U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Palomar · 2004-05-08 12:26:55

Agreed Cindy, and I'll go you one further: When I was in high school (I graduated in 1980) we brought guns to school all the time, typically hunting rifles or shotguns, and guys often wore knives on their belts. Many people would go hunting after school, and during hunting season -- much of which is in fall and winter -- they would be in a hurry to get in the field before sunset. (This was in South Texas.)
I remember once watching a fistfight between two guys, and the loser, mad as hell, got in his truck and slammed the door, and burned rubber out of the parking lot. In his back windshield was a 12 gauge shotgun.
The thing about it is that at the time, nobody thought anything of it. To use a weapon -- even a knife -- in a fistfight was an act considered so cowardly that it was literally *unthinkable*. It simply didn't occur to anyone.
By the same token, bullies were not rewarded by this situtation either: their actions were also regarded as being cowardly, and to be blunt about it, they didn't get any (winkwinknodnod.) I knew guys who were decent looking and great football players, and could have been popular but for bullying tendancies. Usually they had one browbeaten girlfriend all the way through high school, who typically abandoned them and fled for college in another state. As an addendum, a few years ago I saw one of those bullies on an episode of "Cops", and he wasn't wearing a uniform -- or even a shirt.
I would be curious to figure out just where this sea change in attitude -- where results triumphed over principle -- initially occured, and when the concept of shame was replaced with unwarranted pride.

*Taking this over from War & Politics *2* thread.

Hi Mundaka. Well, here's my opinion (for what it's worth). Start with Andy Warhol's statement (not that he is to blame...it was a comment he made) that someday, in the future, "everyone will be famous for 15 minutes." Talk about one of the greatest pop quips of all time. Add to that the book deals some murderers have gotten, and all the camera time trials get. Ilk of society achieve overnight celebrity status. Mix in unscrupulous, stupid people who don't care HOW they get "their 15 minutes of fame." I think of all the cases I've heard of people who did something violent or atrocious "just so I could get on TV and my name in the paper." Not sure just WHERE the fault lies with the popular media, percentage-wise...

I think of the guys who killed Matthew Shepherd. When one of them was going through his trial phase, he breezed out of the court room, knowing full well the cameras were on him, smug and pleased with himself, winking flirtatiously to someone off-camera. Big-shot celebrity attitude, zero remorse, "look at me."

I recall a case around here, where 2 college guys abducted, raped, and killed a college classmate. One of these guys quipped "my case will make me more famous than --- ( I can't remember the analogy he used)." Last I heard, his father died of a heart attack from all the pressure and anguish, shortly after the trial and sentencing (in 2001, I think). I wonder if the little f*ckhead is still proud of himself.

This is sick. 15 minutes of fame, no matter how you get it.

Judge Ito of Simpson trial "fame" was no better, IMO. I was glad to learn that a Japanese-American judge would be presiding over the case; I hoped it'd calm down black/white racial tensions over the case. What did Ito do? Drag in all his fancy hourglasses, stack them all around the judge's bench (or whatever it's called) like it's an hourglass showroom, and actually stopped the trial for an hour once to take the lawyers into his private chambers and have them watch "The Dancing Ito's" from "The Late Show" (Jay Leno) the night before. :-\ Goldman and Brown, victims of a brutal murder (whether OJ did it or not), are seemingly forgotten in the camera shuffle.

Give some people a chance at instant "celebrity" and they don't care...whether via books or cameras. Anyway, this is in response to your last paragraph.

Ancient Rome had its gladiator arenas and we've got cons and jerks getting access to TV time.

There's more I could say, maybe will later, but am pressed for time. I agree with what you said, 100%.

--Cindy

P.S.: I certainly don't intend to make it sound like it's only men who do to this stuff. Women do too of course.

Palomar · 2004-05-08 12:50:28

*I hope you all don't mind that I started a new thread, carried over from War & Politics 2. I'm not sure non-U.S. New Mars members will appreciate pointed discussion about U.S. culture in that thread, which is the only reason I started this thread.

I wrote in the other thread: "Social mores and values -have- changed in this nation. Especially in HOW people express frustration, anger, etc. I never heard of pre-planned, execution-style shooting sprees in schools -- even in rinky-dink Alabama towns about the size of my own small town! -- until around 1996."

To which Euler responded: "This is exactly my point. You never heard about school shootings before 1996 because the media was not as fixated on them then. In fact, there in-school murder rate had been going down, with only 25 school homicides in 1996-1997 compared with 55 in 1992-1993. Students are 40 more likely to be murdered outside of school than in school, and twice as likely to be struck by lightning.

People often forget just how big America really is. There are 300,000,000 people living here. That is enough that almost any conceivable method of death, no matter how strange, will happen eventually. When the media starts running stories about a particular method of death, people think that it is running rampant, even though it is usually occurring at the same extremely rare frequency that it always has."

*Euler, I wonder if we're having a communication gap. I don't deny that there were shootings (as in 1-on-1) in schools (sans big cities) prior to 1996.

What I am specifically referring to are Klebold & Dylan-style planned, premeditated, "sling out the gun and shoot like mad at random" killing sprees which even gradeschoolers have gone on.

I never heard of -that- sort of violent phenomenon connected with schools prior to 1996. Maybe I missed it...but I honestly don't recall.

Of course, now kids [and adults!] have easy access to all sorts of information -- how to build pipebombs, how to this and that, etc.; levels of information not previously available.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Adults were going bananas with guns and etc. in the late 1990s as well, and even just prior to 9/11. I recall a man in his 50s who got p.o.'d with the people in charge of his apartment complex...he stormed over to the office and began shooting away. Disgruntled former employees running, guns blazing, into former places of employment, shooting at random and at anyone -- even if they'd not worked there for 5 years. Geez. Again, I don't recall -this number- of such public demonstrations of violence prior to the mid-90s either (schools or otherwise). Not trying to make it sound like America pre-1995 was Paradise, because it wasn't...but there was a definite spike in random, crazy violence there for a while.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-08 15:25:12

I put the blame on essentially two factors.

The first, and least significant, is that recently people not only have far more graphic representations of the use of weapons in violent acts, but almost no balance. People whose only contact with guns is seeing them in action movies will have warped perceptions.

Yes, I'm saying that we need, if not less violence in entertainment at least violence with consequences. Violence with meaning. In addition, we'd do well to get back to a point where kids are exposed to and use guns at an early age in controlled circumstances. When they respect what the weapon can do the vast majority will be less likely to use it lightly.

More importantly, we have experienced a loss of Honor. Too many people no longer have that sense of right in them, replacing it with "it's okay if you don't get caught." The binding that has held society together from the beginning are fraying.

The question is, what is causing it. Some blame the loss of religion, replacing traditional social norms with "progressive" alternatives, collapse of the family, increasing population density, multiculturalism, etc... I don't really know exactly what the root cause is. I suspect all those play a role.

Perhaps American society needs a dose of Bushido, introducing a new and Americanized version of the Samurai ethos. Almost as hopelessly unrealistic as a return to the romanticized chivalric ideals, unfortunately.

Perhaps this is the end... And some of us will be bringing a sword to a gunfight...
???

Mundaka · 2004-05-08 15:56:43

Euler · 2004-05-08 16:45:51

*Euler, I wonder if we're having a communication gap. I don't deny that there were shootings (as in 1-on-1) in schools (sans big cities) prior to 1996.
What I am specifically referring to are Klebold & Dylan-style planned, premeditated, "sling out the gun and shoot like mad at random" killing sprees which even gradeschoolers have gone on.
I never heard of -that- sort of violent phenomenon connected with schools prior to 1996. Maybe I missed it...but I honestly don't recall.

I think that the basic disagreement is that you think that these killing sprees are a new phenomenon, while I think that they have been happening for a long time and we are just hearing about them more now.

There are crazy people out there. There always have been, and there probably always will be. Their continued existence does not mean that society is collapsing.

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-05-08 18:28:02

During the 80s I began to refer to Juaraldo and similar shows as "The modern day freak show", and today that particular indulgence has been refined to its core nastiness as the Jerry Springer show...[snip]

*laughs*, for some reason I read Jerry Sienfeld, not Springer. Was pretty confused until I realized my mistake

--

I remember an interview with a hip-hop artist I heard a while back on NPR. He was saying that the gangster culture in hiphop became so popular because of the glorification of criminals in movies like the Godfather. Gang members or wanna be gang members saw themselves as part of the mythical mafia portrayed in pop culture. Anyway, that just struck me as interesting.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-09 05:47:29

I'm not American.
But, when I was a kid growing up in a small country town in Australia, T.V. was full of American shows. I used to watch programs like Highway Patrol, Dragnet, and The Untouchables. And there were wild west shows like The Lone Ranger, Laramie, and Tombstone Territory. This was all happening when I was anywhere from 5 to 10 years old.
In the programs I've mentioned, there were incredibly violent fist fights with people being knocked backwards through saloon windows into the street, there were gunfights with people being shot dead left, right and centre. The Untouchables featured people being dispatched very efficiently with machine guns.
Even the cartoons back then (already mentioned) showed Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn, Daffy Duck etc., engaged in trying to kill each other using the most violent means at their disposal.
My friends and I staged imaginary gunfights almost every day in the playground at school or in backyards all over the neighbourhood. I remember a friend receiving a real leather, low-slung holster, with loops for the realistic bullets, and the most beautiful replica of a Colt 45 'Peacemaker'. The holster even had the leather string to tie around your thigh, a la gunslingers on T.V. I can't begin to tell you how envious I was! I can still taste the jealousy to this day.

This was 1960 to about 1966. We were absolutely steeped in violence, gunfights and murder every day of our lives.
And you know what? I never got into a fight in a bar, never owned or used a firearm, and never once thought of going on a killing spree in highschool or in any workplace since!! And I don't remember shooting sprees being all that common in schools at that time either.

What does this all mean? I'm not entirely sure but I think it means gratuitous violence in films and on T.V. probably will not produce violent people automatically.
I have a suspicion that the abandonment of moral absolutism and the adoption of moral relativism may have something to do with it. Now .. before all you avant-garde intellectuals rush to prove to me that there are no absolute morals without restrictive anti-libertarian religious mores to accompany them, I reiterate that I subscribe to no organised religion myself. I have absolutely no fundamentalist axe to grind, or any other kind if it comes to that.
For what it's worth, I do believe there is a God. I do believe in a couple of other things too, which I think are basic fundamentals of social interaction. The most fundamental one is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Forgive the biblical phraseology but I happen to think it adds a certain profundity to the sentence which I think it richly deserves.) That's the easy one ... and it is anything but easy!
Taking it a step further: Love thy neighbour as thyself. This one is nigh on impossible to the absolutely overwhelming majority of us because we're all programmed to be so self-centred - especially today.
There's nothing new in either of these maxims, of course, but when you stop to really consider how the world would change if we all took them a little more seriously ...

Are there any social structures or institutions these days which attempt to inculcate these very simple rules into the brains of our children? Or is this outmoded absolutism, based on the teachings of a Middle Eastern religion (probably more Essene than Christian by the way), just too politically incorrect to ever see the light of day in the modern world?

All I'm saying is that it's possible to insulate a child from the violence in the world. Not by banning violence in the entertainment media, but by educating children in basic morality, so that they can recognise the horror in what they're seeing and know that it's wrong.
I think it worked with me .. I haven't murdered a single person so far and I have no desire to!

Palomar · 2004-05-09 07:32:31

*Early a.m., some random thoughts. I've read everyone's posts, am enjoying your thoughts.

Well, I could consider the breakdown of the family unit. But, based on what I've read/heard repeatedly (and I'm a bit reluctant to refer to it, as it wasn't my generation), apparently quite a few of the kids growing up in the 1950s weren't all that charmed by Family Unit, roast beef and potatoes on the dinner table, and picnics at Miller Pond. There was a massive social upheaveal and a throwing off of "plastic-doll" values in the 1960s after all. Of course, many of the leaders of movements in the 60s heydays -didn't- grow up in the 1950s, as they were already in their 30s and 40s at the time [1960s]. But a lot of young people in the 1960s did gladly follow suit, for whatever reason(s).

People dismiss the Cleaver TV family as being "unrealistic." Sorry, I don't think Ozzy and Sharon's family is realistic either. Both are exaggerations.

Not much of a sports fan (understatement), but since the 1980s there's this trend of blowing up, getting into fistfights on the field, assaulting (actually *assaulting*) with hockey sticks, etc. Poor sportsmanship.

I could say some of it is "simple human nature" (and some of it is), but a lot of it has a definite, deliberate "show-off" flavor to it. People "acting-out" for the camera in a way they normally might not.

Oh, here's another trend which completely perplexes and disturbs me. Everyday, ordinary people sneering at the concept of equality, deriding it as "egalitarianism"...as if those things are very bad. And where would THESE people be if suddenly thrust back into the 18th or 17th centuries? Probably living in a hovel, living as a serf (which was actually a form of slavery) to the local noble. Of course, some of us know if -- back then -- you weren't born to royalty or nobility, or didn't have a very fantastic natural talent (painting, music, etc.) or an incredible amount of natural beauty and charm (Madame de Pompadour), you were basically screwed. Heck, even the great Wolfgang Mozart -- one of the most fantastic musical genuises of all time -- was treated as little more than a pet on a leash by the local authority he had to answer to. Of course, Mozart -could- have told the local authority to go to hell...but then his compositions would be denied a hearing -- much less be played anywhere -- assuring death in obscurity and poverty. The classes were rigidly and ruthlessly delineated. I much prefer living in a society where I can move about as I please; can switch careers if I desire; can attempt to turn a talent into more personal freedom and $$$ for my family; where I'm considered to have basic human rights and dignity (Bill of Rights, etc.). And some people would prefer to chuck the bill of Rights, the writings of Thomas Paine, etc., and go back to taking a chance at mere birth luck. How utterly stupid! And it's the egalitarian-oriented rights which give them the opportunity to their freedom of speech (without fear of repraisals -- prison, torture, etc.) to begin with. A little peek in the history books might provide a clue or two (duh!). Throw away the Bill of Rights? No thanks! I can think of only one word for people who would trample on and discard the philosophy which allows *them* the greatest human freedoms ever known: Fools. Of course, some of the more foolish would try and counter with, "Well, I would do something spectacular and rise to the top regardless!" Perhaps, but I doubt there are many Watteaus in the world...[and besides, egalitarian-oriented society provides them the greatest opportunities -to- prove their mettle -- so let's see the proof of the self-proclaimed social Darwinists' alleged superiority]. So, again, I'm perplexed by people who benefit *the most* from egalitarianism wanting to throw it off for "social Darwinism" - as if they would be the leader of the wolf pack (I'm sure quite a few of those dreamers would be in for a rude awakening, if their little fantasy came true).

I'm not religious either, but I think "treat others the way you'd like to be treated" is a good ethic. That, and "no one is an island." The writings of Benjamin Franklin are very good, as regards social interactions and et cetera. And it's interesting to note that Franklin is still highly esteemed all these hundreds of years later. Apparently he had a good formula or two.

There are other issues as well, but this post is long enough already.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-05-09 14:54:28

Cobra Commander wrote in War & Politics 2 thread: "That's part of it, but looking over the photos I can't help but think that the presence of female soldiers has something to do with it. I'm not quite sure how yet, but I get the distinct impression that they were in some way the catalyst for this, perhaps more. I don't know quite where I'm going with this, but feel free to get offended now There's something here we haven't quite pinned down yet."

*I think you're onto something as well. Perhaps male prison guards acting out to curry sexual favors -and- women acting out to encourage the guys? Getting sadistically-inclined thrills by trying to out-do and impress one another, at the expense of the prisoners?

"Takes two to tango."

There are similar issues (based on sexually-related thrill seeking and/or attempting to please/impress the opposite gender) in women's prisons with male guards. Sometimes outright forcible rape.

Why not only allow same-gender guards for prisoners? Sure, there'd still be opportunities for abuse and etc., but with the volatility of sexually-related acting-out/misconduct currently getting mixed in...well, I think Cobra's onto something, IF I'm "reading" his thoughts right.

It takes two to tango, so separate the dancing partners.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: On a different note, have seen articles about Canadian peace activists seeking asylum for U.S. war deserters. What do you all think should happen to soldiers who desert and run to Canada?

Mundaka · 2004-05-09 15:49:03

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-10 05:49:49

You know what I don't really like about cultures that expect people to "be" a certain way? The possiblity that one day someone won't be a certain way and that culture will do something really really horrible to them.

The Jews weren't "honerable," to have Hitler say it (yeah, maybe I am invoking Godwin's Law here, but whatever, it's true).

Was talking to someone about fascism last night, sure it has its good points, like the ability to get people to have mass movements and be agreeable, and it does have a sort of underlying romance to it (read some Heinlein), but the niceities don't outweigh the potential negativities in my mind.

But I see it this way, you can take any case example from any society and discuss its merits. For a fun example, as crime rates have gone down over the past few years, reporting of crime has gone up, because the technology to efficiently report every news story, as it happens, has improved. This isn't a bad thing, one just needs to keep their perspectives.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-10 08:21:19

Oh, here's another trend which completely perplexes and disturbs me. Everyday, ordinary people sneering at the concept of equality, deriding it as "egalitarianism"...as if those things are very bad.

In all honesty, I do this myself. I'm all for equality of opportunity, but the modern American liberal idea of "equality" is one I have no use for. As individuals, people aren't equal. Some are smarter, stronger, better at certain skills, more suited to specific tasks, etc. Individual human beings are not in a strict sense "equal," though we're all better off when a person's station in life is determined by their own choices and abilities than by bloodlines.

Shaun, read your post again and then read Cobra's theme of, "Violence with meaning." I think the two of you are really on the same page, eg: notice that at the end of all that window smashing and bullets zipping and fists flying, the good guys won the day. Moreover, you knew who the good and bad guys were not only by the color of their hats, but by what they did, said, and believed.

Yes, I think we're all following the same track on this. I actually think that violent entertainment with bad guys doing bad things being vanquished by the good guys is socially desireable. All those young minds absorbing what behaviors are typical of "bad guys" and learning that sometimes you have to employ a little violence to deal with it.

It's when the "bad guys" become the glorified characters that we begin to have problems... We send messages with this stuff.

These people never think their own "rules" apply to them -- and that's why we need people like Cobra.

:hm: I'm not entirely sure how to take that.

Today if they knocked on my door and and ask me to join I'd probably say no, if only because I believe our pre-existing and constitutionaly protected rights need some jealous guarding right now, and I believe the loss of those rights to be a greater danger than terrorism (which is bad enough!)

Can't argue with you there. We've got our work cut out for us on the homefront.

You know what I don't really like about cultures that expect people to "be" a certain way? The possiblity that one day someone won't be a certain way and that culture will do something really really horrible to them.

Well, that all depends on what the culture expects them to be doesn't it? If it wants them to be good Nazis there's a problem, but if wants them to be considerate of the rights of others and not go around robbing and murdering people... maybe horrible things happening to those who deviate isn't such a bad thing. When crimes are measured by their intentional adverse impact on others they are entirely the result of an individual's choices.

In short, exterminating Jews for being Jews is wrong. Slaughtering rapists I have no problem with. Sharp stakes and a hot sun...

Was talking to someone about fascism last night, sure it has its good points, like the ability to get people to have mass movements and be agreeable, and it does have a sort of underlying romance to it (read some Heinlein), but the niceities don't outweigh the potential negativities in my mind.

I essentially agree with you on this. My one caveat as a reformed fascist is this: Every system of government depends more on the people who wield its power than on the structure by which they are selected. Fascism (as opposed to Nazism) isn't really all that different from a republic in its institutions, fascist councils and corporatist guilds wield a considerable amount of power, in theory. It just so happens that in the case of Italian fascism, on which fascism in general is judged by the informed (the ignorant equate it with Nazism) they had a strong leader and a weak council, who finally mustered the nerve to remove Mussolini after having not met for years previously. The difference between bad government and good government depends entirely on the people in government. Republics just take longer to slip, creating the illusion of inherent superiority.

A good dictator is better than a bad congress. The problem is they're almost always corrupt, power-hungry swine.

And so are dictators, for that matter.

Bill White · 2004-05-10 08:43:46

A good dictator is better than a bad congress. The problem is they're almost always corrupt, power-hungry swine.
And so are dictators, for that matter.

Plato writes (and Socrates says):

I said: "Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils -- no, nor the human race, as I believe -- and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day." Such was the thought, my dear Glaucon, which I would fain have uttered if it had not seemed too extravagant; for to be convinced that in no other State can there be happiness private or public is indeed a hard thing.

http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosop … t.htm]Link for the above

I learned this in the following formulation. . .

Justice shall come to the cities when philosphers become kings or kings genuinely and adequately philosophize. . .

Now, how might a philosopher become king? Seems to me the two most likely roads involve (1) FORCE or (2) ACCIDENT.

Now read this:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa01.htm]Federalist #1 - Alexander Hamilton

Each generation of Americans must learn this for themselves, anew, otherwise the genuis of 1776 and 1787 is destined to be lost.

We Americans shall have the government we deserve.

= = =

The road through "good dictator" is a one way street to "bad dictator" - - Since "good dictator" cannot lead easily to "good republic" calls to re-elect George W. Bush based on "strength of leadership" scares the hell out of me. His imposition of party discipline and "message control" amongst all Republicans points in the same direction.

Shakespeare's play Julius Ceasar is pretty darn relevant to this decade of American history, at least IMHO.

clark · 2004-05-10 09:18:14

:laugh:

I swear, we may just indite everyone if we keep this up!

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Forgive the biblical phraseology but I happen to think it adds a certain profundity to the sentence which I think it richly deserves.) That's the easy one ... and it is anything but easy!
Taking it a step further: Love thy neighbour as thyself. This one is nigh on impossible to the absolutely overwhelming majority of us because we're all programmed to be so self-centred - especially today.

Now, what do you make of these little maxims when the individual on the other side hates themselves and is on a fast short road to self-destruction?

Kids have been killing each other for years. Some are older, and called adults, some are younger and called children. It all stems from some basic impetus of "getting your bigger brother" to come settle the dispute.

Or how about this one- remember, face full of tears, lying awake in the middle of the night because you had offended your parents, done something wrong: "I'll wake up blind, that'll show em. Or better yet, I'll die, bet they would be really broken up over that."

Kids go to a school, shoot up some people so they get noticed. [shrug] It has just about nothing to do with what games they play, or what they watch. Sure, it might, but only because the person was unstable to begin with. Something would have eventually set them off.

We all talk about the state of our current culture, but come on. Ever read Oedipus? How about Aeneis? The Illiad? Hamlet? Romeo and Juliet? How about some good pastoral dramas? Or we can go back to the begining and read some Giglamesh.

Acting out in make believe, imaganation, it is a catharsis to relieve the soul/mind. Just because you dream you are flying, dosen't mean you're going to go out and jump off the nearest cliff. Of course, there are some who just aren't right. Who will jump off that cliff, and as our population increases, becomes more dense, our technology increases, the larger group becomes less stable.

The Barbaian's are at the gate, and they are us.

See the larger problem of nuclear weapons- it's okay for responsible established and democratic states. But these third world nations, well, they just don't understand, never know what they are going to do. See the smaller problem of easy access to guns- it's okay for responsible established and flag waving americans. But these teenagers, well, they just don't understand.

When there are few people, over a large area, it dosen't really matter that little Johnny goes and shoots himself in the head if he lives 10 miles away from town. Now put him next door to your kid, and all hell breaks loose.

What happens to a nuclear scientist without opportunity in a captailistic world? Well, they try to make a profit for their family with the skills available, hopefuly employing their skills in something rewarding. If it ain't rewarding, then at the bare minimum, it should pay the food bill, right?

Then comes the people to exploit the skill, for whatever reason. Next some rich country just buys you up, because there is no opportunity to employ your skill set (other than the nefarious reasons to build a bomb). Do any of you see where this leads? Imagine setting up schools where people are trained to be engineers- chemical, electrical, mechanical, and even nuclear. Now what happens when they don't have opportunity to employ thiose skills in a positive way? Well, the individual becomes dissatisfied, then perhaps angry. Someone else helps them direct that anger... it's not TV's fault, it's not societies fault, it's just action reaction. Cause and effect.

Yeah, there is human choice in there somewhere, but often, as we can all atest in our lives, at one point or another, we seem to make choices that are not dictated by our own personal desire, but by the circumstances and neccessity of the situation. Rationalization.

The same way we try to rationalize and understand all of the crap that is going on around us. "Why are people killing each other?" "why can't people just get along." Must be tv. Must be school. Must be a lack of religion, or the failing nuclear family. Must be must be must be something. Things just don't happen for no reason.

Yeah, things happen for a reason, but usually it happens for reasons we can never understand. Some kid or politican reads the cards wrong, makes a poor bet, a bad bluff, and then the table is overturned and everyone ends up dead or in jail.

And if any of the above is too confusing, let me rest my case on this: American culture is not to blame, because there is no American culture.

Bill White · 2004-05-10 09:38:08

And if any of the above is too confusing, let me rest my case on this: American culture is not to blame, because there is no American culture.

If this is true, how can America take the lead in settling space?

Which America?

Those who follow the native born media savvy Baptist preacher named Jerry Falwell or those who follow the native born media savvy Baptist preacher names Jesse Jackson?

clark · 2004-05-10 09:46:21

We are cultural nomads Bill. That's the beauty of us going off into space.

"Whatever works."

The more you try to define "american" culture, the more it slips away. We have what, 250 years of history? Every single ancestor of everyone in this country comes from far older cultures. Now it's all mixing, but we have never had a tried and true cultural identity. It belongs to others, and we just borrow what we want.

I wouldn't mind if we stopped borrowing that puritanical bullsh*t related to sex though. :laugh:

seriously, I know there is this AIDS thing, but come on, a little bit mroe viagra in the corn flakes might get the uptight midwestern ass to unclench long enough for us all to sleep soundly at night.

Palomar · 2004-05-10 10:13:58

Oh, here's another trend which completely perplexes and disturbs me. Everyday, ordinary people sneering at the concept of equality, deriding it as "egalitarianism"...as if those things are very bad.
In all honesty, I do this myself. I'm all for equality of opportunity, but the modern American liberal idea of "equality" is one I have no use for. As individuals, people aren't equal. Some are smarter, stronger, better at certain skills, more suited to specific tasks, etc.

*Well, yes -- some people are smarter, some possess greater athletic prowess, etc.

What I was referring to more was misanthropy and self-deluded hypocrisy. For instance, the Aryan White Supremacist (true story) who agreed up and down that anyone with even a mild birth defect was "defective" and should be killed (to help with purifying the gene pool). He and his wife had a baby boy...who was born with a harelip. He didn't think anything of it, until his comrades told him he should kill his "defective" son. Shocked and outraged, he wised up and quit his association, packed up and moved away. Prior to that, it was "okay" with him to kill defectives. Too bad he didn't wise up ahead of time, because sometimes the chickens DO come home to roost. Well, thank god he did wake up and the baby's life was spared.

The egalitarian outlook does temper abuses (potential or otherwise).

It's interesting to me that some of the greatest thinkers and contributors to society in the 18th century were egalitarian-oriented by nature. Benjamin Franklin was proof that one could, by one's own honest industry and hard work, "be on top" -and- still be beneficient, kind, generous, etc.

I also recall, years ago, coming upon an internet discussion group (last I heard, no longer around). It was supposedly a "self-improvement" organization which actually was a religion (no, I didn't join). I watched as its members repeatedly referred to themselves as "elite" and as the highest order of humans on the planet. Forthrightly and bluntly. They're entitled to their opinions of themselves, of course...but I got to know a couple of former members, who jeered and laughed at their ex-comrades. It seems quite a few of the "elite" can't make the monthly utility payment, get evicted from apartments, can't balance a checkbook, drive old beaters, and one supposedly highly esteemed member likes to talk to her dead goldfish when she's drunk.

Okaaaaaaay...::shakes head::

So you have the spectacle of people claiming superiority who apparently aren't proving it (except in their imaginations)...and this while an egalitarian-oriented society provides them -the- best opportunity to PROVE IT.

A few years ago I read, in a different forum, someone's assertion that -anything- a human does comes from an entirely selfish motive. That threw me for a loop. I considered it a long time and have come to think that a lot of what we do has a selfish basis...but NOT everything. That's another plus about an egalitarian-oriented outlook: If you're going to be selfish, why not go for "win-win"?

Well, Bill introduced Shakespeare into the thread [ :;): ] and here's a quote by Voltaire I like:

"Some theologians say that the divine emperor Marcus Aurelius was not
virtuous, that he was an obstinate Stoic who, not satisfied with
commanding men, wanted also to be esteemed by them; that he benefited
himself from the good he did to mankind; that all his life he was
just, laborious, beneficent out of vanity, and that his virtues
served only to dupe mankind. On which I exclaim: 'Dear God, give us
often such rascals!'"

*But then I don't know much about Marcus Aurelius, so I'll have to hope Voltaire knew what he was talking about. :laugh: But the sentiment is apt, IMO.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-10 10:33:59

Being good is selfish. Damn selfish.

= = =

We are what we repeatedly do.

Our sins are visited on us in the worst way possible, by becoming part of our essential selves.

Socrates was approached by his servant. "Come quick" the servant said, "your life-long enemy X-ocrates has broken into your house and stolen 10 pieces of silver." Socrates paused, smiled and continued walking.

"Master, what will you do?" asked the servant. "Do? Why should I do anything? For the paltry sum of 10 silver pieces, my lifelong enemy has been transformed into a thief."

= = =

I ain't never, ever bought a good friend a drink, and then found I lost money on the deal. . .

Yup! Being good is selfish. Very selfish.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-10 10:50:53

The Republic and the Federalist, good points Bill. It was certainly not my intent to advocate dictatorship, merely to point out that whatever system of government we have is undesireable if it is composed of corrupt and dishonorable people. The effects of good or bad leaders manifest much faster in a dictatorship than a republic, but the same forces are at work.

It governs best which governs least.

The more you try to define "american" culture, the more it slips away. We have what, 250 years of history? Every single ancestor of everyone in this country comes from far older cultures. Now it's all mixing, but we have never had a tried and true cultural identity. It belongs to others, and we just borrow what we want.

That is an aspect of American culture, openness and diffusion. All cultures borrow and adapt aspects of others (Buddhism in Feudal Japan, for example. Fascinating contradictions) The great strength of American culture is not in music or rituals, but in a foundation of freedom that allows many cultural variations to coexist and blend. It is hard to pin down because unlike many cultures, it is ever changing. American culture is fluid, a sort of toxic sludge at times, but fluid.

*Well, yes -- some people are smarter, some possess greater athletic prowess, etc.
What I was referring to more was misanthropy and self-deluded hypocrisy.

I see, another case where it's important to know what words mean. In the current political usage "equal" does not mean equal in any quantifiable sense. Equality of opportunity, equality of rights, but not equality of capacity.

The problem is that sometimes people get it in their heads that
people truly are "equal," as in interchangeable and essentially the same. This logically leads to the belief that some people being more succesful in some way than others is "unfair" and needs to be rectified. That's the sort of "equality" I sneer at.

So you have the spectacle of people claiming superiority who apparently aren't proving it (except in their imaginations)...and this while an egalitarian-oriented society provides them -the- best opportunity to PROVE IT.

Indeed. And it often seems those claiming most loudly are least able to offer evidence.

Bill White · 2004-05-10 11:03:26

If life truly is a non-zero sum game, then to be generous and altruistic is also selfish.

clark · 2004-05-10 11:08:28

If life truly is a non-zero sum game, then to be generous and altruistic is also selfish.

Yes, it is. Afterall, who takes care of you when age creeps up, and drool starts to drip off your mouth...

Euler · 2004-05-10 13:00:13

"Some theologians say that the divine emperor Marcus Aurelius was not
virtuous, that he was an obstinate Stoic who, not satisfied with
commanding men, wanted also to be esteemed by them; that he benefited
himself from the good he did to mankind; that all his life he was
just, laborious, beneficent out of vanity, and that his virtues
served only to dupe mankind. On which I exclaim: 'Dear God, give us
often such rascals!'"
*But then I don't know much about Marcus Aurelius, so I'll have to hope Voltaire knew what he was talking about.

Wasn't Marcus Aurelius the old emperor who was murdered by his evil son in the movie Gladiator?

Bill White · 2004-05-10 13:04:14

"Some theologians say that the divine emperor Marcus Aurelius was not
virtuous, that he was an obstinate Stoic who, not satisfied with
commanding men, wanted also to be esteemed by them; that he benefited
himself from the good he did to mankind; that all his life he was
just, laborious, beneficent out of vanity, and that his virtues
served only to dupe mankind. On which I exclaim: 'Dear God, give us
often such rascals!'"
*But then I don't know much about Marcus Aurelius, so I'll have to hope Voltaire knew what he was talking about.
Wasn't Marcus Aurelius the old emperor who was murdered by his evil son in the movie Gladiator?

I think so. The real Marcus Aurelius wrote a book called Meditations - - IIRC - - and it is sometimes offered as proof that pagans can be good people, too. IIRC he was a thoughtful and ethical man.

clark will correct me if I am wrong about this.

clark · 2004-05-10 13:07:35

I didn't know the man, but from what I hear, yeah.

Palomar · 2004-05-10 13:12:06

"Some theologians say that the divine emperor Marcus Aurelius was not
virtuous, that he was an obstinate Stoic who, not satisfied with
commanding men, wanted also to be esteemed by them; that he benefited
himself from the good he did to mankind; that all his life he was
just, laborious, beneficent out of vanity, and that his virtues
served only to dupe mankind. On which I exclaim: 'Dear God, give us
often such rascals!'"
*But then I don't know much about Marcus Aurelius, so I'll have to hope Voltaire knew what he was talking about.
Wasn't Marcus Aurelius the old emperor who was murdered by his evil son in the movie Gladiator?
I think so. The real Marcus Aurelius wrote a book called Meditations - - IIRC - - and it is sometimes offered as proof that pagans can be good people, too. IIRC he was a thoughtful and ethical man.
clark will correct me if I am wrong about this.

*Marcus Aurelius -- yes, "Meditations." I have a copy of it. Very thoughtful, very ethical. Stoic. Recommended reading.

There is a brief "overview" biography of his life in the Introduction, but what I was referring to was my not being familiar with his life, works, deeds, etc. *indepth.*

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-08 12:26:55

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#2 2004-05-08 12:50:28

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#3 2004-05-08 15:25:12

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#4 2004-05-08 15:56:43

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#5 2004-05-08 16:45:51

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#6 2004-05-08 18:28:02

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#7 2004-05-09 05:47:29

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#8 2004-05-09 07:32:31

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#9 2004-05-09 14:54:28

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#10 2004-05-09 15:49:03

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#11 2004-05-10 05:49:49

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#12 2004-05-10 08:21:19

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#13 2004-05-10 08:43:46

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#14 2004-05-10 09:18:14

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#15 2004-05-10 09:38:08

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#16 2004-05-10 09:46:21

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#17 2004-05-10 10:13:58

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#18 2004-05-10 10:33:59

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#19 2004-05-10 10:50:53

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#20 2004-05-10 11:03:26

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#21 2004-05-10 11:08:28

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#22 2004-05-10 13:00:13

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#23 2004-05-10 13:04:14

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#24 2004-05-10 13:07:35

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#25 2004-05-10 13:12:06

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Board footer