> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Gautam wrote:
> > That's exactly what's so bad about Charlie's
> > statement - that Bell wasn't an American because he was a
> Scot. No,
> > he was both. That's something that you can be when you're an
> > American. You are allowed to be both.
>
> You didn't say that. You said that it was offensive to say
> he was a scot, not an american.
That's right. It was. He can be a Scot, _and_ an American. Or, if
he chose, he could renounce his Scottish identity, I suppose. That's
optional. But when someone chooses to come to the United States and
live the rest of their lives in the US, and get citizenship - which
I'm fairly sure he did - then they become an American.
>
> If you'd said what you've just said to start with, I'd
> respect the point of
> view, for it's exactly the point I made about irish-americans
>
> But you didn't. You accused me of either ignorance or
> racism (your words,check back).
Oh, I remember them. Check your own. You said that the telephone
doesn't count (as something done by an American) because he was
Scottish. Now, exactly what part of that statement conceded any part
of his identity to his permanent residence in the United States? If
the invention was _solely_ Scottish - when none of the work involved
was done in Scotland - which is what you said - then its inventor was
_solely_ Scottish. Plus, of course, the fact that the success of his
invention was a product of the American climate towards technology,
business, and so on.
> > It's one of the most special
> > and wonderful things about this country. I too, am both. I have
an
> > Indian heritage, of which I am quite proud.
>
> Right.
>
> So, let's see. If I said to your mother that her scientific
achievements
> should be credited to India, she'd hit me. (Your words...).
_Only_ to India. Because that would deny what she is - an American.
An American of Indian descent, but an American for all of that.
> Thanks, Gautam, for
>
> a) your confidence in my motives. As a long time correspondent via
Brin-L,
> you offended me over a statement you've just admitted was harmless
Nope. I gave you choices. Either you misunderstood the very concept
of what it means to be an American, and used that misunderstanding to
claim that no "credit" for the invention of the telephone belonged to
the United States. _Or_ you thought that blood is the only thing that
matters in identity. Now, that's not necessarily your fault - a lot
of Europeans believe that. The United States, thank goodness, has at
least mostly left that belief behind in the ashcan of history. Now,
it could be that in your eagerness to strip technological achievements
from the United States - a somewhat bizarre endeavor, since the vast
plurality of patents awarded in the world every year go to American
inventors, and the United States _by far_ leads the world in Nobel
Prizes, among many measures of technological and scientific
achievement you could use - you went a little farther in your
statement that you meant to. I would accept that as a possibility to,
I guess.
> b) upsetting me greatly by accusing me of racism.
Which I didn't do, actually.
>
> c) not even giving me the courtesy of responding to my
> defense of what I said.
>
> Charlie
I'm a little busy. Now I have.
********************Gautam "Ulysses" Mukunda**********************
* Harvard College Class of '01 *He either fears his fate too much*
* www.fas.harvard.edu/~mukunda * Or his deserts are small, *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Who dares not put it to the touch*
* "Freedom is not Free" * To win or lose it all. *
******************************************************************
