--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030701.1734, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> >You don't think power corupts, and so you are not concerned as much about
> >the system.
>
> That's not what I said. I know that power corrupts, but over here we
> consider people in power to be "innocent until proven guilty", instead of
> "guilty until proven innocent".
>
>
> >Our "founding fathers" left europe at a time when it was mostly
> >monarchies, and they set up this kind of government becouse of the very
> >corupt power they experienced at the time.
>
> Modern-day democratic government (in both Europe and the US) is very
> different from the feudal way in which Europe was run in the 15th century.
> I can imagine that corruption was much more commonplace then than it is
> now; back then there were no checks and balances, and the population was
> mostly uneducated and illiterate (and way to busy trying to stay alive, to
> worry about politics).
>
>
> >OUr feeling on Europe is that we dig more, so we find more.
>
> Of all those millions of politicians that have served your country over the
>
> centuries, how many of them have actually been proven to be corrupt or have
>
> been proven to have otherwise abused their powers?
>
>
> > > So far, most of our elected officials haven't betrayed that trust. Our
> > > politicians know that any abuse of power is likely to be discovered
> sooner
> > > or later, and that this discovery will put a quick end to their
> political
> > > career. Few are willing to risk their position of influence, their
> > > reputation and their quite pleasant paychecks.
> >
> >If you were a little more catious and dug deeper, and trusted a bit less,
> >we think you would find that you are missing a lot of abuse.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. We're keeping a pretty close eye on our politicians, I
> don't think many of them will be able to abuse their power without anyone
> noticing it. Nevertheless, we're not going to say that many of our
> politicians are corrupt; we still adhere to the principle of "innocent
> until proven guilty".
This doesn't sound any different really. Maybe it's just the way we -talk-
about it, not how we actualy -think- about it.??
This happens al the time even in the US. FREX I grew up in a culture where
emotions were more expressed than that in the general population, but also
prety muched ignored.
Now, with NAs this was generaly the norm, with NBAs this was often strange
but axcepted. With FOB's though I can be regaurded as somewhat of a
..."Klingon".
Russians and Chinese for instence tend to hold their emotions back. Well, not
really. It's more that their -"volume" is turned down-. I am not saying that
they are not as loud (although there may be a component of that) I am saying
that they express their emotions much much more subtely. So when they view a
more ...."intense" display of emotions they are put off by it.
Further more they get upset becouse they use body language much more, and
consider many comunications to be best kept as body language, considering
these things spoken out loud to be uncooth. Since we tend to speak our mind
and request comunication on such topics, this can be uncomfortable for them.
Of course comeing from a culture that is use to the "volume" being turned up,
and one which typicaly ignores non-verbals until they are very loud (even for
us) I tipicaly don't even notice such subtle body language. Even if I did, it
would be too....."soft" for me to interpret.
Now if you would adress the modle that I have previously described you will
see that Americans have choosen the modle of "melting pot" multiculturalism
to deal with just such issues. We are very individualistic. Instead of
boiling all the cultures down to the least common denominator, we take a
greatest common denominator approach.
Consider the differences in such cultures living in and among eachother. Can
you think of a better way of dealing with these differnces than the AMCM? If
we used the EMCM we would all soon have the least common denominator culture.
Instead we have the greatest common denominator. Exactly the interpritation
that you had of the term "melting pot" would in fact occure. We don't want
that, we prefer to allow each culture to retain some individuality whithout
the need for people from simmilar cultures to be geographicaly and socialy
enclosed.
Granted some groups do prefer more..."clumping" but this is much more common
in San Francisco, LA, and New York. I'm not saying that clumping doesn't
occure in the other parts, but I am saying that this clumping is melting away
at a much faster rate. Subsequently in such places the NBAs tipicaly shun
thowse that clump. This might be interpreted as racesism, but it is not. It
is mearly a distast for such exclusivism.
Before I stray to far from the point, what was it? That our "volume"
concerning athority and the watching of that athority to make sure the power
is not abused may ~sound~ "louder" than that in Europe, but from what you
describe, it doesn't sound like what we are thinking or meaning is any
different. Well, we do beleive that more balance is neccisary. We think the
system has to be set up with more checks and balances than many of the other
systems in the world, and we don't think you can have one of our "branshes"
of athority without also haveing the other 2. We may in fact distrust
athority more than Europeans, but I think that your interpritation that this
distrust is paranoia, is due to a difference in -"volume"-.
What do you think?
=====
_________________________________________________
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!
