Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The Atlantic Rift | 47 comments (47 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Americans will not allow (none / 0)
other nations their own dignity or their own being.  It has not always been as bad as now, but this has always been the tendancy.  


The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 02:10:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
I kinda, sorta agree and disagree.  First, nations don't have dignity, people do.  Now, if you want to say that the current powers that be are showing a callous disregard for the dignity of other peoples, I'd completely agree.  And not to lessen that in any way, but it's not an "exceptional" trait of America.  I believe it's very common in situations where the leaders are abusing power.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 02:28:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
Americans will not allow other nations their own dignity or their own being.

Now I find that offensive, and I'm not easily offended.

If you are referring to the American government, please say so.

If you truly mean to say that "Americans," every single one of us, is guilty of this, then I guess I won't be inviting you over for coffee.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 03:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
You shouldn't be offended. By all means, say the same thing for my country and my people and I would take it like a big boy. Truth hurts but I ain't hiding from it.

Americans (and not just the govt) are not free of guilt. They've shown repeatedly that it takes but a small effort for them to accept other people as "enemies". It takes less, for them to offer opinions on bombing other countries.

75% were on Bush's side when he marked Iraq as a target. 57% (according to recent polls) are in favor of bombing, even nuking Iran. Imagine... what % will be for it when the real propaganda kicks in.

These are numbers that show it's not political divisions or different points of view that motivate them to take such belligerent attitudes against other people. Its a cultural thing. It has to change. It must.

by Euroliberal on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 10:29:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
Ah, there we go.  That well just never runs dry.

Another brilliant contribution to the advancement of civil dialogue.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 11:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
What was offensive with my contribution? Did you understand anything I wrote?
by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 06:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
Yes, insulting my intelligence is an excellent way to proceed.  Please continue.  Would you like to call me ugly, too?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 08:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
You get insulted very easily. Too bad. It wasn't my intention to insult or offend you neither in my first nor in my second comment.
If that's how it sounded, I apologise.

Shouldn't it be me that feeling offended by your response? After all, you said that my comment was drying some well... and was not civil.

If you are honest, point out ONE reference in my original comment that lacked civility. One instance that I used anything but facts.

Did you disagree? Make your case.
You disagreed with two consecutive posts without offering any counterarguments. At least explain what in particular offends you. We may come to agree or disagree which is what dialogue is supposed to do.

by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 10:11:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, get over yourself. (none / 0)
Well, you inserted yourself into the discussion by implying that I personally am immature ("take it like a big boy") because I took exception to being told that I personally (as a member of the group "Americans") "will not allow other nations their dignity."

After calling me a child, you then proceeded to repeat the original poster's error of over-generalizing.  Your words were:

Americans (and not just the govt) are not free of guilt. They've shown repeatedly that it takes but a small effort for them to accept other people as "enemies".

Please note that you did not say "some Americans" or even "most Americans."  You said "Americans."

In your third post, you asked if I failed to understand what you wrote.  No, in fact, it appears to be you who failed to understand what you wrote.

In short:  I was objecting to the original poster's choice of words, not to the sentiment that she was expressing.  You jumped in with a new set of insults.  I then objected to your choice of words, not to the sentiment you were expressing.

You, however, seem awfully eager to believe that I have some problem with people criticizing my country, which would conveniently confirm all of your pre-conceived notions about me.

I can assure you, however, that if that were true, I would not live where I live.

I really suggest at this point that you should move on.  There is nothing to be seen here.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 11:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Intellectually dishonest (none / 0)
your last sentence says it all.

You finally posted a coherent (but factually wrong) response but you feel like my side, my arguments do not deserve the same consideration as yours.

I think you just broke a lot of forum etiquete rules and demonstrated that you have little respect for differing opinions.

by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 11:24:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the last time (none / 0)
I have said nothing, not one word, about the opinions expressed by either you or by Gaianne.  I have objected to the fact that you both insist on over-generalizing.  I do not expect that kind of intellectual laziness in this forum.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 11:37:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: For the last time (none / 0)
but.... but you never asked me to qualify, clarify or otherwise explain my positions.

The only thing you did was ad hominem attacks based on some assumption that you chose to make.

by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 12:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He said, she said... whatever. (none / 0)
OK, fine, be my guest.  Pull up a chair, have a cup of tea, and qualify, clarify or otherwise explain to your heart's content.

Feel better now?

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 12:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
thank you anyway.

I wish you the best. Peace.

by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 01:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: For the last time (none / 0)
BTW, stormy, the irony of this spat of yours is that Gaianne, who set this off, is American herself.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: For the last time (none / 0)
:)  Hehe.  I do realize that....  But Americans don't get a free pass when it comes to making generalizations, even about ourselves.  It doesn't matter if we're from Michigan, Madrid or Mars!
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: For the last time (none / 0)
I don't think she meant to make a generalisation (because I don't think she includes herself in that characterisation of behaviour), just used generalising language, which can be misunderstood all too easily.

BTW, I once got a letter published in Newsweek in which I blasted them for generalising language. (And the crooks re-edited some words central to my points.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 05:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: For the last time (none / 0)
I think the media should be taken to task for it a lot more often.  But then, I guess on the list of things we have to complain about regarding the media, that may not even be in the top five...
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 06:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 1)
75% still doesn't make 100%. For the same of the other 25%, who may be 99% or more of the Americans posting here, please awoid generalising language.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 at 11:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (none / 0)
I expected better from you.

You let me down because I consider you much smarter.

Was I offensive to the particular poster? How? Hell, I should be offended for you trying to tell me that 75% is not 100% (!!!) as if you are talking to some some nine-year kid.

In fact, I have high esteem for him/her just for being a member of this community. This is not personal.

by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 07:08:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Americans will not allow (4.00 / 2)
If you added "Most" before 'Americans', I would have agreed with your post 100%. In fact I suspect stormy present would have agreed by a similar margin. Without the "most", your words can be read as over-generalisation, in fact both people who responded to you did so - even if as clear from the above you didn't intend that meaning.

It would be nice if you could admit that your wording was prone to be misunderstood and she could see that you didn't meant what she understood reading you, but sadly your discussion devolved into an unnecessary flame war...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry (none / 0)
you are wrong here.

If one word was all that was needed, maybe I should have been asked to include it or at least explain my intentions.
While we are on the subject of linguistics, may I ask why should I be forced to include certain "keywords" in my opinions instead of others? For example, couldn't I argue that instead of using "most" Americans (your suggestion) to exclude those that might be offended, it should be implicitly assumed that unless I use "All" Americans then there is a part of Americans that are excluded.

Anyway, I stand by my comment and wish to change nothing. It's valid, it's what I believe and I'm sorry I lost the chance to have someone engage me with a counter-argument, honestly pointing out where we agree or disagree.

My words are my liberty.  Your displeasure is your own burden.

by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 06:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: sorry (none / 0)
If one word was all that was needed, maybe I should have been asked to include it or at least explain my intentions.

That's fair. However, the lack of that one word changed the perceived meaning of your entire text into something personal and offensive, so neither I nor stormy present realised that one word would have done it, I only realised it upon re-reading your text in light of your previous reply.

may I ask why should I be forced to include certain "keywords" in my opinions instead of others?

You are not forced anything, but are advised for the sake of being understood correctly. If two of us independently read 'Americans' to mean 'All Americans', then that's perhabs because the default meaning is usually the latter in that context. Or not. I now get a faint suspicion that this might be a case of differences between languages. At least there is a difference with my mother tongue - in it, you can't say 'Americans...' without a prefix, and if you say "the Americans", it means all. So maybe I read it so because of my Hungarian, but this is not valid for stormy present. (Perhabs Metatone can comment.) I don't know how it works in Portuguese.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 07:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Looks like I it a nerve! :D (none / 0)
Yes, I meant Americans.  

There have always been good individuals, often very articulate and passionate.  

They have not carried the day.  

It does not work to blame the Government:  Yes the Government is bad, but it always has at least the acquiesence of a large minority, and usually the support of a majority.  

Without dredging the whole of US history, let me just say I have watched the US go to war several times.  There is NEVER any consideration of the goals nor the means.  War!  Yeah!  Let's do it!  (kill strangers in far away places).  It is only after it goes bad that we start to temporize:  Maybe it was a mistake.  It wasn't a mistake, it was what we wanted to do--the desire of our hearts.  

Our hearts really are rotten.  

Again:  Yes, I know there are exceptions, and yes, I was on the streets in New York City in February 2003.  It was fine, it was wonderful, and it was not enough.  Not nearly enough.  Most people wanted to shoot first and ask questions (if at all) after.  And that is what we did.  

Yes I am American.  And I learned some years ago that that is not something that can be changed--remember the part of the PATRIOT Act enabling Bush to declare at whim people to be un-citizens?--a useful tool for a tyrant, yes, but actually he hasn't a clue.  It is not something you can turn off and on like a lightbulb, and it matters not at all whether you like it or don't like it, or whether it is good or bad.  

But to return more closely to my original point:  Look at our stated goal in Iraq--to turn it into a land of Walmarts and McDonald's with a pseudo democracy just like ours.  We think this is a good thing!  This in a land that is thousands of years old--if they wanted McDonald's don't you think they might have invented it?  And if they do want it now, well fine, but how is it our duty to make them want it?  Using White Phosphorus . . . never mind I digress . . . just leave it at this:  

If that is not denying them their own being, what do you call it!  

Just and example.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 03:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Atlantic Rift | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: