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
