-=# a series of posts questioning whether David "thought America/Americans are capable of doing something RIGHT. Anything at all." #=- These posts by David to LessIsMore are (until removed) at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8420 -#1- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8428 -#2- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8457 -#3- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8462 -#4- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8480 -#5- -#1:- -=# Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:51:35 +1200 #=- At 03:34 PM 2003-03-28 -0600, Diane sent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2895109.stm > >Europe's population is set to shrink, ... >On average, women in Europe now have a fertility rate of 1.5 births each. > If this continues until 2020, they say it could lead to at least 88m fewer people living in the EU in 2100, assuming constant levels of mortality and no significant effects of migration. > In 2000, the EU population was around 375m, so this would mean a fall of more than 23%. ... > At 06:23 PM 2003-03-28 EST, Sharon F. wrote: >... the NYTimes had an article a few months ago about Italy's population trends. The birthrate has shrunk ... > At 12:58 AM 2003-03-29 -0000, Emily wrote: >I saw an article about this too. Apparently there are tons of young men (there is a slang term for them, but I forget what it is, equivalent to "mama's boy") who still live at home and have no intention of settling down and having families since their moms take such good care of them. Some of these men are in their late 30's and even 40's, and their mothers cook them homemade meals to take for lunch, and do their laundry, make their beds. > There was one guy who had to work in another city for a while and sent his mom his dirty laundry each week, and he would get it back a few days later, clean and pressed. I guess these guys know that if they got married, their wives would probably never spoil them like that, lol! > But seriously, I guess it is a big problem because the population is really shrinking. > · There are two parts to this IMO (separate from Gary's quite-correct post about the way corporations and their shareholders just want the money to keep rolling in; the fewer the employees the better). · First, the general point. The fewer the people, the higher the material standard-of-living of everyone, in a sustainable world. And in particular, the smaller the number of people earning-and-spending _above_ US$2,000 to $5,500 a year per person (very roughly sustainable, IMO), the more there is left for those getting _less_than_ $2,000 a year (and they do exist in the OECD and peripheral-EC, let alone the five billion in the rest of the world). · So Europe, and an increasing number of other nations, are on the right track. You can ignore doom-saying economists - they know little of what living is about. · My second and specific point (specific to my family). I remind those who've heard it before that I have guaranteed all three of our children (25 to 31 and unmarried, currently), that they are completely free to live under the same roof with me, eating my type of food, for an unlimited time (rest-of-life if they choose), and I will be happy to have them here. They can upgrade their situation by earning as much (or as little) as they wish - this is the point of my guarantee - but they'll never freeze or go hungry while I'm alive. And I'm quite willing to wash their clothes because it adds little to what I already do (on a routine basis). · This has had little effect; they've all left home for at least a year (nearly a decade for the oldest), but AFAIK none of them has felt they _had_ to take a job, just to bring money in to stay alive. They can stay outside the corporation-controlled economy as long as they wish. That is, since they all can look after themselves (as they did while at home before they first left - they've never had their beds made for them, and their mother and I stopped making meals for them when the oldest was starting university), living-on-very-little holds no fears for them. · So I don't see the point of _worrying_ about a more-than-20% _decrease_ in population in 97 years; it should be welcomed. · BTW, I seem to remember that the USA is among the minority of nations with a significant rate of _increase_ in population; one more thing the USA is doing wrong, IMO. (Caught in a time-warp? thinking the world should be the same as it was when the current top men were still children?) · All the above is about number of people, not about dollar-denominated measures of "economic well-being". A sustainable world could quite easily be consistent with a modest (0.5%-to-1.5% ?) annual increase in such a measure. David. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ -#2:- -=# Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:14:27 +1200 #=- Re: population, European and otherwise. · I'll answer Gary's main question below the copy of his post (betw. - - -); first: in his first comment Gary goes straight from the USA (that I used) to Americans; I have not used those as equivalent. United States of America (USA) is a political entity, so when I use it I'm referring to political actions, and/or 100% of Americans with no distinction - in this case the general culture that wants more: more goods and services bought, and more Americans. The satisfaction with _growth_: more is better. I have tried to be consistent about this, since the time (at least a year ago) Diane and Gary pointed out this business of my blaming the actions of the US Administration on the US people. · Gary says “I interpret "one more thing that USA is doing wrong" as referring to more than our Administration.” In contrast to what I say above: -=# as of some weeks ago when polls showwed 50% and now 70% of Americans supporting the current Bush administration's action in militarily attacking Iraq, I _now_ do consider that Americans are doing wrong.#=- I certainly understand that a minority dissent; but as a generalisation, with the faults all generalisations have, "Americans say this" "Americans are doing that" now includes the Administration's actions, IMO. To continue until reliable polls (e.g. Harris, Gallup) show that _less_ than 45% support the Administration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 02:51 PM 2003-03-30 +1200, David wrote: "I seem to remember that the USA is among the minority of nations with a significant rate of _increase_ in population; one more thing the USA is doing wrong, IMO." At 08:09 AM 2003-03-30 -0500, Gary wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8421 } :- "One more thing the USA is doing wrong." David, would you also share with us here what you think the USA is doing RIGHT, if anything? - Anything at all. Or what you LIKE about Americans in general, just to broaden my understanding of your worldview. - Anything at all. ... I would sincerely like to know what you think about us -- especially the POSITIVE things about us (if you have anything positive to share). Because, frankly, I don't remember your sharing anything positive about "America" or "Americans". Perhaps I just need my memory refreshed. Because when I read a comment from you like the one above, I must admit that I interpret "one more thing that USA is doing wrong" as referring to more than our Administration. Sounds to me as if you dislike (are condemning) Americans in general. Just note that IMO a lot of good lies within many Americans I know. Not everyone, that's for sure. But still many. These individual Americans ARE doing things right, IMO, or at least they are attempting to do the best they can within the limitations of our culture. For example, I can't live ... For example, many of us are frustrated almost beyond endurance ... Regarding Bush, based on the actual POPULAR vote, I point out that Gore was elected President -- not Bush. And I believe that once Americans at large start really "getting it" that Iraqis DON'T want us there and that the Iraqis have NEVER been an imminent threat to us (that we have been hoodwinked into a war by some very clever Bushie propaganda), they will turn on Bush with a vengeance. From the vantage point of any other nation, IMO it is a mistake to confuse "USA" and "ugly American" with those average citizens living within my country. What you often see reflected abroad IMO are the values, beliefs, and actions of a powerful, rich elite NOT representative of the average American. But I have mentioned this to you before. Specifically regarding your IMO biased conclusion about our population, I know the following to be a fact about my state of Pennsylvania (and I am fairly sure this is true for the country in general): If one does not count immigrants, our population is actually DEcreasing. But the large numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal, are continuing to push our population upward. Gary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · Now, about the main question; Gary asks that I describe: "what you think the USA is doing RIGHT, Or what you LIKE about Americans in general, - Anything at all". · The fact that this question is asked somewhat surprises me (though perhaps I should have expected it, with LIM being "a _support_group_ for people exploring the practice of voluntary simplicity ..."). I don't identify with the nation or political-state I am a citizen of (NZ or Canada) to anything like the same degree that others do. Many others here, including those who voted for it, are critical of the NZ government, and while happy to be New Zealanders, don't _identify_with_ New Zealand to the degree many Americans identify with the USA. Here, ones "who I am" self-image, has a much smaller factor of being: "a New Zealander". This as a generalisation, of course. I _think_ the above includes women-and-girls, but I have (again) been surprised by my daughter's wish for understanding and approval from others (not just parents); she is much more normal than I am, I'm the odd-ball. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "what you think the USA is doing RIGHT, Or what you LIKE about Americans in general .." :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · I can answer this easily, about specific groups of Americans, though for "Americans in general" I find it difficult. Specific groups like past Americans, from certain of the Founding Fathers (Adams, Jefferson) through that state that first emancipated women, to NW USA currently, which has been so openly critical of Washington's attitudes and actions that I was suggesting to my wife (on yesterday's walk) that there's some chance they might secede from the Union. And similarly for scattered cities and groups of people which have been conscious of the need to create a way of life that is less burdensome on the earth. (I think of California's South Coast Air Quality District, or some such name, which is a world leader in sustainable transport and got its laws in place before the Federal Clean Air Act.) · I think of "Americans" in the mass, as a callow youth with boundless energy but little thought, for the future or for others. You just wish they'd "grow up", sooner rather than later. But you think of them with some fondness and trepidation: "what'll they do next?!". Specifically: 1. "the USA is doing RIGHT". I was about to write something about the freedom of ordinary people from state repression (compared with USSR and the religious controls of old Europe), but while that was true in the days I knew eastern USA quite well (early 1960s), the miasma of conformity, consciously created, (using methods like advertisers) now means Americans are under at least as strong mind control as Russians were IMO (generalising again); (Gary's: "within the limitations of our culture"). Sorry, I guess I can't think of anything! Specifically: 2. "what you LIKE about Americans in general". I've known many Americans in person, in Canada, in the Eastern US, in New Zealand (and the odd one elsewhere). The good thing is their self-confidence but this too often comes over as that they know what's right (how things should be done), and an assumption of superiority. I still like American individuals in general, though, in contrast to the corresponding ones in Britain (whom I can't stand - I no longer want to even _visit_ England; their "but who _are_ you?" grates on me so much). · I've carefully distinguished between the above two, though I suspect Gary saw them as two ways of saying the same thing. · As a kind of summary; IMO the USA as a single entity has exceeded its usefulness (it's become a danger), and there should be single states and groupings of states instead. There should no longer be "Americans", there should be Californians, New-Yorkers, Floridians, North-Westerners, etc. David. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ -#3:- -=# Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:15:35 +1200 #=- Repairing thinking (was: population, European and otherwise.) · Gary's focus is on me and my thinking; mine has been on social-political entities: USA, Americans-as-a-group acting differently from most other groups in the world, and US states. * I believe my last eMail was a good response to those questions Gary asked * · I appreciate his concern for my "right-thinking"; and it _could_ affect the "health" of this list. However, there's a question about how correct his diagnosis is. At 03:02 PM 2003-03-31 -0000, Gary wrote: >I should explain why I am asking these questions. >... David, I wanted to see if you might acknowledge ANYTHING positive about the USA (the institution), Americans in general (if there is such a thing), or even individual Americans you've met. Because a property of US-THEM thinking is a refusal to acknowledge any connection with the Other. > ... Can I see in my "enemy" (I use the term very loosely) anything I like, anything I admire, anything with which I can connect? > >If I do not breakdown US-THEM thinking wherever it may occur in me, instead of reinforcing "loving kindness" (metta), I in fact help to condition myself to fear and hate the Other. > · Now that Gary and I are talking about something different from the previous questions - we're discussing my thinking, not objective reality - I'll see what I can do to respond. With this new focus, what I say will obviously be different from the previous note since we're not discussing the same things. {That is, in my comments below I'm not retracting what I said earlier.} · First; Gary has correctly pointed to a fault in my thinking, that used to be quite serious up to a year ago. · His diagnosis tool is: “a refusal to acknowledge any connection with the Other ... my "enemy" (I use the term very loosely)”. He uses *Other* and *"enemy"* as labels implying that this (putting diverse objects into a box and giving them a single label) is what I did. I know I used to {[put The USA and individual Americans under the same label]}; I don't believe I still do, in spite of Gary pointing to my "Sorry, I guess I can't think of anything!" as evidence that I still do. That response was to his: Specifically: 1."the USA is doing RIGHT". *The USA* is not diverse objects, it is a single political entity (which, BTW, should _not_ be a single entity IMO). This was the point I made at the beginning of my last e-mail in this thread; the USA is distinct from Americans; they are diverse, it is unitary. Gary repeats what I consider to be this mistake with his: "I was questioning your apparent across-the-board demonization of America and Americans." 1. He seems unwilling to distinguish between The USA, America and Americans. (The first two are usually treated the same by US citizens, though my family, with children born in Canada, do not, though we usually use: North America.) 2. I would like to hear what phrasing I have used, that can justly be called "demonisation". Without such evidence, I reject that as a description of what I have been saying, or even of my manner of making criticisms. (It is a trick in formal debating to get your opponent to accept your own characterisation of their statements. Watch out for it, it's insidious.) · To conclude this first point about a fault in my thinking: I do not accept that I still fail to distinguish between The USA on one hand, and individual Americans on the other; he reckons I see them _both_ as *Other* and *"enemy"*; I do not. · Second, Gary asserts the Black-white view of my thinking, that I _have_ an US-THEM attitude; he seems to believe it is there or not there. Yes I accuse-of, reject, and point-disparagingly-to certain things, and in the case of the single object *The USA* will continue to do so. And I sometimes point to other similar political entities (typically NZ and the EU) as doing things better, doing things "right". I cannot see that the wide range of my opinions, complex as they are, can feasibly be described in a Black-white manner, as if US-THEM _characterises_ my thinking. For example, in the past I have requested that people look beyond this current oligarchic regime in Washington, and continue a focus on moving towards sustainability, most recently in my LessIsMore post (at 03:15 PM 2003-03-28 +1200: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8355 ) pointing to my: "Saddam Hussein: this year's problem; global warming, this century's": http://tinyurl.com/8bfv For another example, I recently apologised for wrongly including GW Bush's advisers, when I used "clinically psychotic". · To conclude this second point about a thinking fault: my thinking may have mistakes (which I want corrected) but it isn't Black-white, and so if a diagnosis comes up with: "US-THEM thinking", it has to be false. · Third, Gary wants me to use "Americans" in the way he does. He says: “I was questioning whether you thought America/Americans are capable of doing something RIGHT. "Anything at all." That's a lot of territory IMO.” · Besides his confusing America (The USA) with Americans, he wants me to not distinguish between (i) certain US citizens in the past (his PC example) and all Americans now (above, he's talking about the present: "are capable of"); (ii) certain small groups of people living in the continental USA (Amish, Mennonites, Quakers; I first met these in Canada, actually) with all Americans; and so on. Gary seems to say that certain individuals' and groups' attitudes and achievements somehow are owned by all Americans, i.e. that somehow they helped create these attitudes and achievements and thus should be credited with them. I reject that completely. Refer to "Amish" above; AFAIK they were more free to live their life without interference, in the Kitchener-Waterloo area of Ontario, than they typically were in the USA. And about his: "that personal computer you are using"; he's right about the commercialisation of what used to be called the micro- computer (by IBM and Bell Labs), but he's not right if he's referring to where the first electronic computer was made; that was IMO the "tunny" machine in GCHQ, south western England - used for cracking German cyphers. {My wife's father Geoffrey Timms, who joined the project a few years after it had started (and wrote the last edition of the report on it), was able to get it to do a limited form of multiplication.} · To conclude this third point: To say that Americans have done some good things just because _some_ Americans have done good/useful things is another of those debating tricks or more seriously errors in logic, that everyone should watch out for and avoid. · You may note that I haven't positively-responded to his request: “I was questioning whether you thought America/Americans are capable of doing something RIGHT. "Anything at all."” For the above three reasons I won't. · However, he might have been interested in my response to what I see as a different question: - “Outside of the oh-so-negative effects of the recent neo-con governments and of the bought-and-brainwashed news-media, is there _anything_ good being done in the USA these days?” · I am happy to list a few positive things; but note: "Americans" can't take credit for them, IMO. The credit belongs to those personally involved. 1. There are certain municipalities which are actively moving towards sustainability, in wiser land-use, and in fostering sustainable energy. It's happening around the world, but some aspects to it were done first in USA (such as interfacing and how to pay for, locally-produced small-scale energy). 2. The Seattle demonstrations a few years ago (that Betsy Barnum was part of), against _corporate_ globalisation, were IMO a shining light to those of us who have almost despaired of democracy in the USA. 3. The way there _is_ an increasing un-ease about the Administration's military attack on Iraq (if Congress hasn't declared War, why should anyone call it War?). Gary's comparison with the years-long protesting against a similar "foreign adventure", Vietnam, is the standard by which to judge the current level of objecting. This is the nearest case to being able to say: "Americans are capable of doing something RIGHT", but Gary and his wife, Jill in her lonely vigils, and others we may personally know, are _very_ aware that they do not represent Americans in general. 4. I'm not sure about this, but as Chapter 11 bankruptcy-protection is used more and more, watch whether it does the job in a way that benefits _most_ Americans, not just the company's shareholders. If so, that legal idea is a good one. · I can't think of much more, but as Gary points out, I am seeing what various-and-sundry Americans do from outside: I don't know much about it. {· The rest of this is his un-edited post. D.} At 03:02 PM 2003-03-31 -0000, Gary wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8433 } :- > >I should explain why I am asking these questions. > >As I have so often mentioned here on LIM, I am very sensitive to the damaging effects of emotive/old-brain pseudo-thinking, especially US-THEM thinking. Haven't we on LIM been discussing a war that is a direct outcome of US-THEM thinkers, after all? I consider such thinking to be potentially toxic and destructive. It is also self-feeding. The more we do, the more we are likely to do. Engaging in US-THEM thinking may feel "cathartic" but it's not (based on the latest brain research). It just becomes more strident. > >So in your case, David, I wanted to see if you might acknowledge ANYTHING positive about the USA (the institution), Americans in general (if there is such a thing), or even individual Americans you've met. Because a property of US-THEM thinking is a refusal to acknowledge any connection with the Other. > >When I asked this question, I didn't do so out of a desire to be liked. For me, the question has a spiritual foundation. It relates to a Buddhist meditative practice intended to detect and to breakdown US-THEM thinking. Can I see in my "enemy" (I use the term very loosely) anything I like, anything I admire, anything with which I can connect? > >If I do not breakdown US-THEM thinking wherever it may occur in me, instead of reinforcing "loving kindness" (metta), I in fact help to condition myself to fear and hate the Other. > >David, you say: >"in his first comment Gary goes straight from the USA (that I used) to Americans;" > >I did so for a good reason. Decisions about whether to have a child or not (relating to population growth) are (apart from legislation regarding abortion) outside the realm of our legal system, federal and state. In the USA, it is an individual decision. And there are tons of reasons why individuals decide to have a family here. To ascribe their various motives to some "cultural" drive to have more of everything just doesn't fly. IMO that's a neat and tidy theory that manages to wrap an Anti-American box with a tidy ribbon. > >But it just doesn't fly based on any reality that I (an American for almost 60 years) have experienced. For example, based on your theory one might expect the richest and most acquisitive American families to have LARGE families -- which is not the case based on recent census data. > > >David: =# as of some weeks ago when polls showed 50% and now 70% of >Americans supporting the current Bush administration's action in >militarily attacking Iraq, I _now_ do consider that Americans are >doing wrong.#=- > >You lost me here, David. I wasn't claiming that America or Americans are perfect. I was questioning your apparent across-the-board demonization of America and Americans. I was questioning whether you thought America/Americans are capable of doing something RIGHT. "Anything at all." That's a lot of territory IMO. > >Hey, I got one. How about that personal computer you are using, and the Internet along with it? Both were invented in these United States. That should count for something, no? > >Or the whole idea of organic and bio-intensive gardening/farming. Not invented here but certainly raised to another level by the Americans Robert Rodale and John Jeavons, to name just a few. > >Or religious communities like the Quakers, Amish, and Mennonite (there are many others) who have opposed war -- all wars -- throughout US history. > > >David, you responded to my question: "what you think the USA is doing RIGHT, Or what you LIKE about Americans in general, - Anything at all" with ... > >"Sorry, I guess I can't think of anything!" > >I would bet that George W might say the very same thing about all those "liberal, leftist antiwar protesters" these days. > > >David: "I've known many Americans in person, in Canada, in the Eastern US, in New Zealand (and the odd one elsewhere). The good thing is their self-confidence but this too often comes over as that they know what's right (how things should be done), and an assumption of superiority." > >But from this end, you seem to have some of those very same qualities. We all do. For example, don't you frequently express some of that same kind of self-confidence (sometimes absolute certitude IMO) about the rightness of your frugal lifestyle, even a bit of superiority that you are living life the way we Americans SHOULD be living, and we are somehow wrong (shame on us) for not doing so? > >As an American, I might even consider some "assumption of superiority" in your comment: "I think of "Americans" in the mass, as a callow youth with boundless energy but little thought" > >It is so easy to get caught in the trap of negativity -- the trap of only seeing what's wrong, instead of also considering what's right. > >What's right is that you and I are reaching out here on LIM for some kind of common understanding. Or I hope we are. If LIM is simply another form of London's Speaker's Corner, forget it. (IMO it isn't.) > >So David, let me try once more. Can you think of one thing positive about the USA (the country), "Americans in general" (if there is such a thing), or any individual Americans you've known? Anything at all. > >Because if not, I would say that you and George W might have more in common than you might like to admit. We all do. > >Gary > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - David. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8458 is Diane's: RE: Repairing thinking (was: population, European and otherwise.) David and, later in this post, Gary: Let me make a comment, and I would be interested in your response. First to David: Gary wonders if you see anything generally good about Americans. For example, people often say Oklahomans are not progressive thinkers "but they sure are friendly!" So I -- who am frequently critical of my fellow citizens -- often think fondly of Americans as extremely tolerant of diversity in their society. Granted, I can think of all sorts of exceptions and limitations, but overall, within our borders, I think we pretty much have a "live and let live" attitude. So, with this kind of example (which you may or may not agree with), I would be interested if you have an especially good opinion of any general populace of *any* country, a people for whom you would genuinely think of with fondness. See, given what you frequently say of yourself, I don't think of you as being especially enamored of any group. And, to Gary, I must agree with David that I did not see his statement as demonization. Critical maybe, but not demonization. Diane Fitzsimmons Norman, Okla. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ -#4:- -=# Tue, 01 Apr 2003 10:15:40 +1200 #=- fondness for a people (was: Repairing thinking) At 03:32 PM 2003-03-31 -0600, Diane wrote: >David: ... I would be interested if you have an especially good opinion of any general populace of *any* country, a people for whom you would genuinely think of with fondness. > > ... given what you frequently say of yourself, I don't think of you as being especially enamored of any group. > · You're asking a question that IMO can be answered only for countries or states with below a certain population, and in which one has travelled extensively so as to have personal knowledge of the residents, to be the basis of one's opinion. · Yes, there is a country whose people as-a-whole I think of with fondness. It's Ghana. My wife and I lived and worked there for two sequential academic-years and I travelled (as a qualified foreigner monitoring the final exams) to several very different places in it. In 1968-1970. · Two others come close, North-Island-New-Zealand, and Malaysia. I haven't travelled enough in each to be sure, and I have some experience which would likely mean my feeling wouldn't be "fondness", more like "feeling at home". · I have travelled widely in Canada (since 1939 in Nova Scotia), and "feeling at home" describes South-Western-Ontario (and I think Nova Scotia but I haven't spent time there since the mid 1960s - my younger sister still lives in New Glasgow, though). Canada is just too big for me to say that. David. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/8471 is Gary's: Re: Repairing thinking (was: population, European and otherwise.) Given the tone that this thread seems to have taken, I feel that I should open this reply with "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury". I speak to David and David speaks to some audience "out there". So I guess I should speak to that same audience. I address the members of LIM: Just for the record, Ladies and Gentlemen, I was not attempting to "diagnose" David's thinking, for his health or for the health of this group. David and this group can very well take care of yourselves. But I did want to understand a little more accurately certain attitudes of David. In other words, on this particular subject does he and I have some point where we can share a meeting of the minds? I simply wanted to know, given posting after posting of his criticisms over the years, if in fact he could find anything POSITIVE to say about Americans or America. Note my continued emphasis upon the phrase "anything at all" within this thread. Seemed simple enough to me. In my mind, a blank check. Nothing complicated. Some specific example. A "Gee, I have grown very fond of talking with you folks on LIM because YOU Americans seem to have your heads on straight" would have been sufficient. Or a pointer to some past posting that said such a thing or something similarly positive, to jar my memory. I mean, if any of you were to judge by MY comments regarding George W Bush here, you would think that I detested the man to the depths of his being. I don't. Looking at the man overall, he might be a very decent and personable human being. I freely admit that. (I understand that he in fact IS very personable, at least to his friends.) And in the past, I have said that. I HAVE said that while I am highly critical of Bush here, I restrict my criticism to his role as public servant. And I believe that I should KEEP saying that to counter my own apparent demonization of the man. So I wanted a more complete picture from David regarding his attitude toward America and/or Americans. Regarding David's statement: "I would like to hear what phrasing I have used, that can justly be called "demonisation". Without such evidence, I reject that as a description of what I have been saying, or even of my manner of making criticisms." First, what I said was "I was questioning your apparent across-the-board demonization of America and Americans." First, I should have made it clear that I was referring to David's postings over the years. Second, please note my careful use of the term "apparent". "Apparent" implies to me my own perceived, subjective reality -- which in my mind may not jive with actual fact. But I think I went wrong here with the word "questioning". The word has the tone of a legal cross-examination of the guilty. In fact, I question (in my own mind) his apparent (in my own mind) demonization of America and Americans based on a plethora of David's criticisms posted to PF and LIM. So I asked David for some example to counter a perhaps false impression about him. Now if David could find absolutely NOTHING good to say about anything even slightly associated with these United States, well that would seem US-THEM thinking to me, I admit. Now, regarding his: "(It is a trick in formal debating to get your opponent to accept your own characterisation of their statements. Watch out for it, it's insidious.)" If there is an implication here, Ladies and Gentlemen, that I was attempting to lure David into a verbal trap, that was not my intention. You need not fear any such insidious actions on my part toward yourselves in future conversations. If you suspect such a thing, please let me know. But given that a friendly conversation may have turned into a heated debate, I gladly cease and desist. I offer my throat to the blade. I've clearly said more than enough on this subject. In the future, when I encounter what I believe to be yet another venting by David with regard to USA, America, Americans, whatever, I shall simply use my delete key and move on. Which is clearly what I should have done in the first place -- mea culpa, mea culpa! Gary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ -#5:- -=# Wed, 02 Apr 2003 06:40:16 +1200 #=- a solution At 01:52 PM 2003-04-01 -0000, Gary wrote: >I simply wanted to know, given posting after posting of his criticisms over the years, if in fact he could find anything POSITIVE to say about Americans or America. ... Some specific example [like:] "... you folks on LIM because YOU Americans ..." > I wanted a more complete picture from David regarding his attitude toward America and/or Americans. >... > >But given that a friendly conversation may have turned into a heated debate, I gladly cease and desist. ... In the future, when I encounter what I believe to be yet another venting by David with regard to USA, America, Americans, whatever, I shall simply use my delete key and move on. > · I chose that "tone" or style specifically to remove the heat. · I will continue to applaud what individuals do, and will continue my unrelenting criticism of what the USA (as a political entity) does, certainly while it remains so totally undemocratic. In my last "Repairing thinking - was: population, .." post, I listed good things that groups of individuals in the USA have done, but I will continue, while these actions are _done_by_a_minority_, to not call these people "Americans". Their worthy-of-approval actions are not typical of the big majority of Americans, and the latter should not expect to have the mantle of respectability dragged over them too, by my labelling both: Americans. On a personal opinion level I see the attitudes and speech used on LIM as more like British Commonwealth style than American style. · I have been criticised on GV-NZ for sending-on stuff that isn't personal opinion or strictly-local news, so I enable those who want to _not_read_ my "of general interest to Greens" posts to delete them unread, by putting: "Fw." at the beginning of such (usually longer) posts to GV. · So my solution, while I insist on continued criticism of The USA (as a single political entity), is to start the title line with the code: "-#-", when most of what I'm saying (or excerpting) in that post is criticism of this entity. David.