Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You nailed it in a nutshell: despite surface differences; affluent people tend to have a lot in common with one another i.e. strong work ethic, a demand for law and order, sobriety, respect fior education as well as a lack of childish machismo.
I do think you overstate how much affluent people value sobriety (not really) and you do seem to have a particular obsession with machismo or the lack thereof, but otherwise you're correct. Certainly with regard to Switzerland. .
I got an email at work today from a vendor our company works with, and at the bottom of her email, in her signature line, underneath her contact information, it said:
"In diversity, therein lies our strength"
This misguided dogma that seems to have seeped into our culture is indicative of why our country is headed so far in the wrong direction.
What we should be saying is, "In unity, therein lies our strength".
Group think leads to lemmings which leads to failure.
Agreed. Their Illegal Alien Crime Wave pretty much killed their mantra of simply coming here to work and looking for a better life.
There is indeed a vast cultural divide between America and the lawless 3rd world cultures.
What about the crime wave during the 1970s? WAY worse than the "illegal alien crime wave" (during which crime oddly decreased?).
As for 3rd world lawless cultures, VIOLENCE IS SEEN IN ALL CULTURES!
Why are people so anti-third world? You don't know anything about it, year throw around terms like "3rd world ideals" or "lawless 3rd world cultures" things in which YOU HAVE NO CLUE. When pressed against a wall, you post up articles of crimes.
What about Tim McVeigh, the unibomber, Charles Manson...they were a part of the first world.
It's fine if you discuss policy. Sure, anti-illegal because of policy, yet this should be different than harboring anti-immigrant feelings.
As for 3rd world lawless cultures, VIOLENCE IS SEEN IN ALL CULTURES!
Why are people so anti-third world? You don't know anything about it, year throw around terms like "3rd world ideals" or "lawless 3rd world cultures" things in which YOU HAVE NO CLUE. When pressed against a wall, you post up articles of crimes.
What about Tim McVeigh, the unibomber, Charles Manson...they were a part of the first world.
.
Of course violence is seen in all cultures....EVERYTHING is found in all cultures. The degree, however, is not the same; and how these cultures REACT to what happens is also vastly different from one society to the next.
You used the examples of McVeigh, Ted Kacyzinski, and Charles Manson. They 'happened' in the First World. But what became of them?
McVeigh was quickly tried for his crimes, executed, and buried in an obscure location with almost NO publicity. Kacyzinski and Manson are unlikely to EVER see the light of day again. (Kacyzinski having been turned in by his OWN BROTHER)..
All THREE of these men are 'pariahs'. They are scorned and reviled throughout our society, and have for all practical purposes been 'removed' from our midst. Their lives are 'over'. They are effectively 'non-persons'.
In SOME societies, the police would have been unable (or unwilling) to locate these people..due to corruption, societal tribal 'in-fighting' (those 'for' the bad guys, as opposed to those 'against' them)...and more than likely, these people would have a huge army of 'followers', hiding them out in 'safe houses', and protecting them from the police. They might even be able to live openly, 'defying' their own government, as their admirers cheered them on.
There is violence and disorder, corruption and oppression in ALL societies..but some have more than others. And yes, I DO know something about the Third World...and one thing is, they don't trust their police and their government..they trust friends and family.
So far, that's not the way it is here. Maybe it will be...but it isn't yet.
Unlike N Korea and a few other countries; an American is free to emigrate if he/she does not like living here.
E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One
Quoting Latn doesn't add anything to your argument. My point is that a variety of viewpoints can, no, is helpful. Just like in your N. Korea example, many viewpoints are not expressed.
Of course violence is seen in all cultures....EVERYTHING is found in all cultures. The degree, however, is not the same; and how these cultures REACT to what happens is also vastly different from one society to the next.
You used the examples of McVeigh, Ted Kacyzinski, and Charles Manson. They 'happened' in the First World. But what became of them?
McVeigh was quickly tried for his crimes, executed, and buried in an obscure location with almost NO publicity. Kacyzinski and Manson are unlikely to EVER see the light of day again. (Kacyzinski having been turned in by his OWN BROTHER)..
All THREE of these men are 'pariahs'. They are scorned and reviled throughout our society, and have for all practical purposes been 'removed' from our midst. Their lives are 'over'. They are effectively 'non-persons'.
In SOME societies, the police would have been unable (or unwilling) to locate these people..due to corruption, societal tribal 'in-fighting' (those 'for' the bad guys, as opposed to those 'against' them)...and more than likely, these people would have a huge army of 'followers', hiding them out in 'safe houses', and protecting them from the police. They might even be able to live openly, 'defying' their own government, as their admirers cheered them on.
There is violence and disorder, corruption and oppression in ALL societies..but some have more than others. And yes, I DO know something about the Third World...and one thing is, they don't trust their police and their government..they trust friends and family.
So far, that's not the way it is here. Maybe it will be...but it isn't yet.
The point was what became of McVeigh et al, but rather first world citizens commit such acts. Since others say that violence is a 3rd world trait, one would not expect to see it in the 1st world. What became of them simply means that handled the situation. This is not a unique perspective. This too happens all over the world.
I work in the South Bay in LA. It's one of America's nicest areas. Immediately out of South Bay is Compton and South Central...one of America's worst areas. The common prevailing thought is one of mistrust of the police. This is in the first world. Poverty, (at times) racism, and negative interactions lead to mistrust. In the third world, systematic poverty made possible by the 1st world and 3rd world elites who both benefit from said poverty, leads to mistrust to those in power. The same mechanism is in place in Compton. The segregation of the South Bay is not an accident. Those in Compton are wary of the cops due to system that essentially creates more problems. Less money is spent on schools than on policing. The number one crime is drug related and this leads to men going to prison. The number drug is marijuana followed by cocaine and its derivatives. Treatment is not an option, thus a large percentage of the population is incarcerated. Thus, people are less likely to be on good terms with the police considering the fact that the police are more willing to arrest a poor minority in Compton, than let said person alone.
Violence is not culturally ingrained. Typically other stressors cause violence. Since you know the third world, you would know that community is more seen rather than individuality. So less violence possibly? There is little violence in the villages of traditional Africa. The stresses of neo-colonial regimes have pushed violence out of the urban areas.
So again...violence is due more to poverty (lack of resources) and the means of how poverty came into exsistence (racism, ethnocentric attitudes, neo-colonial attitudes...). Not due strictly being from a different culture.
Quoting Latn doesn't add anything to your argument. My point is that a variety of viewpoints can, no, is helpful. Just like in your N. Korea example, many viewpoints are not expressed.
So, Fiat Veritas...let there be truth.
That 'Latin' motto is symbolic of the USA. Read that it is definitely a part of American culture.
Violence is not culturally ingrained. Typically other stressors cause violence. Since you know the third world, you would know that community is more seen rather than individuality. So less violence possibly? There is little violence in the villages of traditional Africa. The stresses of neo-colonial regimes have pushed violence out of the urban areas.
So again...violence is due more to poverty (lack of resources) and the means of how poverty came into exsistence (racism, ethnocentric attitudes, neo-colonial attitudes...). Not due strictly being from a different culture.
Firstly, I'm not sure I agree that South Bay LA is "one of America's nicest areas". I've visited, stayed at, and 'partied' at the homes of in-laws, friends, etc all OVER the area (and almost ALL of them 'ethnic minorities'), and while Seal Beach, parts of Long Beach, and parts of San Pedro are 'nice', I'm not sure that would apply to Wilmington, Harbor City, etc....So I'l let that one pass. Compton? Rough area, for sure. I have a god-daughter who's black, whose parents LEFT Compton for Corona years ago to escape crime...crime from poor blacks. What does this say about 'blacks and crime'? I'm not sure...but they didn't leave due to racism.
"Violence is not culturally ingrained"? Here we differ. You seem to take OBVIOUS conditions, then to construct a supporting REASON for what you and I both see; a reason that blames just about everything possible, EXCEPT culture. You can do that if you wish....and as a "soft science" (sociology), your points and mine can neither be proven, nor disproven....but it's pretty clear to me that violence has a cultural component.
How would you explain the differences between the Hopi and the Apache? Similar in ethnicity, yet one culture was very gentle, the other extremely 'fierce'. How would you compare the way the Amish people in Pennsylvania deal with 'insults' and mistreatment from their neighbors, as opposed to the early Scotch-Irish "hillbillies" of Appalachia? One group EXTREMELY gentle and willing to 'turn the other cheek', the other ready to 'avenge their honor' with fists and gunfire at the slightest provocation.
Remember the "Danish cartoon" incident a couple of years ago? As a result of a newspaper cartoon published in Denmark, Danish property was smashed, burned, and vandalized all over the Muslim WORLD, by angry mobs. Compare THAT reaction with...for example...the VERY blasphemous cartoons in 'Hustler' magazine showing The Pope..or Rev. Jerry Falwell..in revolting acts of sexual debauchery. Did rampaging Catholics, or Baptists, surge through the streets destroying property, or issue a 'fatwah' calling for Larry Flynt's death? I think not.
WHY not? You can call it what you like..."racism"...the Muslims were "poor"...the Westerners were "rich"...any reason you like. But I say a big part of it is that surging street demonstrations, kidnappings, car bombings, and general window-smashing public violence, are simply more a part of the culture of the Middle East than they're part of the culture of the West. These things occur BOTH places, yes...but to a far different degree...and with a far different level of acceptance.
When President Obama took office, he mentioned (as virtually all previous incoming Presidents have) the "peaceful transfer of power" from his predecessor's, to his, administration...and it's true. "Peaceful" and "gentlemanly" describes it..handshakes, congratulations, etc., coming from both the 'winners' and the 'losers'.
In many parts of the world, things might have been different. The "Obama people" might have chased the "Bush people" down the street, trashing their homes, burning Bush in effigy, 'gloating' over their victory, and tossing ALL 'Bush-ites' out of their jobs, and probably out of TOWN. THAT'S how power is transferred in some parts of the world. You can blame this on whatever you want...the 'legacy of colonialism', the 'vestiges of oppression', the 'anger at the West', or the climate. But I say that a great deal of this is simply due to the fact that some cultures just 'accept' violence more than others, and see violence as 'one way to handle things you don't like'....and I say that this quality varies widely among cultures...now, in 2009. Exactly what this is "due to" isn't my main concern...the fact that it does happen is what we need to recognize.
Last edited by macmeal; 04-29-2009 at 08:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
