The Post About Things American
Sep. 7th, 2005 11:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seldearToday, I think, will be a posty day. As will Friday.
Katrina
I'm neither a Republican, nor a Dubya-supporter, I don't think the US should have taken war into Iraq without the consent of the UN, and I deplore the lack of support from both the US and Australia towards the Kyoto treaty.
And I waited at least a week before posting anything in an attempt at restraint.
Katrina is a disaster of epic proportions, as well as a government (either federal or state) SNAFU of embarrassing dimensions. The clean-up will take years; the rebuilding, decades. Important history has been lost, and thousands of lives could have been saved. Given the warnings, more could have been done towards prevention so there would be less to cure. The socio-economic division between races certainly played a part in who got to leave and who stayed behind. And it would have helped if there'd been a little more competence among the bureaucracy. An appearance by the President of the United States would have been welcome a few days before he managed to get out to the destruction zone.
And? But? So? Therefore?
This is the United States of America. E Pluribus Unum: First Among Equals. (*snort*snarfle*giggle*sputter*cough*) Irony aside, they are the most organised, wealthiest, most able-to-help-themselves country in the frakking world.
Yes, there have been issues and problems with the bureaucracy, with the handling of the situation, with the implications that the budget for the levees was cut to provide for war in Iraq. Yes, there are people trying to weasel out of the responsibilities that fall upon them in the wake of the storm. Yes, petrol (gas) prices are going up and the country may find itself in an energy crisis.
And yes, their president is a bit of an arse. But most of us knew that long before America re-elected him. (And I know that most of my f-list didn't vote for him: that doesn't make a difference from a global perspective - as a whole, the vote was cast and Shrubby-boy won.)
However, the immediate concern shouldn't be the politics or the ineptness of Shrub or any state government or organisation in the US - you can organise a Federal Commission (we call them Royal Commissions here in Oz, but the Merks ain't got no royalty) to sort out matters of blame and culpability later. The immediate concern should be the people - stuck and relocated - in and about the disaster area. Get them out, get them to safety, get them jobs and incomes, ways to make up what they've lost and reasons to keep going when they've lost other things that were important to them (family, friends, material possessions, livelihood).
Get people back on their feet. Then start pointing fingers.
I understand - particularly for my friends who think Shrub should be buried head-first in an alligator pit - that it's frustrating to see the SNAFUs and think that they could have been prevented 'if only'. But life isn't made up of what if: life is made up of what is. And what is, is a national disaster - technically an international one, because if I'm watching the Americans fumble their own passes, then be sure that the rest of the world is watching, too. Believe me, I want to cast blame as well, but there's time for finger-pointing later. There always is. And there's time for watching the pollies squirm out of responsibility, as well.
The US has definitely fumbled this pass. And I'm thinking they fumbled Iraq as well. And the hunt for Osama.
Someone once said that prize for being the best is to be the best. Always. Without surcease or relent, without rest or break. And it's a hard thing to be, if you truly want to excel and not just be the contender who beat everyone else out of the running. Sometimes that's enough: to be the last person standing. And sometimes it's not.
I think, in this case, it's not.
--
I was late with my app for![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fandomhigh, and so, no play. This may be a good thing since I don't need to waste more internet time as is. But it looked fun.
--
American Indians, culture, religion, and who we are
The culture of the American Indians interests me as well. They seem a lot like the Aboriginal peoples of Australia: once the sole occupants of a land that were subsequently pushed out when white settlement began. Now, for whatever reasons, they seem incapable of separating their cultural background from the land where they have settled. To leave the reservation is to no longer be 'Indian' for them: in the same way, Australian Aboriginals don't seem to usually move out of Aboriginal settlements and don't go into 'white' educational structures.
Is it the religious connection to the land that creates the inability to 'mingle' into Western society? The Asian races don't have such deep religious connections to the land, preferring circular philosophies and mental meanderings, and they manage to retain their sense of cultural belonging even when transplanted to another country.
It's a thought, anyway.
If your culture is rooted in religion, and your religion is tied to the land, then without a land, you're not from your culture anymore. I don't actually know how much of the Aboriginal culture is about religious belief, and how much of their religious belief ties them to the land. Then there are the Jews, who had no real homeland until the mid 1900s and yet retained their cultural distinctions through thousands of years. Is it once again their rituals and rites that set them apart? Their racial group and their keeping to that racial group? What about their religious beliefs? The fact that Christianity sprang from a background of Judaisim might make the two slightly more compatible, although on the central issue of Christianity - the role of Christ - the two faiths are definitely going to differ.
Is such a mingling possible between the largely Christian-based Western culture, and Islamic culture? Are the two so radically incompatible as some of the more radical religious Muslim leaders assert? Is it truly an 'us or them' proposition, or is it simply a case of showing them that they can keep the tenets of their religion but change the modes and means of worship, or epression of it?
I once heard that the prophet Mohammed had four wives. Bigamy aside, I was told that at least one was a prophetess and one was a warrior. Eactly what kind of a warrior was never mentioned.
I see no conflict between functional submission and spiritual equality any more than I see a conflict between all people created equal but ranks and commanding officers in the military. Functionally, you can only have one leader or you'lll get into hot water the first time your two leaders - civilian and military - disagree (vis a vis Battlestar Galactica, 2003). Granted, I'm filtering all this through the lens of my Christian background and beliefs so it's going to come out a certain way.
There is no true objectivity, because we all have to work from a frame of reference, and our points of reference are always going to be biased one way or another.
--
Americanisms and Americattitude
R (friend I'm staying with in LA - Orange County) and I have been reflecting on the nature of Americans and living in America, on the ingrained cultural attitudes that are so hard to define, so hard to identify from within thecountry. It's been wonderful to be with R, to hear someone talking without an accent, to not have to automatically correct my language for someone and know that they'll get what I'm trying to say. There's a certain kind of comfort that I've missed in the last couple of months; the comfort of being in a place that says, 'home'.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matt1969, I have no idea how you manage it!
There are the obvious things: driving on the left-hand side of the road, looking right first when you cross the road. Accents and words: 'gas' instead of 'petrol', 'trunk' instead of 'boot', 'restrooms' instead of 'toilets', 'sprite' instead of 'lemonade' and many others that don't immediately come to mind.
More subtle cues come in the dial tone when you call, in the lack of area codes when you call anyone in your area, the incomprehensibility of the instructions on payphones, in bizarre advertisements on television. And that damned accent again.
However, what R and I have identified as an interesting comment on the American psyche is an attitude that we've both come across while in this country. She's had it more than I, but that's no surprise, she's lived here for the last couple of years with her husband, and her perceptions are much broader than my own, who's only spent the last couple of months here. (Incidentally,chiroho? I'd be interested in hearing if you had this problem, too. Also from sesaworuban and davebt, both of whom were fairly recently in the US.)
R points out that the thing that bothers her most is not the accent, nor the choice of words, but the attitude that came with it. In her first few months here, while she was still adjusting to the language, she found herself confronted with the attitude of 'our way is right, there is no other way' that she found extremely disconcerting.
One of the common reactions she got when she used the Australian word for an object was: "No! It's not called that! Why would you call it that?" The subtextual cues were: 'What a stupid term! Everyone knows that this is XXXX!'
In no other place in the world have I received this response. Other nationalities shrug and say, "Well, we call it 'this' here." Americans might say that, but their overlying attitude tells you that you are WRONG.
Well, it's either that, or 'quaint'. I know that some of the Americans I chat with consider my Australianisms 'quaint' and shake their heads at my usage. It's one of the hazards of dealing with Americans: a tendency to be patronised, whether obviously or obliquely.
On the whole, nice as America is, it crowds into the spot in my overtravelled brain that says: "Nice country to visit: wouldn't want to live there."
--
Am all packed to go home, although I have a change of clothes for the airport. It will prob'ly be a lot colder back in Oz. I'm just checking the BoM, and they say mins of 12 and max of 25 for Friday. I'm hoping it tends towards the max rather than the min. At 6am, it's going to be bloody freezing.
ps. businessclassbusinessclassbusinessclassbusinessclassohIamsolookingforwardstobusinessclass!
*sings*
"'cos I'm leaving on a jet plane! Don't know when I'll be back again!"
"But as the world gets older and colder, it's good to know where your journey ends!"
"I'm going ho-ome!"
Katrina
I'm neither a Republican, nor a Dubya-supporter, I don't think the US should have taken war into Iraq without the consent of the UN, and I deplore the lack of support from both the US and Australia towards the Kyoto treaty.
And I waited at least a week before posting anything in an attempt at restraint.
Katrina is a disaster of epic proportions, as well as a government (either federal or state) SNAFU of embarrassing dimensions. The clean-up will take years; the rebuilding, decades. Important history has been lost, and thousands of lives could have been saved. Given the warnings, more could have been done towards prevention so there would be less to cure. The socio-economic division between races certainly played a part in who got to leave and who stayed behind. And it would have helped if there'd been a little more competence among the bureaucracy. An appearance by the President of the United States would have been welcome a few days before he managed to get out to the destruction zone.
And? But? So? Therefore?
This is the United States of America. E Pluribus Unum: First Among Equals. (*snort*snarfle*giggle*sputter*cough*) Irony aside, they are the most organised, wealthiest, most able-to-help-themselves country in the frakking world.
Yes, there have been issues and problems with the bureaucracy, with the handling of the situation, with the implications that the budget for the levees was cut to provide for war in Iraq. Yes, there are people trying to weasel out of the responsibilities that fall upon them in the wake of the storm. Yes, petrol (gas) prices are going up and the country may find itself in an energy crisis.
And yes, their president is a bit of an arse. But most of us knew that long before America re-elected him. (And I know that most of my f-list didn't vote for him: that doesn't make a difference from a global perspective - as a whole, the vote was cast and Shrubby-boy won.)
However, the immediate concern shouldn't be the politics or the ineptness of Shrub or any state government or organisation in the US - you can organise a Federal Commission (we call them Royal Commissions here in Oz, but the Merks ain't got no royalty) to sort out matters of blame and culpability later. The immediate concern should be the people - stuck and relocated - in and about the disaster area. Get them out, get them to safety, get them jobs and incomes, ways to make up what they've lost and reasons to keep going when they've lost other things that were important to them (family, friends, material possessions, livelihood).
Get people back on their feet. Then start pointing fingers.
I understand - particularly for my friends who think Shrub should be buried head-first in an alligator pit - that it's frustrating to see the SNAFUs and think that they could have been prevented 'if only'. But life isn't made up of what if: life is made up of what is. And what is, is a national disaster - technically an international one, because if I'm watching the Americans fumble their own passes, then be sure that the rest of the world is watching, too. Believe me, I want to cast blame as well, but there's time for finger-pointing later. There always is. And there's time for watching the pollies squirm out of responsibility, as well.
The US has definitely fumbled this pass. And I'm thinking they fumbled Iraq as well. And the hunt for Osama.
Someone once said that prize for being the best is to be the best. Always. Without surcease or relent, without rest or break. And it's a hard thing to be, if you truly want to excel and not just be the contender who beat everyone else out of the running. Sometimes that's enough: to be the last person standing. And sometimes it's not.
I think, in this case, it's not.
--
I was late with my app for
fandomhigh, and so, no play. This may be a good thing since I don't need to waste more internet time as is. But it looked fun.--
American Indians, culture, religion, and who we are
The culture of the American Indians interests me as well. They seem a lot like the Aboriginal peoples of Australia: once the sole occupants of a land that were subsequently pushed out when white settlement began. Now, for whatever reasons, they seem incapable of separating their cultural background from the land where they have settled. To leave the reservation is to no longer be 'Indian' for them: in the same way, Australian Aboriginals don't seem to usually move out of Aboriginal settlements and don't go into 'white' educational structures.
Is it the religious connection to the land that creates the inability to 'mingle' into Western society? The Asian races don't have such deep religious connections to the land, preferring circular philosophies and mental meanderings, and they manage to retain their sense of cultural belonging even when transplanted to another country.
It's a thought, anyway.
If your culture is rooted in religion, and your religion is tied to the land, then without a land, you're not from your culture anymore. I don't actually know how much of the Aboriginal culture is about religious belief, and how much of their religious belief ties them to the land. Then there are the Jews, who had no real homeland until the mid 1900s and yet retained their cultural distinctions through thousands of years. Is it once again their rituals and rites that set them apart? Their racial group and their keeping to that racial group? What about their religious beliefs? The fact that Christianity sprang from a background of Judaisim might make the two slightly more compatible, although on the central issue of Christianity - the role of Christ - the two faiths are definitely going to differ.
Is such a mingling possible between the largely Christian-based Western culture, and Islamic culture? Are the two so radically incompatible as some of the more radical religious Muslim leaders assert? Is it truly an 'us or them' proposition, or is it simply a case of showing them that they can keep the tenets of their religion but change the modes and means of worship, or epression of it?
I once heard that the prophet Mohammed had four wives. Bigamy aside, I was told that at least one was a prophetess and one was a warrior. Eactly what kind of a warrior was never mentioned.
I see no conflict between functional submission and spiritual equality any more than I see a conflict between all people created equal but ranks and commanding officers in the military. Functionally, you can only have one leader or you'lll get into hot water the first time your two leaders - civilian and military - disagree (vis a vis Battlestar Galactica, 2003). Granted, I'm filtering all this through the lens of my Christian background and beliefs so it's going to come out a certain way.
There is no true objectivity, because we all have to work from a frame of reference, and our points of reference are always going to be biased one way or another.
--
Americanisms and Americattitude
R (friend I'm staying with in LA - Orange County) and I have been reflecting on the nature of Americans and living in America, on the ingrained cultural attitudes that are so hard to define, so hard to identify from within thecountry. It's been wonderful to be with R, to hear someone talking without an accent, to not have to automatically correct my language for someone and know that they'll get what I'm trying to say. There's a certain kind of comfort that I've missed in the last couple of months; the comfort of being in a place that says, 'home'.
matt1969, I have no idea how you manage it!There are the obvious things: driving on the left-hand side of the road, looking right first when you cross the road. Accents and words: 'gas' instead of 'petrol', 'trunk' instead of 'boot', 'restrooms' instead of 'toilets', 'sprite' instead of 'lemonade' and many others that don't immediately come to mind.
More subtle cues come in the dial tone when you call, in the lack of area codes when you call anyone in your area, the incomprehensibility of the instructions on payphones, in bizarre advertisements on television. And that damned accent again.
However, what R and I have identified as an interesting comment on the American psyche is an attitude that we've both come across while in this country. She's had it more than I, but that's no surprise, she's lived here for the last couple of years with her husband, and her perceptions are much broader than my own, who's only spent the last couple of months here. (Incidentally,
chiroho? I'd be interested in hearing if you had this problem, too. Also from sesaworuban and davebt, both of whom were fairly recently in the US.)R points out that the thing that bothers her most is not the accent, nor the choice of words, but the attitude that came with it. In her first few months here, while she was still adjusting to the language, she found herself confronted with the attitude of 'our way is right, there is no other way' that she found extremely disconcerting.
One of the common reactions she got when she used the Australian word for an object was: "No! It's not called that! Why would you call it that?" The subtextual cues were: 'What a stupid term! Everyone knows that this is XXXX!'
In no other place in the world have I received this response. Other nationalities shrug and say, "Well, we call it 'this' here." Americans might say that, but their overlying attitude tells you that you are WRONG.
Well, it's either that, or 'quaint'. I know that some of the Americans I chat with consider my Australianisms 'quaint' and shake their heads at my usage. It's one of the hazards of dealing with Americans: a tendency to be patronised, whether obviously or obliquely.
On the whole, nice as America is, it crowds into the spot in my overtravelled brain that says: "Nice country to visit: wouldn't want to live there."
--
Am all packed to go home, although I have a change of clothes for the airport. It will prob'ly be a lot colder back in Oz. I'm just checking the BoM, and they say mins of 12 and max of 25 for Friday. I'm hoping it tends towards the max rather than the min. At 6am, it's going to be bloody freezing.
ps. businessclassbusinessclassbusinessclassbusinessclassohIamsolookingforwardstobusinessclass!
*sings*
"'cos I'm leaving on a jet plane! Don't know when I'll be back again!"
"But as the world gets older and colder, it's good to know where your journey ends!"
"I'm going ho-ome!"
no subject
Date: 2005-09-07 08:07 pm (UTC)Re: "We're right, wtf is wrong with you?" You got us in one. Lately I've been thinking back to a conversation with my grad adviser. He's a naturalized US citizen now, but he was born and raised in England. He talked about how, when he was young, there was the mindset of "I am very fortunate to have been born British because this is the best nation in the world and we do everything right." He only noticed when he moved to the States that it was a thought process and not God's holy truth. It's weird looking around me now and seeing how much of that mindset I have, and how much is registered in the attitudes of the people around me. We're America, therefore everything we do is right and good, whether it's how we speak or what we eat or how we treat other people. Patriotism? Great idea. Nationalism? Very scary stuff.
Hope your flight goes well.