The Asian values thing is interesting. When the Asian mini-dragon economies were flying so high, Oz received many scoldings from their leaders, saying that our western values were decadent etc, and if we wanted to do well, we should espouse them - this was especially so when human rights were raised - when the message was that the west had to respect that Asian values were different.
Asian human rights activists have always said that this is rhetoric designed to avoid moving on rpressive practices...
...and oppressive ones, too...
Mond you (she said - apparently bumping her gums only to herself) the scoldings by Asian leaders were well deserved by Oz, after years of mindless chauvinistic patriotism and westernism on our parts......... reaping the whirlwind?
Same thing in the U.S., Deb.
Deb (and Diane)
The same sort of romantization of Asian values (while their economies boomed) held true here in Canada as well, with ramifications even into educational theory. If I get time to rant later, I'll add a bit to this.
Sophia
I feel a bit better to know there are a few things we can agree about.
checking in........reading later....
edgarblythe wrote:Sophia
I feel a bit better to know there are a few things we can agree about.
-------
dlowan--
That was a very apt allegorical vignette, but I'd think the rude, self-importance revealed by Humpty Dumpty would cause you to repent your similar behavior. He, nor you, have the right to tell others what they feel, or strictly define words for others.
You might have missed the whole point. People who discard established definitions force others to use theirs.
You might have thought I missed the intended point.
The only one pushing an opinion of the definition was dlowan. All others were flexible with others' opinions. She continued pushing the 'uncritical' plank--as if any patriot was unthinkingly devoted--a lemming. That definition burned more than a few-- It was rigid, and most definitely not established.
Yeah, I DO think you missed the point. See dlowan was just quoting a dictionary. She started this discussion and was speaking of patriotism as defined by a dictionary. You and others make up your own definitions and make everyone else adapt to them and everyone ends up talking about what is essentially a different thing. This is normal in dicussion but for the purpose of having people on the same page she proposed a dictionary definition. It WAS established.
She was merely quoting a dictionary and you are trying to paint her as the pushy one. I think you not only miss the point but accuse her falsely of what you were doing.
I DO see how you missed the real point.
She asked others their opinions, then produced a dictionary opinion, and proceeded to tell others their definitions were wrong.
My posts can't be considered pushy, because I didn't tell anyone their opinion was wrong. I accepted all people's opinions. She did not.
So, my definition may be wrong--but I didn't try to change anyone else's--
Humpty fit her. The only two 'forcing'.
LOL! well, I AM pushy, as it happens - from time to time - and reasoned debate which engages the issues IS something I like to do. As I have said - without actually trying very hard to get anyone to stop it - I see little point in debating the value, and otherwise, of patriotism, if everyone just defines it as something they like - then likes it. Ditto for all the folk who have defined it as something they DON'T like - then hated it. I would have opened a thread called something like "patriotism - what do you mean by it- and why do you like/hate it?" if I thought that was a useful pursuit to engage in right now. I am not saying it ISN'T a useful pursuit, BTW - just a different beast from the one I was pursuing.
If you actually read what I say, you will find that I regard the besotted, rather than unthinking, necessarily, aspect of patriotism as a PART of it - not the whole. I have, I think, been quite scathing on this thread, at times - but not really about that bit - nor, given the way some of you have defined patriotism, do I have any real qualms with your espoused patriotism - whether those who are very pro, and who STATE a very reasoned patriotism, actually operate under the reasonable definition is moot, I think - as with all human endeavours. As I have stated very clearly, I think most aspects of patriotism ridiculous - but make no claim not to be guilty of it, emotionally - I merely seek to control it with reason and humour.
As it happens, it has been quite illuminating to see how people define it - and, hopefully, a few people have realised why others get so offended by others' differing attitude to it - something which has puzzled me greatly about, for instance, you and Perception in the past, Sofia. It has also been interesting to see how Perception, for instance, has (I think) seen any negativity about patriotism as an attack on the USA - whereas I, for instance, am thinking about the US only as a tiny segment of my thinking - and partial negativity about- the thing.
Yes, we have different views - and you deciding I am rude to be somewhat rigorous is fine- it won't stop me - any more than my comments have stopped anyone from doing precisely what they wished to do in this debate - nor will your rudeness stop me from enjoying debate with you in the future. I did spend a number of years studying philosophy - and learned some rigour there - perhaps it has made me rigid! LOL. Generally I frolic about these boards, but I will be tough in stating what I think sometimes - the Humpty thingy was a bit rude - but it made the point better than I was able to, I think.
Not established? Hmm - well, words are slippery things - but I checked pretty widely before choosing the definition I did. I think it pretty established, but c'est la vie.
Humpty - savouring.....hmm - not bad - I quite like it, really - he was a clever, peppery chappy - before the fall.....
Go at it, Sofia! I have all the king's horses - and all the king's men - can't be all bad! LOL.
deb, between carrots, said
Quote:The Asian values thing is interesting. When the Asian mini-dragon economies were flying so high, Oz received many scoldings from their leaders, saying that our western values were decadent etc, and if we wanted to do well, we should espouse them - this was especially so when human rights were raised - when the message was that the west had to respect that Asian values were different.
Asian human rights activists have always said that this is rhetoric designed to avoid moving on repressive practices...
It's not difficult to make the case that those activists have it right. Actually, it is myopic and naive to deny this element. On another thread yesterday, I linked to a piece describing present on-going US financial support to a state neighboring Russia which has, for the admirable goal of group cohesion, boiled some folks who were getting uppity.
If fishin is about, he'll protest that business endeavors are as morally grounded as any other activity, but he'll be wrong. We just have to look at all the repressive regimes with which corporations are quite happy to do profitable business. Here in my home town several years ago, an APEC conference was hosted and in attendance were some of the world's really ugly leaders. Human rights protests were relegated to fenced-off areas which weren't visible to the visitors - so as TO NOT OFFEND THEM! There was much pepper spraying and mentions of 'security precautions' and other police-state fun.
Various moral justifications attend such business arrangements (or strategic arrangements, but they are commonly identical) such as, "if those children were not working twelve hour days with toxic chemicals for a dollar fifty, they'd be unemployed!" or "they have different values over there and who are we to suggest our values are better." Of course, such justifications are voiced only when someone blows the whistle, otherwise they don't even come into any discourse at all.
Sofia wrote:I DO see how you missed the real point.
She asked others their opinions, then produced a dictionary opinion, and proceeded to tell others their definitions were wrong.
My posts can't be considered pushy, because I didn't tell anyone their opinion was wrong. I accepted all people's opinions. She did not.
So, my definition may be wrong--but I didn't try to change anyone else's--
Humpty fit her. The only two 'forcing'.
"Let's talk about sex"
"Sure, I think sex is best done with children"
"What do you mean?!!!"
"Yeah, you know, sex: eating out on the grass on a blanket."
"That's not sex, that's a picnic! Sex means to have.. sex!"
"When I use a word, it means what just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things. I'd like to talk about sex, not a picnic."
"You are rude and pushy. When you try to talk about sex I will talk about a picnic and I am not pushy at all."
I attended a REALLY good picnic recently.
Did you? The ants ruined my sex.
I hate you both - I haven't had a picnic since....well...the weekend...
