Mapping

[Mapraputa Is]

EFH: Another way to interpret it is simply as a desire for the bubble of global capitalism to expand to include the poster.
I agree that many interpretations are possible and I am not going to insist that only mine is correct. I just probably read it through context of our late discussions in "JD" forum, and I see it is a romantic (or call it na�ve if you would like) alternative to many things that were said.
He talks about sending call-center jobs to the Middle East. He talks about being able to own a company that outsources labor.
Do you mean these are bad things? Again, I read it more like a dream about economical freedom and equality, where jobs can travel across borders without causing hard feelings from any side.
I heard him using MLK's words to say "I want a Walmart in my back yard!" And I thought that was pretty lame, which is why I complained. It's cheap, first of all, and it's naive, second of all.
I think, it depends on what to compare it to. What about "I am buying only what is made in the USA"? Against this background "I want a Walmart in my back yard!" looks like an example of extreme generosity of spirit and manifestation of "brotherhood and peace" :roll: Na�ve -- Ok, but after all, the post was named "I have a dream" not "I have a proposal".

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Do you mean these are bad things? Again, I read it more like a dream about economical freedom and equality, where jobs can travel across borders without causing hard feelings from any side.

I see your point. I read it as "Right now my country is exploited for cheap labor; I'd like to exploit folks in other countries myself instead." But it's possible to see it in a better light.

[Mapraputa Is]

Thanks, Ernest. Now I feel that I am not alone in this world
But let's try to persuade Joe...
Joe: The poster took words that really did talk about brotherhood and peace and hope, and dragged them into the muck of money and greed and commercialism.
I think the poster used the same rhetorical device Mr. King used -- a metaphor.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check.
<...>
This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.
So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
I Have A Dream, by Martin Luther King, Jr.

You aren't outraged that "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "reduced" to "the muck of money and greed and commercialism"?

[Joe Pluta]

Joe: The poster took words that really did talk about brotherhood and peace and hope, and dragged them into the muck of money and greed and commercialism.
Map: I think the poster used the same rhetorical device Mr. King used -- a metaphor.
No, he used satire. He satirized the words of Dr. (not Mr.) King's speech and twisted them from a discussion of freedom to a discourse on the reader's belief that "capitalism" means "global hegemony". Since the thread has been deleted, however, it's difficult to address the specifics.

Map: You aren't outraged that "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "reduced" to "the muck of money and greed and commercialism"?
No, because they are not. Dr. King is actually using a metaphor as opposed to the satire of the opist I objected to. When he speaks of cashing a check, he is talking about asking for fulfillment of a promise. It's an entirely different cocnept then that found in the other post.
Sorry, there is nothing dishonest or self-serving or crass in Dr. King's words. In fact, if you want to learn about oratory, you wouldn't do wrong to read more of his speeches.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

No, he used satire. He satirized the words of
Joe, "satire" word implies he did it on purpose! Is this what you are saying?
Dr. (not Mr.) King's speech
What's the difference? Why can't I call Dr. King's "Mr."?

[Joe Pluta]

Joe, "satire" word implies he did it on purpose! Is this what you are saying?
Yes.
What's the difference? Why can't I call Dr. King's "Mr."?
Respect.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Yes.
Ok. No more questions.
Respect.
Decipher, please, ah? Joe, I apologize for not being born here, but I really do not understand the difference. In fact, I typed "Mr." for no other reason but to show respect, if I was wrong, then explain it to me, please.
P.S. Do you allow a possibility that not everybody is being born with an American mind? Do we need to apologize for this?

[Joe Pluta]

Map, I don't understand your indignation. You asked a question, I answered. If the answer was insufficient, please feel free to ask me to expand, but don't take it as an insult. Not everything I do is intended to insult. In fact, I kept my answer brief in order to avoid possible insult due to egregious use of personal pronouns.
By saying "respect" I was stating that the term Doctor recognizes Dr. King's eight years of post-graduate work in Theology and the attaintment of his Doctor of Philosophy degree. This is not an Americanism; it is similar to anyone requesting that their correct title be used ("Judge", "Lord", "Doctor", "President", "Rabbi", "Reverend", "Sir"). In a society where such titles indicate personal or family achievement, one is expected to use them except in the most personal of situations. To not do so is considered a breach of etiquette and an indication of poor upbringing.
Thus, using someone's title is simply a matter of respect. Or, to be brief...
"Respect."
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Thanks for you explanations, Joe.
From where I came, if anybody added "PhD" title to his words, it would be read that he either show off or he is not confident in what he is saying. So I avoided "Dr." title.

[Joe Pluta]

From where I came, if anybody added "PhD" title to his words, it would be read that he either show off or he is not confident in what he is saying. So I avoided "Dr." title.
I understand that cultural differences can cause some hesitation in word choice. In cases like that where you're not sure of the exact wording, you might try using Google on the various phrases in question to see their frequency of use. In this case, you would find that there are 41 instances of "Mr. Martin Luther King, Jr." and roughly 356,000 instances of "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
From where I came, if anybody added "PhD" title to his words, it would be read that he either show off or he is not confident in what he is saying. So I avoided "Dr." title.

Joe should also add that Dr. King's accomplishment is extra special because he acquired his PhD at a time when it was extremely difficult for a black man to even attend college let alone get a post graduate degree. Since Dr/ King is universally referred to using his title, referring to him without it would be seen as an insult in the US, especially to those of us who respect the man and his achievements.

[Jim Yingst]

As far as more general usage of "Dr." vs. "Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms": It seems most PhD's I've known (mostly in the US of course) don't make a big deal about the title, and often encourage others to just refer to them as "John Doe" or "John" rather than "Dr. John Doe" or "John Doe, PhD." That's just fine for many people. However "Mr." would be incorrect. If you're going to use a title at all, it's expected to be the correct one. It's the difference between referring to John Doe (who may or may not have a PhD), and John Doe (who does not have a PhD). If you indicate the status at all, you might as well get it right.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

There's a lot of cultural variation on this topic. A friend of mine likes to talk about the time he spent at a German university. It took him a little while to appreciate the importance that they apparently put on these titles there. In the USA, it's more or less OK to refer to a University Professor as "Dr. Smith", but there, the difference between "Herr Smith", "Herr Doktor Smith", and "Herr Doktorprofessor Smith" was enormous. Once he made the mistake of addressing a Professor's wife as "Frau Smith." She fixed him with a steely glare and told him that he should address her as "Frau Doktorprofessor Smith," a title she apparently deserved just for marrying a professor.
-- Dr. Ernest J. Friedman-Hill, Ph.D.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
In cases like that where you're not sure of the exact wording, you might try using Google on the various phrases in question to see their frequency of use. In this case, you would find that there are 41 instances of "Mr. Martin Luther King, Jr." and roughly 356,000 instances of "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."

GoogleFight!

[Joe Pluta]

GoogleFight!
You forgot the quotes.
Joe

[Jim Yingst]

I should add that this varies a lot by context too. John Doe may well be John to his friends and (adult) neighbors, but when he's teaching a freshmen-level course at the local university he's probably Dr. Doe or Professor Doe. If he's teaching a smaller class of grad students he's again more likely to go by John. If he's being interviewed in the newpaper as a knowlegeable expert on a topic then he's probably Dr. John again. If he's posting somewhere on the internet, he probably just calls himself John Doe and some irreverent wiseass will take to calling him JD. Age is also relevant, as if they're older then (a) they deserve a bit more respect anyway, and (b)they're more likely to view proper titles as something expected, since that's the way they were raised. (US culture has become less formal over time in this respect.)
[ January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe should also add that Dr. King's accomplishment is extra special because he acquired his PhD at a time when it was extremely difficult for a black man to even attend college let alone get a post graduate degree.
In other words in 1950-s.
In 1950-s America did not allow blacks in her academic institutes, yet we are to belive that America is The Greatest Country In The World. <cough> Ok. Sure thing. Really, ignorance is the bliss.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
In 1950-s America did not allow blacks in her academic institutes, yet we are to belive that America is The Greatest Country In The World. <cough> Ok. Sure thing. Really, ignorance is the bliss.

And Ivan the Terrible was a butcher so Russia must be an awful country. The 1950's were 50 years ago. What makes America the greatest country in the world is that we learn from our errors and are not afraid to change for the better.

[Mapraputa Is]

I should probably expain before posting insults.
I was born in a country that was (perhaps) racist from inside down, yet if anybody said a Negro isn't allowed in University or any other crap like this, two serious men would materialize and kick the orator to the jail.
I cannot imagine any educated country that would do this in 1950.

[Joe Pluta]

Map: I cannot imagine any educated country that would do this in 1950.
Like all countries, we are not so long removed from savagery. The human race as a whole is a pretty warlike lot, and even in the best societies man's inhumanity to man is given vent in behavior which later generations find reprehensible. In other words, we have yet to become perfect.
However, unlike other countries which have fallen into anarchy or despotism, or simply dissolved, America's democratic government and our belief in fundamental values allow us to grow and progress, to the point where even enlightened individuals such as yourself are willing to leave their countries of birth to come here.
Imagine that!
Joe

[Jim Yingst]

[Map]: I should probably expain before posting insults.
That would be one option. Another would be not posting them, given that they seem to serve no useful function in this thread. Or do they? Apparently the original motivation for this thread was to see if people would be upset that you were posting random line noise. Perhaps you are unsatisfied with the inital results, and are trying to start arguments with more people? I mean, if you want to have some sort of meaningful discussion about something in particular, let us know. E.g. history and causes of racism in the US can be a worthwhile topic if you're interested in the subject other than as something to whine about. But if it's just an excuse to take pot shots at us all, I think we can probably find something more constructive to be doing.
[ January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I cannot imagine any educated country that would do this in 1950.

Could you imagine a country that would kill 6 million people because of their religion? Happened only 60 years ago. Or a country that would starve 5 million in the name of developing a workers' paradise? Happened only 70 years ago. Lots of awful things happened in the 20th century.

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: However, unlike other countries which have fallen into anarchy or despotism, or simply dissolved,
Wait, wasn't it AMERICA who bravely opposed the Soviet Union, reduced the level of living for millions with its weapon program, and then complained than communism cannot satisfy human needs? Right after WWII, when the most developed part of our country was destroyed and right after we lost 20 millions? You people are such humanists
So are you taking credit for this or not? :roll:
My guess is "not". Otherwise you would have to investigate what happened to the people... But never mind.

[Mapraputa Is]

That would be one option. Another would be not posting them, given that they seem to serve no useful function in this thread. Or do they? Apparently the original motivation for this thread was to see if people would be upset that you were posting random line noise. Perhaps you are unsatisfied with the inital results, and are trying to start arguments with more people?
Jim, I am trying to keep my mouth closed all this time. I really do. I am so happy I WAS NOT born in this birthplace of democracy, and I never said that, right? But when I read "the noblest words ever written" -- about a man who had to remind that all people are born equal in --1960s!!! How exactly you want me to react?

[Joe Pluta]

Wait, wasn't it AMERICA who bravely opposed the Soviet Union, reduced the level of living for millions with its weapon program,
The Soviet Union destroyed itself in trying to keep up with America. You want to say America caused it? Fine. But we didn't reduce the level of living for millions - the Soviet government did. That was their choice.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

But when I read "the noblest words ever written" -- about a man who had to remind that all people are born equal in --1960s!!! How exactly you want me to react?
Cordially would be a good start. Exactly what about this situation bothers you? That we had civil rights issues a half century ago? These sorts of issues continue on throughout the world to this day. Racial strife is second only to religious strife throughout the world, and each is as savage and senseless as the other.
And don't tell me about the equality of the Soviet state. Stalin's purges were only a few decades earlier. And Afghanistan and Chechnya come immediately to mind as recent examples of oppression of indigenous peoples by the Soviet or Russian military.
How do I want you to react? With some respect for my country. If you don't believe it to be the greatest country in the world, that's fine, but it's no excuse for incessantly antagonistic behavior.
Joe
[ January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Mapraputa Is]

But we didn't reduce the level of living for millions - the Soviet government did. That was their choice.
Sure. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. It was our choice. You people would nuke us and then never regret about it, right?
And don't tell me about the equality of the Soviet state.
Why not, Joe? It never occurred to me during all my Soviet life to ever ask what nationality the next girl is. In fact, I was ashamed to ask this question. If I decided to make any profound conclusion on this ground, I would have my face slapped, and this would be GOOD.
I am thinking a lot about this kind of things lately, and I have to admit that all the best what is in me, is because of communistic ideology. Disgusting, no?
How do I want you to react? With some respect for my country. If you don't believe it to be the greatest country in the world, that's fine, but it's no excuse for incessantly antagonistic behavior.
Joe, I respect your country. What you mistake for "incessantly antagonistic behavior" is a simple desire to make it even better. There is no need to make an enemy out of me.

[Thomas Paul]

Post World War II was an interesting situation. The US was interested in good relations with the USSR up to about 1948 when the USSR took over Czechoslovakia and launched the Berlin blockade. That was probably the offical start of the Cold War. And although Map talks about US nuclear weapons, the fact is that the US nuclear weapons program in 1948 was hardly a threat to the Soviets who had huge armies within a short walk of half of Europe's capital cities (the ones that they didn't already occupy). The Soviets spent their money on building a huge military and a huge nuclear weapons capability far beyond what they needed for their own protection.
Now some of that was simply because the USSR was a psychotic country. Paranoia throughout the government led them to overestimate US production capabilites. For example, GRU estimates of US tank production were 10X what the US was actually capable of building. This was due to fear of underestimating and abuse from political leaders who insisted that the figures be ready today. This led the Soviets to build more tanks than were logically neccessary for defense. You can hardly blame the US for that.
Interestingly, the US was rapidly demobolizing after World War II. US defense speding was on a steep decline. We went from almost 40% of GDP spent on the military to less than 5%. How this could be viewed as a threat to the USSR is a mystery to me. The USSR has a larger military and, once their nuclear weapons program got started, more nuclear weapons than the US. That was their choice, not ours.
As far as eqaual treatment for all in the USSR, why not ask the Jews how they were treated in post WW2 Russia? Kruschev even used the ill treatment of Jews within the USSR as proof of his pro-Arabism when he visitied Middle Eastern countries.
I imagine that you have no memories of life in the USSR during the 1950's. Perhaps you are romanticizing the Soviet state a bit?

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Could you imagine a country that would kill 6 million people because of their religion? Happened only 60 years ago. Or a country that would starve 5 million in the name of developing a workers' paradise? Happened only 70 years ago. Lots of awful things happened in the 20th century.

Yeah, but the difference is that most of these other countries (Germany, Russia, etc.) understand that these aspects of their history are indicative of a larger human evil, and not, as some here have suggested, further proof that their country is the greatest on earth.
Alan

[Mapraputa Is]

Now some of that was simply because the USSR was a psychotic country. Paranoia throughout the government led them to overestimate US production capabilites. For example, GRU estimates of US tank production were 10X what the US was actually capable of building. This was due to fear of underestimating and abuse from political leaders who insisted that the figures be ready today. This led the Soviets to build more tanks than were logically neccessary for defense. You can hardly blame the US for that.
Maybe you are right, Tom. Just do not forget that WWII looked a little different from our side.
As far as eqaual treatment for all in the USSR, why not ask the Jews how they were treated in post WW2 Russia?
Ask them, I do not want to talk for other.
Когда б я родился в Германии в том же году,
Когда я родился, в любой европейской стране:
Во Франции, в Австрии, в Польше, - давно бы в аду
Я газовом сгинул, сгорел бы, как щепка в огне.
Но мне повезло - я родился в России, такой,
Сякой, возмутительной, сладко не жившей ни дня,
Бесстыдной, бесправной, замученной, полунагой,
Кромешной - и выжить единственно здесь лишь
был шанс у меня.
(1996)
Alexander Kushner.

[Mapraputa Is]

Alan: Yeah, but the difference is that most of these other countries (Germany, Russia, etc.) understand that these aspects of their history are indicative of a larger human evil, and not, as some here have suggested, further proof that their country is the greatest on earth.
You got it just right, as usual.
You can throw "5 million" or "6 million" or whatever number on me, but I am not proud of it, so what's the point?

[Jim Yingst]

[Map]: But when I read "the noblest words ever written" -- about a man who had to remind that all people are born equal in --1960s!!! How exactly you want me to react?
First, with something other than an intent to insult, which you yourself acknowledged. Second, by recognizing that Joe was talking about Dr. King when he said noblest. You apparently saw some need to attack the US in response, and it struck me as rather offtopic (to the extent that this thread had any topic). Yes, racism is bad, and parts of US history are shameful in this respect. How is this relevant to Joe calling Dr. King's words noble, which is apparently what set you off? Was Dr. King less noble because America still had problems with racism? I don't understand the connection. Frankly it looks to me like you're mad about something and looking to lash out. Mad about being corrected over Mr vs Dr? Well, I'm sorry that these cross-cultural language issues occur sometimes, but I don't see anything in the replies that warrants attacking the US.
[Alan]: Yeah, but the difference is that most of these other countries (Germany, Russia, etc.) understand that these aspects of their history are indicative of a larger human evil, and not, as some here have suggested, further proof that their country is the greatest on earth.
I understood Joe's reply to indicate that it wasn't the racism , but the ability to progress from racism, that is a good thing. And Joe didn't say greatest on earth, not there anyway. You can argue the validity of his arguments, sure, but let's not mischaracterize them. And let's recall that at this point in the conversation it was Map who'd decided to make this a US vs. Russia issue. Is it necessary that we reenact these fights any time someone mentions the US or Russia?
[Map]: You can throw "5 million" or "6 million" or whatever number on me, but I am not proud of it, so what's the point?
Joe and Tom and the rest of us aren't proud of racism in America either. So what's your point?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Alan Labout:
Yeah, but the difference is that most of these other countries (Germany, Russia, etc.) understand that these aspects of their history are indicative of a larger human evil, and not, as some here have suggested, further proof that their country is the greatest on earth.

Are you suggesting that Americans are proud of their racist history? That is certainly not the point. What we are proud of is the fact that we changed. We are proud of the fact that today race relations are much better than they have ever been and that with every passing year our racist history feels more like ancient history.
Might I remind all of you of the quote from Map that started this discussion:
"In 1950-s America did not allow blacks in her academic institutes, yet we are to belive that America is The Greatest Country In The World."
So Map is saying that because black people were ill-treated 50 YEARS AGO that the US is not the greatest country in the world TODAY. That was what led to my comment about Ivan the Terrible. I challenge you to find a major world power with a better history in the last 100 years than the USA. Russia? Don't make make laugh? Germany? France? England? Which country do you think has a better history in the last 100 years than the USA?

[Mapraputa Is]

Tom: I imagine that you have no memories of life in the USSR during the 1950's. Perhaps you are romanticizing the Soviet state a bit?
I am not so old, and you know that.
One day I found my grandmother's letters, and I typed them all, just to have them saved in case something happens.
She was 23 when she gave a birth to my mother, and she died shortly after. It was in 1935.
What really pissed me, was that I could easily relate to her letters written in 1931, 1932, 1933... I even recognized my own voice!

[Mapraputa Is]

Jim: First, with something other than an intent to insult, which you yourself acknowledged.
I apologize for that.
Second, by recognizing that Joe was talking about Dr. King when he said noblest. You apparently saw some need to attack the US in response, and it struck me as rather offtopic (to the extent that this thread had any topic).
It did not.
Yes, racism is bad, and parts of US history are shameful in this respect. How is this relevant to Joe calling Dr. King's words noble, which is apparently what set you off? Was Dr. King less noble because America still had problems with racism? I don't understand the connection. Frankly it looks to me like you're mad about something and looking to lash out. Mad about being corrected over Mr vs Dr? Well, I'm sorry that these cross-cultural language issues occur sometimes, but I don't see anything in the replies that warrants attacking the US.
Oh my God. You think I care about "being corrected over Mr vs Dr?" I would utter whatever sequence of sounds local people read as a manifestation of respect, and I would type the same sequence with equal enthusiasm. You see a problem where there is no one.

[Jim Yingst]

You think I care about "being corrected over Mr vs Dr?
It was just a guess, since that part of the conversation inspried you to "I apologize for not being born here" and "Do you allow a possibility that not everybody is being born with an American mind? Do we need to apologize for this?", and shortly afterward you turned the thread into US vs. Russia. If your motivation was something else, sorry, it seemed like a reasonable guess though.

[Joe Pluta]

Map: Joe, I respect your country.
I am unable to discern that from your posts.
Joe

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Are you suggesting that Americans are proud of their racist history? That is certainly not the point. What we are proud of is the fact that we changed. We are proud of the fact that today race relations are much better than they have ever been and that with every passing year our racist history feels more like ancient history.

No that's not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that for some reason Americans believe that they are the only ones who recognize their mistakes and learn from them. Does Germany still have concentration camps? Does the Soviet Union still have gulags? Or totalitarianism? Of course America learns from its mistakes and works to correct them. What country doesn't?! This is not a feature that is unique to the U.S. and it is certainly not a criterion for a "Great" country.
Which country do you think has a better history in the last 100 years than the USA?
This is one of the most simplistic questions I have ever heard. What do you mean by "better"? Are you one of those types who draw a line down the middle of the page of world history with one side marked "good" and the other "bad". If so, then you are much more prepared than me to discuss which countries in the world have "better" histories than that of the U.S. Unfortunately, world history--even of the last 100 years--is much more complex than oversimplified notions of good and bad. And I think this American way of looking at the world is what grates on the rest of the world's sensibilities.
Alan
[ January 24, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]

[Axel Janssen]

Sometimes posters in those "more serious" threads in MD look like a bunch of old women and men beating each other with their walking stick.
... and sometimes there are very interesting things to find here.
... and all of you are nice people most time.
peace
Axel

[Mapraputa Is]

Jim: How is this relevant to Joe calling Dr. King's words noble,
Jim, he did not call Dr. King's words "noble". He called them "the noblest words ever written". Do you see the difference?