability of those supposedly “in power” to control the spread of knowledge and information. (Oh, English as the global language helps as well ). I suppose I’m suggesting that America will shortly (50 years) have no equivalent of the military might of Rome or Britain (principally it’s economic status), and losing that, it loses it’s influence even before it really established that influence.Will that placate that English pride of yours? >>> Like I have often said, beneath that stern and serious visage of yours there is a permanently beatific smile.. Should people be treated as individuals? Yes, on an individual level. But if we see tendencies, shouldn't we talk about them? Or simply pretend they don't exist? Talking about them can make people aware of things they may not realize they're doing (and then they can decide whether to continue or not) and/or can show that the tendencies we supposedly see are rubbish. >>> I thought thats what I was saying. I guess I see no reason why you shouldn’t discuss these things in a more formal way. No harm at all in that. I was just pointing out that the very act of being able to interact with people of different nations in an informal “day to day” way removes the need for such formal acknowledgement of the non-existence of differences at an individual level because it happens automatically. So surely if you then extrapolate that into the multiple interactions of millions the problem of perceiving an undesirable national characteristic disappears. 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? F [This message has been edited by furlong (edited 08-19-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"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 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
"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 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
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 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
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 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
"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 2000-06-29
Posts 482Houston, Texas |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
"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 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
Brad - Couldn't be a much better reason ahn yung nee gae saeo(?) |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
