It's been educational watching reactions to the decision. The majority of Americans expressed relief at the opinion--relief that what they see as common sense and right reason prevailed. A lot of Britons and other Europeans are scratching their heads in complete incomprehension of how a civilized country can not only allow its citizens to own weapons, but say that there is a fundamental right to do so.
The basic social and political assumptions between these two groups are so different, each position is almost incomprehensible to the other. It's a good lesson for writing--sometimes people (or cultures) differ so greatly, and in such fundamental ways, that they literally cannot understand each other.
Very provocative discussion coming, I'm sure.
The United States is loaded with the descendents of people who didn't think so and didn't want to do things the way they were done back in the old country---wherever that happened to be. Those still in the old countries should keep that in mind.
I'd discuss the Second Amendment issue, but it veers even more closely to politics than the above---but if it comes up, I'll contribute before things get shut down, if I make it back here before then.
[edited to remove an extraneous "s"]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited July 03, 2008).]
My father is from a small town in the Appalachias, my mother from Richmond. When my uncles came down, he went hunting with them. She hated that. It was a point of contention growing up. He said he did it to get out in the woods and spend time with his brothers. Of course, why he couldn't do that without killing, I didn't quite get.
At times, he seemed to have little compassion for animals, almost as if they had no thoughts or feeling. Me, I've only gone fishing with him a handful of times. I never liked making the fish suffer, nor did I care for the taste of fish. I refused to go hunting with him, but he did hand me a shotgun once for target practice. I gave it a try. It never enamored me to weapons.
Five months ago, I decided to go vegetarian, or at least try for a time. It's been much easier than I thought.
Guns are among those rights I don't even want, along with smoking, drinking, gambling, ect... while essential things, such as a right to not have ones job opportunities outsourced isn't in the cards.
Yes, it is I, She Who Must Be Obeyed! I am descending to see what the heck is going on here, brandishing my sword (or scythe or whatever it is you all think I brandish) and glaring with my evil eye at anyone who wants to try to disagree.
Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system, and before any of this gets too political, I'd like to say that I honestly believe that this discussion can be about cultural differences without offending anyone or hurting anyone's feelings.
All I ask is that people try to couch their statements in such expressions as "in my experience" and "I've heard, but I don't know that" and "what about people who say/think/believe" and avoid expressions (or implications even) that sound like "well, only idiots think that" and "people who are pig-headed or don't know any better should keep their mouths shut" or whatever else insulting you can think of because you don't like what someone else has said.
If you can't make your point without bringing politics or nationalism or name-calling or anger or disgust or frustration into your post, then PLEASE, don't post.
Understanding the reasons for the differences really makes a difference.
Traditional clothing is an example. Each society, until recently, developed the optimal clothing for their life style. Before glue, Velcro, plastics, cheep cloth, the traditional clothing that tourists look for was quite logical. there were no bobby pins, elastic bands, hair spray. Women wore ribbons and scarves to hold their hair in place. zippers did not exist so clothing had sashes and ties to hold them closed. Most clothing was utilitarian, worn at all times, out in the field or at a posh event.
In the Middle East, their clothing, is perfectly suited for the desert. The loose robes hold the heat away from the body, the air can circulate around it. the cloths down the back keeps the neck out of the sun.
The Greek and Roman robes had a similar effect, both for warm climates. The leggings and tight clothing of the "barbarians" from the north, fit better to the cold climate as the clothing trapped the heat close to the body, no circulation to steal heat away.
Until heat and air conditioning became cheep, the 1940s and 50s suit, was well designed for the American life style in the norther climates. The tie, suit, and hat were the rage. The tie covered the heat leaking button area of the shirt, assisting to keep you warm. The hat contained the heat that would normally bleed off from the head. Nowadays, American clothing is almost completely according to personal style.
In Europe, the governments have always been in charge, and it has always been the government's job to keep the piece, protect the people, and protect the interest of those in charge. Any weapon that put the population on par with the law enforcement was forbidden. The sword was not allowed in Japan unless one was a Samari. The people took to learning to use garden impliments for battle. In Europe, only the government was allowed to carry guns. For decades, Bobbies in England traveled around with only a night stick as their only weapon. No one else was armed.
In America, there was no government in charge in the beginning. People had to use their gun for food, and also for protection. It was almost a requirement to be fully capable with a weapon. Later, the very act of rebellion changed the nature of the country. They no longer trusted the government, any government. A large group of armed citizens would be a good challenge for any military. This last fact was why the second amendment was written. It gave the people the right to "change" governments when needed.
People are in charge if the government fears people. Governments are in charge when people fear the government.
Japan is extremely traditional. Father teaches son, who teaches his son. Family businesses are passed down for generations. In a woodworking magazine I read this year, some families never even heard of a wood turning tool commonly used in the United States. Other families use them all the time. The difference is what the originator of the family business knew. They will train, just sharpening tools, before they can even touch wood.
In Europe, blacksmiths go through five years of training under a master, before they can become a journeyman to learn with other masters before they gain enough money and tools to go out on their own. In America, it was only three years.
Understanding the traditions, or lack of them, makes for an excellent effect for a story. Have a reason for everything. Style might be a starting point, but then make everything of the style logical, meaningful, utilitarian.
Wrongly used, machines designed for peaceful use can kill.
Thus, cars and drivers are licensed. So are airplanes and pilots. Why not guns and their pilots?
If you do the statistics, more guns = more gun-related deaths.
That said, we Europeans don't understand until we visit that in America guns are more useful than in most of Europe simply because we don't have killer animals like bears and snakes in our backyards.
Great Britain, if not Eurpope, also has the concept that if police do not carry guns, criminals are less likely to carry and kill with them. I've discussed it with Americans, cops included, and it's a totally alien concept; yet to us it's uttterly credible and we experience it for real every day--our cops are not armed routinely and our cities feel less dangerous as a consequence.
All the above is up for debate, and quite reasonably so. The right answer is probably neither and both and somewhere in between.
The really sad thing about the American debate is this: there isn't one.
There's no debate about whether gun control is a good idea now, today, in 2008. The debate is about what the Constitution meant when it was written hundreds of years ago.
The people who wrote the American Constitution were profoundly wise in my opinion. They did a better job than anything we have here in England. (Dammit, we don't even have two elected Houses.) But I don't think even they were capable of knowing what would be good for America now, today, when you can buy efficient guns at Sports Authority or a gun show. Any angst-ridden teenager can purchase the equivalent of an old-time battalion of fire power in a convenient automatic package that can be slung over a shoulder. I don't believe the writers of the Constitution intended that ordinary citizens should have the right to bear entire armories.
Since it has become constitutional (and should not have done; the constitution should have been about governance) the debate cannot be resolved democratically in either of the elected Houses. The debate has become a competition to influence the Supreme Court. The President tries to pack it with people who will agree with him on a few emotive issues like gun control and abortion, and democratic debate is no more.
This is far deeper than nations misunderstanding each other. It's about how to manage democracy.
In Europe, we don't manage democracy properly either, with our British House of (unelected) Lords, a Scottish Parliament yet no English Parliament, and a European government that the BBC doesn't even bother telling us about because, although they pass laws that govern us all, they avoid public dramatic conflict and thus are deemed not newsworthy. So we don't have democratic debate on the important issues either, dammit.
Hopefully democratically,
Pat
Nations develop on their own, choose kings who are good leaders. People are valuable and to be protected. One example is the "vikings" (I dislike the term but it fits for the three races that made them up their common society). They had clan leaders who were selected by their clans, and the clan leaders who showed real promise became in essence like kings, but held their power only as long as they were better than anybody else.
Nations that are conquered on the other hand, have leaders that were selected by others, for reasons other than ability, such as being the spawn of the general that conquered the land or of the family of a captain of the general. People are possessions, slaves, serving the local lord like cattle pulling plows. If there is a dispute between the lords and those demanding to be king, The lords, their soldiers, and their families might be granted passage to safety, but the people and their crops would be stripped from the land as revenge. The idea was to punish the lord for being on the wrong side of the challange for power.
The people may later regain their freedom, their loyalty to the government, whatever their form, remains until a real upset happens.
Before the turn of the century, The constitution of the United States and the English Common law, was the law of the land. The idea of education was to be able to read them well enough to know your rights. The Constitution was, by the way, written strictly to dictate the limits of the government. If it was not enumerated in the constitution, the government could not do it. The federal government's only job was to settle disputes, between individuals, states, and other nations. It did not have the power to do "good". It depended totally on the approval of the people to exist. The armed population cold replace the government, or at least those who were in power, at any time. One forefather said that a periodic revolution is sometimes necessary for the good of the nation.
After the twentieth Century started, the politicians in control at the time decided to make changes. Now, case law is supreme rather than English Common Law. The government now developed a fear of armed population and worked hard to remove the arms.
An example of why government fears an armed population, was that after World War Two, a local county political organization was trying to fix the election of those in the county power. They had only one polling place opened, which was not enough for the population. Solders who returned from the war knew something about guns, so they gathered their home rifles and pistols and showed up in force. After a short gun exchange, the local sharrif and his deputies surrendered. The poling place was kept open until all the people voted. The local thuggish political machine was beaten in the polls.
That is an example of why an armed population is to be feared by the government.
Also keep in note that all over the world, places where there are high population concentrations, biggest cities esepcially, the people love government in whatever form it is, and are very distasteful of weapons of any kind. Low population density areas, out in the "country" have a stronger distaste for government and tend to love weapons.
The reason for this is that in the country, the people have to depend on themselves for everything. There is an independence mind set. In the cities, government provides streets, fuel, lighting, law enforcement. No one does everything for themselves, they are dependent on others for everything. They pay their taxes and reap the benefits of the efforts of others.
Another thing to consider. You will always have criminals. Crime tends to be an act of opportunity. An open gate, an open window, knowledge of the practices of the victims. The criminal will take the opportunity to make a gain at the expense of others.
In a society where the criminal is not sure if their victim is armed and knows how to use it, they were be very cautious about committing their crimes as they could well be hurt or killed.
In an unarmed society the criminal does not have to worry about being harmed as they know no one is armed. They will find a way to get weapons, and they will become bolder in their crimes.
You hear stories of gunmen going crazy in some location. Usually, you will hear than they are stopped by someone else with a weapon, usually police. Consider, though, if these same situations happen when everybody on the street has the opportunity to carry weapons. The situations ends after a couple rounds. rather than a long drawn out affair. Yes, there might be a couple gun battles, but it won't take long for criminals to realize that they are not going to get away with such crimes and it will reduce in incidents.
Gun laws only effect the law abiding. It never effects criminals. They are criminals for a reason.
Sorry it turned close to being a rant. I was mainly giving examples for why such mind sets exist and their effects.
As said above, choosing the history of the society will effect how the society now will look.
Most fantasy stories happen where there is no "king" and resulting lords existing to clear out thief camps and protect the roads. Keep in mind that the lords traveled with small armies when they went visiting as they needed the protection of high numbers to deal with criminals in their territories.
Anybody in these stories that travel will likely be armed in some way and know how to use it. Whatever weapon thet might be used.
Someone once said to me that applications to own guns should have only one question: 'Would you like to have a gun?' If the answer was 'yes' then you were obviously unsuitable.I can't say I know as much about it as other people who have posted so I'll keep my observations limited. The American right to bear arms (I forget which article/amaendment it is - sorry) seems to me to be born out of both the way the states gained independence and the fact that the country was not yet established, in terms of pioneerts still moving into territory not yet governed by the new government, while in Europe (though I'm probably referring to the UK more than anything) the governments were already established and able to control things much more. I'm not too sure what I exactly mean by that, but a normal person with a gun posed a threat to the status quo, rather than a means of protecting it.
I accept the point that criminals will always be able to get hold of guns, but I do think our cities are relatively safe. At least in terms of getting shot. Stabbings is another matter; the focus in the news is heavily on the amount of stabbings among teenagers, and I know that we are currently moving towards a culture where teenagers routinely carry knives, many of them using the justification 'its for my protection'. I've lived in some dodgy areas of Liverpool and London but never really felt in any real danger. But then as Jamie said, I'm not a 100lb woman.
Namissa is from a very different culture, and I've been living with one foot in Britain and one in Africa for many years. The obvious things which people think are going to cause problems - skin colour, religious differences (I'm Methodist, she's Muslim) are precisely the things we've never had any reason to argue about. What can cause mixups, and often did in the first couple of years we were together, is different assumptions, and the way we use the same wortd to mean different things. So to me 'plenty' used to mean 'enough', while to her it meant 'far too much'. At one time it caused endless chaos over the amount of food I wanted on my plate.
quote:
The obvious things which people think are going to cause problems - skin colour, religious differences (I'm Methodist, she's Muslim) are precisely the things we've never had any reason to argue about. What can cause mixups, and often did in the first couple of years we were together, is different assumptions, and the way we use the same wortd to mean different things. So to me 'plenty' used to mean 'enough', while to her it meant 'far too much'. At one time it caused endless chaos over the amount of food I wanted on my plate.
This is great. These kind of cultural mixups are what can really make a story interesting and can deepen characters. We all have things that we take for granted without even realizing it, and unless we run into someone who takes them for granted in an entirely different way, we never even know.
Could this topic focus on experiences we've had with the little misunderstandings that show us how different we are, instead of the big "national" things?
We could learn a lot from each other that could be a great help in characterization, if nothing else.
Yes, it is 2008, but I still live in a very rural area, alone in my home many days and nights with my three young children. My right to own my little five acre corner of the earth goes indispensibly hand-in-hand with my right to defend myself on it. The U.S., more than anything else, is a country of LAND. Individual property rights don't mean much if I don't also have the right to protect myself and my family on that property. There ain' no cop gonna* come to my door in time to help me. There aren't enough of them to cover the territory! There's just too much vastness to much of America. Maybe this is something people can't imagine until they've travelled extensively in a place like the U.S.
Now, I don't have a gun in the house -- I probably should, given my stance, but I am protected in part by the fact that a "bad guy" thinks I COULD have one. A cricket bat isn't going to protect me, my arms are too scrawny and most perpetrators are male.
But the larger issue is really the more interesting one -- am I sensing that some of you who spoke up trust your government to protect you? That would be a very interesting cultural difference, since I suspect most Americans don't trust the government implicitly. We suspect it. Or maybe that's just the rebel in me!
What is it about a culture that leads it to have faith versus distrust in societies institutions... or is it cultural at all?
* okay, my mock-hick language may be a little over the top, but it's fun!
Conversely, people who have only been in Europe (where it's possible to travel through two or three countries in one day) as well as people who have only been in the eastern part of the US, don't realize how far apart things can be in the western part of the US.
It's a question of scope and what you are used to.
I have a brother who lives in a Chicago suburb (meaning it takes him over an hour to drive into Chicago). He grew up in Utah, so he knows about western spaces, but his attitude toward a one-hour drive is quite different from my attitude, because of where we live (this was even before gas prices went up as they have).
To my brother, a one-hour drive is "nothing," but it's pretty major for me. I find this rather ironic because I live in Utah with its "wide-open spaces," and he lives in Illinois which is in the eastern "half" of the US.
I think the difference may be partly because when you drive a long distance in the West, there's nothing to see (or what there is to see is all the same), and it can get REALLY boring. (Ever heard of white-line fever? It's a night-driving problem, but a similar thing can happen if you are driving during the day in the West.)
But, here I am, twelve years later, and when friends come out to visit they go on about the beauty, and I'm the one that yawns. Good thing I didn't end up purchasing waterview land -- I'd probably never even notice it. Plus, the taxes!
That's a good reminder for fiction, that longtime members of your world may not appreciate it -- it may take a new member of the world to see it accurately.
When we go to vote, there might be a policeman around but he or she is trusted to be keeping the peace, more symbolic than expecting trouble. I cannot recall there ever being a case of the local police influencing an election. That might be because there's an arm's-length relationship between police and politicians. The police manage themselves according to a set of rules and there are no direct political appointees.
I don't know what it's like now, but when I visited America for the first time some twenty or thirty years ago the fire service at Cherry Hill, NJ was voluntary, and apparently typical of many in the US. Ours were and are entirely salaried.
One thing that varies in different countries is sandwiches. In England a sandwich will automatically have butter on the slices of bread. If you ask for mayonnaise you get it as well as the butter. It's pretty much the same all over Europe, I think, the only difference being the style of butter. In Germany and France, for example, butter can be rather sweeter, less salty than England.
But in the USA, butter on sandwiches is alien. You have to ask specifically for it, and sometimes it's just not possible because the sandwich bar doesn't have it. My favourite sport was to corrupt my American friends by teaching them to spread Lurpak butter on crackers, before adding the (English or French) cheese. (It's Danish, deliciously creamy and salty; you have to hunt up-market for it.)
In turn America taught me how sociable it can be to order a pitcher of ale and several glasses, serving each other until it runs out and calling cheerfully for more. It was dangerous to do this with one of my English friends who had a tendency to wave his arms about when making a point. He was calibrated for the height of a pint; when he got excited about whatever he was spouting about, we had to move the taller pitcher out of reach of his drunkenly flailing arms.
In Stuttgart, Germany, there's a wonderful pub where they have been making their own beer for decades. It comes in a little glass, about a third of a pint, and initially you wonder whether the waiters and waitresses will keep up with demand. Well they do. There are dozens of them, and as soon as your glass nears the end another fresh one is automatically sitting there beside it. You ask your host how they keep count (you will drink several, trust me) and you're told to mark your beermat for each glass. It's an honour system--only in Germany, where honesty is expected and more often than not, gotten. Late in the evening you wonder how to stop the glasses coming. Shaking your head or waving them away doesn't appear to work, the staff are too fast--or too determined to keep you drinking. Eventualy you realise that to stop them you must put your beermat on top of your glass. Finally, you hand your beermat over to the cashier at the exit, and try not to sway too much as she tallies the marks and takes your money.
Did you ever wonder why German beermugs have lids? No, neither did I until I was enjoying a glass in a garden in southern Germany's evening summer sunshine. Midges. Tiny flying insects, probably like American "no-see-em's" except they don't bite. They seem to like beer and if you let it sit in an open glass, after a while its beautiful creamy head is littered with little black specks. You either put the beermat on top of the glass while you're chatting, or use a tankard with a lid.
Perhaps the silliest drinking custom is the English yard of ale, a glass about a yard long, quite narrow, with a bulb at its base. It's deceptively difficult to drink it in one go without making a complete wet mess of yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard_(beer)
Once in Germany I turned up for work to find the place closed. I checked the list of national holidays they'd given me and it wasn't a holiday. Next day was business as usual.
"Where was everyone yesterday?" I asked.
"On holiday."
"It's not on the list."
"It was a Christian holiday. It's not on the list because everyone knows about it and takes it anyway. Don't they?"
In praise of diversity,
Pat
We learned when we lived in the Philippines many years ago that it was a sign of politeness to leave a little food on your plate to indicate "Oh this food was so wonderful and satisfying I couldn't possibly eat it all."
This was quite a change from the typical American way of doing things - the "clean plate club."
I find that this cultural trend is something that I noticed and paid attention to, and it made me question that whole clean plate business such that I don't insist on that with my children at all ('course there could be other reasons I decided to do that, but this contributed.)
The logical quote; "punctuation goes outside when citing an excerpt". "Inside when it's part of the citation."
When it's not a citation, say, for dialogue or emphasis, it all goes inside.
The US typesetters' quotes for creative prose; "it all goes inside."
The British quote; 'it all goes outside', unless it's part of the citation. Note the preference is for single quotation marks in English speaking nations other than the US.
In German it's reversed guillemets; »words«
In French and Swiss and Italian and Spanish; it's regular guillemets; «words»
Em dashes bracket dialogue in Continental typesetting, — words — with thin spaces wrapping the phrase.
The reporter's quote; "small stuff goes inside." "The big stuff goes outside"! Unless it's part of the citation, then it all goes inside.
Dashed interruptions; typists' dash--reporters' dash -- nonce dash---typesetters' em dash—. The nonce dash is a special typists' dash for convenient search and replace.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited July 06, 2008).]
I've read any number of British-printed books since. What irritates me most is the way British books will change an American writer's choice of words to British spellings---something I've never seen the other way 'round, actually. If I ever got that far, it was something I intended to see to wasn't done with my stuff. (Step One: Get That Far.)
I believe that EVERY MAN, WOMAN, CHILD, OLD PEOLE, ETC should own, know how to use affectively use and keep arms weather it is a rifle, shotgun, hand gun, crossbow, cannon, etc. It is a right every Human has to defend themselves from others. I think if everyone had a firearm there would be affectedly less violent murders, rapes, robberies, scandals, shooting, etc.
Or I might as well be crazy.
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
Who is able to have a weapon in their possession? Not people who drink alcohol. And certainly not those who enjoy killing for sport. Play computer games for a period of time and then they go: "Let's do this for real! Yeah!"
Question: why must Americans carry weapons? And why does America have the highest crime rate? Which of these is the cause and which is the consequence? Just wondering.
We are the most powerful country in the world because we are aloud to own guns outside the military, police forces. Therefore we can outshoot another military. 98% of people who voluntary join the Army or the Marines already know basic weapon safety, and basic shooting skills.
Also what I don’t understand all these new regulations on getting a firearm. The bottom line is if someone who is unable to get a firearm legally will get it any way they can, such as steal it, have some one who can legally buy a firearm get it for them then pay them for it.
There is no way to truly stop gun violence unless you try to rid the world of ALL firearms. Which is impossible for there will be people such as myself who will hide them and stockpile them along with ammo for them. And then there will be no military or police force that will be armed with firearms so there fore there will be nothing but the “laws” that will be enforced by people like me who stashed firearms and ammo and will eventually overthrow any gun laws.
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
I know I'm not going to make myself popular with this. Just for the record, my best friend has served in Iraq, and other friends have served in Afghanistan. My former regiment, Kings, have suffered heavy losses in both those countries. I think the action there is necessary, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who put their lives on the line to serve their country.
That said, I have to take issue with this:
quote:
We are the most powerful country in the world because we are aloud to own guns outside the military, police forces. Therefore we can outshoot another military. 98% of people who voluntary join the Army or the Marines already know basic weapon safety, and basic shooting skills.
That's not the reason you're the most powerful country in the world at all. Simply put, you're the world's only current superpower due to the size of your economy. I don't think that the fact people are already know how to fire a gun before they join the army makes them better soldiers at all. In fact, I think there's something to be said for having to learn thing the army way first time around.
I'm not going to belabour the point. I know you've served in an environment I would run away screaming from, but I just think that you've made several points in that paragraph that I think are factually inaccurate.
the points you make in your last paragraph are undeniably logical. You can't put the contents of Pandora's box back in once you've opened it. What the US has, unlike most countries in 'the west', is widespread ownership of guns for reasons I've alluded to in previous posts. In the UK there was a massive clampdown on gun ownership after the Dunblane massacre 12? years ago. Admittedly there are still guns privately owned, but I think on the whole guns are much harder to get hold of illegally, and as they are very hard to get legally, if the police catch someone in possession of a firearm then they're obviously guilty of something.
In the case of criminalizing gun ownership… First, a criminal willing to commit Murder, give not a rats $@*& about breaking a second degree felony.
As for me, when they pass those crazy laws, the rule I must apply is ”I would rather be on trial before 12 than carried by 6”
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
[This message has been edited by Rommel Fenrir Wolf II (edited July 06, 2008).]
quote:
They are God Given Rights
This to me is nonsense. The second amendment, indeed the whole constitution, is created by man. They're rules under which a country is run. To see those as sacrosanct despite the fact they were created in L.P. Hartley's 'foreign country' ("The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there") seems alien to me. Though of course, I guess there are things I see as inalienable due to the fact they've been there for ages. Or rather, things I take for granted living in a 'free' country.
As an aside, and I think I'm right when I say this: English(and US - based on Law and Order...) law is based on precedent, i.e. once a case has been decided then it could be cited as a basis for the verdict in a future case, whereas most European - by which I mean continental - law is based upon a stipulated code, according to which all decisions must be made.
PS:
Who is the Creator that our founding fathers reference therein and why were they so frequently referring to him. Go figure, someone BIGGER THAN US.
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
quote:
Who is the Creator that our founding fathers reference therein and why were they so frequently referring to him. Go figure, someone BIGGER THAN US.
Just because people believe in God doesn't make it a reality. The founders were religious men: the passengers on the Pilgrim were religious people. It doesn't make it relevant to everyone today. Again, to add some context, I'm head of Religious Studies at a comprehensive - High?- school in London. I teach it as a survey of religions, and making them thinking about themselves, morality, and what other people believe. I teach the students arguments for and against the existence of God/gods. We discuss morality. Personally, I was brought up a Catholic but would consider myself an agnostic. I would argue that the literal interpretation of Christianity across areas of society as a whole is a cultural difference, both within the US and comparing the US with other countries.
I'm getting dangerously political/religous now, so I'll stop.
[This message has been edited by Badger (edited July 06, 2008).]
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
I once wrote a story that featured a rant against American gun attitudes and crits said that, because it was one-sided (my European side) it wasn't credible.
I've since written another and tried to put both sides in a manner true to their proponents. I did it by researching NRA and other websites. Crits said it was better because of the balance. In the process of revising it I've just bought a copy of Guns & Ammo in an attempt to better understand the topic.
It would be interesting if Romel and Badger could argue the opposing point of view, as an exercise in writing stories that feature strong views and present both sides authentically.
Just a thought,
Pat
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
[This message has been edited by Rommel Fenrir Wolf II (edited July 07, 2008).]
My own guess is that it is simply a tradition and a strong, unifying tradition. And that any threat to that tradition deeply offends many people.
I feel more threatened by this tradition than protected by it and I think a quick read of this thread might show why. But I also understand the need of people to protect their traditions. And I think that can be an interesting theme in fiction, one that isn't often touched on.
Rommel, threats of violence do not win arguments. They do prove that you don't think you can win your argument with words.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 06, 2008).]
Dingbat used to mean the decorative type objects printers included in publications to balance a page. Intaglio type, hot and cold lead, prints more evenly when the type bound in the chase is made up into a rectangle. Also, when made into a rectangle, the type is less likely to be worn down and rounded along the outside of the makeup by the pressure of the press. To an extent, decorative type objects are still called dingbats. Another definition is it's the paddle that that vapid toy with the elastic cord and rubber ball was batted with. Here abouts, a dingbat is the derogatory term for tourists. Like the ball on the cord, they don't stop long and always comes back for more. Anecdotally from master printers and several scholarly potters and traditional brickmakers, I've heard that a dingbat was a type of paddle historically used to shape wet clay for pressing into brick molds.
Chase, as in cut to the chase, modern movie buffs claim the meaning to be get to the chase scene. Printers of old, I mean really old, know that a chase is the frame that held the type in the press. Cut to the chase meant print the type as set; don't bother with a proof printing and proofreading before the production printing.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Hah! That one should be obvious, but the metaphor is taken as the origin. Few people today, besides a few printers, know its origins. In the days of old, an illustration in a publication paid as much as a thousand words of type.
An earlier post caught this--one of our European friends referring, in all seriousness, as democracy as something that needs to be "managed." To me, and most red-state Americans, that's like referring to beer as something that needs to be worn. It's on the verge of incoherent to me and mine.
Another earlier post pointed out that the Second Amendment does not grant any new rights, it merely enshrines a right the American founders believed to be God-given and inalienable--that is, a right no government could take away legitimately. The responding post (Eurpoean) called that idea "rubbish." It's a great example of ships in the night. To me, it's self-evident that a society without an armed citizenry must eventually lose its freedom--and I take Europe as exhibit 1. To our Euro friends, it's self-evident that a society chock-full of guns must be violent--they take American cities as exhibit 1 (ironically, most American cities had a firearm ban until last week).
The real question is how to convey people talking past each other on such a fundamental level without confusing the reader. It's a three way party. Character A has some assumptions about reality, Character B has some very different assumptions, and reader has his own assumptions. The question of art is how to make that three-way conversation work so that reader understands what A is saying, what B is saying, and that A and B can't understand each other.
Over the years, because of the claim that gun ownership is a Constitutional right, the debate on gun law has shifted away from a democratic debate to law suits and attempts to influence the Supreme Court. Now, an American city cannot democratically ban guns because the Supreme Court won't let it.
It's not quite true that the Constitution clearly enshrines the individual right of Americans to possess a firearm. Almost half of the Supreme Court think it doesn't.
Cheers,
Pat
Edit: No, I'm not trying to stifle anyone else. I found several statements implying that Europeans don't understand or have democracy and that only "red-state" Americans do a bit offensive. If others continue fine, but I had to bite my tongue way too hard.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 07, 2008).]
So, Rommell, I'm going to have to decline your kind offer of grass before breakfast.
Ah, Brits and Americans, eh. "You like potato and I like potato You like tomato and I like tomato. Potato, potato, Tomato, tomato. Let's call the whole thing off."
That song just isn't the same when you write the words down...
Let's take Badger and Rommel as an example. Anyone want to volunteer writing a section with those two as characters that portrays their mutual misunderstanding?
p.s., Jeanne: please re-read my "red-state" comment more carefully. I merely set out the perspective in contrast to the opposing perspective, I don't pass judgment on which is correct.
If you disagree, let's take it to email.
[This message has been edited by J (edited July 07, 2008).]
Then there are more fundamental, ideological differences. These are a bit tricker. There are hundreds of examples, and I think this gun control issue is one of them. Also religion, global climate change, socialism. vs. libertarianism, etc. These are the sorts of issues people can argue on just about for ever, each side spewing "the truth" and "the facts" but neither managing to convince the other. Each is equally sure beyond doubt that they are "right" and see the truth of the matter, while the other side is deluded by propaganda, ignorance, what have you. (Please note I'm not taking sides here!) For these differences, one side won't necessarily convince the other--rather, the two find a way to coexist. Through voting, for instance, or living apart, agreeing to disagree, etc.
On a deeper level than that are fundamental perspective differences. It's a bit hard for me to explain this because I'm only just beginning to understand this myself. But this goes beyond ideological convictions, and has more to do with how we are raised to understand the world. For example, I'll bring up Jung's take on Chinese philosophy. He states that there's a fundamental difference in Chinese philosophy that's almost inconceivable for someone raised in the Western tradition to grasp (I'm not saying he's necessarily right here, so let's not argue that--I'm only using this as an example to illustrate what I mean). He argues that in Chinese philosophy, an individual sees himself as part of the order of the world, not as an external observer. Therefore, the observing and the being cannot be separated--they are one and the same. The very act of observing changes what is being observed, changes the nature of the universe in that moment. One could argue this is the roots of why Chinese culture never took off, but advanced to a certain point and remained stagnant. In Western tradition, of course, is the birth of the scientific method as we know it--observe and record. The observer is separate from the events, an external force, and therefore can change things. So, the core of this example is a fundamental, epistemological difference.
Plus the potato/potatoe bit was a joke which I don't think yo ucan get. Now whether that was due to cultural differences, or because it wsn't very funny, who can say...
quote:
The real question is how to convey people talking past each other on such a fundamental level without confusing the reader. It's a three way party. Character A has some assumptions about reality, Character B has some very different assumptions, and reader has his own assumptions. The question of art is how to make that three-way conversation work so that reader understands what A is saying, what B is saying, and that A and B can't understand each other.
I find this problematic as well -- the reader will tend to believe the point of view character (at least on a subject they don't have a preexisting opinion on). If the author's intent is to show that character A (POV) is no more right than character B, then how is that done? The obvious dialogue debate seems like an easy out to me. How is it shown more subtly?
It seems like OSC has this happen often in his works but how?
HELLSPARK by Janet Kagan is a story about a team of individuals from very different planets who are brought together and required to work toward a common goal which they are unable to do until they overcome their prejudices regarding each other.
The only thing I might quibble about in this book is that these various cultures were so different that I was almost finished reading the book before I realized that every last one of the characters was human. But maybe I missed where the author made that clear at the beginning.
Discussing fundamental disagreements doesn't change them and is generally a waste of everyone's time and emotional energy.
Early in this thred there was some interesting discussion. I was interested in the concept that some people might have a different defenition of "plenty." But no one is going to change someone else's mind on gun control.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 07, 2008).]
quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
So, Rommel, you've got another strike against you. Please edit your post, or I will delete it.
Back in the arly 80s, I visited Isreal. I flew on the national airlines.
The culture shock was when the first announcements were in Hebrew, and only after, in English.
Another, is that I have always lived in or near a city. South Florida cities are spread out, mostly strip malls everywhere that residential districts are not. What towers are in the center of town and one seldom have to go there. Anything you want is within a fifteen minute drive of anywhere.
At the time, when we got a pizza, I would order one of my own, exactly the way I wanted it.
I visted Wisconson with my mom and brother, as that was where she was from and her sister is there. They were having pizza. I was irritated that I could not order my own. It was only a bit later that it sunk in that they don't have delivery there. they had frozen pizza, not delivered.
That was a real shock at the time.
Little things like this can really set a story apart.
I miss the glory day’s gone bye when one was allow to challenge someone to a duel and it was not against the law.
Oh the problems of being a 3rd Class Immortal.
RFW2nd
Every true American I have meet believes that we should be able to keep and even walk down the road with a firearm and not worry about violating a stupid law of some kind.
RFW2nd
Maybe you'd better find a different topic to post in?
Tango Mike
RFW2nd
Back to J's question:
quote:
How do we frame a fundamentally different reference frame that still makes sense in the reference frame of the reader?
I don't know. If you're writing in the perspective of that culture, then I think you need to do a lot of work planning and building the culture, and thinking through the implications of that difference. It's easier, then, to write the story from Gulliver's perspective, that is, a voyager encountering these worlds. Then each difference is referenced back to a more familiar culture, and the readers can digest the differences through the eyes of the traveler. For an extremely unique culture, this might be the only way to go about it, and still make it understandable to readers.
I have certain well-formed, well-informed, and well-founded positions in these matters...but we agreed, coming into these fora, not to get too heavy into it.
I could post a fairly lengthy post on the origins of and purpose behind the Second Amendment, but it's not really about different cultural ideas---and is also likely to inflame one side. I've got other places I can go to if I want to argue politics---that Internet Fan Fiction community is still available---but I'd rather inflame people with my ideas and positions about the writing racket.
) are largely a product of where we were born and brought up.One of the cultural differences (hmmmm, could argue it's kinda linguistic/cultural) which sticks out in my mind is from my Grandad who's from Connemara in Ireland, County Galway. Connemara is a Gaeltacht (Irish speaking area - sorry if I'm seeming patronising) He spoke only Irish until he was fourteen, when he then learnt English. His English was peppered with the way he thought, or rather he thought in Irish and turned the words into English. One which stands out in my mind is when I was about 13 and he asked me, "Whose jacket is that coat, over there by the wall with the window?" All this delivered in the semi-song of a Western Irish Gaelic speaker. There are loads others, but memory escapes me...
I suppose culture shows in language too, depending on the concerns of a particular culture. What I'm thinking of is the famous, and perhaps erroneous, saying that the eskimos have -- words for snow. I know Gaelic is much more expressive than English about weather. There's a word (just tried to look it up, but can't find it) which best translates as 'squalls coming from the west in ten minute intervals'. HAving been out fishing for Mackerel in the Atlantic in a two man coracle, I really appreciate the need for something more specific than 'it lloks like showers'
quote:
How do we frame a fundamentally different reference frame that still makes sense in the reference frame of the reader?
I think that's one reason we read fiction, to explore a strange world with which we're unfamiliar. Perhaps it's one reason the close third person POV is popular in modern fiction.
A culture is a product of its history and its living conditions. Its vocabulary reflects what matters to it. So the Eskimos have words for different kinds of snow, the English have words for different kinds of royalty and class, and the Americans have different words from the English presumably as a continuing gesture of defiance ;-)
I think that means that in fiction we need to show the culture, its history and living conditions throught the experiences, thoughts, feelings and memories of the characters. And move the story along at the same time.
Cheers,
Pat
But talking about the theories behind culutral differences... (in this case firearms). I was very intrigued by the "space argument," as I'm going to call it.
Are people in open spaces more inclined to favor firearms, and do people in tight spaces feel more threatened by them? I'm not going to say this is so, but it's certainly worth thinking about.
As for the U.S., I've always believed the 2nd ammendment is the product of the incidents at Lexington and Concorde. Which were over the siezing of stockpiles of firearms. (My family hails from Lexington.) Basically we have a lot of people who raised arms in order to combat a government they felt they didn't deserve--so the founders (which participated in this rebellion) were already of the mindset that it is a human right to organize and reject your government. And through experience they had decided that the way to do so was through warfare, which required weapons.
(again, this is all my own conjecture)
At the time of the constitution, which the 2nd ammendment was written for, there was a real fear that the new government wouldn't take, or if it did that it might go awry. If that happened, the founders (I believe) had the 2nd ammendment clause to try and help weapons to be available for the people, should they decide to revolt (if the government they'd designed went haywire, remember it was a pretty radical shift from normal western European government structures at the time.)
That's my theory. Which also includes the possibility that such an ammendment is outdated. I won't say it is or isn't.
I happen to understand the British and Japanese take on the issue a bit better than the folks of southern Mississippi. But I don't by any means discredit the legitimacy of their argument.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited July 08, 2008).]
As mentioned above, one way to convey this to a reader would be to explain American history, which is a long story of self-reliance and reaction against the concept of being ruled, and European history, which is a much longer story of interdependence and varied-but always present--rulership.
But what if your novel doesn't have room for that much historical development? Or what if it just isn't appropriate for your story? I can think of a few ways to do it, but all of them involve either: a) unrealistically self-aware characters.who can talk objectively about their worldviews; or b) the tired plot device of some sort of wise person who can talk objectively about everyone's worldview. There's got to be a better way.
Yeah. Sure, we do.
Actually, J makes an interesting example of an extremely egocentric culture. There have been and are quite a few of them. It's not like the US is the only one with this rather annoying characteristic.
However, the characteristic is not universal. It's interesting to consider what makes a culture open to others and what makes it convinced that its is the only way--and to try to kill you if you don't agree.
quote:
Actually, J makes an interesting example of an extremely egocentric culture. There have been and are quite a few of them. It's not like the US is the only one with this rather annoying characteristic.
And I suppose Europe is full of countries that are immune to this disease...
*****
"J" tangentally mentione "egalite"---which brings up another problem: the equivalent words from one language to another do not necessarily mean the same thing.
Example: Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea contains numerous mistranslations based on taking things literally. At one point, he mentions a character has been in "la terre diable du Nebraska." (I do not have the phrase before me and may have it slightly wrong.)
This is usually translated as "the disagreeable territories of Nebraska"---a literal translation, which is extremely insulting, when you get down to it. But the phrase does not mean that. It really means "the Nebraska badlands"---a specific geographic and geologic area of Nebraska, a place where the character, a scientist, could be conducting exploration and research---not an insult at all. (Verne is considered a superb stylist in French, but nearly all translations of his work into English are poor.)
The phrase "Liberte, egalite, fraternite"---I leave out the proper punctuation as my English keyboard is not keyed for its easy use---might mean "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" in a literal translation---but the words in English do not convey the emotional meaning they do in French. Rather, they carry a different emotional meaning---and this causes confusion to this day.
It would a masterful piece of writing to have two characters use the same word to refer to contradictory ideas--and the reader understanding both without confusion.
p.s. Jeanne, I'd be more than happy to have the discussion you insist on having--via email.
Consider having two languages that have the same sounding words but different meanings.
Or, consider where the fathers of the language designed it to make the meaning of blessings of another language as curses, to make sure they never become friendly.
Of course, there is the saying that England and America, Two nations separated by a common language.
Been wading into The Brothers Karamazov lately...the great Russian novelists defeated me when I was a high school student---the cultural and language barriers were too high---but, so far, this time around, things seem a lot more clear. These come highly recommended, so here's hoping...
Also, a Google books search will pull up books in foreign languages. Try searching for the title in French.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited July 09, 2008).]
I believe Iranians speak Farsi not "Irani." I don't know how closely Farsi is related to Arabic, but I do know that most Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.
And I'm wondering if you meant " Creole " instead of "Krio" up there, RobertB.
By the way, Creole is not so much any one language, as it is part of an attempt to communicate when two different languages come together (so it might be helpful to those who want to write "first contact" and "alien relations" stories.)
I went through all the post from when I first posted until I found it.
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/index.shtml
I found it in the topic unrelated question
and I know why Omega was banned he is a complete nut.
I still cant get a hold of him. I wonder if he finished the editing my book?
RFW2nd
When the Constitution was written America was fresh out of the War of Independence, and democracy was a new idea, so new that nobody was sure it would work.
Since America had won her independence by arming herself, and the people provided their own guns, the idea was to bind into the Constitution the right of people to carry guns so that, should democracy fail, they could rise up against the government and dispose of it, like they despatched the Brits. Arming people was the final check against a government that went badly awry, as had the King and his taxes on the colonies.
Today there's a large proportion of Americans (not all, about 5 to 4 if the Supreme Court Justices are a measure) who believe that (a) individuals should be able to arm themselves either to rid the country of a corrupt government, or to control local government officials and police who get it wrong; and (b) that if individuals are armed, criminals are less likely to attack them and, if they do, they can defend themselves.
From these ideas America has become accustomed to keeping its government and officials democratically accountable and its citizenry civilised through some sense of mutual fear.
I've long understood (b) but (a) is new to me.
I'm beginning to think the American use of the word "democracy" is a little different from the English. For us "democracy" means we settle everything through debate and vote and the rule of law, no exceptions. We want to make democracy work because we can't think of anything better, and we don't want to resort to violence if it fails. We have other ways of making governments accountable--civil disobedience, strikes, street marches--and yes, sometimes those descend into riots and if we really need weapons, we've always got kitchen knives, Molotov Cocktails and the like.
We expect (not necessarily trust) and demand our government officials and police to be accountable for their actions through the democratic process. There are laws and checks and balances and, in the case of the Police, an Independent Police Complaints Authority to keep it that way. When things go wrong, which they do, individuals will complain and get heard. It's not perfect, but we think it works, and we're always striving to improve it of course. A free press that thinks critically and reports accurately and fearlessly is an important aspect of the checks and balances; they're not perfect either but their part in this system of governance is vital. These are some of the ways we manage democracy--in other words, make sure the democratic process works and the government and its officials are accountable to the people--without feeling a need to arm individuals.
In everyday life, we don't care for a climate of fear, wondering who's carrying a weapon concealed in their coat or under the driving seat of their car. So we control guns. Or at least try to. And knives.
(In Germany, democracy is not preserved by arming everyone. Nobody was going to propose that after the Second World War. Instead, they keep government accountable by splitting the major sources of national power--government, judiciary and banking--amongst three different states, because Hitler had risen to power by controlling all three, without too much difficulty because they were co-located in the same city.)
The gun debate is really rather falsely put. It's polarised between those who are portrayed as wanting to control guns, and those who do not. Yet, in America, guns are controlled. Can you carry a gun--or even a pocket knife--into a government building or onto a plane? No. Can you drive your own personal Sherman tank up Pennsylvania Avenue? No. Can you purchase a gun over the counter at Sports Authority without photo ID? No. It's a question of the degree of control.
While it's true that many Europeans feel that the European Union is chipping away at our democratic rights, I doubt that any of us feel that arming individuals is the right way to defeat that. The Irish got it right and voted against the European Constitution (or whatever it's now called). Sooner or later our elected national politicans will reign the Eurocrats in, or in the extreme there will be strikes and civil disobedience.
There's a shared belief, I think, that we have enough control over our governments and their officers through the democratic process. We won't need to take guns to the streets ever again.
Or if we do, the consequences of mass carnage are too terrible to contemplate; all the more reason to make democracy work.
Finally, I don't think we should give up on understanding each other. As populations grow and global competition for natural resources intensifies nations must learn to live together, or die.
Cheers,
Pat
Well put, and I think you laid out the central differences very well:
1) Europeans trust their governments to follow their own rules, or, if they don't, that they can be forced to return to the rules through peaceful means--in other words, that armed rebellion will never again be necessary to secure freedom--Americans assume the opposite; and
2) Europeans prefer to stop everyone from engaging in a behavior because someone might misbehave, while Americans prefer to let people do as they like and then punish those who actually do misbehave. I don't think it's too much of an oversimplification to say that Americans and Europeans just make very different value judgments about where the seesaw between liberty and security should lie.
As you aptly noted, it is (at this point in history) a matter of degree in some ways. A lot of urban and blue state Americans think entirely along European lines. But it's also a matter of fundamental differences in thinking, particularly as to point 1.
[This message has been edited by J (edited July 10, 2008).]
Even though I hail from a relatively rural, extremely conservative bubble of an environment. I agree with you, and have always found the British (and Japanese) perspective on the issue to be the most modern, the most socially evolved given this day and age.
However, I think it's intertesting (and important) to explore the psychology (as you have done) of different countries. For instance, if I was writing a modern Sherlock Holmes (type book) in London, it would be useful to understand how available firearms are, and what people think of them. I wouldn't want to assume they are thought of and treated the same as here in the U.S. by default, simply because I am ignorant.
Which is why I feel it is okay to express (here) your beliefs on the subject, along with your community and culture, to help us understand what the general feeling of guns is, by geography.
[This message has been edited by J (edited July 10, 2008).]
quote:
try Amazon's French website.
Definitely what I'm looking for. Knew it existed---didn't know how to get to it, at least not from Amazon's regular site. I'll order, once I figure out what and whether they can ship to the USA.
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/v#a60
We also worked with some refugees from Rwanda, and I learned how to say "Thank you," in Kirwanda. They spoke French more than they did English, so that was another adventure.
Something for writers on coming up with names for your characters that I learned from a Rwandan: they didn't have family names (though they do have surnames that are different for every member of the family) because that way an enemy didn't know who your relative were.
I remember hearing Rick Steves (who does the "Europe through the Back Door" shows and books on how Americans can experience Europe the way the Europeans do instead of insisting on being treated the way they are in America--why go in that case?) say something along the lines that it actually helps when speaking English with someone who has a strong accent if you can imitate their accent (not in a mocking way, of course). If you can manage to pronounce English the way they do, then they will understand you better, and you may even get a better idea of what they are actually saying to you.
When I arrived in Florida I thought my English colleagues had cultivated comical, faux-American accents. But I learned though experiences like my butter request (it's "boodre", almost rhymes with "booker" and the "er" is foreshortened) that while our English accents were largely an attraction, certain words could get you into trouble and you had to change your pronunciation--or even the word--to survive. Examples I remember include "tomaydoe", "bayzil" (not basil), "process" (first syllable rhymes with product, not (p)rowing boat), "skedule" (not "shedule") --and, of course, trunk and hood, and fries not chips.
Cheers,
Pat