From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >It means that I produce works of art, music and poetry, and that I can > >present these works as represintative of the tribe. > > > >What else would it mean? > > I'm sorry, did I offend you by asking this? None was intended.
I am amused that you thought I might be offended. I certainly was not.
Well, I'm glad of that!
Do you mind getting heady and explaining why you thought that I might be offended?
I've always found that written conversation, without the aid of speech tone,
facial expression, body, language, etc. can be surprisingly open to very
different interpretations. Especially if there isn't a lot of context to
give a hint about what to expect, and if you don't know the person you're
talking to very well. I've seen this happen to the extent that statements
are interpretted 100% the opposite of their intended meanings. And generally,
when something is misinterpretted, it seems to be in a very negative light.
Possibly, people are just expecting the worst, and tend to see it even when
it isn't there. That's *exactly* why smileys (emoticons) were invented. :-)
You had written "What else would it mean?", and I wasn't sure exactly what
the intent/attitude behind the question was. I saw (at least) four
possibilities:
1) Face-value interpretation: You were just curious about what other possible
meanings I had thought of.
2) You had (mistakenly) perceived some sort of offensive angle/agenda/implication
to my question and were calling me on it. (ie: "Hey, what are you trying to
say/imply by your question!?")
3) It was dismissive/rhetorical; you thought I had no business asking you
that question in the first place.
4) It was dismissive/rhetorical; you thought I was an idiot for asking
such an obvious question
Now, #1 was what I hoped was the correct interpretation (and it was), but I couldn't think why you'd care what my guesses on the meaning were, so I pondered possible alternate interpretations and came up with #2-4. I thought #2-4 were all pretty unlikely, but I didn't know you well enough or have enough context to totally eliminate them as possibilities. I could have (and most of the time probably would have) just assumed #1 was correct, not put in the apology and let it slide, but possibility #2 had me thinking maybe I had accidentally done/said something wrong, and I didn't want to leave that hanging.
Actualy, ...Would you mind if we got heady and discussed why the words I wrote might be interpreted as the words of one who had been offended?
If I had not wrote "What else would it mean?" and instead wrote, "I have
allways only had this definition and am curious what else it might mean. I am
curious to know what other meanings you thought were possible.", then would
it would have seemed less so. I know this, but I do not know exactly why.
Yes, this would have been clearer to me, because you would have explained your
intent of the question more directly and eliminated the alternate possibilities
I list above by providing extra context. It is a much more exact statement/
question.
Of course, no one can be expected to write like that all the time, providing full context for every statement, or they'd end up writing unreadable lawyer documents.
I think it has something to do with a folkway of leaving negativity unspoken
when it is deeply felt. It is strange to me that openly speaking such
negativity is reguarded then as an atack of sorts.
That ties in indirectly with part of an article I just read today:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/frenchkiss_030616.html
<...a new campaign in France to get the French to smile more for the tourists...>
Near the Champs Elysees, Jean-Luc Margot-Duclot, a tour bus operator, wonders
about the "Bonjour Campaign" and the clash of French and American cultures.
Sitting on the upper deck of an empty bus, he says, "It's not in our culture.
I know that in the states you learn to smile when you're very young. It's not
something we have in France."
Gopnik has watched in Paris as the two cultures have clashed and says history
indicates this campaign faces an uphill struggle with the French. "They can't
get over the smiley-ness of Americans. Americans smile at you when they're
putting you in handcuffs when they take you off to prison. They see our
smiley-ness as kind of false intimacy, a false warmth."
Why would the absence of emotional content denote negative emotional content?
Well, in this case, I wouldn't say that it denoted negative content to me so much as
that it left several possible interpretations to it
For me, if I have been slightly offended I would probably asume that it was not intentional especialy since it so seldomely is. If I had been greatly offended then I would simply tell you.
I clearly use back language, or "in between the lines" kind of stuff. But I never put emotions there. I tend to seem very offensive to cultures where passive agression is acepted but outright agression is avoided.
For me growing up, the oposite was the case. Outright agression was an acceptable way to display emotions, but passive agression was a grevious offense.
Your way growing up sounds much healthier than the passive-aggressive way!
It's was hard to switch, and still, when I am not concentrating on it I come
off as passive agressive sometimes. I think it is becouse the cultures that
permit passive agressivness... overshoot and always show posative emotions
even when there are no emotions felt. This makes the lack of emotion appear
agressive or.. negative.
Ok I may not be using the right words here, I am talking in extreams. The
words arressive, passive agressive, atack, they are all to extream for this
case. But I'm not going back to rewrite it becouse I can't think of what the
correct terms would be, besides it would be much more leangthy, and I am
lazy. You know, it's usualy not that I don't get the pattern, I just get
lazzy.
Anyway, what do you think?
I think your theory is part of it, but as I mentioned above, I think a big part
is that the written word can be very imprecise, particularly when used in casual
discussions, where often not a lot of time is spent crafting them. Couple
this inexactitude with the common human tendency to expect/perceive the worst,
and you've got a nice recipe for flame wars.
Yea, that is done as well. Generaly though the ...."title" is more specific like "candle maker".
The main purpous of having "official artisans" is
1) Non tribal members often try to pass off their interpritation of "indian
art" (of whatever sort, fine art, craft goods etc.) as representative of the
tribe. The existence of an "oficial artisan" put and end to this. Most
...clients, customers, of the more pricy stuff want to see certification.
2) Tribal members might want to pass off some peice or other as
representative of the tribe when it is not. The title sais that the tribe is
more or less confident that the works will not be non-representative. (Nude
photography for instence would be non-representative.)
That makes a lot of sense.
It's all inclusive. One word to describe them all. Although I will have to
look on my documentation and see which word was actualy used. You are correct
that their is a destiction in the english language. I certainly could sell
you offical Lenape pet rocks if I wanted, but I am trusted to draw the line
So you could sell official Lenni-Lanape Lapis Lazuli pet rocks? :-)
> > Thanks for the story and explanation >
Your welcome.
What did you think of it?
I liked it. I enjoy hearing/reading these types of fables/parables/stories
from cultures around the world. The moral of this story seems somewhat familiar
to me, though I'm sure the details of this one were different than any I might
have previously read/heard.
I BCCed my grandmother and she was conserned that I did not make it clear
that in the end the turtle was using _river rocks_ and pebles for his floor.
Did you tink it was clear?
I had guessed that, but it wouldn't hurt to state they were river rocks in future tellings
-bryon
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
