quote:What I want to know:
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.
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.
Jane R, trying to sound Hellish and not succeding...
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.
Nevertheless, I join you in praising the things that America is good at: movies, jazz, Abstract Expressionist art. Oh yeah, and don't forget the greatest American of them all: Duke Ellington.
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?
I coud give other reasons as well as these why I think the USA is indeed the 'bad boy' of the developed world when it comes to environmental issues.
Kudos to Jane for paying attention. Perhaps the subsequent contributors can master this skill as well?
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.
I was in Florida earlier this year and one member of the party I was in had his anti-american attitudes dispelled before we had even left the airport - on his own admission. (I doubt that many Americans realise that your immigration and customs officals are that nice!)
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!
Pt
"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]
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Laura ]
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.
Where would the spin doctors, advertising agencies and other parasites of the world be if it wasn't?
Screw it, I've put in my time.
Signed,
the Florida chick who is no longer banging her head against this wall
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.
(however, i am not disputing that what you say is true for large areas of the country. indeed, since i don't drive, its one of the things that i'm most happy with nyc about, and one reason i'll probably never leave.)
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.
Pyx_e in a reflective mood
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?
tomb
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.
Pt
but here in the city, we all ride the busses and subways... its the great equalizer.
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]
[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
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
Ooooohh! tomb blanches and hurries to hide under his polished-designer-paving-stone-cum-rock. But he peeps out to watch the fun. Also to check to see if there are any pieces of Wulfstan left when Erin gets through with him. tomb got this really nifty cookbook Creative canapees and he's always on the lookout for unpromising bits to experiment on.
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?
That's enough anyway - I'm about to head out of town for the best part of two months. So any lack of response from here on in will not be because I'm sulking or giving in or anything else - just that I'm not around.
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".
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?
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".
So it shouldn't be up to you. Unfortunately, it is.
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.
Acceptability may hinge on the meaning of "force".
A reader may feel obliged to reply (to thoughtless prejudicial generalisations) on the grounds that she is offended, or that she is an administrator. But "forced"?
Your question is loaded for a negative answer. No, it is not acceptable to force someone else to disprove (my) personal perceptions.
But surely it is acceptable to publish those perceptions, here in Hell, for general comment and criticism. What's the problem?
Yes, we know you've fought this battle before but with hundreds of new members coming on board every month, it's no surprise that the old prejudices will float up to the surface like bloated corpses.
quote:[group blanked out to avoid any rehashing of that unnecessary tangent]
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.
[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
"In other words - ***** are going to have to work a bit harder to overcome this perception..."
Why should ***** have to? I think all we (who think it is an unjust concept) can do is call people out when they make these statements 
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.
But it's easier to make sweeping assumptions than actually engage with individual personalities or arguments.
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.
Exactly. There are, what, 270? 280? million of us. Though it's possible to make some cultural assumptions (keeping in mind of course that lots of Americans don't see themselves as part of mainstream American culture), we can't possibly all be thinking the same thing about anything.
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.
bb
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?
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
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
(now sorry if that was more Purgatorial than Hellish, but that is where I usually hang out)
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.
In the case of the current US administration thay are doing things that lead the rest of the world to see them in a certain way and that they must know will cause them to be seen that way. It is not up to the rest of the world to dig around to find out all the facts, the US administration has been challenged, if the preceptions are wrong, the US must prove it!
Is this really that goddamn difficult to understand?
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
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.
Moo
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.
Now, back to the original POINT: I detest labels. I detest stereotypes. I don't do it, and I rail against it when it is done to me. The question I am interested in is: is it appropriate to insist on our dependence on stereotypes even when they are shown, time and again, to be grossly inaccurate?
quote:
is it appropriate to insist on our dependence on stereotypes even when they are shown, time and again, to be grossly inaccurate?
No.
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.)
But we don't have the right to attack a whole people. Mind you, we'll stop make snide remarks about Americans if they make an Englishman (or woman) captain of the Enterprise...
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.
Like it or not, that is unfortunately true. By now the majority of brits (not those on these boards as we are constantly reminded of the facts) have forgotten how close the US election was and the UK popular press choses to ignore it. The papers don't say "US administration does X but most of its citizens don't agree" but they say "America does X". 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.
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....
I think the above statement from Erin is unfair. Lots of threads go off on tangents all the time, thats actually half the fun of them. To say that you are going to close a thread down (gulp, gulp) just cause you have the power to do so, just because people are not talking the way YOU want them to....hhhmmm, well, sorry, but I think thats rather unfair.
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 ...
This administration is a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell.
*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.
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.
Having said that, as you say, you is de boss so you can do what you feel you want to.
Anyway, I've jumped in, sufficiently de-railed things and I apologise. I'm back off to 'fight fight!!'
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"?
foolish and sinful,
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
when does a category cease to be a category and become an evil "label" or hyperevil "stereotype"?
Alan
Reader Alexis
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?
FWIW; America has a very mixed record on the environment - the big oil companies are clearly not a good example of the positive - but European types would do well to look at the percentage of U.S. territory reserved as National Parks - well in excess as a percentage and total area to that in Europe. The environment is not one issue (though fuel consumption is a critical one).
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]
Yeah, but everyone in America is Cherokee
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.
Alex
Another issue is how far you feel you have to defend your head of state/country against foreign criticism. Laura said:
quote:
I didn't say, "well, Britain doesn't give a crap about it's poor people" whom I saw begging in the streets.
quote:
where the hell you people come off with MY having to prove something because of a man I did not vote for is beyond me.
Alan
quote:
[O]n the Bush thread you were arguing with pugnacious thoroughness against Kyoto which sort of lobbed you in with Dubya for the purposes of that thread.
You know, it would be ever so nice if you stuck to the facts. I did NOT argue "with pugnacious thoroughness" against Kyoto. I argued "with pugnacious thoroughness" against the unbearably ignorant assertion that Bush singlehandedly killed it in the US. It was dead long before he ever made it to office, a fact that for whatever reason a good majority of the non-American contributors to that thread and others are completely incapable of grasping.
Charlotte: what part of "we have a board policy which allows for us to close threads at the request of the OP most of the time" are you having trouble understanding?
Not what we are taught in schools but what we are not taught - good communication.
Now before I go on I am not saying that is always the case. There are certain instances when someone is deliberately bang out of order - they are there to upset, cause a fight, annoy, hurt or whatever. The intent is malicious.
There are, however, a good many people who are just careless with what they say. It is a throw away remark that is not thought out - or even if it is the person hasn't twigged onto the fact that a gross generalisation might be being made that will be really hurtful to someone.
I have just done a communication's course at work - it was a day's course and we spent 3 hours talking about how easy it is to generalise, assume just becuase you know what you mean the whole world will know what you mean and so on. Examples were given of typical things we might say - for example someone in one team would be rude on the phone and then in the next conversation we might have we would say "all the people in that team are rude on the phone" and the result could be desperate. We also learnt "negotiating skills" in order to "fluff bust" the generalisations - well very briefly - a few choice words to get the person making a stupid sweeping statement to be more specific.
This is what we were talking about on the course. I was amazed when talking about the course by the number of people who have not heard of the concept of generalisations. In fact I was scared by it.
And they are pretty freaked when they realise what it is about, how far reaching and damaging the implications are.
That is why I think education is crucial. It seems to me that a lot of people are simply unaware.
I am not saying it doesn't make it less hurtful. I am definitely not excusing it.
I just remember that years ago when I was in my teens I was used to do something - and for the life of me I can't remember what - that really bugged the hell out of another girl. This went on for ages - until she had the sense to tell me that whatever it was that I was doing hurt her. Once I realised it I stopped and I just wished she had told me sooner. She could have let me go on on that line for months more getting more annoyed and more hurt and I would have been none the wiser... and how on earth is anyone to know what they are doing wrong if it is not pointed out ot them?
Am I making sense. I hope so ... the Christian response should surely deal with teaching others so they don't make the same mistake - if indeed it is a geniune mistake and not malicious intent. As Jesus said to the woman at the well - go now and leave your life of sin - or something like that.
But please don't take this long ramble as a defense of any generalisation.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Charlotte: what part of "we have a board policy which allows for us to close threads at the request of the OP most of the time" are you having trouble understanding?
I understand you Erin loud and clear. You are the OP, you can do what you like and if you dont like what people are saying, you will shut the thread down. I understand you completely.
Addendum: I am NOT acting as an administrator on this thread. As the OP it is within my rights to have the thread closed, and would be regardless of my status as an administrator. So, to avoid any further misinterpretations here: Simon is moderating this thread.
Are we clear on this now?
[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Ok. But in the US the verb agrees with the subject, not the object, in this kind of a sentence ...This administration is a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell.
As it does in England, but hell, give a guy a break, I'm a mathematician, expect me to get my sums right not my English. 
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
For instance, according to Gallup, the majority of U.S. citizens support the I.R.A..
I have a strong suspicion that the majority of U.S. citizens don't know what the I.R.A. is. I wonder how the Gallup question was phrased and where it was asked. I think a majority of people in the Boston area might support the I.R.A.
This comes back to the point I raised in my earlier post. Media reports about foreign countries are frequently incorrect and should not be taken at face value.
Moo
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Ok. But in the US the verb agrees with the subject, not the object, in this kind of a sentence ...This administration is a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell.
Ruth, in America and every other English speaking country "administration" is a plural
noun (like "family" or "parliament") and may quite properly take a plural verb.
The familyr are in a right state over the crap the administration are planning.
In actual matter of fact, in American English all nouns are generally treated as singular. In English English the appropriate distinction is made.
Erin -- laughing like a hyena does not become you.
I have a question about perception. Does the onus still lie with the "perceiver" if the perception is unrealistically pleasant instead of negative? If I think Anglo-Catholics are warm, gooey, cuddly people, is it up to me to find out they're gin-sodden, judgmental prigs or is it up to them to throw said gin in my face and hit me on the head with a thurible to disabuse me?
HT [not remembering whether I've most frequently been labeled an Anglo-catholic snob or a wishy-washy centrist]
As for your other question: let's look at it this way. You come along and think that the A-C contingent is full of warm fuzzies. You have someone from that contingent who tells you that no, that is wrong. What do you do? Insist that you're right, regardless of how many times you're told otherwise, or start to look around and see if that's an incorrect perception?
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
[QB]Ruth, in America and every other English speaking country "administration" is a plural
noun (like "family" or "parliament") and may quite properly take a plural verb.The familyr are in a right state over the crap the administration are planning.
In actual matter of fact, in American English all nouns are generally treated as singular. In English English the appropriate distinction is made.
HT, I'm well aware of the difference between American and British usage in this regard, which is why I specified American English in the first place.
Whether it is "appropriate" to treat the words "family," "parliament" and "administration" as plural is simply a matter of usage. While British English rationally observes that the government is made up of more than one person, American English quite logically observes that if the word "administrations" is plural, then the word "administration" is singular and speaks of the administration as one entity.
So the Bush administration is still a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell. Her majesty's government are ... well, that's for others to say.
Pedantically yours ...
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have a strong suspicion that the majority of U.S. citizens don't know what the I.R.A. is. I wonder how the Gallup question was phrased and where it was asked. I think a majority of people in the Boston area might support the I.R.A.This comes back to the point I raised in my earlier post. Media reports about foreign countries are frequently incorrect and should not be taken at face value.
Moo
...well Moo, the study was paid for by RTE, the Republic of Ireland's national broadcaster, took a same of 50,000 people selected in a scientific method from across the U.S. - statistics aren't "misreported" in this case - you just don't agree with them. When you've done your own equivalent study, come back, if you're just relying on your own hearsay, take a flying jump... that's just media misreporting like I can get from any tabloid.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have a strong suspicion that the majority of U.S. citizens don't know what the I.R.A. is.
On a visit to the US I was once in a converation with a guy who told me that he was a member of Noraid, and that his kids school had a Noraid stall at their summer fete. When I asked him how he thought he'd feel if his wife or kids were blown to bits by a terrorist bomb, he said how much he despised what the IRA do. He had been told, and honestly believed, that Noraid was a charity to support Widows and Orphans of those killed in the troubles.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
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?
Well, yeah. Most of us are. We have to prove it.
I think that it would be totally fair to say
quote:
the perception I have is that you are illogically anti-American, and you have to prove to me that you're not?
But with the provisio that the "you" is in the plural, rather than the singular form.
I would say that it is very obvious from my time on the ship that a great many British people are anti-American to some degree. We have instilled into us the "under-dog mentality", and so America as the "over-dog" can be seen as a fit subject for riduclue or derision.
Please don't under-estimate what you, Laura, Ruth have done on the ship. You have managed to make quite a number of British people re-examine their attitude towards the States, and its people. And look back, and you will see that when this debate re-surfaces there are normally a few more Brits weighing in on the American side.
It is going to be a long hard battle to change the outlook of a changing group of people. We are struggling against our culture and our media. But please don't give up on us.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
...well Moo, the study was paid for by RTE, the Republic of Ireland's national broadcaster, took a same of 50,000 people selected in a scientific method from across the U.S. - statistics aren't "misreported" in this case - you just don't agree with them. When you've done your own equivalent study, come back, if you're just relying on your own hearsay, take a flying jump... that's just media misreporting like I can get from any tabloid.
I'm not saying that it's just the tabloids that are inaccurate. The most-respected newspapers in the country are equally likely to be wrong.
As far as "scientific" polls are concerned, they are all biassed because no one can be required to answer the questions. The people who are willing to respond are a self-selected group.
When I was in graduate school, a man working on a Gallup poll came to the place where I was living with about twenty-five other students. He wanted to interview someone. I turned him down and so did at least ten other students. Finally one student agreed.
The student who agreed was in political science. The rest of us were in chemistry, physics, linguistics, and French. The questions asked dealt with politics, and I know that the political science student did not hold the same views as many of the rest of us.
One of my daughters once worked for a polling organization. It was not Gallup, but it was widely-respected. It did polling both for political groups and businesses. She told me that they used to "piggyback" polls. Once they had someone who was willing to answer questions, they would ask questions for more than one poll.
There was one incident which startled me. A researcher wanted to get responses from men in their forties who were alcolholic, but insisted they weren't. The pollsters were given a script. "You know, it's really silly the way people say that two six-packs a day is heavy drinking. Most people can handle that without any problem," etc.
After the men had agreed with this, she would find out their age and how much they drank. If they fit the profile, she would ask the questions the researchers had provided.
Then she piggybacked another poll which had nothing to do with alcohol. The people who paid for that second poll wanted the opinions of a cross-section of the population, not male alcoholics in their forties.
I am still flabbergasted that the polling group saw nothing wrong with this.
Polling organizations say that they are scientific, but they can't be as long as people are free to refuse or give silly answers.
As far as the Gallup poll about the I.R.A. is concerned, many people who do not want to admit ignorance will give a positive answer.
Moo
I have no problem with anyone's criticising a government's foreign policy, whether officially stated or implicit in actions. If media coverage seemed to make that policy appear other than what it was, the government certainly should try to circulate information which presents the true view, and, in that sense, some sort of defence against misconceptions (especially on wide-ranging or critical matters) may be necessary. But individual nationals should not be assumed to universally agree with any nation's official or apparent stance, nor should they be expected to defend the same.
Usually, in relation to governments, strong and widespread misconceptions have some basis in fact, and response to this may be critical - it may effect an entire alliance of nations. The problem with the post with which Erin (rightly) took issue is that it slipped from one perspective to another. It began with a government's position on Kyoto, then seemed to imply that "Americans" (not their government) were obligated to correct a misconception.
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.
quote:
. I argued "with pugnacious thoroughness" against the unbearably ignorant assertion that Bush singlehandedly killed it in the US. It was dead long before he ever made it to office
quote:
The problem with the post with which Erin (rightly) took issue is that it slipped from one perspective to another. It began with a government's position on Kyoto, then seemed to imply that "Americans" (not their government) were obligated to correct a misconception.
That doesn't mean we're a bunch of anti-environmental corporate shills.
Alex
quote:
This plus your comments about the anti-Kyoto consensus in congress would seem to prove Groucho's point, in that American opinion en masse, at least with regard to Kyoto, doesn't too fussed about environmental issues(or at least THIS issue) unless you're sugesting congress is utterly unrepresentative of the electorate.
It doesn't for those of us who have been paying attention to the discussion, instead of waiting to fire off another shot against Americans.
Once more, with feeling (and let's all pay attention this time, shall we?): the US Senate (only one house of Congress for those of you keeping score at home) voted 95-0 against ratifying any environmental reform treaty that excluded developing nations from compliance. Which Kyoto does. Personally, I don't think that is an unreasonable stance.
However, what you have repeatedly failed to understand -- and I suppose that's my fault, since I didn't realize I would have to explicitly state this -- is that a rejection of this pact does NOT mean that the US Senate (or the states it represents) gives free rein to drive SUVs 24/7 and cut down every tree in sight. That's not really a difficult conclusion to draw, if you put a little effort into it.
To get back to the original point, which Wood and babybear addressed (thank you, Wood and babybear): given the crap spouted here, would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
<-snippety-snip->
would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?
Vast difference between judging, and prejudging. I can judge, with the facts (however erroneously intepreted) in front of me, or I can prejudge, with no facts. Which do you want?
Leaping forward in a flash of light, i shall attempt to pre-empt another post :E
Prejudging is a bad idea, because it appears to have no relation to the facts. Thus i will create a picture of you in my head that is not based on anything apart from my grumpiness at being woken up by mendicant salesmen. I would consider this to be bad form.
Judging with the facts is a different kettle of fish, as it assumes that you have an idea of what the issues are.
If a burden of proof had to be laid (cheep) then it would be with the 'judging with facts' section. Course, the whole problem is who is not only right, but has the 'God's-eye' view of the situation. Can you claim objectivity over an argument bla bla bla...
The other problem is that even if you are faced with someone irrationally prejudging them, if they were aware of being irrational/prejudging, would they change their behaviour? And even if you made them aware, would they care?
Christian Response: Walk on the other side of the street. Tbh, most people aren't going to change their minds because of an argument :| and i've wasted countless hours of my life arguing with people who just won't see it MY WAY DAMNIT.
:O Er, time for me salad i think.
quote:
That doesn't mean we're a bunch of anti-environmental corporate shills.
quote:
given the crap spouted here, would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
You could do that if you wanted. Whether I felt obliged to respond to you would depend on whether I felt it was worth trying to disabuse you of your prejudice.
But why would it not be worth trying to disabuse someone of prejudice?
Surely, proving that prejudice is unjustified is always worth it.
quote:
Erin said:
To get back to the original point, which Wood and babybear addressed (thank you, Wood and babybear): given the crap spouted here, would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?
Yes it would, the burden of proof already is on us (and should be), and hopefully we've proved that it isn't true (in many cases).
[Edited UBB code]
[ 28 July 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]
quote:
You could do that if you wanted. Whether I felt obliged to respond to you would depend on whether I felt it was worth trying to disabuse you of your prejudice.
Actually, I think the word is hypocrisy. And I don't have to prejudge you on anything, you've actually proven that you're illogically anti-American. I don't think I will be responding to any more of your posts on this subject.
I may be new at this, but it seems that you are all taking EVERYTHING too personally.
Erin, I mean this in the nicest possible way, I thik you should take a chill pill.
Erin
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
1/ generalisations suck
...
Pyx_e in a reflective mood
Pyx_e,
on reflection, do you think that all generalisations always suck? Or would you say that perhaps in your experience so far and in general they tend to suck more often than not?
As someone (not sure who) once said:
"It is too much of a generalisation to be true to assert that all generalisations are false".
Pt
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Riley, here's the thing. You read Erin's posts and start feeling anti-American. Whereas when I read your posts, instead of feeling anti-Australian, I just feel anti-Riley.
Strange, when I read Riley's post I felt pro-Riley, and when I re-read the whole of this thread I felt anti-Hell. (Though, Riley, please remember that Erin is only one of many Americans, and doesn’t speak for the whole USA. If you get anti feelings when reading her posts, maybe its better they should be anti-Erin feelings rather than anti-American.)
------------------------------------------
In reading this and other threads (e.g. George Bush) I don't normally categorise the contributions along nationality lines, but on re-reading I see a variety of viewpoints expressed by Americans and non-Americans.
But I think to any reader of these threads it is quite obvious that some writers more than others have bees in their bonnets and a lot to prove. Some are unnecessarily confrontational or sarcastic, but maybe that is the essence of Hell. Nevertheless we learn a lot about people from the tone of their comments.
---------------------------------------------
On the matter of anti-American sentiment, I have some very good friends who I admire greatly who are American. I had the pleasure recently of spending some time with a man born Welsh who had moved to USA, married a US woman and after some years been given US citizenship. It had meant a lot to him and he loved the country and was proud of it ... but not its politics. He and his wife were deeply ashamed of Bush as were many of the people we met around New England.
This perhaps is at the nub of the issue. I think a lot of users of these boards are, like me, British.
The UK has recently voted by a large majority for a government which is to the left of the US Democratic party on many issues. Many people in the UK, in all major parties, feel deeply committed to issues like the public provision of healthcare free of charge at the point of receipt and provided on the basis of need, not ability to pay. This seems completely off the wall to many US people, even some who pride themselves on their liberal values.
The matter of guns is another in which the culture is completely different. For many US citizens it is an important matter of human rights to be able to have firearms, and it seems to some to provide an important limitation on the powers of the state over the individual. In Britain, many people think it would be better if there were no firearms except perhaps for licensed culling of vermin and military purposes.
Perhaps some of what is perceived as anti-US sentiments is simply anti-right wing politics, especially on the Bush thread.
I might have written vitriolic anti-Thatcher rhetoric some years ago, but it would have been a mistake to infer that I was therefore anti-British.
--------------------------------------------
As regards generalisations (similar to prejudices), I believe they have a positive value when forming policy affecting large populations, but have a negative value when dealing with individuals.
So if you were in charge of oil imports for the US you might need a picture in your mind of the amount of "gas" used by the typical American. If you were opening a chain of Christian bookstores in the US you might need a picture of the churchgoing habits of the “typical” US household. But if you meet an American, best to try not to assume that they are average; try to listen rather than assume.
-----------------------------------------
I have a feeling my contributions here are not particularly Hellish, and the ones I enjoy reading most are also the ones which are least Hellish, so I think I shall spend more time in Purgatory in future. I hope to see some of you there.
Pt
I understand the point of the boards in hell, but rather than everyone simply attacking each other, leave all personal feelings and prejudices aside and concentrate on the argument. Ok, so maybe a British person doesn't like Americans. Or vice versa. It doesn't matter, that's not the issue. Personally, I like Americans individually, but en masse, two or more, I don't. However, that's my personal opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the threads in here. So I won't refer to it.
I simply ask that the issue be attacked, and this thread not be a place for a few people to attack each other.
Alan
quote:
Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context. The same goes for comment which stereotypes or attacks people on the basis of their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference. Please avoid unintelligent remarks such as "Americans irritate me because..." or, "homosexuals are always saying..." Remarks like this always start flame wars and they are treated severely. All the above areas are open for reasoned debate, but extreme or insensitive attacks on the beliefs or lifestyle choices of other shipmates are not tolerated. When discussing a specific people group, please mentally substitute the name of a shipmate for the group in question before you post your message. That is the rule the administrators and hosts will use to determine whether or not your post is a personal attack, so please do the same.
So no, Riley, we're not just going to ignore it. Take your own advice: if you don't like it, don't read it.
Addendum: If you don't like the content of a thread, you really should take it up with that board's hosts. I am sure that David, Tom and 'frin would be most interested to hear from you.
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
Welcome to the real world, Erin. It ain't nice, but its all we have to live with.
Prejudices, by their very nature are very difficult to remove. Personally, I hate xenophobia because its a foreign word.
So, some people are misrepresented and misunderstood? Get to the back of the line.
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm sure many people who post against "Americans" when what they should be posting against is (say) the current presidency, or stereo-typical American characteristics, don't realise that such remarks are viewed as insulting by many Americans.
Alan
I'd like to say the truth hurts but I feel that would be both being hypocritical and causing more problems.
So I won't.
You make a good point, but I'm sure that our American friends, although being wronged at the moment, are not angels. I hope they remember how they feel if they ever decide to do the same to another country. Then again, were anyone to insult Australia, I have enough sense of humour to laugh it off.....
quote:
...I'm sure that our American friends, although being wronged at the moment, are not angels. I hope they remember how they feel if they ever decide to do the same to another country.
One did. I banned him myself.
Addendum:
quote:
Sometimes. If we just let it go then it dies down real quick.
We let it go for the first 12 months of this board's existence. As you can see, it hasn't died down.
It would be REALLY helpful if you would take the time to learn the board's history and culture.
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
I'm going to put it into easliy digestible points.
1. The board's been here three years last Sunday. Erin's been here the whole time. I've been here since December 1999. And you know how many times there's been a shitfight about anti US sentiment while I've been around?
No? Well, neither do I, cos I've lost count.
You can't make Erin (or Ruth, or any of us) take a 'chill pill' - because it's more serious than an isolated argument. It's part of a history.
2. Look. I probably disagree more with Erin's politics than about anyone else on the board (except maybe Karl, but he's a closet Marxist, anyway ). But you know what? I like Erin.
Erin slogs her guts out to keep this board going.
Allow me to put forward the point you seem to be missing (I'll say it slowly, so you understand): ERIN. IS. A. RATIONAL. HUMAN. BEING.
You can discuss this stuff with her. Rationally. If she's not taking it well, why is that? Could it possibly be that you're being insulting?
3. If Erin is over-reacting, how come there hasn't been a horde of US people backing you up? could it be: that they're scared of Erin? (for your answer, see point 2) Or are they all too obviously a bunch of redneck cryptofascists who just agree with her? Or could it be (no, wait) that maybe she's right, and you're prejudiced?
Look. I've been privileged to have gone to a univerity with an unusually high proportion of US students. Don't know why, it just is that way.
Many of those US students who are Christian go to my church. It's the hardest thing in the world to admit you're prejudiced, but you know what? The vast majority of UK citizens (yes I know you're in Australia, Riley, but this, I feel, probably applies to you too) don't like Americans.
Last week I met a Canadian who's lived in the UK for several years. She told me that people are usually much nicer to her once they realise that she isn't from the US.
I SO utterly believe that.
I started a thread in Heaven where people are supposed to be saying nice things about Americans. It's been getting backhanded insults and "grudgingly"s at the start of sentences.
That says prejudice to me.
Guys, this is not an argument in isolation, you're not saying anything new and Erin has a right to be pissed off, because it's happened too many times.
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Though, Riley, please remember that Erin is only one of many Americans, and doesn?t speak for the whole USA. If you get anti feelings when reading her posts, maybe its better they should be anti-Erin feelings rather than anti-American.
Obviously Erin doesn't speak for the whole USA, but in this case I think she speaks for most, if not all, of the American shipmates.
She certainly speaks for me.
Moo
quote:
Originally posted by Riley:
By allowing racism, sexism, or whatever to get to you, you can make it worse for yourself.
While that might be good advice for a child in the playground, it is not suitable for here. We are not children, and neither is this a playground. We should be capable of discussing different aspects of our faith and our lives without having to make humourous remarks to deflect the criticisms. Especially when the criticisms are based on prejudice and not on the fact.
bb
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
If she's not taking it well, why is that? Could it possibly be that you're being insulting?No, insulting is calling all American arrogant capitalist bastards (not something I agree with, just an example).
The vast majority of UK citizens (yes I know you're in Australia, Riley, but this, I feel, probably applies to you too) don't like Americans.
Last week I met a Canadian who's lived in the UK for several years. She told me that people are usually much nicer to her once they realise that she isn't from the US.
Funny that isn't it. I wonder if there's a reason the world feels this way.....
Hmm...I don't think this has made things any better but oh well.
It's hard trying to live in a stereotype, I have to live in several, and it's hard to make people see that not everyone is like that. Maybe rather than attacking others for their feelings, why not prove them wrong? I mean no disresepct, but in my limited experience my feelings have been confirmed, not altered. I'm quite open minded and my opinions can be changed, but there's nothing to make me change this one as yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:What I want to know: [list]
Since when is it an unfairly-maligned group's responsibility to rid you of your prejudice?
Just to go right back, I'd argue that those people would be the best people to do so, since they are probably the only ones who understand exactly where they are coming from.
BUt I'm sure my throat will be jumped down again for this as well.
So can I simply echo the points that babybear and Wood have made- thanks for working on dispelling the myth that Erin - and other Americans might be inclined to build up that all english are illogically anti-american. Yes some are. But not all.
I think it would be a real tragedy that a US poster might ended up in that situation as a result of unprovoked generalisations. Understandable and - I agree with Wood that you would be justified in thinking such of all English - or feeling you had to establish where they are standing.
Please don't go down that road. You would be doing yourself a worse dis-service - than any other person. If you hook onto one generalisation, than you easily slip into the next and the next and with a potential end result of lumping everyone in some rubbish context. How so not happy would anyone be like that?
Don't let them get the better of you in such ways. I hope they are in the minority. I am sorry I haven't posted my support more on this post to the americans but, as I say, I am finding it hard to put into words what I want to say. The anti-american generalisations really suck and they hurt me as a brit to read (in the same way as I feel when I read about brit soccer thugs etc) so really can't begin to imagine how they hurt you.
No I am not perfect.
To those who think Erin should lighten up - why should she? This is an issue that is important to her so don't discredit it for her or any other american. I am sure you have issues you feel strongly about.
really wish I could say what I wanted to say better. But hope that has clarified my position - as best I can. Apologies if not - please understand that sometimes I find it hard to put things into words and am simply not as eloquent as I would like to be. That does not negate the depth of feeling.
If someone insults you and then is surprised you don't take it well, this says something about his attitude toward you.
If someone says, "You're dirty!", you will (I assume) get angry. If he responds with surprise, "All I did was say you're dirty.", you will get much angrier. If he then asks you to prove you're not dirty, you'll explode.
If someone feels insulted, a tone of "reasonableness" is pouring oil on the flames.
Moo
Riley, I'm not going to jump down your throat. You have proven yourself to be illogically anti-American, and on this subject you are on terminal ignore.
Thanks very much for your support and your concern for the American shipmates.
I thought you expressed yourself very well.
Moo
For example, if we say a sitcom is bad because it is American, that doens't mean we are referring to all Americans. If we complain about US political decisions, again, we are not complaining about all Americans, not even the ones who voted for Bush, etc, only about the people making the decisions.
Or if people say American tourists are loud mouthed, rude and arrogant. This doesn't apply to all, in fact it only applies to the specific people that the person making the statement has met, which would most probably be very few people.
I would hope that in other threads tounge-in-cheek remarks about a country could be made without people accusing you of insulting all they hold dear.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
You have proven yourself to be illogically anti-American.
Ín reality I'm not anti-american, lots....some....a few great things come from America
The great majority of Americans are fantastic people and constantly have to live proving that they are not like the stereotype. There are only a few people that I have met who are like that, very few. BUt that's the same with any culture - it's always only a few.
I merely responded orginally to the threads I'd read, and when the responses came back I thought I'd see where I could take it. This is hell after all isn't it?
I'm very sorry if I've offended Erin or any other yanks, it was not my intention :-)
quote:
Originally posted by Riley:
For example, if we say a sitcom is bad because it is American, that doens't mean we are referring to all Americans.<snip>
Or if people say American tourists are loud mouthed, rude and arrogant. This doesn't apply to all, in fact it only applies to the specific people that the person making the statement has met, which would most probably be very few people.
If you say a sitcom is bad because it's American, and that's the only evidence of its badness you give, you are displaying anti-American prejudice.
If you say American tourists are loud, rude and arrogant, you are over-generalizing. If you mean only that some American tourists are loud, rude and arrogant, that that's what you should say in the first place.
Riley, I was not engaging in personal attack when I said your posts make me anti-Riley instead of anti-Australian. I was saying two things, apparently too subtly for you: 1. I am able to see your comments as representing you and only you, not Australians in general; 2. based on what you've posted so far, I don't like you.
I did respond, the email was returned as undeliverable with an "access denied" message, which I have to say pissed me off. So I blasted you in response to your PM (click on the My profile link in the upper righthand corner to see it).
Now, some background. I live in the American South, a region which has long since been synonymous with racism. And we have a horrible track record on that front. Lynchings were not unheard of 35 years ago. Thankfully we've made tremendous progress since then, but the knowledge of our past is something that all Southerners carry with them.
It's still somewhat overt in some parts of the South. I remember repeating a racial slur to my grandmother when I was six. I don't remember the ensuing few minutes. She backhanded me so hard that I was literally stunned. And she told me that she's heard that all her life, and she'd be damned and go to hell before she saw yet another generation grow up with that sort of mindset. It is a lesson I will never forget, and probably the single most important thing she ever taught me.
Because of this, I am very sensitive to prejudice and stereotyping and labels. In fact, they send me into a blind fury, which is why Simon is moderating this thread. I tire of it quickly. I don't necessarily blame people for thinking what they think, but it pisses me the hell off when they continue to justify thinking it. There's no justification for expecting me to have to prove my environmental awareness because the Bush Administration rejected Kyoto. That's what started this whole thread. Groucho said that because of the Kyoto rejection Americans would have to prove themselves as caring about environmental concerns. Whether you think Kyoto is a bad idea or the Greatest Thing in the Whole Wide World Ever is not the point. The point is that it wasn't my decision, and I should not have to prove anything because of it.
Apologies to Moo for the lengthy post.
You make a good point and I agree (I do, really ). You'll probably find that had Bush agreed to Kyoto then the US would have been branded greenies or something similar.
I thought of an interesting point. If one makes comments about an aboriginal or ethnic or asian here, they are branded a racist. But if it's about a yank, brit or kiwi or the like, then it's not. Is that the same everywhere else?
What I can't figure out is why you're still posting on these boards.
R.
quote:
Originally posted by Renee:
Must be a great place to live, eh, Riley, where you can insult anybody who isn't like you and then tell 'em to get over it or risk further assault.
You completely missed what I was saying. I was saying if you talk about someone who isn't like you, then that is bad. I would assume most Australians consider americans and brits to be the same as us - I know I do. The only real difference is we live in different places.
Obviously I shall need to spell things out to you in the future Renee
On that thread people said things like, "My father is Welsh and my mother is Irish, but I've lived in England all my life." This person obviously does not see himself as simply English.
I compare this with the attitude of my son-in-law, whose father immigrated from Canada and whose mother immigrated from Sweden. He is aware of his heritage, but he considers himself American pure and simple. He would be startled if anyone suggested otherwise.
In the same way, if someone immigrated to America as an adult, and twenty years later said that he considered himself American, people would not argue with him. I have the impression that if someone immigrated to England and later said he considered himself English, he would get an argument. Brits, please tell me if I'm right about this.
Moo
Alan
Where I live, we ask people how long they've lived in California, and if they say something like five years, we say, "Oh, well, then you're practically a native."
Ten percent of the people living in the US right now were born outside the country. In California, that figure is 25%. As soon as these people take the oath and are naturalized, they're Americans.
My husband has lived in Wales for all of his adult life, but would hesitate to say that he was Welsh. The Gremlin has lived in Wales since 1988, and has learnt Welsh, and has two bi-lingual daughters. If people ask him *what* he is he often replies "English by birth, Welsh by habitation, and Scottish by marriage."
I have just asked Hannah (7)
bb: Are you Socttish, English or Welsh?
H: Welsh.
bb: What am I?
H: Scottish.
bb: What is Dadi?
H: English
bb: Doesn't that make you half Scottish and half English?
H: [nods head]
bb: So what are you, are you half Scottish and half English or are you Welsh?
H: Welsh.
bb
When people ask your nationality do you say Scottish or British, and why? IS there a time you'd say the other one?
I have called myself British on these boards a couple of times, but shuddered each time I did so. I should stop the shuddering, and just accept that it is a label that some people use for me.
I think that being Scottish gives me a different outlook that people who are British. But as I have lived in Wales for 10 years now my knowledge of Scotland is historic. So that is why I am "a Scot, living in Wales."
bb
I want to go to Scotland so badly, I can't see it happening in the near future though. My family is originally from there, plus I need to pick up more of my family's tartan - I want a kilt lol
quote:
I have called myself British on these boards a couple of times, but shuddered each time I did so.
Why did you shudder?
This is something that I am slowly coming to terms with, and trying to revise my current impressions. I suppose that I am guilty of being anti-British. I don't think that I would ever want to describe myself as being British, but I hope that I can learn to accept being called British without the shudders, and without the negative images that appear in my mind.
bb
I'm not represented by any of these. If someone speaks/writes in such a way as to show they think I am, they are both racist and stupid (or is that redundant?).
Like Erin, I have grown up against all sorts of prejudice.
And for Riley: prejudice based on one's own experience is still prejudice.
Alex
quote:
My point, Riley, is that those jokes here are considered offensive. As in not funny.
I'm not sure what to think of your "brit, oz, yank, all alike" concept, since you were so adamant a few posts ago on the subject of "the rest of the world hates you, so accept the truth and get over it." It might be a good idea to take your own advice on the subject.
As for spelling things out, well, don't strain yourself ma petite. We know who you are.
R.
And, btw.. Erin speaks for me on this thread as well.
I shall make no personal comment on such an arrogant, ignorant, fatuous, steaming pile of horeshit. Rather I'll refer such people to the words of Julian Wintle, an Englishman living in Wales:"By so airing our prejudices we reinforce them. Not only that, but by embedding them in laughter we make them acceptable. Comedy, far from defusing prejudice, reinforces it."
Perhaps the way to have dealth with Apartheid in South Africa was laughter? Where would they be today?
And what about those Jews killed in WW2? Should they have just laughed? Should the allies have just laughed rather than racing to free them?
We might as well laugh about the present-day enslavement of Christians and animists in Sudan, since we're not doing a hell of a lot about it. As a Christian, though, I find myself crying, not laughing.
Alex
I've already apologised about comments which were taken badly, and I reiterate that. However, it seems that some of the Christians here won't forgive you so easily - you need to suffer a bit first.
I do have a point to make, though. While the end result is fairly disparate, I would not necessarily agree that anti-American (or English, or Welsh, or any other nationality) comments are harmless in comparison to anti-Jewish sentiment, or apartheid. True, it is unlikely that six million Americans are going to be led to gas chambers in London or Sydney. But it is indicative of an "us vs them" attitude that we really should be in the business of eradicating.
If you can draw that distinction between "us" and "them", it's not such a broad leap to dehumanize "them". And if you have dehumanized "them", you can do and say anything.
What is this concept of "friendly rivalry"? Sounds like another attempt to justify antagonism. Happens everywhere - lived in a village where people used to complain about people moving into the area from 7 miles away!
No male no female, no slave no free, no Jew no Greek no Aussie no American no Brit no nothing, as Paul would say.
In spite of what Paul may have said about unity-in-Christ, I am not a generic soul-in-need-of-saving, not a generic member-of-the-human-race. I am indeed female; I am indeed of Nordic descent. And I remain both of those things, without hating those who are neither. I remain both of those things, without losing what I have in common with the rest of the world. In spite of sin and salvation, deities and demons, angels and afterlives...I am still what I am.
I would use examples of what you say about the other team during a sports match, it's not necessarily true, but it's not intended to bring harm.
Or calling a Brit a pommy or an American a yank. It's not intended to be offensive, it's intended to be something else - the word has slipped my mind. Can someone who understands me help me out? lol
Over the last couple of days as a result of reading this thread I've started reflecting on whether I harbour and / or promulgate negative prejudices against US people. (We liberals are always open to challenge and change ) If I have come across that way I apologise.
One of the best ways of challenging stereotypes is to meet and learn about people who we might think we can pigeonhole, and find out they might e different. I guess the Ship is one way of doing this.
As I have said before I have US friends and others I have met who do not fit the stereotypes, but I guess that doesn't mean I have no stereotypes.
Two questions to broaden the conversation slightly:
- is it okay to hold and express preferences or distastes for cultural entities (e.g. businesses, cuisines, political ideologies) which are associated with a particular country?
- Are we moving into the area of Political Correctness? (I ask that as one who tries to be PC though I dislike the negative way the term is iused; I prefer the word "courteous").
Pt
(English, British, European, male, white, christian, maried to a wonderful woman, New Labour, Anglican ... proud of some aspects of my heritage, ashamed of others, but glad to be me!)
quote:
- is it okay to hold and express preferences or distastes for cultural entities (e.g. businesses, cuisines, political ideologies) which are associated with a particular country?
Of course it is! Macdonalds is a business associated with the USA, and I think many on these boards would express distaste with their employment practices, and their obtaining beef from countries that are destroying natural habitats to create cattle ranches. (But tehre are lots of 'good' American companies)
As for cuisines, I have little liking for Mexican food (in contrast to my wife). This doesn't mean I 'hate' Mexicans of course!
Regarding political ideologies, I do not by any means 'hate' the continent of Europe. I would rather live in it than Africa, Asia or Australia, for example. But I do 'hate' the European Union (as it currnetly exists), and regret that the UK is a member. Enthusiasts 'for' the EU have had a lot of success in 'demonising' opponents of it as being 'anti-European'. That is NOT (generally) the case. THE EU IS NOT EQUAL TO 'EUROPE'. (Just as the Bush adminisstration is not equal to 'the Americans'.)
I do not dislike the Russians, Swiss, Ukrainians, Norwegians or Bulgarians. They are all European, yet not members of the EU. I do not 'dislike' the countries that ARE members (I am very fond of Ireland, for example); what I dislike are the unaccountable, centralising, interfering, bureaucratic bodies like the European Commission and the European Central Bank.
In 1994 a young black man was killed. His name was Stephen Lawrence. The investigation into his murder, by white youths, was totally botched and a public enquiry was held into the way the police handled the case.
Drawing on conclusions that Lord Scarman had come to in 1981 after race riots in London, the McPhierson Report - which you can find here, see especially para 6.6 onwards - made widespread the phrase "institutional racism". What both Scarman (no wilting PC liberal he) and McPhierson made clear was that this wasn't deliberate or malicious or even conscious, but rather the outworking of unchallenged, un-thought-through attitudes, the consequences of which are that people are treated badly. Stephen Lawrence's killers don't seem to have been caught not because there was any deliberate racism ("Oh, it's only a black guy, so let's not bother") but rther the underlying assumptions of that particular police force - the effect of which was that this crime wasn't as thoroughly investigated as others.
You can see it happening in other cases - there's a black guy in London who has been stopped eight times by the police, although he has committed no crime. His name is John Sentamu and he's the Anglican Bishop of Stepney.
It's this unconscious prejudice which I think is a good example of an "unintentional sin" - we may think we're not prejudiced, but the consequences of our actions show that we are. It also suggests a laziness on our part about considering whether we might have prejudices that need challenging. It's what the rites of the Western churches call sins of negligence - you don't even bother sthining about them, but the consequences are there to see.
Riley - I get the concept of "friendly rivalry" - I just don't think it's a particularly healthy one. The shit that we've had to wade through on these boards in the last 3 years has gone way beyond any such concept anyway - it's been spiteful, ignorant and, at bottom, racist. Had some of the comments we've seen been made against any other specified group, then the prejudice would have been clear. But because the target has been the concept of "Americans" in some people's heads, it seems that that makes it all alright. Yeah, right.
Do any Americans get upset when they are called yanks? That's what I mean.
Incidentally, if you do I apologise, I don't mean it in a bad way lol
A black man getting pulled over by the police because he's black is obvious rascism and is terrible. But freindly rivalry would be on the basis of a country, regardless of whether you are black, white, yellow, green, whatever, and regardless of your background.
Look at Australia for example. We have such a diverse culture, yet everyone here is Australian. Hmm...I think I'm going off on a tangent...
Actually I don't think I'm alone, but I think jokes about any ethnic group that ride on a stereotype of stupidity are offensive. I hate to listen to Irish jokes, and I usually interrupt the teller with: 'Ah yer. I don't like ethnic jokes'.
Irish jokes share a common theme, where the humour turns on an assumption of stupidity or backwardness of the Irish people. Where a nation has been oppressed in its recent history, jokes that rely on a negative stereotype of a nation are insensitive and offensive.
I read one of the captions in the Orangemen caption competition which went something along the lines of: 'Nothing we can ever write will make this scene funny'.
I like Ireland a lot, and have some Irish ancestry, but I like, and will continue to like, good 'Irish' jokes. In Eire itself, they tell jokes about the people of County Kerry.
The Jews have a long and rich tradition of humour that is very often directed at the quirks of their own culture. Do they get offended when non-Jews laugh, or make jokes in similar vein? Of course not, provided there isn't any 'nastiness' involved. Palestinians or neo-Nazis making 'nasty' jokes about them would of course be way out of bounds. But I'm sure that they can cope with a typical Brit or American, for example, joining in, in the spirit of their own humour.
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
In Eire itself, they tell jokes about the people of County Kerry.
And in Kerry, they tell jokes about a specific village (can't remember the name).
Equally, I can't really comment on Australians as a group because I don't understnad the dynamic of Australian culture from the inside.
I play on the stereotype of solicitors, partly because I have a legitimate right to offer self-critique of myself as a lawyer and my profession. Yet, when my uncle spouts off ignorant b.s. about lawyers in the name of humour, I came down on him like a ton of bricks b/cos frankly he was talking ignorant rubbish. I can make jokes about being blind, not because of any moral superiority about, but because I know what it actually means whereas others don't. Do you see my point?
What's the difference between a lawyer and a leech?
Leeches drop off when you die.
My exgirlfriend (a lawyer told me that).
Incidentally, I don't even think Australians understand our culture from the inside lol
You can understand a culture, and its peculiarities, and therefore the resultant humour that plays on those quirks. I don't want to live in a world which puts EVERYTHING said, including humour, through a 'politically correct' filter.
My wife is an accountant, and so am I (well, I'm an auditor). I have no problem whatsoever with jokes based on the (sometimes mistaken) assumption that 'accountancy is boring'. A lot of it is. And auditing can be off the end of the scale!
I am a member of an 'oppressed minority', subject to cruel, scathing humour. I am a railway enthusiast! I KNOW people will refer to me as a 'trainspotter' and some (many?) will make jokes. I'd be a very sad person if I got offended at this.
quote:
Originally posted by Riley:
So do you like jokes like,What's the difference between a lawyer and a leech?
Leeches drop off when you die.
Not particularly because:
(a) it's not that good a joke;
(b) it suggests that lawyers are somehow selfish and do not provide a necessary service within a society, which we do;
(c) it further suggests that lawyers are somehow morally less appreciative of their fellow human beings than leeches, which we're not.
The joke perpetuates the lie that laywers are mean-spirited and self-serving. I get the same "abuse" from those in our local rag who seem to think that public sector workers are fair game for charges of dishonesty and incompetence. Why should we have to put up with such ignorant bile? It gets tedious, disheartening and ultimately makes you wonder why you bother committing your career to serving such ungrateful idiots who know sweet F.A. and only acknowledge your existence when they think you've don esomething wrong.
Alaric - you prove my point. You can laugh at "accountant" jokes because you are one. (Birth is not the only criteria for legitimately being able to comment on a culture - I respect Julian Wintle's view of Wales because he has opened himself up to the "other-ness" of the culture and is charitable enough to acknowledge this, rather than pass comment out of ignorance.)
And how come "thoughtfully and reasonably working out the consequences of the principles of following Jesus Christ" gets translated into "political correctness"? Isn't that yet another case of not listening, of using shorthand to denigrate the views of another so as not to have to think about it?
In view of his publicly expressed views, this could get messy!
Some years ago I saw a wonderful Canadian film called: 'True Confections' (a young Jewish woman living in Winnipeg(?) in transition from adolescence to adulthood).
There was an amusing scene where her gentile friend made the joke: 'Why do Jews have such big noses?'... 'Because the air is free!' and then laughed on, oblivious to its cool reception by her Jewish friends. The heroine's witty (and icebreaking) response: 'Only we're allowed to make those sort of jokes!'
Thus americans who did not choose to be US citizens (or decensdants of those who did not choose) tend to indentify themselves differently e.g. African-Americans or Native-Americans.
Also the USA goes back to the 18th century while most european countries are 19th or 20th century creations.
quote:
Also the USA goes back to the 18th century while most european countries are 19th or 20th century creations.
Are you trying to be ironic here? France goes back to the 9th century, if the Treaty of Verdun (I think it was) which split the Carolingian Empire three ways, marks its start. (The western 'portion' after that division correponded closely to 'France', and developed into it).
Spain is also ancient, though not quite so old, as is Portugal. And Denmark. And Russia. And, even if the United Kingdom is a relatively recent development, 'England' goes back to King Alfred, effectively, and 'Scotland' to Kenneth Mac Alpin in the 9th century. Etc.
A survey (sorry) found that most Belgiums thought of themselves first as flemmings or wallons secondly as europeans and only third as belgiums.
http://www.mousethief.com/dpgj.html
Alex
an example from my own situation. i am a member of al anon (the 12-step program for friends and families of alcoholics). people in alcoholics anonymous tell al anon jokes. the first time an aa person told me one, i felt like i'd been slapped in the face. however, this past weekend, i was at an al anon convention, and one of the sessions was on humor. the person chairing the session started with a joke that was actually ruder than the first joke... but i laughed hysterically, and so did the rest of the room. why? because when an aa person told a joke like that, they were laughing at me. when the al anon person told the joke, we were laughing at ourselves.
for the record:
why do al anons make love with their eyes closed?
because we hate to see an alcoholic have a good time.
