--- Jorpho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Regardless of their political views, our elected leaders to be
> reasonable
> > > and intelligent people. They know very well that if they screw up,
> they'll
> > > pay the price for that at the next election.
> > >
> > > Does the American public actually have any idea about how we perceive
> your
> > > extreme distrust of government and anything that reeks of government
> > > involvement?
> >
> > No please explain. Besides as someoen who has a website and list
> dedicated
> to
> > DB, and knowing DBs opinons on Otherness and a "healthy distrust of
> > governement" I would liek to hear your opinons.
> >
> > We distrust governement becouse nearly all of us were, or have ancestors
> who
> > were burned by one governement or another (even the USA). So I would not
> say
> > that our distrust is unwarented.
> >
> > Why should we care what your perception of our governemtnal distrust is?
>
> Didn't this whole thread start out as an attempt to better understand why
> Americans sometimes regard themselves as being mistreated in foreign
> countries? Could this not be a matter of the perception of this
> governmental mistrust?
>
Something of that sort. It was more, what do Europeans have against us. This
thread was an attempt for each side to better understand eachother.
But in any event, you are correct. It could make a difference in this
reguard. But once again. it comes back to an inherent ownes of acceptance.
A Eropean may say "you should change your method of interacting with us
becouse we see you as being paranoid becouse you don't trust governemnts."
Or some such thing -please correct this statment if you feel the need-. But
the point is this may sound like the appropriate and correct thing for
someoen outside (like an alien or something) who shares the ethical model of
Europe.
An American would say "these eropeans need to be more accepting of other's
cultures. If they do not want to follow our "better" way then fine, but they
should not expect us to change." Once again from the outside perspective
(with american ethical model) this appears to be the appropriate solution.
Mistrust of athority aside, there is the issue of where the acceptance
responsability is. In a European Multibultural Model (EMM) the responsability
is not to vex and to accpet the differences of others and not do somthing
that would pique them. The American Multicultural Model (what we often refer
to as "melting pot" but obviously this has some very disturbing conotations
in europe which are not intended when used in america) (AMM) the
responsability is to not be vexed and to accept the differences of others and
not to be concerned with others do things that would (if they came from your
own) pique.
How does such a difference effect interactions?
There are scinarios. I will use the word "component" to describe a member of
a cultural modle, and abreviate it with the leter C.
1 EMMC1 vex EMMC2 -> EMMC2 offended
2 AMMC vex EMMC -> EMMC offended
3 EMMC vex AMMC -> AMMC not offended
4 AMMC1 vex AMMC2 -> AMMC2 offended
So in practice the AMM is less likely to include instences where a component
is offended.
Furthermore it is easy to simply not be offended by another, where as it is
difficult to learn all of the possibilities for offence when interacting with
another culture.
This provides us with a second layer or meta vexation when interations occur
between components form differing models. We will assume that no vexation is
intended in any of the possabilities.
5 EMMC1 vex EMMC2 -> EMMC1 regretful
6 AMMC vex EMMC -> AMMC not regretful
7 EMMC vex AMMC -> EMMC would not know about it
8 AMMC1 vex AMMC2 -> AMMC1 regretful
of these 4 cases 2 are of intrest (6 & 7) in the following most probable
ways.
6 -> EMMC even more offended
7 -> End Of Event.
Futher more, becouse of the AMM a component of AMM will find the actual
offence due to an unintended vexation to be, in and of itself, if not
offensive, at least intolerant.
Therefore the situation of issue becomes:
a1) (AMMC vex EMMC -> EMMC offended)
a2) (AMMC vex EMMC -> AMMC not regretful)
a3) (AMMC not regretful (in this context) -> EMMC even more offended)
a4) (EMMC offended (in this context) -> ((AMMC offended) or (AMMC under the
impression that EMMC is intolerant))
We can take this to the next meta level where the EMMC is offended that the
AMMC is offended when they think the AMMC started it, and the AMMC is fed up
with the EMMC and stopes caring about the EMMC's "intolerant" and
"rediculous" viewpoints.
So it is no supprise that the EMMC would think that the AMMC should be
regretful, and that the AMMC would think that the EMMC should simply not be
offended.
IN the AMMC's defence, the AMM is the model which is both easier to realize
and the one with less likelyhood for conflict.
So applying this to the idea of a European `assumption` and `impression` (BTW
both without much merit in the AMM) on American mistrust of athority, it is
no supprise that americans would not (at first) care much what the europeans
"felt".
On the other hand not caring makes the Americans look intolerant to the
Europeans. But remember, at the same time, the fact that the Europeans care
so much and put so much into it intolerant to the American. Intolerant enough
to possibly warrent being offended. Add that to our almost :horror: at the
fact that Europeans :seem: to put quite a bit of trust in the instence of
their governemnts and do not go to as many lengths to ensure freedoms, we
have very little motivation to be a part of a greater "athority" which has
real power and no real checks and balances. Especialy in light of the way
that many UN nations recently ignored the implications of 3 resolutions and
called instead for an ongoing negotiation and attempt at peacefull solution
that was going to have significant effect on American echonomy, and loss of
American lives.
Put quite clearly we are not paranoid. We have a very recent example which we
can reference. The UN had 3 resolutions (the numbers escape me at the moment,
two in the 600 range and, I beleive, 1441) in any even we made strategic
decisions based on these resolutions as if they were international -law-. We
were willing to, once again, be the inforcement of this law. But when that
time came, we were put in a precarious position by several countries
renigging on that law. It would seem then that our distrust of athority is
once again supported.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
