Well, the appropriate Christian response is to grit your teeth and forgive him... but since this is Hell, you could go for the Old Testament solution of smiting him with the jawbone of an ass.

If someone is determined to misunderstand and/or misrepresent you or a group you belong to, there's not much you can do about it (beyond the momentary satisfaction gained by dunking him in a vat of tabasco sauce). It's his problem. So you might want to challenge his statements for the sake of any third parties who might be misled by them, but try not to get annoyed when you don't get through to him.

Why does everybody take an instant dislike to me?

It saves time...

I personally like a lot of American things. I would be nothing as a writer without the example of a host of American poets. I love the music of Coltrane/Parker/Miles Davies etc. America has a breadth of vision in its arts that is barely touched on in England. Its greatest movies are better than anything produced anywhere else.

But its foreign policy - on the whole - stinks. Its environmental position on Kyoto stinks. The fact that Congress wouldn't have ratified it says it all really. It also officially sanctions the murder of its own people, and calls it execution. So in many ways, it isn't a good place.

quote:

---

the things that America is good at: movies, jazz, Abstract Expressionist art

---

Good at jazz? It's like saying 'good at dragging your fingernails down the blackboard..'

American movies seem to be too violent, too foul-mouthed and too numerous. Unfortunately, British ones have very nearly caught up with regard to the first two aspects.

I visited the USA (Florida specifically) for the first, and hopefully last, time earlier this year. So my views on it are no longer simply a product of what the media has presented me with.

Over-use of the motor car is something the UK could be accused of, but it has nothing, IMO, on the USA. And Americans must have thought 'Why build two-lane roads when we can have SIX or EIGHT'?

The USA once had a good, comprehensive passenger rail network, but it allowed it to be largely destroyed much more than did Britain (and Britain was worse in this regard than France or Germany). So Americans mainly use the plane for long-distance travel and the car for everything else. The two most polluting forms of transport - giving a huge contribution to global warming. Why have the French and Germans developed excellent high-speed trains like the TGV and the USA has nothing equivalent?

First collectively they are doing nothing different from what the 19th century british did. I bet if there had been an international environmental agreement then the British government and parliament would not have ratified it.

Secondly as the richest and most powerful nation around at the moment they suffer from the jealousy of other nations and so suffer a lot of finger pointing.

Thirdly due to the openness of their society and the international spread of their news media their dirty linen is washed in public more conspicously than anyone else's.

On the matter of US public transport, during my recent visit I was led to believe that historically there were good train and bus services. But then in many cases bus companies, and in most of New England, passenger train companies, were sold by the state to Oil companies who promptly closed them down to increase the market for petrol ("gas"). There is now some recognition of the benefits of public transport, and passenger rail services now exist in Massachussets. A long-promised oft-delayed service from Boston (Mass)to Portland (Maine) should recommence shortly.

There is much concern in the USA of rising gas prices, with fears of the 2 dollar gallon!!! (In UK speak, that's about 1 pound 60 pence for about 4 litres; a US gallon is a bit less than a UK gallon).

The economics of public transport provision are different in a sparsely populated country, and parts of the USA are very sparsely populated; other parts are densely populated.

The passenger rail services which we used were very good indeed, (clean, on time, well signposted and timetabled, easy to get tickets, several staff on board and no yobs)as were the long distance coach services (Greyhound etc).

However local bus services, where they exist, are regarded as "mainly for blacks, beggars and Mexicans". Our hosts in Northern California couldn't understand us wanting to use a bus, and didn't know of their nearest bus stop which we found 150 yards from their home. They never walked the district, though it was a pleasant enough area. Indeed they were mystified that we should want to walk anywhere; even in a State Forestry Park with marked walking trails they thought 400 yards was enough of an adventure. They did however have a collection of huge gas-guzzling cars.

Enough of me on transport; perhaps people want to go back to Erin's subject!

"It" does no such thing. "It" leaves to the states, whose citizens vote for legislators who determine whether that state shall have a death penalty. Many states do not. In fact, on the whole, "It" is not a monolith,
any more than the UK is.

--Tangent-- (don't worry, I shall return)

Now, I don't support the death penalty, but it is democratically supported in the states that have one. Several recent studies have show that the majority of UK citizens and those in several European countries support the death penalty -- (where did you go, Chris Bishop?) which was noted the last time this debate came up. So the reason many European countries don't have one is that they are less democratic -- so I guess it depends on what you value.

Personally, I think such a penalty is unreliable -- that is, we can never be certain that an innocent person won't occasionally be put to death -- and that's my eternal objection to it. There's no doubt in my mind that it is an appropriate punishment for some, but I don't believe earthly authorities' capability of meting it out justly.

-- End Tangent

Returning to the debate, I think people need to be awfully careful about criticising a whole f'ing country for the acts of a moron who wasn't even properly elected. I didn't go 'round the UK during the time I lived in the West Midlands demanding an explataion from each citizen about why the UK was so bad because of Thatcher's policies. I didn't say, "well, Britain doesn't give a crap about it's poor people" whom I saw begging in the streets. And I certainly expect the same courtesy of others.

Why isn't everyone bashing France for continuing to support and trade with its former possessions in Africa, many headed by tin-pot dictators destroying their countries? Isn't this state-sponsored murder? It all depends upon how you look at it?

[edited to fix code -- how embarrassing]

I think there is a responsibility of people, organisations and even countries to be concerned about, and manage, their image - i.e. the perception that others have of them. So I have a degree of sympathy with Groucho's gripe. I think the perception that people have of the US is largely the responsibility of the US, as the perception people have of the UK is largely the responsibility of the UK, and the perception that people have of Microsoft is largely the responsibility of Microsoft.

BUT ( Before I get royally grilled ), there is also a responsibilty of people who publicise their perceptions to be sure they are valid perceptions. What does that mean?that they are based on facts and information, rather than blind prejudice. That is where the problem seems to lie, because all information we recieve is prejudiced. Our responsibility is to express what we believe to be the truth.

So Erin - yes people should get your facts straight first. But when the facts are acurate, it is the responsibilty of maligned groups to manage their image.

Screw it, I've put in my time.

Signed,

quote:

---

However local bus services, where they exist, are regarded as
"mainly for blacks, beggars and Mexicans".

---

come to new york city next time. i asure you that here mass transit is for everyone.

2/ never take at face value what "they" are telling you.

3/ the whole capatialist regieme is going to hell in a hand basket.

4/it ill behooves anyone of the car-driving, supermarket/mall shopping , more worried about pizza huts new pepperoni pizza than fair traded chocolate selfish muppets we all stand in danger of becomeing to critisice some other muppets because we think they are ( marginally)worse than us.

5/ oh my look at this plank in my eye

6/ look for the good,the beautiful and the truthful its there somewhere.

quote:

---

What I want to know:

* Since when is it an unfairly-maligned group's responsibility to rid you of your prejudice?

---

Well, by definition, prejudice is pre-judging before "judice" happens. So, it's probably impossible for the maligned to change people's perceptions. Hence all the stupid whinging on this thread, as well as the tendency for this thread to turn into yet another British/American flame war. "Be there, done that, bought the t-shirt, got the tattoo."

quote:

---

* Is it not incumbent upon you, the one who makes the assumption, to get your facts straight FIRST?
*

---

Well, that would ruin all the fun, wouldn't it, of lumping everybody in a nation into one camp, then demonizing the camp....

Shoot, if we stopped doing that, pretty soon we wouldn't have no whippin' boy; then what would we do when we got pissed off?

Behave like grown-ups? Who? Moi?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ptarmagin:

come to new york city next time. i asure you that here mass transit is for everyone.

---

I stand corrected Nicole; I was over-generalising based on experience mainly of California and New England. Very glad to hear that New York has good public transit. Perhaps my next visit to the USA should include New York.

quote:

---

What I want to know:

Since when is it an unfairly-maligned group's responsibility to rid you of your prejudice?
Is it not incumbent upon you, the one who makes the assumption, to get your facts straight FIRST?
If not, why not

---

[fixed UBB code]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfstan:

Bluntly you always seem to take umbrage if people don't come up with responses you like and huff off saying we're all saying the same tired old guff you've seen a million times before. What are you some kind of misanthropic postmodernist? Come down off the mountain and talk to us plebs! We won't know we're wrong all the time unless we've got you to tell us

---

I promised myself that I would drop it all, but I find I can't.

"Since when is it an unfairly-maligned group's responsibility to rid you of your prejudice?"

You've assumed I am prejudiced. Just because I don't see things the same way as you, that don't make me "prejudiced". I don't think all Americans are (insert own insult). I just think that American policy on the environment sucks in a major way and that there is too much self-justification and too little explanation. That is opinion - not prejudice.

It is simply a fact of life that the US administration will find it much easier to get other countries on their side if they bothered to handle the increasingly negative press they are getting outside their borders.

I'm not creating or perpetuating the bad perceptions - just pointing out that they exist.

"Is it not incumbent upon you, the one who makes the assumption, to get your facts straight FIRST"

Ok - prove me wrong. Show me where the American alternative proposals to Kyoto are. Where can I read them and correct my mistaken impressions?

What part of "Setting aside the whole Kyoto argument for a moment, I'm inviting some commentary about other things he said" do you people not understand? For those of you with reading comprehension disabilities: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT whether or not the US ratified Kyoto. I'm talking about the crap logic inherent in the statements "this is how it looks, and you have to prove it wrong".

The problem with the US is that it's so big and powerful that the rest of the world think of it as the playground bully. The US sees itself as the defender of democracy. The rest of the world sees the US as a big monster spoiling for a fight and getting involved in everybody else's little squabbles. The US is seen as the cultural, political and military equivalent of Microsoft.

In a sense, Erin, you're right: it shouldn't be up to you (or the US as a whole) to put people's perceptions right. But people's perceptions are hard to shift: the number of people I know who think the Chinese government goes around killing children for fun is incredible. One even asked me what I thought about "innocent little orphan girls being torn from their mothers' arms".

quote:

---

What I am interested in is whether or not it’s acceptable to force someone else to disprove your own personal perceptions, regardless of what group they're in.

---

quote:

---

In other words - ***** are going to have to work a bit harder to overcome this perception...

---

I'll give you a different example: I am part Cherokee. The traditional perception of all redskins: savage alcoholic. Do I have to work harder than someone without this heritage to prove that I am not, in fact, a savage alcoholic?

Addendum: this was published in Purgatory, where the burden of proof is greater.

"In other words - ***** are going to have to work a bit harder to overcome this perception..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I want to know WHY someone has to prove to you that they're not the evil monster you think they are when you don't even KNOW them?

---

I think you answered your own question. Because of not knowing.

Here's a story. When I was a lad, my grandmother told me that Roman Catholics worshipped the Virgin Mary (not God) and said all their services in a dead language no one understood (Latin). I had never met any RCs til I was at Uni. The only thing I knew about RCs aside from what my grandmother told me was a scene in the Sound of Music (which I've only seen once so forgive if me if I get it wrong) with nuns singing through a grille.

Now if I came to the boards with only that information, I would of course make assumptions that are not accurate about RCs (how could it be otherwise when I don't know any?). So yes, the burden is then placed upon the Romans of my initial (or subsequent) acquaintance to disabuse me of my false notions.

I think that's what's going on here.

Now what would be really annoying is if some Romans said "hey -- we're not like that at all" and I turned around and said "Oh yes you must be I know so from out-dated information and a scene in a bad film".

HT

Believe me, nothing annoys me more than when someone makes sweeping assumptions to the effect that the UK is an upper-middle-class costume drama full of polite people drinking tea in the sunshine -- or on the other hand that the US Government is a vast conspiracy against whatever passionately-held political agenda is under discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Here's a story. When I was a lad, my grandmother told me that Roman Catholics worshipped the Virgin Mary (not God) and said all their services in a dead language no one understood (Latin). I had never met any RCs til I was at Uni. The only thing I knew about RCs aside from what my grandmother told me was a scene in the Sound of Music (which I've only seen once so forgive if me if I get it wrong) with nuns singing through a grille.

Now if I came to the boards with only that information, I would of course make assumptions that are not accurate about RCs (how could it be otherwise when I don't know any?). So yes, the burden is then placed upon the Romans of my initial (or subsequent) acquaintance to disabuse me of my false notions.

---

I think, though, that at some point you (general you, not HT!) should realize that if you're getting all your information about a group of people from one source, and that source is not a member of the group, you can't be very sure of the truth of that info.

quote:

---

But it's easier to make sweeping assumptions than actually engage with individual personalities or arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I'll give you a different example: I am part Cherokee. The traditional perception of all redskins: savage alcoholic. Do I have to work harder than someone without this heritage to prove that I am not, in fact, a savage alcoholic?

---

I know that you are not going to like this answer, but "Yes". I don't like it either.

Humans are pidgeon-hole-ers, we try to make little boxes so that we can file people, and and use our filing system to try to predict possible interactions and outcomes. It is only when people become friends that we can allow them to get out of their little box and become real. When people are our 'enemies' we make them into huge, ugly characture of themselves. One which does not have to contain any truth.

Stereotypes help us function in the world, they help make life more predictable. But we need to be constantly challenging our assumptions and our 'types'. And also realising that while a stereotype can give an approximation of a group of people, it is woefully crap when refering to an individual.

Over the past three years, every time we get an influx of UK contributors, we have to combat the same arguments over and over and over again. Like I said yesterday, only the names change.

At this point, because it's happened so many times with so many people, am I justified in saying to each UK contributor: the perception I have is that you are illogically anti-American, and you have to prove to me that you're not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
What is the appropriate Christian attitude here?

---

How about humility? As in "I've been told that group X believe Y and Z, is this correct?" rather than a blunt "Group X believe Y and Z". When people within group X strongly disagree with Y and Z the second is more than likely to generate an angry response. Unless you are absolutely certain about your sources (like you know half of group X personally) assume the information you have is wrong. It is even worse when instead of "believe" you use "are".

Then add in "treat others like you'd want them to treat you" (loose paraphrase, but I'm sure you know who said that). How would you feel as a member of group X if you're position was totally misrepresented as a fact that you believe Y or Z when you totally do not? The 10C's for this site suggest you replace "group X" with the name of an individual you know in that group and see if it still seems OK, this is a similar way of looking at the same thing.

And finally (for now) when it comes to Christian attitudes at the top of the list must surely be love. How can dismissing the views of a group of people without thinking about how that group will feel be considered loving?

Alan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

What I want to know:

• Since when is it an unfairly-maligned group's responsibility to rid you of your prejudice?
• Is it not incumbent upon you, the one who makes the assumption, to get your facts straight FIRST?
• If not, why not?

---

Prejudice is "he's a (insert group here) and therefore he's a (insert perjorative)"

What we actually have here is "he's just done (or said) X therefore he's a (insert perjorative)"

When a group is maligned for doing or saying something which can clearly be taken as meaning something that is considered bad then it is their responsibility to justify themselves to the rest of the world. If only to prove to the rest of the world that they care about how they are perceived.

Let's go to our own 10Cs, if I post something that presents me as having certain views I do not expect everyone else to say "oh he's a nice boy really, he can't have meant that" I expect to be challenged and if I am misrepresented then it is up to me to correct that.

Is this really that goddamn difficult to understand?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How about humility? As in "I've been told that group X believe Y and Z, is this correct?" rather than a blunt "Group X believe Y and Z". When people within group X strongly disagree with Y and Z the second is more than likely to generate an angry response. Unless you are absolutely certain about your sources (like you know half of group X personally) assume the information you have is wrong. It is even worse when instead of "believe" you use "are".

---

Alan, I greatly appreciate your common sense.
One source of the problem is that journalists who write about foreign countries frequently don't know what they're talking about. (For that matter journalists who write about their own country frequently don't know what they're talking about, but that's a separate issue.)

If an American newspaper publishes something untrue about Britain, or a British newspaper publishes something untrue about America, most readers will believe the untruth. They have no other source of information.

I suggest that instead of forming strong opinions ahout other countries on the basis of what your newspapers publish, you ask some people of that country to describe the situation to you.

So this is the deal: if you are unable to differentiate between an administration and a citizen, the problem is yours, not mine, and you need a far more in depth lesson in American civics than can be provided via this bulletin board.

quote:

---

is it appropriate to insist on our dependence on stereotypes even when they are shown, time and again, to be grossly inaccurate?

---

Sure, there are dingbats and crazies over there; but there are dingbats and crazies over here (wherever here is) and we probably have some pretty crazy ideas ourselves at times. I mean, who thought up the idea of shoving lots of poor people into tower blocks?

I'm hoping to visit America this year: New York, in fact, where all my favourite poets come from, not to mention Woody Allen and Jackson Pollack.

Still, the Bush administration are still a bunch of stinkers, and MacDonald's burgers still taste like regurgitated cardboard. On the other hand, Ben & Jerry's rocks, and where would we be without Talking Heads, Miles Davis, and the Five Blind Boys From Kentucky?

Oh yeah, and let's not forget Frazier and ER.

All the Americans I've ever met have been really lovely people: a few Quakers, a couple of poets (I never realised Americans could be shy until I met John Ashbery.)

I think we have a perfect right to attack the American government for being a bunch of assholes. And large American corporations like MIcrosoft too (though what's the difference between them, say, and Railtrack apart from size? They're all capitalists.)

quote:

---

But it is a fact that the general perception over this side of the Atlantic that America doesn't have too much time for environmental concerns. This is because all we ever hear is that the US objects to anything proposed and never seems to come up with any alternatives.

You may not like it - but this is how things are seen generally here. In other words - Americans are going to have to work a bit harder to overcome this perception and prove that they take the environment as seriously as Europeans (as a whole - wide generalisation) do.

---

Using my shorthand, the first paragraph seems to refer to the administration and the second to US citizens.

So what Groucho is saying, inter alia, is that US citizens are going to have to work hard not to be tarred with the brush that their administration is using for itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
WTF...?Save the Kyoto bitching and US bashing for the George Bush thread, or I'll close and delete this one. I want to explore THIS particular issue. I want to know WHY someone has to prove to you that they're not the evil monster you think they are when you don't even KNOW them?

---

Oh dear, I am no doubt going to get really screamed at for saying this...but (gulp), I'm going to say it anyway....

Well, that's the last we'll see of you then. Except for a small pile of radioactive ash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve_R:
It then does become incumbent upon those US citizens who disagree to shout loudly and firmly "this administration are a bunch of assholes" because if they don't the rest of us will assume that they agree with what is being done in their name.

---

Ok. But in the US the verb agrees with the subject, not the object, in this kind of a sentence ...

*snort*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh my gawd I am laughing like a hyena here. All the men are running and hiding. And they call women the weaker sex.

*snort*

Charlotte: we have a board policy which allows for us to close threads at the request of the OP most of the time. I am the OP, and I can go through the whole process of publicly asking myself to close the thread and then publicly saying "self: no problem" but that would be rather bizarre. If it were a matter of a discussion evolving into a different discussion, it'd be one thing. But it's not. It was hijacked from the third post into a discussion of why the US is the Worst Thing in the World Ever, something I specifically requested NOT to happen, and threatened to degenerate into Round 324629 of the US/UK flamefest. Since I'm not really interested in cleaning up the fallout from that, I'll just close the damn thing if I have to.

---

Ok, hmmm, well judging by the way everyone was ducking, you would have thought you were a monster or some'at! Is there something I should know?

I do no wish to derail your thread any more than has already been done so - but I'm sure you know that many of us would like the luxury of closing a thread when it doesnt go to our liking. Its nice that you have the power to do so but I do feel its not something appropriate to throw around as a threat.

That said, people HAVE TO think in categories ("thinking in categories" being longhand for "thinking") -- so when does a category cease to be a category and become an evil "label" or hyperevil "stereotype"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
when does a category cease to be a category and become an evil "label" or hyperevil "stereotype"?

---

Erm - if No insert nationality of choice citizens voiced opposition to something would it then be unfair to suggest that the majority supported it? Or should we poll everyone individually - then any "generalisation" would be false unless absolutely 100% approved.

I can give many examples of crap and uniformed viewpoints.

For instance, according to Gallup, the majority of U.S. citizens support the I.R.A.. To whom is that fact unfair and prejudicial? Whose responsibility is it?

The majority of U.K. citizens think that the E.U. banned curved cucumbers - utter hogwash, but they treat it as fact. Again, who should do what about it?

For me, both these are unpalatable bits of prejudice, but when the majority share that view, well I'd better do something about it. Albeit in my small way.

If I described Brits as overall being hostile to Europe, is that prejudice, or fact?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

I'll give you a different example: I am part Cherokee. The traditional perception of all redskins: savage alcoholic. Do I have to work harder than someone without this heritage to prove that I am not, in fact, a savage alcoholic]

---

quote:

---

everyone in America is Cherokee

---

Bite your tongue. I'm Blackfoot (in part, anyway).

Sheesh. Next he'll be saying we all eat at McDonald's and drive SUV's.