| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Porthos |
Culture of the United StatesAll of you who are not Americans should definitely read this article, especially Fab and Benjamin. It supports what I have been telling everybody, and it will give you a very good picture of what our culture is like, while also discussing sub-cultures and strong regional differences. Please read the whole thing thouroughly and then get back to me. Thanks.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_culture |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Done. What would you like to discuss ?
One thing stroke me : « Antidepressant drugs are widely prescribed, as are stimulants such as Ritalin, a methylphenidate used to improve concentration ». We are told the French are world-beaters in the realm of drug-addiction. It seems we're not : US sales account for 70 % of all antidepressants sold globally — wine & chocolate are not taken into account. Anyway, as I understand the situation regarding ritaline, US medicine seems to prescribe it for children with attention deficit or hyperactivity almost automatically while French medicine seems to focus on psychopathology instead — even if 8.000 French kids are said to be given that pill already. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I barely started to read the article, but I was interested in what it had to say about personal space in the US compared to other parts of the world. And that made me think about elevator etiquette in the US. It seems to me that no one can enter or exit an elevator without the other people in the elevator moving to a new place -- it's as if the space in the elevator has to be re-apportioned so that everyone has the same amount of space. Does this happen everywhere?
Sometimes I experiment with not adjusting my position when someone leaves. If there are 3 of us standing at the back of the elevator and I'm the middle person, I'll try staying where I am when one of the side people leaves. Even if I'm several feet away from the remaining person, invariably that person will move from the back corner to the front corner, trying to increase the space between us. I found a transcript of a sketch about elevator etiquette from Saturday Night Live that I liked. It was funnier when it was being performed, of course. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/95/95celevator.phtml |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Ritalin beats a muzzle and a leash, which is probably what I would prescribe to an ADHD kid.... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
So that's why Americans always seem to be smiling and happy... 
Here, people generally try to fit as many people into the lift as possible. If there are a lot of people needing to get into it, people will move such that they are virtually touching everyone else in order that maximum capacity be reached. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Better living through chemistry, hon! 
My stepmother is a European psychotherapist, and she is always apalled that doctors tend to look at mental issues as disease processes to be medicated, rather than as personal problems to be talked out. But I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. After all, many mental issues really ARE disease processes that are treatable with drugs! The brain is affected by all manner of physical problems that manifest themselves in unusual thought processes or behaviors -- depression really is a chemical imbalance, autism and certain types of schizophrenia really are linked to too many neural connections persisting when they should have been "pruned", bipolar disease is another chemical imbalance. Even the tendency toward drug addiction has been linked to a paucity of certain types of neurotransmitters. And then there are degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and white matter disease that can sometimes be slowed with medication as well. You would also be surprised how much metabolic imbalances and nutritional deficiencies can alter behavior -- we see those all the time in my hospital! But while medication can often relieve symptoms of brain diseases and disorders, it can rarely cure them, and people need guidance about how to live with their diagnoses and cope with any limitations that may be imposed on them. My friend with OCD requires both, and he is still not living a normal life, although they are helping him. Mental illness is usually a very long, hard road; there are no "magic bullets". For people who are medically normal, but have psychological issues, that'a a whole different matter -- they probably need to stay OFF the drugs and focus more on talk therapy. After all, not only are they exposing themselves to needless risks like side effects, but the drugs may affect a normal person in ways that differ significantly from how they would affect the people they are really intended for. (I have a co-worker whose ex-husband fooled a psychiatrist and a judge into having her committed; she spent several months in a mental hospital on all kinds of antipsychotics -- she mentioned this about the differential effects.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I've heard that there are different types of depression -I don't just refer if it's with /wihout psychosis, but the biological opposed to other casues.
About your colleague, I find it weird that they committed her and gave her antipsychotics based on what said her husband. I suppose that the psychiatrist made an assessment then the judge made the rule for committing her based on the report. I was one year in a clinic before they've given my diagnosis, but it was much time earlier that they gave me antipsychotics - I think immediatley but I don't remember very well some of those months.You wrote all kinds of antipsychotics: as far as I know, there're 2 types and one other what is very helpful for some people if all the other ones don't help. The older types give many serious side-effects what the newer don't, but all give some side-effects. I didn't never take those older ones. For everyone it's necessary try some different ones until the best combination can be discoverd, then this will change again and not stop. But, for me it's different that your colleague because I was (am) young, and it's mostly diagnosed when a person is bit older, but for sure not by their husband!! For bipolar they prescribe you lithium for affective stabilisation but they can't find somethings in your brain for know exaclty to diagnose. My best freind's bipolar so I know about it (not all of course not). In schizophrenia they can see differences in your brain on the scans, but as you wrote, there're different types and they are very diverse. It's genetic as well. I don't know about the other types except for one other. They are making research. Also, there are some things the same in schizophrenia and bipolar, and so sometimes people with bipolar get antipsychotics as well, so your colleague had this medicines but it don't tell her the diagnosis (the medications they gave her don't tell it, I mean) I agree with you that it's better don't take medictaions. Last year I've asked if I can stop to take them, but after they replied no it's not allowed, I decided to test it. After some weeks they put me in the clinic and told me they know I didn't take them and they inject it in you. So it's absolutly not free choice and they watch all the time for checking and so it's not possible get off those medictaions. Probably when I will be 18 then I will stop because then I will be legally adult so I will get more freedom and live where they can't watch or know. Of course to force taking medictaions is very effetcive to shut up people and then the people can't clearly think so they can control completely them. I don't know what happened with your colleague. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
My friend's husband was very, very sick, but also very, very clever; he conspired to get her put away so that he could sexually abuse their children in her absence. Lovely, huh?
Both depression and schizophrenia are sort of catch-all terms. Not all depression is organic in nature; those types of depression probably shouldn't be treated with drugs. Some types of depression as well as bipolar disorder really are organic diseases, which is why drugs help. I would probably be tempted to listen to medical advice if I had a mental illness, and take the medications prescribed. However, I would also be choosy in picking a doctor who had my best interests at heart, and was also willing to work with me and listen to my concerns about treatment regimens -- which can certainly vary, according to your diagnosis and your doctor's philosophy. Often, it's your doctor's attitude toward you, the patient, that can make you have more confidence in his treatment, so if you feel like they are giving you drugs just to shut you up, you might want to get one who is more sympathetic to you -- that's probably not really the case, although it may seem like it to you, since you are a minor and much of your medical regimen is not under your control at this point. But I don't think simply going cold turkey on all your medications is the answer. I think you need to talk more about what they do for you, how you feel about them, and what your goals are before you just decide that pills are the enemy. They are meant to be your tool, and work for YOU. I have a friend whose daughter first showed signs of schizophrenia at 16, and dealing with that has been a nightmare for both of them. Her daughter often refuses to take her medications and ends up in the hospital after suicide attempts or other out-of-control behaviors. However, she is an adult now, and the mother can't force her to take her pills or make her behave responsibly. Getting the state to deal with the problem is a Kafkaesque experience, too -- the mother is supposed to be her daughter's medical guardian, but the state has not awarded her that power, and she feels that her daughter responds better in a structured environment, while the state refuses to designate her as a candidate for that (and she has been kicked out of numerous assisted living facilities). Sadly, the daughter doesn't cope well on her own, but that's where she is -- until the cops or the ambulance pick her up again. (She spends a lot of time in the hospital psych wards....) Conversely, my mother's uncle returned from WWII schizophrenic, and was institutionalized for the rest of his life. When attempts were made to wean him out of that setting and into a freer environment with more personal responsibility (like a halfway house), he couldn't handle it, and relapsed badly. So, everyone's experiences are different, and you will need to find what works best for you and makes you feel happy and productive and at ease. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
This demonstrate how the psychiatrists can be very stupid - for sure they don't know everything.
Yes, but with lithium, for the people with bipolar, if you will take this, and after you will stop then you will have more extreme problems that if you didn't never take medications. So somehow this medicine can stabilise but at the same time mess up your brain. I don't haev this medicine because i havn't affective symtoms.
Yes, listen but don't just believe it: be aware of this is an opinion not always accurate.
I don't chose the doctor, but my father ask me some things and then it's allowed to see the one I like the most. it's difficult tell them some things and you can't trust always because they have other motivations, of coures. In january we had discussions and they've changed somethings after I've told them the side-effects I didn't like. I think that my psychiatrist is okay and not stupid or something like this. Sometimes he's very nice and kind, but he's leanrd from books and university he hasn't illness so he don't know. I want to be psychiatrist and I think that I would be really a good one because I'm sufficiently intelligent for make those studys but also I've experience of what they try to treat so I think that the people would find it very nice and not be scared that I would fidn that they are mad or crazy.
Officially, medictaions are for help you, but there's other plans also but for sure you don't agree. There was a trial in the US for take off people with schizophrenia from their medictaions for see what will occur, I read this, so it's why I asked if can try as well. If you don't never try, how can you know it's necessary takeing them? Just accept what the doctors tell would be stupid.
This is horrible and frightening. Of course I don't want this in the future, but there's several types of sz and also every person is different. I think as well that much depend of how much can you see of your own situation: if you know that you've an illness you can better cope with some things, but if you can't notice it then it feel like you're well but the world make a mistake, or deliberatly put you in a clinic for repression/manipulation. Maybe her voices told her she must die, or she couldn't tolerate anymore the noise and fear, I don't know. For most people it's impossible tell that you hear voices because you think that it's very weird, mad or evil and mustn't talk about it, or some poele think everyone has. It's possible she's those thoughts. It's much easier write about it that tell it spoken. They can ask her to write a diary, for exemple. Then after some time, if she want, she can give some pages of the diary to the psyhciatrist. I suppose that it's a balance how much do control her the voices, or she can control them- this is a very important difference.
It can be that he had other sz what you have a lesser chance for recovery, and/or it was combination with trauma from the war. Also, the better medications exist since 1990s, and the older ones since about 50 years so before there wasn't medications. It's possible that they took out his thoughts so it wasn't possible for recovery; it's very important to not allow them removeing your thoughts, but it would be difficult to prevent when you're institutionalised long time, therefore it's very important to protect you from such things.
True for all the world!! Productive it's not so big problem: I have mostly good grades in a class with people one year older that I am and in the academic school. At ease, this is the most difficult!! But probably for all people, I don't know. But, not like the people you've described, mostly I'm very well and nearly never ill. How is your colleague? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
She's a wee bit bitter. She says the judge who overturned her original committal apologized to her for the system having failed her, and the psychiatrist apologized for having been fooled so well by her husband. she says she told him, "Yeah -- thak you for getting my children raped."
As for my friend's daughter, yes, she does hear voices -- mostly her mother's and grandmother's, and she can't stand it. She likes to do things like take every pill in the entire house to try to kill herself. Her mother is unfortunately at her wit's end, and comes pretty close to washing her hands of her daughter. Her daughter is plenty intelligent enough, she just isn't responsible enough about taking care of herself -- following her doctor's advice, going to school, keeping a job, handling money, and yes, taking her medications. When she takes her medications, she is able to live a much more normal life -- it's when she stops that she's out of control and self-destructive. (in many ways, not just literally -- also in her sexual behavior and in her choice of friends.) I have no idea what my great-uncle's symptoms were like, as I only met him once or twice as a child -- he was just a tall, thin man dressed in his Sunday best, eating quietly in a corner, when my grandmother would bust him out of the home for holidays and such. He didn't really speak, he just mumbled a little. They called it shell-shock, but at the same time, young adulthood is usually the time when schizophrenia manifests itself, so it may have been latent in him anyway, and being on a submarine during wartime just provided a convenient trigger. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
What happened to your friend show how the psychiatrists can make mistakes, and it's terrible that they gave her so many medications. it's evident that they didn't correctly assess and that it's because there was a plan and so they are manipulated. Exactly this why must you be careful. Hadn't your friend a lawyer for defend her during /after the judge's ruling? It's never like this for people with physical illness: they have freedom of choice, not taken away from them, also not when they decline treatment. *Very* unjust and human rights are absolutly not respetced.
of course, it's horrible. Does make the medications soem difference, for exemple less volume (not as loud)? For some people the medictaion remove the voices, for others it will be lesser and bad with stress, and for other people there's no difference.But, if the voices are always loud for her, then she hasn't chance at all (my opinion) because it will completely dominate everything: can't hear what are saying "real"people, can't think, relax and also maybe she is told what must she do by them e.g. her medicine is poison or someone want to kill you etc..... i knwo that after suicide attempt, after and during sometime voices can be lesser, and it can be an order from the voices to die. I think that this things must first be resolved before they can expect she can "normally" behave, but nobody can see/hear them so they don't understand how truly terrible it is for her. Of course I didn't met her, but what you've told I can expect that it's possible that there are this causes.
There's no connection with intelligence: there can be someone with IQ 60 or 160 and more high /low as well. They tell, that if you've high intelligence you can better learn how to cope. I agree a bit but I think if you have IQ e.g. 160 and you can work only part-time in a shop or library then you will be sad and frustrated, but for someone with IQ 90 this work would be nice. maybe the daughter of your friend is very frustrated about this.
LOL you are my american mother? Also my mother ask me and Pascal about if we have sex/ want to etc.. (stupid, embarrassing questions!!!!) but she didn't noticed that Pascal is in love with his *violin*  I must tell him that a very handsome boy very often look at me and smile in my yoga class
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I suppose mothers feel they need to know these things. But once a friend of mine who had just met my then-boyfriend and his 14-year-old son came right out and asked the boy (who shall remain nameless) what he and his friends thought about sex, whether any of them sexually active, etc. I was shocked! The boy was obviously really embarrassed, and my friend kept trying to "draw him out", while I kept trying to "shut her up"! I told her afterward that I thought her questions were totally inappropriate, but she disagreed. Maybe she felt that as she worked in the world of psychology, she was entitled. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I told my mother when I had sex for the first time. God knows she had tortured me with all her sex stories forever!
Of course I was 19 and hadn't lived under the same roof with her for 6 years, so it wasn't that big a deal. (Plus, this is the woman who once told me, "Little girl, I have had more sex and done more drugs than you ever will." Thanks, Mom. Just take away all my motivation like that... )
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
I'd like to interrupt this moribund discussion to wish you all a
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY, MY FELLOW AMERICANS!! 
Please be safe, and make sure you contemplate what this country of ours is about and how we can collectively make it better. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I was, too, because I live right on the Hudson River on the Palisades, but it just started raining, not five minutes ago!  Usually my town and other Jersey towns on the Hudson like Weehawken, Edgewater, West New York, and North Bergen have pretty decent fireworks each year.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Happy fourth! I'm going in to work for a little while, but I didn't bother getting up early -- as you can see, it's already after noon and I'm just now having breakfast! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Oh HOLY MOTHER$%^&ING, %^&*SUCKING, C*MBELCHING, CRAPF***ING, BUCKETS OF ****SAUCE!!!
I'm sorry for messing up your post, Porthos. You'd think I'd have learned by now! DAMN! Quote, not Edit.... Quote, not edit... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Are you sure you didn't mess my post up on purpose?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Me?  Purposefully delete the post of a fellow libertarian who -- like me -- laments the fact that a distressing number of people in this country think the US is a democracy? I think not!
Again... whoopsies...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Lol. Okay. No worries. You're forgiven Jersey Girl.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ddog800 |
looooool... actually it always seems like everyone i know who are on those things are pretty unhappy 
what a ripoff :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
I thought the article to be generally simplistic, often silly and poorly written. For example, how can the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776, have been influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution of 1789? I understand the author is attempting to make a correlation between the FR and D of I, both of which grew out of the Enlightenment, but the sentence begins by talking about the influences there were upon the US. A remedial writing class might be in order, and generally the writing in the whole article is unclear.
Are "agnostic professionals living in urban lofts" a culture? Next we'll claim that goth teenagers who read Anne Rice books, call themselves vampires and dream of being Lestat are a culture too. "Yet even in the United States, certain cultural norms and values such as a belief in the virtue of honesty are generally shared by nearly all groups and cultures." My! Even Americans can value honesty, who would have thought? What a surprise that there could be cross-cultural uniformity of inherent values and that such a event could even occur in America! Sloppy writing and incoherent ideas are abundant - "Some rather controversial issues such as race were impacted by household income." Strange, I've had wide fluctuations in my household income during my life and my race has remained unaffected throughout. I have photos to prove it. What is the author talking about? Even the first sentence is confused. "The Culture of the United States is a Western culture, and has been developing since long before the United States became a country." If true, its cultural elements then are not American. America appropriated and became an extension of certain preexisting European cultural elements. Yet those elements are not American. Whereas drugs are prevelent in American society, are they really relevent to a discussion of American culture? Are they one of its key elements? How is the author making choices concerning what's a cultural element and what isn't, throw dice? And does anyone walk around in America with a ruler to measure the distance between oneself and others in proximity? Its an interesting curiousity, but what does this have to do with American culture? I usually like the Wikipedia and sophomoric tripe of this ilk I hope is an exception. It does little justice to the subject matter and its superficialities, paucity of insight and muddled thought are shameful and sometimes demeaning, mostly to the author. But then I wasn't educated in postmodernist America, so what the heck do I know.[img][/img] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
In a way, yes or a subculture at least. I'm from a professional middle-class suburban background; I'm from quite a different culture from someone from an urban working-class background, even if they live in the same city as me and even if we're both white.
I think it's saying that, although the United States is a very diverse country which contains many regional and social differences in culture, there are some values which are generally shared by all Americans, regardless of their background.
What it's saying is that there was American culture before the the United States became an independent country. I don't find this suggestion unreasonable at all. Although American culture is largely European-derived, it is not congruent with that of any European region, and wasn't even before independence.
It's about social interaction. In some cultures, people tend to stand/sit much closer to the people they're talking to. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
To me, I associate the following attributes with america: brashness, impatience, informality, innovation, vulgarity, rapacious and unashamed commercalism.
I know this is an unfair caricacture of what it is to be an American. On the other hand, I cannot associate the values which I hold dear with that of an American - tradition, politeness, deference, gentle obscurantism. There is a singular aspect of american culture which endears to me greatly and that is the national game - baseball. In fact, I think I would have become a baseball nut if I was exposed to the game early. Poring through the back pages of a decent american newspaper, I would have discovered the joys of batting averages, league standings and box scores. I would seek refuge in the facts and figures of the sport and become a compulsive baseball statistician. I might have followed each baseball season avidly and become a quondam Yankee fan, taking supremacy for granted and baffled by defeat. I once tried playing softball for PE in school and I liked it. In fact, I'd say it is much harder to bat in softball than in cricket and the concept of fair or foul territory bewildered me. On the other hand, bowling is more multi-dimensional than pitching in baseball. But no matter - baseball is so intriguing and fascinating that it is such a shame that the static mysteries of american football have surpassed baseball in the popularity stakes. This is what I like about american culture, I suppose. After all, I can be anything but indifferent to america. I imbibe american films, music, hamburgers and nuclear warheads and am beginning to appreciate their national sport. I am actually surprised that people here frequently omit any sporting references when we are analysing different cultures. But sport is an intrinsic part of the national fabric and it is impossible to talk about a country's culture without diverging into their sporting pastimes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I'm afraid these values which you hold dear, and seem to think do not exist in America, (but do exist in a country like Great Britain), are based on an out-dated, antiquated, romanticized notion of the distant past. Those days are long gone, perhaps with the exception of extremely posh, English nobility, who are bestowed with titles and holdings. Loic, I often get the feeling that you would be ideally suited for life in Victorian times. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Josh, you are right.
Loic, for some reason, I always imagine you in the Victorian England. (It's not a criticism, though.)
However, I think you would have enough of hypocrisy as Zeitgeist soon and would make a journey through time to the future. Probably that's why you are here.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Actually, I thought that those values which I hold close to my heart can also be Confucian. Confucious, after all, did speak glowingly of the importance of respecting one's elders and defering to their wishes as well as the need to honour the tradition of ancestral veneration. Liz: It is not bad to be born in Victorian England, but I'd probably find their prudish views to be too repellent. What? No FHM on the newstands? What am I going to do by way of entertainment? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I beg your pardon??? In what way are those views Confucian? For aught I know, poor Confucius had long been dead when the New World was discovered.
And you wouldn't have written a brilliant article on Playboy...And you wouldn't participate in the exciting discussions about slightly risquι topics on the secret adult thread...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Liz:
Bingo. Spot on. Bull's eye. You took the words out from my mouth! But those strait-laced Victorians had ways and means of being naughty. We aren't just in the loop. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
A bit of latent sadism...or overt sadism...Jack the Ripper, perhaps? 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
Personally I'm not surprised Loic, the values which you mention that you hold dear are to me quintessentially Asian. No one can't be indifferent to American can they? We're like an 800 lb. gorilla sitting with you in an elevator. Hard to ignore. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
In a way, yes or a subculture at least. I'm from a professional middle-class suburban background; I'm from quite a different culture from someone from an urban working-class background, even if they live in the same city as me and even if we're both white
Sorry, but this definition of subculture is so broad as to make even the most trivial distinction a subculture as far as I'm concerned. Besides the subject was America not Britain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that class distinctions are much more pronounced in Britain. I think it's saying that, although the United States is a very diverse country which contains many regional and social differences in culture, there are some values which are generally shared by all Americans, regardless of their background. Thanks, I understood it. I was making two distinctions. One that there is inter-cultural uniformity of values, of which honesty is probably one of the more obvious, and second the sloppiness and incoherence of the writing. In addition, I think the condescention in the remark is still evident by use of the word "even". What it's saying is that there was American culture before the the United States became an independent country. I don't find this suggestion unreasonable at all. Although American culture is largely European-derived, it is not congruent with that of any European region, and wasn't even before independence I stand by the statement that a culture by name, which is to make it distinct, cannot be one before it exists, although there may be a plethora of nascent influences some of which may cohere or reconfigure into cultural elements, but we're talking about a specific cultural distinction here. American culture is so eclectic and so new that I've heard some argue that it doesn't have a culture of its own at all and may never. Distinct cultures are usually the outgrowth of relative isolation, with exceptions, and that may no longer be possible. Such is the nature of the global village. The essay seems to be more in the vein of travelogue than scholarly dissertation, so I'm not really trying to raise the bar too high for the author. It's about social interaction. In some cultures, people tend to stand/sit much closer to the people they're talking to. Thank you for the explanation, but I understood. As I stated before, I don't think of elements of culture being painted with such broad strokes. It wasn't about misunderstanding the reference, but about the relevence of it to the concept of culture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
So you don't notice any cultural characteristics which can be associated with different social classes? There has been sociological research into this subject, and it has generally found that, on the whole, working-class people do have a distinct value system from middle-class people. Although there are obviously many exceptions to this, this is something which I am aware of on a daily basis.
Interesting. I tend to think it's more that class distinctions are more accepted in Britain than in America because the whole notion of social class goes against the American Dream. Many British people identify as 'working-class' or 'middle-class' or 'upper-class' etc. (and perhaps view these as not easily changeable), whereas I understand that Americans generally don't. But I don't think that means that there isn't such a thing as class distinction in America, because as far as I can see, there quite evidently is and in some ways perhaps even more so than in Britain.
I've often heard people say that the Untied States has 'no culture' usually by British people who are being deliberately condescending. But from my position, I do see such a thing as an American culture which is distinct from the culture of any particular European region. I've known many Americans in real life, and they are not indistinguishable from, say, British people in all ways except dialect. There are certain codes for social behaviour which I associate with Americans, for example. And there are many things which are very common/popular in the United States which are rather uncommon here or anywhere else in Europe baseball, American football, Baptists etc.
I think it's very relevant. What is your definition of 'culture' then? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I think the difference is that while there are classes in the US, they are mainly based on income. So you can expect to be in more than one class during your lifetime. But behaviors and attitudes are less likely to be tied to income, and thus less likely to "mark" you as middle class vs lower class vs rich.
Of course not, since there was a good 170 years between the founding of the first permanent colony at Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence. Makes sense to me, too.
Hehehe -- hang out in the South for a while, loic, and you'll change your tune. Tradition and courtesy are hallmarks of that subculture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
One do not need to look no further than the writer who symbolically represented the Victorian epoch - Charles Dickens. Beneath his strait-laced facade, he was actually a rather perverted man who took pleasure in soliciting the services of prostitutes as well as cohabiting with another woman while still being legally married to his wife. He suffered from a host of STDs later in life. Not the sort of Victorian you'd imagine, eh?
I agree. They merely happen to coincide with traditional upper-crust English values. To be fair, I am also quite influenced by the mythical English values such as the stock I place on fair play as well as a natural sympathy for the underdog. This is why I am going to support Rafael Nadal in the men's final. Go Nadal! On the other hand, my love of tradition means that I greatly approve of the collar polo tee-shirt which Federer wears to play on court. Nadal should get rid of those awful singlets. He looks like a builder. So go Federer!
Quite right. I suppose it is possible to not be interested in anything which is american, but that has been a tall order since the end of WWII.
Are you then a typical well-mannered Southern belle with a winsome smile? One who brushes her teeth and says her prayers before going to bed like a good daddy's girl? This is my image of the Southern female. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
He was also a Unitarian at at least one point during his life nothing surprising about his behaviour then!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Heavens, no! I'm not a Southerner. The Old South extends from Virginia down to Georgia, and the Deep South from Alabama to eastern Texas. I'm a Southwesterner, which is a whole different kettle of fish. But half my family lives in the South, and they can definitely turn on the famous Suth'n Charm when they want to! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Actually, the sociological study I mentioned regarding values was actually conducted in the United States by Melvin Kohn. I don't have the experience of living in the United States to know whether or not the findings in his research reflects reality there, it certainly seems to ring true when applied to here. (Note that Kohn considers the working class to be the most populous in the United States). Here is basically what his research concluded: Middle class values generally emphasise internal standards, curiosity, self-direction, and tolerance for non-conformity. Middle class parents are likely to emphasise self-control, inquisitiveness, tolerance and consideration. Working class values generally emphasise external standards, obedience, respect for authority, and little tolerance for deviation from the perceived norm. Working class parents are likely to emphasise obedience, conformity, neatness and good manners. Although that study was conducted in the United States, I definitely notice those things in real life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Funnily enough, the most well-known Victorian writers inveighed against Victorian "values". It's not surprising that they weren't valued that much by their contemporaries as, say, Lord Alfred Tennyson. Tennyson could be considered a typical Victorian poet - his poems are beautiful on the surface but they are empty inside. (Pardon my bluntness if there are admirers of Tennyson around.) For these reasons, I wouldn't regard Dickens as *the* quintessential Victorian writer - he only happened to live during that era. Just like Oscar Wilde.
When I said that your views were outdated, I wasn't referring to the values you hold dear but to your stereotypical and slightly fallacious preconceptions of the United States. Your values aren't outdated to me because I was raised according to those principles, too. However, I'm fully aware of the fact that they seem to be ridiculously old-fashioned to most people in the western world (in Central- and Eastern Europe as well).
Exactly. That's how my dad was raised. As far as good manners are concerned, working class, middle class and upper class people don't have exactly the same concept of it. I can notice the significant difference in the case of my parents - my dad from working-class background and my mum of upper class ancesrtry. I can't really explain the difference in plain words but it feels.
Haha. Isn't the US real life? (I see what you mean - I just couldn't resist that. )
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Actually, we're supposedly the nation of the middle class. Haven't you seen Gods and Monsters?
Not a sociologist, but I've hung out with peers of all groups from rich to poor, and I have not noticed any major differences in attitudes or manners. But that may be a function of my age group. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Well, our idea of "middle class" is a totally different animal than that spoken of by Brits like Benjamin. They're speaking of a deeply entrenched class system almost like a caste system, with its origins in post-Fuedal Europe, whereas ours is the product of a colonial culture based on resentment against class distinction and privelage. "Middle Class" for us just means "in between rich and poor", or "of average income", which is where most Americans lie. Benjamin's "middle class" is the social class that arose after fuedal Europe, comprised of merchants and wealthy people from what was then "new money", and not associated with the landed nobility or "aristocracy". And most everyday people would be called "working class", even if they're white collar workers. I was born into the lower class. I'm currently in the middle class, although probably "lower-middle class", and in ten years, I will most likely be in the "upper-middle class", while all the while, my outlook, attitudes and manners remain the same. P.S. - Uriel, I wasn't explaining the different definitions for your benefit, as I know you're well familiar with the differences. England is just as alien of a country in my eyes as Germany, or the Netherlands, or any other western European country for that matter. The only thing we share seems to be language, because culturally, architecturally, culinarily, climatologically, racially, politically, economically, England is much more like continental northern European countries than it is like the U.S. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Precisely. They may remain working class unless they become more middle class as a result of you going to university (since university is a place of middle class values). Judging by everything you've written on this forum, it's fairly obvious to me that you've been brought up with working class values like what Melvin Kohn described. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I don't think you can become middle class merely as a result of going to university if you are truly working class. Even if you manage to, it will most probably remain a facade. There are people with clearly working class, middle class and upper class values at university, too. Although they might try their best to instil middle class values in you, most students just don't give a toss either way. University is not a place for indoctrination unlike, say, primary and probably secondary school. I think it's too late to annihilate social differences at university. Our class system was successfullly destroyed during the 40-year-long communist rιgime. (Mind you, it was the only advantage of the system.) However, class values seem to have come into the fore again - but it isn't about aristocracy anymore but rather meritocracy. Members of the old aristocracy have neither money nor prestige. It's the world of the nouveau riche, most of whom I can't stand. I find it ridiculous when they buy titles of nobility. They obviously fail to understand that nobility doesn't lie in the title. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Oh yes, I see what you mean. You're right going to university does not necessarily make a person from a working class background middle class. However, I can think of some people who, despite being evidently from a working class background, have clearly become middle class during the course of their life. One example is the man who has just become deputy headteacher at the school which I've just left. He was grew up in a working class background in about the 1950s in Scotland (which seems to conjure up a rather grim image for some reason, lol). He went to university, became a history teacher, and has now become the deputy headteacher at one of the most prestigious state schools in England. He's become middle class. I don't think that one could really say that he's working class anymore. I agree though that this sort of class transition probably doesn't really happen very often. I also agree that being from a working class background and becoming middle class probably requires considerable effort, and isn't necessarily desirable anyway.
I know what you mean the nouveau riche can be rather annoying. It's kind of similar here, actually the old aristocracy don't really carry a huge amount of prestige anymore as far as most people are concerned. They don't have a huge amount of money either many of them are broke from trying to maintain their country estates, which no-one would want to buy if they tried to sell them. It's more about how they perceive themselves.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
But that is not what I meant. There's no concept of "working class" in America like that of Britain. We have "lower-class" which basically just means you're poor. Everything is based on income. All of our accents and attitudes intersect, regardless of our income group. When I said my values have remained the same, I was saying that they haven't changed over the course of my life and that they are the same, regardless of how much money I have, because there isn't a noticeable difference between income groups (classes) in terms of values or attitudes. In Britain, I would definitely be thought of as "working class", and my values and attitudes mirror those of the British working class, but such a thing does not exist here, so my mentality is shared by the lower class, and the middle class, which both work to make a living, and make up something like 95% of the population. I won't become more "middle class" in the British sense upon going to university, as I've already been exposed to the intellectual elitists worldview for countless years now, on account of personal reading. I know more of economics and history than many history or econ undergraduates do, only because of extensive reading. Likewise, you probably know more of linguistics than do many second year undergraduate linguistics majors. My worldview is drastically different from that of the general American population, and 99% of my peers, because I have a great deal more knowledge of the world around me than they do, when their knowledge of the economy or geo-politics or political parties is limited to their daily intake of headline news stories on CNN. For instance, one of the strongest indicators of a President's approval rating will be the national average gas price, because most Americans honestly believe that the president somehow controls gas prices, and is capable of reducing or raising global supply and demand. The majority of people I come accross honestly believe that it has become harder to make a living, and that we're poorer than the previous generations. Most people don't know what a calorie is, etc...... So, with the advantage of superior knowledge of the world around me, I have very different views from the average person, and even from the average well-educated, upper class person in many cases, although hopefully they're a little less gullible and misinformed than the masses. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I meant that you have authoritarian tendencies linguistic prescription, a desire for clear answers, acceptance of the Bible is the inerrant word of God, reluctance to tolerate homosexuality... the list goes on.
You also seem to believe that you have a huge amount of understanding and knowledge about so many things perhaps indicative of the typical education level of people of your background more than anything else. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
If that were the case, then wouldn't I be sympathetic toward the American Republican party, and the figures like George Bush? Au contraire, I exhibit libertarian views, the polar opposite of authoritarianism. The difference between you and I, is that while we are both south of central on a non-traditional politcal spectrum, you are far to the left, and are essentially, a marxist, whereas I believe in individualism and the free-market economy. The "linguistic prescription" which I espouse is not authoritarian, but it only acknowledges reality, rather than the hypothetical views of academics in an ivory tower, who think in theoretical terms, rather than practical terms. Unlike you, I've always lived in a harsh, under-privelleged world, where such things are given no credence. In an ideal world, non-standard dialects would be accepted and no one particular dialect would be superior, but this is not an ideal world. I would it like it to be that way, but I'm a realist, and perhaps a bit of a cynicist. And I would definitely say that I "tolerate" homosexuality. I recognize that the practice is condemned in the bible, but so is pre-marital sex. That being said, I will not support homosexuality, but likewise, I would never support the suppression of it by political authorities, or the persecution or discrimination of homosexuals by individuals, because the primary guiding principle in my life is to treat others the way I would want to be treated. And I certainly wouldn't want to endure hardship. So, I treat homosexuals the way I would treat anyone else, with kindness and dignified respect.
I do, when compared against most of my peers or most people in society for that matter, as do you, Uriel, Liz, Greg, and nearly everyone else on langcafe for that matter. We do know a lot more than the average person. That much is clear. But I take offense to your condescending insinuation that most people from my background are ignorant. You have this air of superiority about you because of your social background, and without realizing it, you seem to look down on us. You as a member of the middle class are enlightened, and tolerant, and somehow more humanist and civilized than the working class masses. Your attitude toward us is almost one of a superficial parental figure, who thinks he has a higher level of wisdom to impart to us poor, foolish souls, much like how the Victorians felt about the "noble savages". You mean well, but also reveal a distasteful disdain for the values or viewpoints of the working class. I'm just as tolerant as you are in many ways, although you hold radical, post-modern, overly pc catering views "typical of people from your background". To be so obsessed with political correctness just seems phony to me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Not necessarily. I'd consider the Republican Party to be a rather extreme example of this, in the same league as groups such as the Scottish Christian Party, or the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
I'd still consider you to be more of a social conservative than a social liberal though. Although we're probably not thinking in terms of the same scale David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservative Party, has spoken out in favour of gay unions as an acceptable family arrangement, for example.
Precisely working class values.
Probably. But I still think you have an inflated view of yourself, which is perhaps influenced by your comparatively high level of education compared to most people from your sort of background. I tend to see myself as relatively normal, perhaps even a bit thick but equally one could argue that that's because most people in my family have university degrees from prestigious universities, and because I've spent the past two years at a school where at least half the students were evidently more intelligent and more knowledgeable than me.
You're right that I probably do have some sort of disdain for some of the ways and values which are commonly held by many working class people simply because it's not what I'm used to. In the same way that I probably have some disdain for how some things are done in, say, Iran because some of it seems just so far removed from the values which I hold. But I don't see anything inherently bad or shameful about being working class. Actually, I consider the working class to be fundamentally necessary for a functioning society. Many people in this country are very proud to be working class and so they should be, if they feel that way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I don't feel that I do know a lot more than an average person. There are certainly more knowledgeable and more ignorant people than me. (On Langcafι, there are only more knowledgeable ones, of course.  ) Especially, being compared to those who study the same things at uni as me, I'm sadly fair to middling at best (considering my command of English, let alone German and my knowledge of literature, linguistics, history and pedagogy, even though I am generally regarded as one of the "better" students).
I know the feeling. I experienced the same during my secondary school years. However, it's hard for me to imagine you in the same situation.
***my emphasis*** Haha. Your choice of this particular word seems to be a Freudian slip.
You are comparing apples and oranges, aren't you? Holding working class values is not a crime, whereas what some people do in Iran definitely is. Anyway, something about university students...Some of them at my university (not the German but the Hungarian one) like to play down working class people as ignorant and to speak ill of them all the time. Once I suggested that they should refrain from making such generalisations in front of me (FYI, half of my family is working class - the aspiring sort, though  ). Then it turned out that all of them came from a homogeniously working class family!
PS: I don't disdain any of the values, be it working class, middle class, upper class or whatever, and I don't find any of them peculiar or unacceptable. The reason for my relatively tolerant attitude towards different value systems probably lies in the fact that my family ranges from working class to aristocracy, which isn't a very common thing even in the Hungarian society devoid of traditional class distictions. (Basically, we only have "the working class" and "the intelligentsia", who are bashing each other all the time. ) However, having such a versatile background has drawbacks, too: I can't really decide which class I belong to according to the values I hold!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
If that tirade isn't bushism/sarkozism/berluconism applied to linguistics, then what is it ?!?
Linguistics never said that non-standard variations should be accepted. It just claims they are.
Why do you have to link homosexuality with the "bible" ???!!!??? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
I know where you're coming from, sort of. My parents used to be lower middle-class but now they're middle-class. My father was a carpenter for a quite some time but as an adult he started studying, and since about 12 years he teaches philosophy, history, ethics and religion plus something they call cultural studies. I was in my mid-teens when he started teaching and as the years when by my father developed, I suppose you could call it, but I wasn't a child anymore. My youngest sister on the other hand, got an upbringing that was quite different from mine. Simply put, I got a slap on my ass and she was spoken to. It's sometimes hard for me to decide where I stand. I have much sympathy for working-class people as I've seen my parents struggle, but I don't feel that I have much in common with them a lot of the time. On the other hand, I loathe people who look down on working-class people. Looking at these two...
...I could pick values from both, like self-control, consideration, obedience, respect for authority and good manners. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
On the one hand, you wish you to seperate linguistics from reality and sociology, and on the other, you try to compare linguistics to right-wing politicians????
You just contradicted yourself again. You say that linguists don't say non-standard dialects should be accepted, but claim that they are accepted?
Uh, the answer should be pretty obvious. If the bible is my moral compass, then it is only natural that I would look to it to define what is moral and immoral.
Yeah, I'm afraid that is far too generalized, as many of those values intersect class divisions, with too many exceptions to the rule.
In my opinion, you have an excellent command of the English language, at least in written skills, and especially for a Hungarian, whose native language is so very different from English. It would be like me trying to learn Finnish or Basque. Very difficult task, and yet you have risen to the occassion with honors.
That's a rather scary implication actually, that he would compare working class values to the values of Islamic fundamentalism-fascism. Such a comparison doesn't reflect too kindly on the working class.
You're basing that on an assumption. Your assumption is wrong. On nearly all social issues, I would be considered "liberal", and I rarely, if ever, side with Republicans on social issues, particularly with regard to their war on American civil liberties, a la - "Patriot Act". I'm a proponent of an end to the war on drugs (legalizing drug use), I'm opposed to gun control (those who support gun control are actually adopting an authoritarian stance by denying individuals a basic civil right), I have no opinion either way on gay marriage, I'm against the death penalty, and I feel abortion laws should be left up to the states. You're a collectivist-marxist, whereas I'm an individualist-capitalist. We're alike in that we are both fiercely opposed to authoritarianism, or anything leaning in that direction, but we differ on economic views, where my economic views would be right-wing and yours would be left-wing.
I don't think so. I'm leagues ahead of at least 95% of kids my age group in this country. It's blatingly obvious, and this includes people from our equivalent of the "middle-class". And I don't have any higher level of education than my peers or anyone else I'm comparing myself too. I'm still in High School, and as such, haven't even completed a basic level of public education yet. But, because of personal study and my own reading, I've learned many times what I've ever learned in school, and that is why I know so much more than my peers, and most adults for that matter when it comes to academic subjects (I emphasize academic because adults have more life experience than me and know more about general life topics than I as a 17 year old would). I'm leagues ahead of people within my age group who attend expensive private schools. They go to school, and learn only what they need to pass a class, whereas I pass with flying colors while rarely having to pay attention, and then learn much more on my own than I would ever learn in a school setting. Now, I'm speaking of the majority of kids my age. A place like langcafe is where I feel as if others are on equal footing, a place where I can actually converse with fellow intellectuals who share similar interests and are capable of understanding complex things that would fly over most people's heads. Here, I definitely don't feel like I'm the creme-of-the-crop, and if anything, I'm on the lower end of the "knowledge spectrum". I feel as if I'm equally knowledgeable as many on this forum, while I feel many others on this forum know a lot more than I do, at least about topics which pertain to linguistics. For instance, I strongly believe that out of a crowd of 100 average American high school students, odds would be that I would score the highest on a geography test. But here, Fab would put me to shame on such a test, as he is passionate about geography, and probably knows more than I do, at least with regard to the Eurasian continent. I feel as if you know more about linguistics than I do, and I would be willing to bet that you're better at math than me, but on the same token, I think you've lived a very sheltered existance, and probably only know a fraction of what I do about life outside of the academic sphere. In any average public high school classroom, chances are that you Benjamin would be leagues ahead of the other pupils. We all have our particular strengths and weaknesses, but overall, it's safe to say that most participants of langcafe are in the top 5% of the population in terms of intellectual ability. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I don't think he contradicted himself. My reaction was that he used "are" to mean "exist". But maybe he meant something else, such as, linguists aren't in the business of telling society how it should feel about non-standard variations; rather, linguists simply accept them as the valid variations of a language that they are (seen from a scientific point of view, free of society's stigmatizing of them). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Interesting how our discussions about american culture have meandered into the murky world of class divisions.
In my opinion, authority and prestige are pretty much derived from money everywhere in the world. With money, you can afford to buy a bigger cupboard to better hide the skeleton in it (if you want to hide your working class origins). With money, you can afford to climb the social ladder (get a seat in the Royal Box at Wimbledon, for example). With money, you can buy your way into an exalted way of life by sending your son to the great public schools before ensuring that he ends up at either Cambridge or Oxford. The English class division is a charmingly quaint relic of the feudal days. This brings to mind the mentality of Bertie Wooster where noblesse oblige was treated seriously by the aristocrats. I find it cute that accents, the schools you go to, the sports you play as well as a host of other considerations form a list of criteria by which one determines his station in life. Of course, in Singapore, the (secondary) schools you attend are important insofar as they provide you with an old boys' network which you might hope to leverage in future. Otherwise, it has negligible influence in determining social classes. To me, I'd consider Benjamin to be solidly middle class, if not a product of an upper-middle class background. I still remember that his grandfather is the chairman of the Edgbaston Test cricket ground. Either one or both of his parents went to Cambridge. He is heading north to St Andrew's (Lucky bloke! He can now tee off at the Old Ground). His comfortable background gives him the luxury to hold close to his bosom left-wing views which are untenable in this day and age. This is very much like the political convictions of Lord Louis Mountbatten, maternal uncle to the Duke of Edinburgh and the last Governor of India. Before he was snuffed out by the IRA in the 1970s, he was regarded by the Establishment as being too radical. Based on cursory descriptions of her background, I would actually consider Liz's social standing to be very much like mine. Her father works for the military albeit in the capacity as a civilian. My father is actually a police detective inspector who draws a very middle-class remuneration. Merely sufficient for our family to spend our holidays overseas twice a year travelling in the Asia-Pacific region: I have not been west of Burma in my entire life. However, my father did not go to University having stopped school with 'only' an A level certificate. Although an 'A' level certificate is practically worthless today, it was a valuable scholastic achievement in the late 70s when less than 5% of the entire population were degree holders. If one's social class involves his pedigree, I think I would be working class. If I am not wrong, my late grandfather only managed to rise up to become a corporal in the British Army (the British Armed Forces only quitted Singapore in 1972, almost 9 years after they had relinquished all control). My great-grandfather was probably a penniless peasant for why else would he have quitted China? But I would not mind being working class. I can imagine taking fierce pride with such a label. To me, it implies honest labourers toiling to make a decent living. I have mingled with many members of the so-called lower/working class when I was doing my national service and I realised that more often than not, they are much nicer people than those who come from the middle and upper classes. Their speech might be crude and their manners rough, but they would never backstab a mate. This is more than I can say for my middle class colleagues. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Hey, Walker - nice to have kindred spirits around.
That's a great achievement, really - it's not easy to study when you have to provide for your family. My father was originally a mechanic. He also started studying as an adult - my mother, who is a teacher with upper class background, had a great impact on him, too.
So do I. I find it especially ridiculous when people with working class background look down on working class people just because they have managed to climb up the social ladder and as a result of this they don't identify with the working class anymore.
I agree with Deborah - he didn't contradict himself. He used "are" as a synonym for "exist".
I agree. I know middle class parents (Hungarian and English, too) who are authoritarian and regard comformity as a top-priority value.
Thank you.
That's true - it's not a fair comparison. However, I thought Benjamin was referring to the the political and military situation there rather than Islamic values, and it makes his statement even more crude. Islamic extremism (not the values of Islam as a religion) and political and military extremism are closely interwined, though.
It's really interesting to me as the values that Benjamin holds are quintessentially working class and that of Porthos are rather middle class /upper middle class in my land. At least, they are stereotypically viewed as such - if you want to come across as upper class and intellectual, you just have to ostentatiously advocate right-wing values (well, not right-wing extremist values, just right or right-to-the centre).
Exactly. However, if there are some representatives of old nobility around, they will certainly notice that something is fishy about your son, and they won't have to rack their brains to find out what it is. You can't buy class.
Do you find it cute??? I really love the accent issue - some upper class English people (not the Brits in general, only the English) try too hard to posh down their accents. The result is hilarious in most of the cases. You can't buy a working class accent, either!
Actually, my family in its current form is quintessentially middle class by Hungarian standards. However, I might be of a different sociocultural complexion than Benjamin, who is traditionally and homogeniously middle class (or probably upper middle class), not a "working class / lower middle class + upper class = middle class" type like me.
More precisely, he used to be. He had left before the "Royal" Army was abolished. Those who stayed have recently been given their marching orders and are likely to spend the rest of their lives as happy, nonchalant middle-aged pensioners - with not too exiguous a salary.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Actually, I think I'd universally associate working class people with promiscuity and teenage pregnancies. I suppose a Durex condom survey could probably corroborate my suspicions, but I noticed that people from working class backgrounds are so much more experienced in that department.
I think the reason why the parvenus of society, who have recently shedded their working class clothes, resent people from the same background whence they hail from is because of the cringe factor. They see in the working class a mirror image of what they once were: crude, vulgar, easily excitable, easily aroused, uneducated and basically boors who respond to atavistic urges without so much as a cursory restraint. Instead, they now aspire to be phlegmatic, asexual and intransigently empirical to the point of stupidity. Exeunt the posters of near naked women on their walls; enter the bland and dull carbon copies of post-modernism paintings on the walls. If anything, it is people from the working classes who are the least likely to conform to the prevailing norms of society. They have no vested interests and have absolutely nothing to lose by going it their own way. Do you reckon the Chavs were being conformist with their sort of outlandish sartorical sense? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I wouldn't consider chavs to be working class. You need to work in order to belong there, hence the expression working class.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
If the majority of people in Europe are "working class", then it sounds as if Europe is a region of barbarians (sarcastic remark). Here, we would associate such things with poor people from the ghetto, who live below the poverty threshold, but not with the majority of working people. These people consitute a small minority, compared to the majority of people who work for a living, and have middle class lifestyles. In America, I'm "middle-class", but not in the sense that it was inherited, but because, I, like most Americans, belong to the middle-income (average) group. But people from my socio-economic background are not at all like Loic or Benjamin describe, although they categorize me as working class. I currently live in the suburbs, where most people have a car for each adult family member, and send all of their kids to university. This is typical, suburbanite, middle class America, with about 80% of Americans falling in this income bracket. So, I'm confused. Are not the majority of Europeans, or at least Britons, "working class", while only a select few are middle class, and only a tiny fraction is of the nobility? Because if that's the case, you portray your country to be a nation of poverty-striken, ignorant mongrels. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
The "typical" features that Loic mentioned above are not typical features of the working class but that of Lumpenproletariat. I can't imagine that the majority of working class people are like that. I know plenty of working class people and most of them are normal, decent, pretty regular. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Well it was always my impression that most Europeans were "working class". The average person is "working class", and about 5% of the population is "middle class" by the European definition?? Would this be roughly correct? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
When I was growing up, I believe my mother used the term "working class" to refer to blue-collar workers. I think "middle-class" for her meant white-collar workers who weren't affluent enough to be called "upper middle-class". | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I think our tendency toward individualism eradicates a lot of the class barriers that exist in other cultures. Since here you are simply what you make yourself, or at least that's our national mythos, ingrained in us from childhood, we tend to expect to have more mobility between classes -- as Porthos and I pointed out, several in one lifetime -- and there are fewer social expectations from other people to be a certain way or have certain outlooks. It's just harder for us to look at a given person and judge from their behavior where they stand in society. The dichotomies are usually less about being rich or poor and more about being rural or urban. You know, anybody can get a university education -- there are states that hand them out for free, so money is no barrier. Poor people get their degrees along with the wealthier. So education isn't an indicator of background.
The dichotomies I notice are usually less related to being rich or poor and more about being rural or urban. Seems like I usually see one set of values and attitudes in people who come from the country or from small towns -- regardless of their income -- and another set when dealing with urbanites, especially those from big cities. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
5 percent? A think it's a little bit more than that. I don't think there's any "European definition", though. It depends on which country you look at. Maybe in Eastern Europe the middle-class is closer to 5% but here it's a lot bigger. There are people here who even claim that we don't have a working-class anymore due to the increase in stardard of living. According to Gφran Greider, a social democratic journalist, 55-60% of the Swedish working population is working-class. I think that many working-class people see themselves as middle-class. Many 'workers' earn more than academics. I read an article called Working-class is middle-class. It said that the new lower class consists of the youth. It's they who have most trouble putting food on the table.
I was under the impression that it's the opposite, that anybody can not get a degree. What about people who say they couldn't afford to go to college? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Can't afford to go to Harvard, maybe, but junior colleges and state universities are usually within everyone's reach, unless they are really living hand-to-mouth. Plus the government gives out Stafford loans and Pell grants. You can even take online classes or correspondence courses like the University of Phoenix, which caters to people who work full-time and can only do coursework at night or on their own time. Many of the respiratory therapists and nurses I know were struggling single mothers who got those degrees precisely because they wanted to better their situation. Lots of people go back to school as older students, after they've worked and had kids. The state of New Mexico was even handing out free tuition courtesy of the state lottery revenue to any NM high school kid who was able to keep a B average, and I know several other states do the same. All university employees -- even janitors and groundskeepers -- at NMSU are entitled to one free class every semester. Scholarships and grants are available to many people as well. And some classes let you test out of them or apply work experience, which lightens your class load. I'm not saying education is dirt cheap -- it's not -- but you can usually find something within your budget. And if that's your priority, you'll cut back on other things to pay your way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I'm sorry I seem to have inadvertently compared working class values to Islamic extremism. What I meant was that I prefer my own values over the different values of other people.
I always have difficulty with how to respond to how some things are done in Iran. On the one hand, I feel that I should respect their culture and way of life, since I think that asserting the superiority of the way I would do things seems a bit neo-conservative. But on the other hand, I find much of what is done in Iran to be very oppressive.
You still don't seem to understand what linguistics is and does. And it would seem that you do not wish to either, since you so often seem to resort to anti-intellectualism when ever this subject is discussed.
On an American scale, yes. I imagine that Deborah's social attitudes, for example, would be considered a lot more 'liberal' in the United States than mine are in Britain (or Western Europe more generally). I actually see my social attitudes as being fairly mainstream.
(Emphasis mine). I find this sort of talk extremely arrogant and big-headed. Apparently you don't.
It's difficult to comment on that, because what you've said to Greg on this thread seems to suggest that you still don't really understand what linguistics is.
Doubtful. I dropped maths at the first opportunity (when I was 16), and I see myself as someone who is pretty useless at it. That's how I'm (sorry, was, because I've left now) perceived at school as well. Just yesterday, when I was on the boat from Calais, I was buying a sandwich for me and my friend he counted the money out for me, because he knew (as he said) that I wasn't very good at maths.
Admittedly, at my previous school, which was a fairly average state school, I got the best GCSE results out of a year group of around 250 pupils. But although I accept that I'm probably of slightly-above-average intelligence, I don't see myself as being so hugely far ahead, or knowing massively more things than most people, or being all that much more capable of understanding things than most people.
the underclass = the genuinely poverty-stricken people who are unlikely to be able to improve their situation in the foreseeable future; live in conditions which are sub-standard etc. the working class = most ordinary people the middle class = not sure what percentage, but it's not the largest group the upper class = the aristocracy; people whose families have owned large areas of land for generations etc.
I still think that university education should be free to students though with no tuition fees like in Scotland. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
It's interesting that Josh seems to be very much interested in linguistics but at the same time he detests and rejects the way of thinking that linguists promote. Right, Josh?
Because he's leagues ahead of people as far as self-confidence is concerned. LOL! (No offence, Josh.)
I don't know if it is so but all the Americans I've met were extremely confident. The reason for that might be the education system - what teachers instil in you at school. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that most American children were taught that they were unique and should be proud of themselves. That's completely the opposite of how most Central/Eastern European pupils are treated - if you are a bit different or if you don't have at least average skills in everything you are nothing. You can lose your self-esteem at school pretty easily. Then you are bullied (by teachers as well) on account of your lack of self-confidence. So, it's a vicious circle.
He said that you know more about linguistics than him. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I know. I not really sure what it means though when someone who apparently rejects linguistics off-hand then 'feels' that someone-else knows more about linguistics than they do. I don't dispute what he's saying; I probably do know more about linguistics than Porthos, or at least have a better understanding about what linguistics is and does. But it seems like a bit of a strange comment from him. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I think he was referring to your factual knowledge of linguistics not to the linguistic way of thinking - or maybe he meant both, I don't know. I think he is more conversant with linguistics than most people of his age but he is not able or most probably not willing to adopt the way of thinking that linguists promote. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I think Americans are natural marketers: they just do not flinch from self-advertisement and are very happy to publicise their strengths and equally adept at hiding their flaws. It is no wonder that they tend to ace job placement interviews in any international firm - they have the courage to sell themselves when others don't. I have no doubt Porthos is knowledgeable for his age. I would not use the word 'intelligent' because I do not equate general knowledge with intelligence. To me, being intelligent lies in the ability to solve a vexing Sudoku puzzle; to read theoretical physics in university; to solve the crossword puzzle in a train ride home and that is a very mentally demanding task as many can readily attest. I associate intelligence with numbers rather than words. It is not very difficult, in my opinion, to learn another language or to write beautiful prose. If one wants to find brainy people, he should bump into a physics or pure mathematics student. Engineers run a close second.
I vehemently disagree. Tertiary education is a privilege and not a right and the taxpayers should not be burdened with the additional weight of supporting a huge undergraduate class, most of them probably loafing around and partying and very much taking advantage of the free education system which they regard as their birthright. Whenever something is free, people would abuse it. It is in human nature and the price mechanism is the most effective method of rationing goods and services to people who are most desirious of it. If I am given the choice today of continuing to pay my tuition fees in full or receiving full state subsidy, I would still plumb for the former. Why would I want to stymie my university with a parsimonious budget and increase its dependence on the State for a meagre hand-to-mouth survival? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
No. There are different types of intelligence. Besides, there are mathematical geniuses who are extremely unintelligent and there are intelligent people who are hopeless at maths. Writing beautiful prose and learning languages might be easy for you but not for everyone. My cousin is studying engineering and economics at the same time and a friend of mine is studying theoretical mathematics - but they aren't able to learn a foreign language properly. They might not get their degrees in time because they can't pass an intermediate state exam and they can't really use the language in real life situations, either. Funnily enough, most people at my univerity hate linguistics because it's connected with maths in a way. There is some truth in it, though, if you look at things like Optimality Theory, analogy-based approach, output-output theories etc in phonology.
I agree with Benjamin - education should be free and accessible to anyone. I think only those should pay fees who are underachievers. We haven't had tuition fees yet but students are going to from 2008 onwards. It will be tragic because only about 5% won't have to pay. It means that even very good students will have to pay. I don't think there is one-to-one correspondence between tuition fees and the quality of education. In Hungary the worst schools and universities are in the private sector and you have to pay a lot for them. Students don't work harder, though, because it's not their money - it's their parents' money. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Hell, yeah, it'd be nice if universities were free! (Although I'm happy to report that my student loan statement came in today, and my current balance owed is now only $3900 -- from an original debt of $10,000!)
On the other hand, we have two sayings that might apply: You get what you pay for, meaning that things that are cheap or free are often correspondingly lower in worth or value; and You're more likely to appreciate it/ take care of it if you had to pay for it. Meaning if you actually have to sacrifice hard-earned cash to invest in something, you'll make damn sure you see it through. Whereas if you are handed things for free instead of having to work for them, you don't care about them as much or have the same emotional investment. (We used to tell people at the vet clinic who were giving pets away "free to a good home" to consider asking even a nominal price for their animal for the same reason.) As for American self-confidence, no, we don't all have it, but it is certainly considered a plus, and thus "selected for" socially, if you'll pardon the analogy to Darwinian theory. Reticence and self-effacement are not the virtues in our culture that they are in others. But it's hardly something confined to Americans; I remember the same qualities of boastfulness and brashness being touted in Beowulf, where warriors were expected to toot their own horns with boasts (real or embellished) of their prowess either around the campfire or before a battle. So you know, sort of the same idea as around a barbecue or at the office.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
But they are still able to come to grasps with the mechanics of a foreign language. On the other hand, many language students would be hard pressed to solve a simple mathematical equation.
I think it is a very European cradle-to-grave mindset here. For me, I feel that nobody owes me a living and I'd regard with a jaundiced eye at any university that does not charge tuition fees. For your information, out of the top ten universities in the world, eight are american and two are English (Cambridge and Oxford). All of these universities have huge endowment funds and exorbitant tuition fees - for those who do not have a scholarship or a study bursary, that is. I cannot quite put a finger on this mentality here that tertiary education should be free - I just cannot understand it. I can understand the case of partial subsidies for university fees - it is practically the norm in every country. But totally free university education? Quelle horreur!
Precisely. You took the very words out of my mouth, Uriel. Price is a value indicator and it serves as a very useful signal in determining product quality. If all universities are obliged to charge the same fee, how are discerning and discriminating consumbers going to make an informed decision?
True. Furthermore, aren't the fruits of our labour going to be much sweeter if we had toiled hard for it?
As I said, I really consider this sort of brash self-confidence as a virtue and not a character defect. I suppose the delivery is very important then; otherwise, it would come off as boastful braggings. There is a very fine line to tread indeed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
But you said it's easy!
All English (maybe British) universities charge tuition fees, as far as I know. Oxford and Cambridge are extremely expensive and only few people are scholarship holders. That makes these universities pidgeonholed as "universites only for the rich". I know that they are considered to be the best ones (allegedly St Andrew's is far better - it's no wonder why Prince William chose to study there, even though he could afford to study in Oxford or Cambridge). But they have a tradition to charge tuition fees - we don't. Lots of people choose not to study if they have to pay fees - or it's the parents who discourage them, I don't know. Lots of students have part time jobs in order to be able to pay for free (!) education, but a plenty of them drop out because they don't have time for both studying and working. For me, it would be impossible to work whilst studying - having lectures and seminars from 8 o'clock in the morning to 8 in the evening is just par for the course.
For starters, there is no such thing as totally free university education. You have to pay a lot for books, accomodation, food etc. Tuition fees just make it more difficult because we pay too much even as part of the so-called "free" educational system.
These are not virtues for us anymore - we are getting Americanised or westernised or how do you call it, really.
You are right, it isn't. It's just typically Anglo-Saxon - to take the piss. I've recently read discussions probably here or on Antimoon about "Why the French are using the word Anglo-Saxon all the time?". Now, I'm happy to report that Hungarians are using it all the time when referring to the English-speaking world. I know it's inaccurate, but we don't have another word for it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Only since recently. When my parents were at university in the 70s/80s, there were no tuition fees. Scottish universities do not charge tuition fees providing that you've lived in Scotland for at least the past three years when you send your application, or that you're from any other EU country except England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So I will have to pay tuition fees when I go to St Andrews, but they'll still be less than half what I'd have to pay if I went to a university in England.
Oxford and Cambridge are no more expensive than any other university in England. There is a maximum university tuition fee in England of £3,070 (I think) per year, and virtually all university charge that. Of course, in reality it costs a lot more than that, but that's paid for by the state. And you don't actually have to pay anything before you go or whilst you're there. You start paying back your student loan five years after you've finished your university course, providing that you're earning at least £15,000 per year. A percentage is simply deducted from your salary, and if you haven't paid it back after 25 years then it just gets written off. And if you never earn more than £15,000 a year, then you'll never pay anything back. So to be honest, although I'd prefer it if there were no tuition fees at all, and that we received grants instead of loans to fund our living expenses (like in the past), I don't really think it's all that bad in truth. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Yes, it's a relatively new thing. And it will be introduced in Hungary, too. Fortunately, it's not my concern - I will be if I once have children.
It's a bit better. I think we will have to pay immediately...but it remains to be seen. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Interesting. Here, the Stafford loan is also a government loan, but you have only a six-month grace period before you have to start paying it back, it accrues interest, and if you don't arrange payment on your own (monthly), the government will start taking it out of your income tax returns. You can apply for a deferment based on income or hardship, and also arrange lower payments over a longer period of time (usually they want you to pay it off over ten years, but you can sometimes arrange to drag it out over thirty), but to default on it entirely would wreck your credit. And unleash the IRS on your happy ass.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Actually, one British poster on another of my forums was astonished to note that Americans generally don't "take the piss", don't have much conception of it, and don't even usually know what the phrase means or have an equivalent to it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
You might do it but you don't use this morbidly disgusting expression.
By the way, this isn't the privilege of British people - Hungarians do it all the time, too. However, we don't use an expression for it in connection with the act of extracting the urine. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
No, I understand it just fine. I have a problem with one trying to seperate linguistics from reality, while simultaneously equating prescriptive views with authoritarianism. I would like to point out that I have no problems with non-standard dialects, but that I merely protest real-world ignorant intellectuals' willingness to encourage poor non-standard dialect speakers to use their language in formal settings, refusing to recognize that the real world does not see things as they do, and that an Appalachian dialect speaker would be slaughtered in an internship program on Wall Street because employers would regard him as an ignorant cracker from the hills, who is quite possibly, functionally illiterate.
Again, you can't seem to uncouple economic and social issues with regard to one's position on the political spectrum. On economic issues, I would be right-wing. I'm certainly not arguing against that. But on social issues, no one in their right frame of mind would cateogrize me as right-wing, even by European standards. On a non-traditional political spectrum (which takes into account both social and economic views), I would fall on the south-east end of the spectrum, which is where libertarian leaning individuals place. Social democrats (economic marxist, anti-authoritarians) fall on the south-west end of the spectrum, while authoritarian conservatives (the extreme end of which is facsism) fall in the north-east of the spectrum, and authoritarian marxists (like Stalinist-Communists) fall in the north-west of the spectrum. There is a square with four quadrants, rather than one straight line. Because I don't see how I have much in common with Hitler, although we would both be called "right-wing", just as you have very little in common with Stalin.
No, I'm just being honest with myself and others. You're taking the approach of one who deflects a compliment, so as to appear more humble in the eyes of observers. I quite honestly am far ahead of most people in my age group. I could find very, very few 17 year olds her, who have an interest, or much less understand any in-depth material on theology, economics, pyschology, linguistics, history, or political science. Nor could I find very many kids my age who could carry on an intellectual conversation with me, for lack of comprehension of my vocabulary. Why do you think I frequent a place like langcafe? Because I can find nearly no one my age who is capable of intellectual discussion that I find on langcafe! If you Benjamin, came to any one of the dozen schools that I've attended, you would be so far ahead of the other pupils that you could virtually teach the classes. Now either, you suffer from incredibly low-self esteem, or you're putting on a false air of humility, or people are simply infinitely more intelligent in Britain than they are in the U.S. Now I don't wish to brag, and I'm only doing this in support of my argument, but here it is in any case. In national standarized testing, I usually score in the top 1%, with exception of the math sections, where I usually place in the median percentile. This means, that I'm at least more knowledgeable, or more proficient in vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, language, and spelling than roughly 99% of the country's population within my age group. In intelligence tests (which I've had to take on more than one occassion because of the 504 or I.E.P. programs), however unreliable they are, I score in the top 5% of the population. In any classroom, I am nearly always at the top of my class (except in math). In many cases, (although I think it's illegal), my teachers had me not only tutor fellow classmates, but quite often teach the class. Now you might counter that I have an inflated view of myself, because I'm only comparing myself to others of an undeducated background. Yet, about half of my academic career has been spent at schools in more affluent areas, where the students were born to college-educated parents, and recieved a privileged upbringing. Likewise, the majority of those on langcafe, are very intelligent. Most of the people here have far more formal education than I do, however. I don't feel smarter or more knowledgeable than average on langcafe by any stretch of the imagination, and tend to see most people here as equal or superior. That's why langcafe is paradise in my eyes. It's the only place where I can actually discuss anything and be understood.
Benjamin, I won't to say this in a friendly manner, and I hope it doesn't come across as being too harsh, but you need to muster up the guts to take a stand on something, and be able to admit to yourself and to others that some ways of doing things are in fact, superior to others. Our culture and political climate which doesn't tolerate state persecution, and brutality toward women is clearly superior to that of Iran. There's nothing wrong, or neo-conservative about that.
In my opinion, you are far ahead of most people your age, at least when it comes to overall academic knowledge. Granted, in many ways, you are rather naive about the workings of the world, but that can be chalked up to your inexperience. We each have our own talents and weaknesses. You and I are at best, average at math, meaning that about 50% of the student population is probably better at math than we are. Yet, in other academic subjects, at my young age, I already know more than my peers will ever learn, either because they're incapable of understanding as much as I do, or because they don't care to take an interest in the subjects, and will thus never apply themselves to the same rigourous level of study as I have. If they want to know what I know, they would have to read like there's no tommorow, because only a fraction of what I know I learned in school. And because I'm naturally predisposed to learning subjects I excel at, I retain a lot more of what I learn in history class, or macroeconomics class, or the like, than they do. But, in math, I can be in the same class as another individual who excels at math, and I would have to study twice as hard and twice as much as he or she, because he/she is capable of retaining more of the information than I am.
Okay, this is what I thought. But the image you portrayed of working class people reminds me more of the "underclass", which is why I was perplexed. But what do you mean by "most"? Is that just a plurality, or are we talking something like 90% of the population? Is middle-class a small minority?
Right, and then there's also what we call "book-smart" and "street-smart", the former meaning that you're intelligent when it comes to academic matters, but somewhat lacking in common-sense, and everyday logic (which is the stereotype of most nerds, geeks, etc), and the latter meaning that you may not have more than cursory knowledge of intellectual matters, but are still very street-savvy and good with practical matters. I would say Uriel and I fall in between the two groups, whereas Benjamin would probably be nearly entirely "book-smart". It's actually quite common among people with above-average intelligence. Their brain is so efficient at complex matters, that it is actually deficient at everyday things that most people have no problem with, as if the brain is accounting for an imbalance. I have a bit of it myself. For instance, I learned how to read and write by the time I was 4 years old, but I didn't learn how to tie my shoes until kindergarten, at the age of six.
It's not impossible. You just have to be willing to put forth the effort. I go to school full time, and work 30 hours a week, and I do that without a car. Where I live, the public transportation system is horrific, and a bus will only come by every couple of hours, and in order for me to catch the bus, I have to walk about 1.5 miles to each bus stop. And I do it while struggling with a chronic pain disease and IBS. If I can do it, so can you.
No. It's just that one could be very gifted at subjects that require one particular use of the brain, while another person can be gifted in an entirely different arena. But you are right that knowledge does not necessarily equal intelligence. Intelligence is one's natural, inherent ability to acquire knowledge and make practical use of it. So, a person can be a genius, and yet because of unfortunate circumstances, never learn to read, and thus never acquires much knowledge. For instance, I know many children who grow up in the ghetto, who manifest much more potential than more priveleged children, and yet the latter group goes on to become much more knowledgeable, because of the opportunity to become educated. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
You still don't really seem to understand what linguistics is and does.
It isn't because of your economic views that I see you as a social conservative (by my own standards).
I cannot imagine how anyone who says 'the Bible is my moral compass' could be a social liberal, unless they have a very post-modern interpretation of it (which apparently you don't). You have implied that you view homosexuality as 'immoral'. Regardless of whether or not you actually wish to criminalise homosexuality, I do not see this sort of viewpoint as a form of social liberalism. Incidentally, as you already know, I'm going to America next week. One of my best friends has already given me a lecture on how I must not tell anyone there that I'm gay, because he's worried that I'd be lynched if I did.
It's just that you sometimes when you talk about yourself, you sound to me like a commercial advertisement. I'm just not used to people being so positive about themselves, and I as such see it as arrogance. If my boyfriend spoke about himself in the way that you speak about yourself, it would definitely be a turn-off.
Bear in mind that I've essentially only done French, Geography and Religious Studies at school over the past two years.
Put it this way for everything I'm remotely 'good' at, I know someone who's better than me. I'm generally seen as being rather good at French since I can speak it quasi-fluently, but I wasn't the best in my French class at school not to mention the fact that one of my friends in natively bilingual in French and English. I'm supposedly a 'good' clarinetist (e.g. I can play Mozart's clarinet concerto), but one of my best friends is absolutely brilliant, and I am thus overshadowed by her. My piano playing is horrendous doesn't even go down as something I'm 'good' at, although I do try when it's expected of me (musicians are generally expected to be able to play the piano at least to some degree). I try to be an artist, because I like painting, but I'll never be brilliant. In no way was I at the top of my geography or religious studies classes at school, and when I did English Literature the previous year, I was towards the bottom.
You don't view humility as desirable then?
I actually did that once in French a few years ago. But that was when I went to a regular school. But even then, there were at least two other people in the class of about 18 who were at about the same level in French as me.
It was a stereotypical view often held by middle class people.
It's the majority, but I have no idea to what extent. It's complicated, because not everyone can be classified easily, and because some people here continue to identify as working class, even though they have clearly become middle class to all intents and purposes.
So did I, actually but that's how old we are when we start to learn to read in this country, unless your birthday is in the Autumn.
It shouldn't have to be necessary though. I'm sure the US government has more than enough resources to give you and other students some more money. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Why do you keep saying this????
It's not fair to categorize me, based on your standards. Your idea of the center of the political spectrum is probably farther to the left than most people's, even by European standards.
One's own morality or system of values is a private thing, or at least can be a private thing. I never support a policy that would project or force my own beleif system on others who don't hold similar values. I believe drug use is wrong. But I'm all for the legalization of presently illegal drugs, especially marijuana. That's why I can hold religious beliefs that might not harmonize with post-modern ideals, and yet still be very socially liberal, because I don't tolerate a government dictating what people are allowed to do in their private sphere of life, so long as they don't harm others. In my eyes, that's an intrusion of civil liberty, and that smells of authoritarianism.
Lol, I'm certainly very confident, probably even by American standards, but I've never been told that I come across like how you described in real life. Perhaps it just seems that way on the internet.
And yet you would still know a hundred times more about politics, history, or most other social sciences than the majority of public school students here, even if they're currently taking those classes, and you're not.
Sure. There's always a bigger fish. But there's no harm in admitting that you're smarter than average. Who knows. Maybe you invest a lot of time and careful preparation in your posts, and thus seem smarter than you really are. I don't. That's why I come across as one who speaks very informally, or I might sound very "American" to you, because I write without really trying to refine my speech. I write as fast as I think, and don't give much thought to what I'm writing, as opposed to writing an essay, where I would actually think about what I'm writing, and try to polish my speech.
No, humility is a very desirable trait, so long as it's coupled with a healthy measure of self-confidence, so that one is not so humble, that he thinks less of himself than what he's worth. And there's nothing wrong with humilty, so long as it's sincere. But putting on a false air of humility is a whole 'nother story.
Most people here start learning how to read and write in kindergarten around the age of five or six, and can only really be said to read and write at a decent level by first or second grade. It's considered to be impressive to learn before kindergarten, although most children can tie their own shoes by the age of five or six, which is why I used the example by way of contrast. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Sure it does -- as long as you pay it back. How do you think we got to rich and powerful? Not by giving things away! This "I can't possibly work AND go to school" mentality some Europeans seem to have is certainly a major difference between you all and us. We consider it pretty common -- if not expected -- to have to do both, unless we are really, really fortunate. Of course, there are whole industries that seem to cater to the working student demographic -- retail clothing outlets and restaurants immediately spring to mind -- whereas that does not seem to be the case in Europe. Porthos, if you think nobody in your age range is your intellectual equal -- or at least haven't found any yet -- you need to widen your social circle. Because you don't come off as any different than my friends at your age.[/i] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Porthos and Benjamin: I think both of you hold a somewhat extreme and lop-sided view of sociolinguistic issues. I don't think anyone (apart from Benjamin ) would encourage people to speak in non-standard dialects or use informal language in formal settings. I also consider the idea of accepting non-standard forms in formal written texts preposterous. But writing is not language - it's the abstraction of it, so it must be standardised if we don't want to live like Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and even before that when anyone could write anything the wanted and it caused confusion.
As far as spoken language is concerned, linguists only say that non-standard and / or regional dialects exist and they aren't inferior to the (artificial) standard but by no means would encourage people to use it all the time. The purpose of language use is to communicate, to make ourselves understood and to understand what other people say, too. It might happen that a certain dialect is incomprehensible to speakers of another dialect. The so-called artificial standards serve a practical purpose - these are the most likely to be understood by everyone. The problem starts when people tend to think that the standard variety is superior to other dialects and that there is one-to-one correspondence between the level of intelligence and speaking the so-called prestige dialect.
I didn't say it was impossible - I said "almost". I used to do it but I was never encouraged by my parents. But being a double major and studying pedagogy, too, at a Central/Eastern-European university (that means I have to write three (!) theses in order to get only one degree) is not a bed of roses, and if you have job on to of all, it's even more difficult. If you are at uni from 8 to 8, and you work at night (I would scare the hell out of my parents if I did that ), then when would you actually learn?
How can you compare yourself to someone who is natively bilingual in French and English? It's something like me complaining that you, Porthos or Uriel speaks better English than me. Of course, I shouldn't compare myself to you, because it would be unrealistic.
Whaaaaaat? Before kindergarten? Over-zealous parents. LOL!
Funnily enough, I still can't tie my shoes the way you normally should. I learnt an easier way of doing it from my mum and I still do it that way. I was always told off by my kindergarten teachers because I'm always doing it in another way. Typical conformist Central/Eastern-European mentality! Why is it so important how you do it if you get the same result? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Because it's evidently true. Linguistics does not have an 'agenda' as you seem to believe.
The point is, you believe that some of the things I have done with other boys are 'wrong'. You might not necessarily tell me this, and that might not necessarily translate into a desire to prevent me from doing what I do by law, but you presumably do not view homosexuality an orientation which is as valid as heterosexuality. That attitude is, as far as I'm concerned, conservative. It's easy for you to say 'according to my personal moral beliefs I must not do any sexual behaviour with a man', because you're not gay. But if you were gay, you would see this very very differently. For you, it's completely immaterial whether homosexuality is 'wrong' or not thus when you express such an opinion, it can easily be contrived as social conservatism.
I don't know I'm jut not used to people being so positive about themselves. Most of the time, when I hear someone compliment someone, the usual response is, 'no, I'm rubbish really' or something to that effect. It's very unusual that I hear someone admit that they're actually good at something.
Agreed totally.
Precisely. I have an agenda. Linguistics in general doesn't.
Oh, I agree totally. But that doesn't necessarily negate the feeling of being overshadowed, especially when he tells me on a fairly regular basis that the only language I can speak better than him is Spanish (and I don't speak Spanish very well).
Lol reminds me of the people who tell me off for holding a pen/pencil 'wrong' and for eating left-handed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
That's true. You don't keep reminding me of the fact that Hungarian is the only language I speak better than you, so I tend to forget it. I make myself belive that I speak English just as well as you do (probably, I'll wake up later, though) and I don't feel overshadowed in the least. Hehe.
I was also accused of holding a pen/pencil "wrong". LOL! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I'm sure you speak German a lot better than I do!
Actually, I tend to think of you as someone who speaks English just as well as I do. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I don't know because you have never contributed to the German thread. Did you mention somewhere that you were going to study German at university?
Really? Thank you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Haha that's because I can't really read or write it! I have a reasonable passive understanding of spoken German, and can speak it to a limited extent, but that's about it.
Yes from scratch. It won't be completely from scratch for me though, because I know some already, but many people I'll be doing it with won't have studied it at all before.
It's funny I essentially see you as a native English speaker, even though I 'know' that you're actually a native Hungarian speaker instead. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Do you know with whom you'll be doing it? What are you going to study at university anyway? English, French, anything else...?
It's funny indeed. Sounds slightly paradox, doesn't it?
An English girl (who studied here but went home last week) said she had thought I was at least half English. LOL! I was taken aback. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
In terms of teachers? No idea, but I could probably find out.
I'm essentially doing French and German with linguistics (which will certainly include aspects of English as a significant part of it). I'm also going to try and do diplomas in clarinet teaching in addition to that, which will entitle me to append more letters after my name.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
No. I was asking because you wrote: "Yes from scratch. It won't be completely from scratch for me though, because I know some already, but many people I'll be doing it with won't have studied it at all before."
If you obtain a degree, you will append letters after your name? How so?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Oh right. No, I don't know the actual people I'll be doing it with, but I'll essentially be following the course intended for people who don't have an SQA Higher or a GCE A-Level (or equivalent) in German. This will include people who have never had any exposure to German before, and people like me who have some knowledge of it but no formal qualifications in it, and people who have, say, an SQA Standard Grade Certificate or a GCSE in it.
What I mean is, if I complete the degree I'm hopefully going to do at St Andrews successfully, I'd be able to style myself as Benjamin Bridgman MA(Hons) if I wanted to. The music teaching diplomas also allow you to do this the first is DipABRSM, the second is LRSM and the third is FRSM. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Yes, especially from the English point of view. What most English people would consider to be the left would be seen as right in France. The travaillist in France would be economically more to the right than Sarkozy's party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Basically, I see myself as centre-left to left-wing. I do not really see myself as far-left, and I do not see myself as a communist. (For the record, I don't see Marie-George Buffet as a communist either, even though she's the leader of the French Communist Party). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Oh, no. By American standards, you're without question, far-far -far-left. By continental European standards, you're probably at least close to far left, and by British standards you're far-left as well.
I was always ambidextrous until about the 1st grade. My teachers forced me to either use my left hand, or my right hand. Coincidentally, my brother was ambidextrous as well, but my grandfather tied his left hand behind his back, because "lefties were the children of the Devil".
But like you, many linguists do have an agenda. The study of linguistics in itself might not have an agenda, but those who practice the study often do, and I have a problem with their agenda. I never said I objected to linguistics' definition of what is "right" or "wrong", but that I have a problem with people trying to apply that same mode of thinking to sociolinguistics and real life. It would be ridiculous.
I don't know about how it is on your end of the pond, but here our political orientation is defined by what sort of public policies we support. For instance, there are many people who object to abortion, but don't support pro-life candidates, because they feel that outlawing such a thing infringes on one's right to decide what to do with their own body, which is a basic civil liberty. There are a lot of people who feel that drinking is wrong, but would never support outlawing alcohol. There are some people who object to the ownership of guns, because "to live by the sword, is to die by the sword", and yet they still vote against arms control. So in my case, the bible says homosexuality is wrong. So what do I do? Abstain from it. But I have no control over what others do about that, and I believe the government has no business controlling one's sexual life behind closed doors, so long as they're not hurting anyone. So, I don't support anti-gay measures. And being that it's not my place to judge, I don't support anti-gay rallies or anything of that nature. The bible says not to defile one's flesh, so I don't do drugs. But no matter what the law says about drugs, there will always be plenty of users, so why not legalize, and keep better tabs on it, or hopefully even tax it? My stand on Social issues: Pro-Choice (it's a woman's body, and if she wants it bad enough, she could seek abortion underground, and possibly kill herself as a result, which is what women always used to do before) - Liberal Against the death penalty - Liberal Against the war and criminilization of drugs - Liberal Strongly Pro-Immigration - Liberal Against arms control - Liberal (Libertarian) Strongly against against any infringement on personal liberities like the Patriot Act, even if for the purpose of national security - Liberal Foreign policy issues - Liberal Pro-Environment - Liberal So, on nearly every single major social issue in this country, I'm Liberal, or more precisely, Libertarian. So, at least here in the U.S., no one would ever categorize me as a social conservative.
Perhaps that's a cultural difference then. Here, most people accept a compliment graciously, and say "thank you". Some people do what you do, and play down their talents or accomplishments, and say, "Oh it was nothing", or "No, I'm not that good", but most people know they're just trying to be humble. I don't do that, because to me, that's insincere.
No, I certainly have met several people my age at my intellectual level, but they are very small in number. Out of a population of about 4,000 students at my high school, maybe 100 at most are at my intellectual level on average. But I definitely stand out among the crowd. Everywhere I go, people always ask me, "How do you know so much?". Or in school, people always jokingly refer to me as "the genius". In class competitions, everyone wants to be on my team, because my team always wins. I hear, "Dang, you're really smart", or "This kids knows everything", or "Ask Josh, he'll know", every week at work. So I'm always used to being the exception, rather than the rule. If Benjamin went to a special school for above-average students, then that could explain why he claims that he doesn't feel more intelligent or knowledgeable than average. I've always gone to regular public school, although I have always been in honor classes. Perhaps this is the case for Liz as well. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
What are 'British standards'? It's a mistake to assume that political standards in Southeast England (upon which the international view of British politics is largely based) are the same as in, say, Scotland, for example, because they're not. In Scotland, the SNP are generally seen as very moderate centre-left or even centrist, and the 'far-left' groups (which have a relatively high following in Scotland) would characterise them as centre-right or even as neo-liberal. But in the British parliament in Westminster (London), the SNP are usually seen as a somewhat radical left-wing group, significantly to the left of Labour. Equally, in some parts of Britain, the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour, whilst in other parts of Britain, they are to the right of Labour. Moreover, a Conservative politician in Scotland could in practice easily be to the left of a Labour politician in Southeast England etc. And perhaps more pertinently, what are 'continental European standards'? Political standards in Norway are very different from in Ukraine, which in turn are very different from in Portugal. Or by a similar token, what are 'American standards'? To be honest though, I always find it surprising that a country as huge and as diverse as the United States only really has two political parties of any significance throughout. There isn't like a Californian equivalent of the SNP or anything like that, is there?
Most people have an agenda relating to their field of interest. It's hardly surprising.
It's not just about political orientation and public policies though, is it? At least here, a person can have socially conservative views (e.g. 'homosexuality is immoral') without necessarily supporting the introduction of laws which impose that view upon the entire population. But your belief that homosexuality is 'immoral' can still affect your own life, as well as the lives of others. If in the future you had a child who was gay, would you be as accepting of it as my parents are of the fact that I'm gay? Would you be happy to meet their partner and be totally fine and comfortable with it? If they announced that they wanted to get married, would you support them and attend the wedding? Would you be as supportive as if it were a heterosexual relationship and a heterosexual marriage? Do you believe that a gay couple should be excluded from the possibility of adopting a child?
Bah. Easy for you to say.
Fair enough. But because very very few people here would actually advocate criminalisation of abortion, that view does not strike me as being specifically 'liberal'.
Again, I accept that that is considered 'liberal' in the United States. But here, the death penalty is only advocated by far-right/neo-Nazi groups such as the British National Party.
Fair enough, although I'm not sure that being against the Iraq war is necessarily 'liberal'.
Interesting. Can't really comment, because that one doesn't apply here I'm not aware of any relatively mainstream British political party which advocates public gun ownership, so I don't know whether it would be seen as 'liberal' or 'conservative' here or what.
Okay, although I don't know much about what the Patriot Act entails. I assume it's maybe a bit similar to Labour's anti-terrorist legislation though.
Which means...?
Not necessarily, but maybe in the United States it's sometimes seen that way.
I did go to a selective school, but only for the last two years. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Just as you said. We base our view of "British standards" by the most noteworthy, namely south-east England, where most of the people, money, and power is in Britain.
America is a more conservative nation than Europe in general, and our idea of "center", would be "right-wing" in Europe.
None of that matters when trying to define one's political orientation, because only matters that pertain to public policy decide whether you're a politcal liberal or conservative.
Even if your natural tendency is to be attracted to people of the same sex, that does not negate the fact that the bible condemns it. So, if I was gay, I would still try my best to abstain from a homosexual lifestyle. Just as heterosexuals have a powerful urge to have sex with people outside the confines of marriage, but abstain from pre-marital, or extra-marital sex.
Well here, about half the country is pro-life, meaning that they support the criminilization of abortion. The Republican party is traditionally pro-life, and most Republican candidates pay lip service to the pro-life movement.
Well here, even in California, which is a blue state (liberal), about 60-70% of people support the death penalty.
I was referring to the "War on Drugs". But most Americans are against the war in Iraq only because it's taken a turn for the worst. But there was almost unanimous support for the invasion, and up until about two years ago, a majority of Americans still supported the war, the decision to go to war, and the continuation of the war.
It's funny because normally here, social liberals who are usually Democrats, support strong gun control, whereas social conservatives, who are usually Republicans, are against gun control. So for this issue, traditionally social liberals support an element of authoritarianism and greater government control over private individuals' lives, while the social conservatives don't. But Libertarians are also against gun control, so my stance could be understood to mean that I side with Republicans or Libertarians on the issue, but I take it to mean that it's another example of my Libertarian view, being that I'm a social liberal, and thus left-wing on social issues, but right-wing on economic issues.
Probably. It basically gives the federal government the right to violate personal privacy, tap your phone conversations, read your e-mails, spy on you in your own home, and trespass on private property without obtaining a warrant. It was passed in the wake of 9-11, when the American people were scared out of their whits about terrorism, and its alleged intent was to protect America from terrorists, but we all know how dangerous such a policy is. Most conservatives value security over liberty, and so most conservatives here support the bill, while most liberals don't.
The U.S. is polarized. We really only have two political parties that have any clout. About half of the country votes for one party, while the other votes for the other half, so that 51% of the country votes for one candidate, and 49% votes for another. The conservative half of the country, which is represented by the Republican Party, is usually against public policy measures that curtail pollution and practices that damage the environment if its potentially damaging to business interests. The liberal half of the country is willing to sacrifice a bit of economic prosperity for the sake of protecting our environment. So, here, being pro-environment, as opposed to being pro-big business, is considered liberal.
....that I'm opposed to unilateral action, pre-emptive wars, and disregard for international law, all of which are diametrically opposed to the policies of the Republican party and policies that conservatives here support. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
As I said, I wasn't just talking about political orientation. Your attitude towards homosexuality still has an impact on society, even if you do not advocate measures to criminalise it. Consider the following questions again: If in the future you had a child who was gay, would you be as accepting of it as my parents are of the fact that I'm gay? Would you be happy to meet their partner and be totally fine and comfortable with it? If they announced that they wanted to get married, would you support them and attend the wedding? Would you be as supportive as if it were a heterosexual relationship and a heterosexual marriage? Do you believe that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children if (like straight couples) they are found to be suitable? A 'yes' answer to most of those would, in my view, demonstrate liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, whilst a 'no' answer to most of those would, in my view, demonstrate more conservative attitudes towards homosexuality. And actually, the last question is directly concerned with government policy.
Yeah right. Ha. Again, easy for you to say you've no idea what it's like to be gay. I think it's more likely that, if you were gay, you would realise that the Bible is not the Divine Dictation of God, and that some things in the Bible are wrong. There is no rational reason for believing that homosexual behaviour is immoral the only reason why you think that is because, for one reason or another, you've concluded everything written in the Bible must be right simply because it's written in the Bible. You can't seriously believe it's better that homosexuals remain single and celibate for their whole lives, can you? Seriously there's a lot more to being gay than simply finding people of the same gender attractive and wanting to have sex with them. I realised I was gay when I was 11 I initially accepted it without much problem, but then tried to deny when from when I was about 15 until I was almost 18, when I realised that I could be gay and still be happy. As far as I'm concerned, I'm gay in a similar way that I'm male it's not a small thing.
Not really similar to Labour's anti-terrorist laws then. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I see that what essentially began as an exploration of american culture has turned into a polemical discussion on socio-politics. But it is interesting, nonetheless - if only to understand the wide chasm between the phlegmatic Englishman and honorary Scots (Benjamin) and the brash, adventurous and straight-talking american (Porthos), both at their pugnacious best.
There were a few common themes addressed and I shall give my two pence worth. EDUCATION The European camp (Liz and Benjamin) believe that the Government should play nanny until the citizen steps into the workforce. The Americans (Uriel and Porthos), on the other hand, hold this view that working as well as studying is entirely possible - it all boils down to time management as well as the desire to excel. Personally, I have no quarrels with the cradle-to-grave philosophy which many Europeans from the social democratic tradition seem to hold close to their bosoms. I think that in a utopian world, education would be free. The Government would be flushed with so much cash that they do not know what to do with it; they thus spend it on cash handouts to university students who would otherwise be leading a hand-to-mouth existence. Unfortunately, governments everywhere seem to be mostly engaged in a struggle to prevent their balance from going into the red. Where and how do you expect them to cough up the money to subsidise education? This is not helped by the general reluctance of many European countries to procreate. The socio-demographics problem is already rearing its ugly head and it would be interesting to see for how long education remains subsidised in Europe without experiencing a marked deterioration in standards. Besides, university education is not really a right, but a prerogative. We cannot, and should not, have a society where every Dick, Tom or Harry has a university degree. Who would be left to drive the dustcarts? POLITICS I think America is not really a very conservative country as long as it continues to produce pornography in copious quantities and where pre-marital sex seems to be the norm rather than an aberration. In my eyes, both Europe and America are probably equally decadent and it is funny to see Porthos arguing, and Benjamin agreeing, about how much more conservative the USA is vis-a-vis Great Britain. It is like two bald men fighting over a comb, really.
Wrong. If that is the case, paternity suits should be shelved for good since the corollary of such an argument is that the male partner has no responsibility in the making of a child and hence should accept no responsibility over the fate of the child. We can extend the logic of the argument by saying that since a child under the age of 2 is entirely dependent on his mother, it is permissible for a mother to legally snuff out the life of her child as it is her right and it would be a gross infringement of civil liberties to deny her that right. Happy?
So am I. It is not for us to decide who should be punished. The sinners would ultimately receive retribution and it is the moral duty of the state to rehabilate criminals. In my opinion, it is very inconsistent for someone to advocate murder of the unborn child on one hand and be passionately against state-sponsored murder of criminals on the other hand. But this is probably the kind of warped thinking which passes off as reasoning in the minds of these so-called liberals.
If you were a politician, you might be called a flip-flopper from the John Kerry school. I have a feeling you take pride in being impossible to classify.
I think this is a very empty sort of statement. Do you mean unfettered illegal immigration or are you talking about policies designed to encourage the migration of skilled workers that would give a fillip to the economy? I am against the former; I am a supporter of the latter.
So am I. People who are advocating for gun control usually have not touched a gun in their life.
I believe you are also strongly against stringent airport checks which have resulted in the prohibition of the carrying of wine, shaving foam, milk power, etc on board. (Ask those officials from Heathrow Airport - their stringent checks might appall you!). You would also be strongly against beefed up police presence at the airport for fears of exuding this fascist aura. You would also be strongly against any other security measures that would prevent another terrorist attack on american soil.
This means nothing. Every country's foreign policy is built on the premise that foreign policy is designed to safeguard national interest. If you are talking about a foreign policy that is less bellicose in nature, I do not see how it can be truly possible in America. Wasn't it a Democratic President who made the fateful decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Not really. We have been doing it for a long time, nevertheless, univerities don't have too much money. Now it's going to change because the government is in a bloody deep soup up to the neck, so they need money. (They've spent and still spend a lot on image building and public holiday celebrations - not just this government but practically all the others.) Whence they intend to "steal" it? From education and health care. And all that goes hand in hand with the abolition of good educational institutions and hospitals and the dismissal of teachers/professors.
You seem to equate "free" education with bad quality of education. We have a long tradition of not paying tuition fees, but you by no means could say that we have a low standard of university or any kind of education. I assure you that those who fail to meet the requirements will find themselves being booted off the university with the utmost haste. Just because someone has money doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is more able academically than those who are less wealthy or even poor. This is an elitist way of thinking that you seem to advocate - and not in the original sense. My way of thinking might also be considered elitist as I think, just like you, that not everyone should get a degree. You appear to advocate elitism based on the financial background whereas I consider diligence, ability and knowledge to be the most important factors here. Therein lies the difference between you and me. However, you might regard the above mentioned features as top-priority values, too, but you apparently mix them up with money. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||