arachne-digest Thursday, January 23 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2032
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:04:39 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Carbon14 testing and Arachne Hi, I deeply regret not to have a copy of "On the origin of species" but at this very moment I do not have time to read it since I am studying some history now. Bob mentioned the "treaty of West Phalia" and it was not that easy to find something about that. After a while I realised that this treaty is known here as the treaty of Munster (capital of West Phalia then). You did mean that treaty in the year 1648, did you Bob? Anyway that treaty is very important to Dutch history for it marked the end of the 80 year war (beter 80 yaer revolution) and the withdraw of the Spanish army from "The Republic of the Seven Provinces" better know as Holland, being the most important province at that time. Zeeland was second, New Zealand called after this province. On old maps Australia is marked as New Holland ;-) Very interesting stuff and giving the start of an answer to the question why the US do not listen to 'the rest of the world'. BTW: the rest of the not western-world is for the same reason not hapy to hear the voice of the US or Europe... they think they hear the sound of kolonialism in the voice of the US or Europe. On top of all that I last night saw a very interesting documentary on German TV (BR = Bavaria)... 3h 30min of French <-> German relations and wars from abt. 1870 thru 1962. Devestating material damages and millions of death for very silly reasons and some very stuborn and silly leaders. George W is born 100 years late and in the wrong place, Europe would have been a better place. Regards, bastiaan Still studying... Dutch history at school is very, very bad :-( On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:53:17 +0000, Ron Clarke wrote: > her way. > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:12:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: >> (previous subject: Iraq vs. N Korea) >>> People have found millions of proofs for evolution. >>> (dinosaurs which are more than a million years old [measured with >>> C14], embrios >>> which have a tale in the early development, .....................) >> Hi Ricsi, >> Actually, Carbon 14 results have an 'error swing'. This has been >> discovered by comparing dendochronology (tree ring dating) with C14 >> dating. Starting from the modern era and working backward, the error is >> slightly off -showing earlier or later than actual dates (but I can't >> remember at the moment on which side the error starts) - then coming back >> to coincidence with dendochronology, then swinging the other way. > The C14 error becomes significant at about 40,000 years. > Fortunately, there are other isotopes that are more reliable, such > as potassium, silicon, and so on. > Ricsi, I agree with you, but I have to say that the claim of embryonic > development being a mirror of evolution has been thoroughly debunked. It > is not a valid argument for evolution, and doesn't really need to be. > Darwin never claimed that, either. It was proposed by well-meaning, > but misguided, supporters of evolution > Evolution, natural selection, and so on, stands on its own observed > data, it doesn't need artificial support. > Am I the only one who actually owns a copy of "On the Origin of > Species" ? > Regards, > Ron (of the wooden spoon) > Ron Clarke > http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html > http://tadpole.aus.as > -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:23:37 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Newsletters & HTML On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:04:06 +0000, Ron Clarke wrote: > HI Bastian, > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:09:07 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: >> Hi List, >> often I receive 'newsletters' by e-mail... nothing unusual. >> But sometimes those newsletters in HTML contain images and displayed in >> Arachne there appear 'red boxes'. >> Red boxes because the images are NOT present. > This happens if you read the HTML while off-line ? Indeed, I close the connection after SMTP/POP down/upload. >> The HTML newsletter is an attachment and the images ought to be >> attachments too... but they are not there. > So they are called from the email-sender's server space. I investigated some more: IMG SRC="www.rb.nl" in this case... so the images must be on the page www.rb.nl but Arachne does not collect these images even if I would be on line... but perhaps if I would be on line and click "load images" Arachne would download them?? >> Since most users use M$ to handle their e-mail I suppose M$ Outlook >> users can view the images in the HTML message... >> Are the immages someway concealed into the HTML file? > No. But perhaps M$ loads the images automagicaly from a web page in the process of downloading the mail? That would mean that attachments are opened automagicaly by Outlook Express with all risks belonging to such automatic procedures ;-(( >> Or are the images not downloaded from the provider by Arachne. If the >> latter is true than my mailbox would be some day be filled with not >> downloaded images and that is not the case. >> ??? Any explanations? > 1) The HTML attachment calls the images from the email-sender's web > server. This allows the sender's server to confirm that the email > address is a live one, and that the receiver has opened the attachment. > If it was sent by a spammer, then your address has been validated as > "live" and you go onto a commercial list. > I get a lot of these. Sometimes I got one... but i never react to spam in anyway so I don't care if the images are red boxes or not. My delete key does not care either ;-) > 2) Alternatively, this is not a spammer, but the sender has linked > the email HTM attachment to files on his/her own hard disk, but has > forgotten to send the graphics as well (After all, it works on HIS > machine). > I get only a few of these. If you do not know what you are doing and a lot of people using Win crab do not know because all is automated... than you will 'forget' to send the pictures with the HTML attachment. ************* BTW: If you like a good display at the recievers end: first attach the images and the HTML file comes at the end of the transmission. ************* > 3) Or the newsletter is in digest form, and the ListServer removes all > graphical attachments before sending. This is not the case. Regards, Bastiaan > 4) Or the sending email software has been poorly set up. Automated ;-) > There may be more explanations, but I would guess that it is one of > the above. > Regards, > Ron > Ron Clarke > http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html > http://tadpole.aus.as > -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea >> How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? >> They are treated worse than animals. > The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated > any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be > treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. > The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well > as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal > classification, status, and category. The only way to classify someone 'a criminal' is by a court decission and until trial they are supposed to be 'innocent'. The detainees in Guantanamo are refused a (fair) trail or even legal advice to defend them selves. Kept in prison outside the US and outside US law. If there is that overwhelming evidence that they are guilty why not give them a fair trail? Are the Talibaan fighters among them realy criminals... they were defending their country, invaded by US forces. What was the reason for their arrest? Did they look like Bin Laden? Did they have a beard? Have they been questioned in Afghanistan and did they speak English very well? After all, they are over a year now in Guantanamo and still deprived of decent conditions or a fair trial... if it ever comes to a trial. Bin Laden & comp is still at large; the information gathered by US intelligence from those prisoners does not seem of any help. So why not let them go if there is no sufficient evidence (maybe no evidence at all?) or give them a fair trail very soon. Is this an example of the "American values" that the 'rest of the world' is supposed not to understand? Sadam does understand... I don't! Suggestion to G.W.B... hand them out to the court in The Hague. Regards, Bastiaan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:31:20 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:10:15 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > Excellently put, Casper. I am a Jew who grew up in Germany just after the > last war, went to school there and university. During that time I have not > heard EVER a racist remark by my peers or anyone else for that matter. Come > to think of it, I was naive enough to think that racism is something that > happened in the past. Until I went on a holiday to the USA. It was in a > small town in Louisiana where a woman I talked to in a diner spat in my face > when she heard I was Jewish and had the audacity to live in Germany! I was > scum as far as she was concerned. If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her with assault. If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to get away with it the incidents will continue. Unfortunately racism is still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around > anywhere. The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he is a known madman. I don't think we need to worry so much about the other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq we have quite a problem with that. > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have no > means of getting them all the way to America. Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents also. > For that reason alone it would > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war in > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is that, > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I don't > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... > Have a good day, Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:36:13 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: >>> How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? >>> They are treated worse than animals. >> The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated >> any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be >> treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. >> The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well >> as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal >> classification, status, and category. > The only way to classify someone 'a criminal' is by a court decission > and until trial they are supposed to be 'innocent'. In the case of persons captured on the battlefield they can be classified as criminals or POW's by the military authorities. If they are classified as criminals their cases may be disposed of by a military tribunal rather than by a civilian criminal court. The military has officers who are competently trained lawyers and who are well qualified to determine who should be classified as POW's and who should be categorized as criminals. The military will appoint legal counsel to help those who feel they have grounds to protest their classification. > The detainees in Guantanamo are refused a (fair) trail or even legal > advice to defend them selves. Kept in prison outside the US and outside > US law. Guantanamo is a US military base. All US military bases must adhere to US law. > If there is that overwhelming evidence that they are guilty why not give > them a fair trail? Whatever the military tribunal decided is considered fair enough. They are military prisoners. They are not prisoners detained by order of a civilian court. > Are the Talibaan fighters among them realy criminals... they were > defending their country, invaded by US forces. They were not defending their country. They were defending Al Queda, a terrorist organization. They are all war criminals. All war criminals are men without a country. > What was the reason for their arrest? Did they look like Bin Laden? > Did they have a beard? Have they been questioned in Afghanistan and did > they speak English very well? They were caught in the criminal act of serving in either the Taliban or in Al Queda or in some other terrorist organization. > After all, they are over a year now in Guantanamo and still deprived of > decent conditions or a fair trial... if it ever comes to a trial. > Bin Laden & comp is still at large; the information gathered by US > intelligence from those prisoners does not seem of any help. > So why not let them go if there is no sufficient evidence (maybe no > evidence at all?) or give them a fair trail very soon. If we expatriated them to Afghanistan they would likely be put on trial there by the current government and sentenced to death. Would this be a better fate for them? > Is this an example of the "American values" that the 'rest of the world' > is supposed not to understand? Sadam does understand... I don't! > Suggestion to G.W.B... hand them out to the court in The Hague. What should the Hague do with them? Execute them? Expatriate them to Afghanistan? Release them into civilized society and prevent them somehow from returning to their terrorist organizations? Keep them detained somewhere forever? Whatever is finally decided as to what to do with them, I don't think the detainees are going to be happy unless they would totally renounce their terrorist cause. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:27 +1000 From: "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Arachne List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:10:15 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > > > Excellently put, Casper. I am a Jew who grew up in Germany just after the > > last war, went to school there and university. During that time I have not > > heard EVER a racist remark by my peers or anyone else for that matter. Come > > to think of it, I was naive enough to think that racism is something that > > happened in the past. Until I went on a holiday to the USA. It was in a > > small town in Louisiana where a woman I talked to in a diner spat in my face > > when she heard I was Jewish and had the audacity to live in Germany! I was > > scum as far as she was concerned. > > If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local > police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her > with assault. I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. > If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have > been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie > and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can > get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement > authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which > they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the > suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. > As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to > get away with it the incidents will continue. It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the authorities. > Unfortunately racism is > still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, > especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in > areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order > groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold > racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. > > > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and > > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around > > anywhere. > > The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and > warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and > they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he > is a known madman. Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to use them. > I don't think we need to worry so much about the > other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq > we have quite a problem with that. Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. > > > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just > > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to > > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have no > > means of getting them all the way to America. > > Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might > try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical > and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried > by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are > bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully > conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also > at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents > also. Maybe. But why would Iraq, or any other nation, want to do that? What would be the reason for them to do it? > > > For that reason alone it would > > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to > > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war in > > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is that, > > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I don't > > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... > > > Have a good day, > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:45:32 +1000 From: "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) I have just found the following article: http://www.theworldnews.com.au/index.html?ArtID=51757 It's refreshing to see that some people keep their sanity. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:31:01 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Guantanamo [formerly Re: Iraq vs. N Korea] Original subject was Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > <snipped - referred to prisoners in Guantanamo> > > Are the Taliban fighters among them really criminals... they were > defending their country, invaded by US forces. Ah, here's the sad truth, Bastiaan. The Taliban government wasn't recognized by the UN or most of the individual member countries. At the time of the Taliban fighters' capture, the 3 UN members that previously had recognized the Taliban had already withdrawn their recognition. The officially "recognized" government was that of President Rabbani (who was living in exile). And THAT government invited the foreign militaries to *come and assist the Afghani people*. (That, BTW, was very similar to how Panama became separate from Colombia). So, by decision of all the members of the club, the Taliban wasn't a government and their fighters weren't part of an (internationally recognized) army. Neither were they civilians committing ordinary crimes. They were, therefore, illegal combatants. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with the outcome, but that's a fact. I called this the *sad truth*, because the legitimacy of a government can be decided by those who are not citizens, and the citizens would have no choice or vote. It's just a simple matter of the UN making a decision. Perhaps this sheds some light on why I protest so strongly to what I've previously called *the European voice* in this ongoing debate. It's a dangerous precedent that I do not want to leave unchallenged. If WE (as the UN members) have the authority to take away the government from those whom we dislike, what would happen if everybody else decided to take away the authority of my elected leader (currently Bush)? Doesn't this violate my personal and individual rights as a "member of the human family"? Not if the UN decides I made the wrong choice. Maybe this is a remote threat to the USA, but that was the exact situation for Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The UN didn't like Slobo's style, so they suspended Yugoslavia from the club. I didn't much like Slobo either, but I also dislike idea of the UN having that authority. So, those guys who are jailed at Guantanamo are there because of a UN decision - a vote originally cast in 1648 in Munster, West Phalia. The long arm of colonialism - UN style. Hey, Bastiaan. Maybe we can share a cell in the (future) dissenter's prison (also known as The UN Center for the Education of Progressive Governmental Concepts). (And the American voice in the background mutters, "After they pry my gun from my cold, clinched fist"). Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:47:43 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) Hi Casper, My extensive disagreements are noted below. I actually happen to agree with some of Ricsi's stated positions, although probably for different reasons. I think there is logic in the argument that Europe's positions is not necessarily *right* just because America's position is possibly *wrong*. It is theoretically possible that both perspectives are wrong. Bob On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:03:18 +0100 Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op zaterdag 18 januari 2003 07:04, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard > > > > Menedetter) writes: > > > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to > worldwide > > > affairs. THIS is not possible. > > > > I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. > > > > It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force > foreign ways > > upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to > make > > this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, > the > > American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to > sound > > like Mr. Heston?) > > The Iraqis have guns, just like the Taliban. > I'll save the anti-gun argument for later. - - >From the people with whom I've talked: "Saddam gave us guns, but no ammunition". >From the photos I've seen: With the exception of the government escorts to foreign journalists, most of the guns in the hands of people in civilian dress do not have ammo clips. On some occasions, there are clips, but the clips are empty. I see no evidence of clip holders attached to belts, or clips hidden in pockets. So, the conclusion I make from the evidence I've seen and the interviews I've conducted is that the majority of Iraqi civilians are not armed (with weapons of modern warfare). This is not the case in the northern areas. Kurds, Turkomen, and Assyrians have both guns and ammo. I would be interested in seeing your evidence. > > > Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear > > in their schools about the German people. > > Being Dutch, 22 years old, I think I have quite a clear view about > what they tell us about Germans at school. > > - - They are NOT the enemy anymore, they are friends, and have been > for a long time. - - Oh? That doesn't explain why, when my wife and I (who both have some German features) would walk down the residential streets in Holland, the kids would spit and make anti-German remarks. That also doesn't explain why our hosts would speak Dutch to the kids (who would then smile and wave), and then our hosts would tell us that the kids first thought we were German, but now understood that we were from America. I had the exact experience in Bitche, France. Perhaps the spitting and cussing were culturally appropriate gestures of affection. If so, I apologize for reaching the wrong conclusions. If not, I stand firm on my conclusion that Pan-European hugs and kisses are not universally approved. I am NOT claiming that all Dutch or French hate Germans, I'm only countering the argument that some sort of Pan-European enlightenment had removed all traces of prejudices in Europe, or that the lessons taught in European schools have reached a level of perfection. I AM countering the implication that Europe has obtained a position of moral superiority from which it should lecture the rest of the world. And that does NOT mean that the USA should do so, either. People in glass houses should not throw rocks - whether the houses are European or American. > - - Although Germans started WWII, that does not make them > warmongers. Hitler wasn't even German. - - According to my elderly neighbor in Homberg, it was France who started the war by insisting upon heavy reparations after WW1. Of course, he wasn't schooled under the modern curriculum. He's also dead now, so only the modern textbook remains. Is it only the Europeans from the east who understand that those with political power also have editorial power? > - - During the pre-war years, movements similar to the Nazi's > (fascist/nationalist) existed in most country's, including The > Netherlands, > France and Italy (Mussolini was an example to Hitler). > - -Whenever the economy goes bad, people will look for a strong > leader and a > scapegoat. Germany's economy was completely destroyed by heavy (close > to impossible) punishments for WW1. - - This is absolutely true - it was an impossible situation. Some people use this as an argument AGAINST the collective bargaining of victorious combatants. Sanctions, embargoes, and war reparations are several of the UN tactics with which I disagree. I can't recall an occasion when they have been useful in achieving their stated objective. > > All of this boils down to: they are humans, just like the rest of > us. And just > like colour of skin or religion, have nothing to do with being > "good" or "bad". - - Another point to which I agree. Of course, Serbia said Albanian Kosovars were *bad*, the Greeks and Turks each have traditionally thought the other was *bad*, NATO claimed that the Yugoslavian Army was *bad*, and Hitler claimed that the Jews were the root of all problems. Things haven't changed much in the last 70 years. I would think this supports my *THEM and US* position. US=good, THEM=bad. Nationalism demands an enemy. Enemies MUST be bad. Has history shown us another way to mobilize the people? > > > > > Care to guess what the Serbian people say about Austrians? - - Ah ... the sound of silence. A visit to Serbia on 28 JUNE would be an enlightening experience. > > > > The Europe I know isn't quite so perfect. I haven't yet been to > Portugal. > > Perhaps they have reached the position where all prejudices have > been > > abolished. For the rest of the world, it's still THEM vs US > (whoever them > > and us happens to be). It's actually the core concept in Cultural > > Anthropology. > > The mistake you make is thinking that "THEM vs US" is something like > a > football match in which you are supposed to "beat" "THEM" so "US" > will be the > winners. - - No mistake. In Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Zaire, Ivory Coast, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Kurdistan - the answer was always the same. People say *THEM* when they talk about bad people, *US* when they talk about themselves. And they are not a bit confused about the contest - it's a matter of life and death. This is my personal experience from personal observations and interviews. I would be interested in hearing yours. In cultures with close ties to their traditional languages, the native name for that cultural group typically means THE PEOPLE. In the American Southwest native cultures, this is the norm. Those who are NOT *the people* are called *dogs*, *half-people*, and other derogatory terms. Some would argue that the human brain works by matching patterns. It's a binary process. The match is made by comparative analysis - like me, not like me. In the Kabul or Kinshasa airports during times of intense street fighting, you and I (and all the other Arachne list members) would quickly find each other and stay together. We would probably form two major sub-groups (Americans and Europeans), based upon our commonality and our common differences with the local people. If we all were to meet on a European train, our pairing would probably be along different lines depending upon the location and circumstances. At a Club Med, we might split between old and young, or perhaps married and single. But we would make divisions, and the divisions would be made based upon perceived similarities and differences. It is human nature, probably because that is how our brains work. US and THEM, yes or no, true or false, on or off - a binary process. Refer back to the original text - this is the core concept in Cultural Anthropology. The basics in that discipline are COMPARE and CONTRAST - YOUR culture compared and contrasted to MINE. THEM and US. And, yes, it is "something like a football match in which you are supposed to *beat* THEM, so US will be the winners". Otherwise, war would be a friendly chess match concluded by a handshake between contestants. > Sure, prejudices exist everywhere, but being taught how to recognize > and avoid them helps. - - Absolutely. My original point (or, at least, original attempt). Americans certainly act from our own perceptions and prejudices. But so do ALL people. I was my desire to make the point that American's might have a different perspective from Europeans, and that the American perspective might be as equally valid to an American as the European perspective is to a European. > > > I'm also guessing that the school system did a poor job of > teaching the > > American perspective. Or were you absent that day? > > > > I might have missed a day, but most of those 3 month I was there. > That is > three months of History dedicated to the US. Many other classes also > spend at > least some time to US views, eg English. For the record, they also > try to > teach us about other country's/believes. Think > Islam/North-Korea/Communism. - - And American students often cannot even find Canada on the map. Your close proximity to other nations is certainly an advantage as a motivation to learn about others. Sometimes I wonder if some Americans even know that the rest of the world exists. I'm not suggesting that America is perfect. I'm just challenging the implication that ANY state (or collective group of states) has reached the level of moral perfection which would justify dictating policy to others. To me, that conjures up images of oppression. Ironic, since the original discussion was about the perspective of some that it is America who is oppressing others. If we were both African, Asian, or Latin American, we would surely both be part of *US* (and Europe AND America would be called THEM). I was almost convinced to agree that some American tactics were objectionable. I almost joined YOU, and we were almost together as US. Then somebody raised the issue of comparative values (YOU should be like US). And we were no longer *one*. I was compelled to make a choice. THEM or US. Bummer, dude. > > What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest > why it is > > logical to argue that America should change to a European > perspective, > > yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact, needs to > change > > its perspective. > > > > As long as you are only dealing with the US, don't change a thing. > However, as > soon as you start interacting with people from other parts of the > world, you'll have to adapt to find a common way of interaction. That evaded the question. To rephrase ... Why is it logical for Europe to argue that America should change, but it is simultaneously illogical for America to argue that it is Europe who should change? Is THAT not a hypocritical argument? I would suggest that neither side is superior, but it seems that no one is willing to make that concession. And so we're stuck - together, but divided - them and us. ... your turn ... :-) Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2032 ******************************
