![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
woodfaceI made an adaption of the fandom meme and now that I type this, I remember that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
poohmusings did this as well.
1. The world would be a better place if everyone converted to buddhism. Seriously, think about it. Have you ever seen buddhist monks kick the crap out of each other because they don't quite agree about something? The things that are happening in the name of god or allah are disgusting. If it were up to me, I'd probably ban religion from the world but I guess humanity isn't ready for that so buddhism seems a nice alternative.
2. Thinking that immigration is a serious topic is not racism. The most common name in Belgium is Muhammed, in Flanders it is Thomas. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? I'm all for the multicultural society but we are dealing with a serious problem here. What is the biggest problem however is that a lot of the youth is out of control, this is something that even the muslim society recognizes. However, when someone brings up the problem everyone gets scared cause it might make them look like they're racists. Hence why the only party that does talk about it (extreme right) is gaining popularity.
3. Generalisations and stereotypes about collectives and nations do hold an amount of truth. A nation undergoes a character forming process. Its history shapes the mentality of its citizens. Therefor it is possible to determine certain aspects of a nationality. You just have to keep in mind that not every individual has these characterisations. They are part of the indiviual in different shapes and hues and some people correspond to the stereotype better than others.
The danger of generalisations and stereotypes is that they're easy to manipulate and have in the past been used. Look at the demonisation of the jews in WWII, the red scare in the US, etc. One of the generalisations that I have a hard time believing though is the view of americans on the French. I'm not sure where this stereotype comes from, but then I get the impression that most stereotypes that exist among americans are somewhat manipulated by the goverment. I think part of the problem that americans have with the french is that these are two very chauvinistic and patriottic nations and you can't both be the best ;o)
It amazes me that even now the republicans are still using the red scare against Kerry.
4. People who vote for Bush probably deserve to have him as president. Sadly enough, the rest of the nation and of the world does not.
5. The future depends on the UN. They need to get more power and should be made more sufficient. If we want to make an end to terrorism and world wide problems and issues, then we need to have a better functioning UN. That also means that idiots like Bush need to actually listen to the UN and not only go there when it serves them. Someone should bitchslap the US for going against the UN when they invaded Iraq. The sooner the better.splash_the_cat asked me yesterday if that actually meant that they will have to act like adults instead of spoiled children. I know this is a lot to ask but maybe they should at least try?
I know I have more points in mind but I can't seem to remember so I'll stick to 5.
poohmusings did this as well. 1. The world would be a better place if everyone converted to buddhism. Seriously, think about it. Have you ever seen buddhist monks kick the crap out of each other because they don't quite agree about something? The things that are happening in the name of god or allah are disgusting. If it were up to me, I'd probably ban religion from the world but I guess humanity isn't ready for that so buddhism seems a nice alternative.
2. Thinking that immigration is a serious topic is not racism. The most common name in Belgium is Muhammed, in Flanders it is Thomas. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? I'm all for the multicultural society but we are dealing with a serious problem here. What is the biggest problem however is that a lot of the youth is out of control, this is something that even the muslim society recognizes. However, when someone brings up the problem everyone gets scared cause it might make them look like they're racists. Hence why the only party that does talk about it (extreme right) is gaining popularity.
3. Generalisations and stereotypes about collectives and nations do hold an amount of truth. A nation undergoes a character forming process. Its history shapes the mentality of its citizens. Therefor it is possible to determine certain aspects of a nationality. You just have to keep in mind that not every individual has these characterisations. They are part of the indiviual in different shapes and hues and some people correspond to the stereotype better than others.
The danger of generalisations and stereotypes is that they're easy to manipulate and have in the past been used. Look at the demonisation of the jews in WWII, the red scare in the US, etc. One of the generalisations that I have a hard time believing though is the view of americans on the French. I'm not sure where this stereotype comes from, but then I get the impression that most stereotypes that exist among americans are somewhat manipulated by the goverment. I think part of the problem that americans have with the french is that these are two very chauvinistic and patriottic nations and you can't both be the best ;o)
It amazes me that even now the republicans are still using the red scare against Kerry.
4. People who vote for Bush probably deserve to have him as president. Sadly enough, the rest of the nation and of the world does not.
5. The future depends on the UN. They need to get more power and should be made more sufficient. If we want to make an end to terrorism and world wide problems and issues, then we need to have a better functioning UN. That also means that idiots like Bush need to actually listen to the UN and not only go there when it serves them. Someone should bitchslap the US for going against the UN when they invaded Iraq. The sooner the better.
splash_the_cat asked me yesterday if that actually meant that they will have to act like adults instead of spoiled children. I know this is a lot to ask but maybe they should at least try?I know I have more points in mind but I can't seem to remember so I'll stick to 5.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 03:06 pm (UTC)*nods*
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 03:56 pm (UTC)Ay-yup.
*sigh*
My country scares me. It scares me even more that it's currently reminding me of my Germany-in-1934/1935 lecture.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 04:21 pm (UTC)Immigration...yes. We had a huge influx of Vietnamese into the area at the end of the war, but they have really made a place for themselves in the community. Hispanics are now our fastest growing imigrant population. We have seen a lot of gang violence there. That makes me nervous.
American attitudes about the French??? I guess I'm out of the loop. What is our issue with the French supposed to be? Maybe I shouldn't have made friends with a couple of French women who I met at Gatecon! LOL!
Bush/Kerry. Not even going there! Suffice it to say, I have issues with both of them.
The UN...okay. No country should be able to have a military presence in another without the consent of the UN. But...on the other hand, the UN needs to quit arguing among themselves and get some balls.
IMHO. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 05:54 pm (UTC)It was esp that whole "freedom fries" thing that struck me but the whole attitude of France against the invasion of Iraq seemed to have let loose some other opinions. But then maybe those remarks are from a rare few after all =o)
The UN...okay. No country should be able to have a military presence in another without the consent of the UN. But...on the other hand, the UN needs to quit arguing among themselves and get some balls.
I agree (but I don't think it's the lack of balls but rather the size and the organisation that is obstructing the UN) but that doesn't give any country in the UN the right to disobey them.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 03:07 am (UTC)As to France, I can tell you that there is an attitude which seemed to grow after WWII. A belief that the French leadership was spineless and wouldn't even stand up to oppressors--that they would rather hand over the keys to the city than risk conflict. I don't think it's so much the younger Americans as it is the older ones who are part of that WWII era generation--they are the ones still harboring this attitude. Unfortunately, that includes most of our politicians.
France and the UN were right to oppose the invasion. We need to get the hell out of Iraq.
Our government has always been good at lying about it's movitations. The truth about Iraq...I believe was oil. There are many other underprivileged countries in similar situations, but we have done nothing to try to 'help' them. Why not?...because they have nothing we want.
Don't get me wrong. I am proud of my country, but I'm not proud of many of it's actions.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 10:38 am (UTC)Which shows a definite lack of knowledge of history.
The truth about Iraq...I believe was oil. There are many other underprivileged countries in similar situations, but we have done nothing to try to 'help' them. Why not?...because they have nothing we want.
*nods* Oil seems to play a big part in a lot of actions. There are some theories that say it goes a lot further than oil though and that the people who are pulling Bush's strings want to spread the american ideology.
Don't get me wrong. I am proud of my country, but I'm not proud of many of it's actions.
I know that feeling. I'm proud to be belgian but sometimes I just want to hit all their heads together.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 04:53 pm (UTC)As to US vs. French? Nah, that was a wacky propoganda thing from Georgy Porgy. The normal citizen may mock the Frech for their bathing habits and love of Jerry Lewis. But, we don't actually hate them. The whole thing about the White House changing french fries to freedom fries was just so silly that normal people still mock it.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 05:48 pm (UTC)Maybe that isn't such a bad idea.
About the French? It just struck me that I was watching such a silly program as 7th Heaven that seems to be intend on shoving high morals down your throat when they see the changed and still gave this really bad stereotype of the French.
But besides that I guess that I have seen some remarks about the French during the whole Iraq thing. The fries thing was just stupid but it seemed to fit into that whole "use stereotypes" thing so well.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 09:32 pm (UTC)Regarding 2? I totally agree with it, because people actually believe that someone pointing stuff like the names are racists when they're not.
and last on my commenting so I don't post a really long comment. #3...the problem with it is that lot of people tend to generalize with the country, while in lots of countries there has only been one culture there are other countries that have more than one culture, more than one language and sometimes people don't mark much the differences while generalizing. i.e. Belgium? Everyone makes a difference between "the north" and "the south" is not like in the middle the vision change 'cause of the contact between this two polarities...but lot people don't think of it. In Spain, practically everyone out of Spain that don't really know much about Spain will only differ the Basque Country (with luck) but usually lot of people don't see that being from Catalonia/Andalucia (south)/ Galicia (north-west) do actually mean different visions, in some stuff people may agree but the generalizations are totally different. I can assure you that generalizing a person from Madrid and a person from Barcelona separately will wring you a more true generalization of each area than trying to point what they have together to make an ensemble generalization.
well...anyways...the point is while generalization may be true in some basics it has to be looked which generalizations are 'really' correct.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 10:56 pm (UTC)I can assure you that generalizing a person from Madrid and a person from Barcelona separately will wring you a more true generalization of each area than trying to point what they have together to make an ensemble generalization.
Sure but they still have certain aspects that tie them as Spanish. But that is exactly why I said generalisations of collectives and of nations because not all collectives fall within a geographical boundary.
well...anyways...the point is while generalization may be true in some basics it has to be looked which generalizations are 'really' correct.
I agree but there still is a kernel of truth in it. It's just a dangers thing to whield. ;o)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 11:08 pm (UTC)yeah but buddhism is not something I think all humans can go with...way too much peace into it ;)
Sure but they still have certain aspects that tie them as Spanish. But that is exactly why I said generalisations of collectives and of nations because not all collectives fall within a geographical boundary.
The fact is that the spanish description offers a whole can of worms because I don't think that aspects that aren't too generic, even more than the generalization ones per se, won't get them together....i.e. the lunch late/partying late to say something, is something that yes it kind of happens in Madrid and Barcelona but also in the rest of the Mediterranean (maybe not as much as over here but it does actually happen)
I agree but there still is a kernel of truth in it. It's just a dangers thing to whield. ;o)
Yes, still I think that if you really get into the description of a type of culture you will fall more nearer than if you describe the generalizations by countries (culture meaning people who were raised with 'x' culture in a specific area and so.)