posted
I think that if Badger had been born American he would in fact agree on The Right of Citizens of the USA to Bare Arms.
Every true American I have meet believes that we should be able to keep and even walk down the road with a firearm and not worry about violating a stupid law of some kind.
posted
Thank you for the edit, Rommel, but you are still bucking for a fight. I would be worried about any American you met who would risk disagreeing with you.
Maybe you'd better find a different topic to post in?
posted
Since people keep going back to the gun control issue I move that we, from now on, talk about hypothetical and fictitious issues in order to avoid making this a political/ ideological dog fight.
Back to J's question:
quote: How do we frame a fundamentally different reference frame that still makes sense in the reference frame of the reader?
I don't know. If you're writing in the perspective of that culture, then I think you need to do a lot of work planning and building the culture, and thinking through the implications of that difference. It's easier, then, to write the story from Gulliver's perspective, that is, a voyager encountering these worlds. Then each difference is referenced back to a more familiar culture, and the readers can digest the differences through the eyes of the traveler. For an extremely unique culture, this might be the only way to go about it, and still make it understandable to readers.
posted
Rommel, I don't remember telling Omega about any other forum, so I'll have to check around and see what I can find.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, arguing about politics is one reason I walked away from Internet Fan Fiction and its community. (There were other reasons, of course.)
I have certain well-formed, well-informed, and well-founded positions in these matters...but we agreed, coming into these fora, not to get too heavy into it.
I could post a fairly lengthy post on the origins of and purpose behind the Second Amendment, but it's not really about different cultural ideas---and is also likely to inflame one side. I've got other places I can go to if I want to argue politics---that Internet Fan Fiction community is still available---but I'd rather inflame people with my ideas and positions about the writing racket.
posted
Ok, no desire to add fuel to this - just the opposite really - but Rommel, you could very well be right. I guess this is what the thread's about: our attitudes and beliefs (and attitudes to the word 'plenty' ) are largely a product of where we were born and brought up.
One of the cultural differences (hmmmm, could argue it's kinda linguistic/cultural) which sticks out in my mind is from my Grandad who's from Connemara in Ireland, County Galway. Connemara is a Gaeltacht (Irish speaking area - sorry if I'm seeming patronising) He spoke only Irish until he was fourteen, when he then learnt English. His English was peppered with the way he thought, or rather he thought in Irish and turned the words into English. One which stands out in my mind is when I was about 13 and he asked me, "Whose jacket is that coat, over there by the wall with the window?" All this delivered in the semi-song of a Western Irish Gaelic speaker. There are loads others, but memory escapes me...
I suppose culture shows in language too, depending on the concerns of a particular culture. What I'm thinking of is the famous, and perhaps erroneous, saying that the eskimos have -- words for snow. I know Gaelic is much more expressive than English about weather. There's a word (just tried to look it up, but can't find it) which best translates as 'squalls coming from the west in ten minute intervals'. HAving been out fishing for Mackerel in the Atlantic in a two man coracle, I really appreciate the need for something more specific than 'it lloks like showers'
quote: How do we frame a fundamentally different reference frame that still makes sense in the reference frame of the reader?
I think that's one reason we read fiction, to explore a strange world with which we're unfamiliar. Perhaps it's one reason the close third person POV is popular in modern fiction.
A culture is a product of its history and its living conditions. Its vocabulary reflects what matters to it. So the Eskimos have words for different kinds of snow, the English have words for different kinds of royalty and class, and the Americans have different words from the English presumably as a continuing gesture of defiance ;-)
I think that means that in fiction we need to show the culture, its history and living conditions throught the experiences, thoughts, feelings and memories of the characters. And move the story along at the same time.
posted
Not sure if we're still on the original topic or not (I opted not to read all the responses, sorry)
But talking about the theories behind culutral differences... (in this case firearms). I was very intrigued by the "space argument," as I'm going to call it.
Are people in open spaces more inclined to favor firearms, and do people in tight spaces feel more threatened by them? I'm not going to say this is so, but it's certainly worth thinking about.
As for the U.S., I've always believed the 2nd ammendment is the product of the incidents at Lexington and Concorde. Which were over the siezing of stockpiles of firearms. (My family hails from Lexington.) Basically we have a lot of people who raised arms in order to combat a government they felt they didn't deserve--so the founders (which participated in this rebellion) were already of the mindset that it is a human right to organize and reject your government. And through experience they had decided that the way to do so was through warfare, which required weapons.
(again, this is all my own conjecture)
At the time of the constitution, which the 2nd ammendment was written for, there was a real fear that the new government wouldn't take, or if it did that it might go awry. If that happened, the founders (I believe) had the 2nd ammendment clause to try and help weapons to be available for the people, should they decide to revolt (if the government they'd designed went haywire, remember it was a pretty radical shift from normal western European government structures at the time.)
That's my theory. Which also includes the possibility that such an ammendment is outdated. I won't say it is or isn't.
I happen to understand the British and Japanese take on the issue a bit better than the folks of southern Mississippi. But I don't by any means discredit the legitimacy of their argument.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited July 08, 2008).]
posted
Short distillation of a lengthy Second Amendment argument---the people were the militia, and were expected to provide their own guns for this purpose.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that, I think, might be one of the fundamental "worldview" issues that prevent, say Americans and Europeans from really understanding each other on this issue. The Second Amendment presumes that political power truly lies with the people, and that the tools of physical force--the ultimate perogative of political power--therefore cannot be taken from them. Europe has never experienced this kind of governance. Even the absolute equality theoretically imposed by the French Revolution (egalite, etc.) relied on a clear distinction between the rulers and the ruled to impose egalite.
As mentioned above, one way to convey this to a reader would be to explain American history, which is a long story of self-reliance and reaction against the concept of being ruled, and European history, which is a much longer story of interdependence and varied-but always present--rulership.
But what if your novel doesn't have room for that much historical development? Or what if it just isn't appropriate for your story? I can think of a few ways to do it, but all of them involve either: a) unrealistically self-aware characters.who can talk objectively about their worldviews; or b) the tired plot device of some sort of wise person who can talk objectively about everyone's worldview. There's got to be a better way.
posted
Well, yes, we know that only the US has ever had freedom. Mmmmm
Yeah. Sure, we do.
Actually, J makes an interesting example of an extremely egocentric culture. There have been and are quite a few of them. It's not like the US is the only one with this rather annoying characteristic.
However, the characteristic is not universal. It's interesting to consider what makes a culture open to others and what makes it convinced that its is the only way--and to try to kill you if you don't agree.
quote:Actually, J makes an interesting example of an extremely egocentric culture. There have been and are quite a few of them. It's not like the US is the only one with this rather annoying characteristic.
And I suppose Europe is full of countries that are immune to this disease...
*****
"J" tangentally mentione "egalite"---which brings up another problem: the equivalent words from one language to another do not necessarily mean the same thing.
Example: Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea contains numerous mistranslations based on taking things literally. At one point, he mentions a character has been in "la terre diable du Nebraska." (I do not have the phrase before me and may have it slightly wrong.)
This is usually translated as "the disagreeable territories of Nebraska"---a literal translation, which is extremely insulting, when you get down to it. But the phrase does not mean that. It really means "the Nebraska badlands"---a specific geographic and geologic area of Nebraska, a place where the character, a scientist, could be conducting exploration and research---not an insult at all. (Verne is considered a superb stylist in French, but nearly all translations of his work into English are poor.)
The phrase "Liberte, egalite, fraternite"---I leave out the proper punctuation as my English keyboard is not keyed for its easy use---might mean "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" in a literal translation---but the words in English do not convey the emotional meaning they do in French. Rather, they carry a different emotional meaning---and this causes confusion to this day.
posted
That's a great point, and a great example of the point. "Egalite" means "equality," but, as political concepts, the French and American words stand for near opposite concepts (equal outcome vs. equal opportunity).
It would a masterful piece of writing to have two characters use the same word to refer to contradictory ideas--and the reader understanding both without confusion.
p.s. Jeanne, I'd be more than happy to have the discussion you insist on having--via email.
posted
Irani and Arabic are different languages. I heard of a true incident where an Arab and Irani were doing business. The arab gave an arabic blessing, that translated in ' Irani as a horrible curse. They got into a fight. The person through which this story came third hand, spoke both languages. He broke the fight up and found out exactly what had happened and then explained it to both men.
Consider having two languages that have the same sounding words but different meanings. Or, consider where the fathers of the language designed it to make the meaning of blessings of another language as curses, to make sure they never become friendly.
Of course, there is the saying that England and America, Two nations separated by a common language.
posted
I was trying to track down a couple of Jules Verne books en Francaise the other day, just so I could look at the texts myself---but I haven't yet figured out how to trick Amazon-dot-com into displaying a page to order them on. (I can read French---after a fashion, and with dictionary help---but can't speak or write it.)
Been wading into The Brothers Karamazov lately...the great Russian novelists defeated me when I was a high school student---the cultural and language barriers were too high---but, so far, this time around, things seem a lot more clear. These come highly recommended, so here's hoping...
posted
In a world where so many varieties of English and English-influenced dialects are spoken, there's endless room for confusion. For instance 'He don' come' (meaning 'he came' in Krio) sounds very like 'He don't come', ie 'He hasn't come' if you don't know the language.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
I believe Iranians speak Farsi not "Irani." I don't know how closely Farsi is related to Arabic, but I do know that most Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.
And I'm wondering if you meant " Creole " instead of "Krio" up there, RobertB.
By the way, Creole is not so much any one language, as it is part of an attempt to communicate when two different languages come together (so it might be helpful to those who want to write "first contact" and "alien relations" stories.)
posted
Having lived in America for several years and listened to people who love and own guns, I thought I understood the lack of gun control. But here's something I've learned from these discussions which I had not realised. It seems to be so ingrained that it's not mentioned explicitly to "resident aliens". It's kinda, "Well, doesn't everyone know that?"
When the Constitution was written America was fresh out of the War of Independence, and democracy was a new idea, so new that nobody was sure it would work.
Since America had won her independence by arming herself, and the people provided their own guns, the idea was to bind into the Constitution the right of people to carry guns so that, should democracy fail, they could rise up against the government and dispose of it, like they despatched the Brits. Arming people was the final check against a government that went badly awry, as had the King and his taxes on the colonies.
Today there's a large proportion of Americans (not all, about 5 to 4 if the Supreme Court Justices are a measure) who believe that (a) individuals should be able to arm themselves either to rid the country of a corrupt government, or to control local government officials and police who get it wrong; and (b) that if individuals are armed, criminals are less likely to attack them and, if they do, they can defend themselves.
From these ideas America has become accustomed to keeping its government and officials democratically accountable and its citizenry civilised through some sense of mutual fear.
I've long understood (b) but (a) is new to me.
I'm beginning to think the American use of the word "democracy" is a little different from the English. For us "democracy" means we settle everything through debate and vote and the rule of law, no exceptions. We want to make democracy work because we can't think of anything better, and we don't want to resort to violence if it fails. We have other ways of making governments accountable--civil disobedience, strikes, street marches--and yes, sometimes those descend into riots and if we really need weapons, we've always got kitchen knives, Molotov Cocktails and the like.
We expect (not necessarily trust) and demand our government officials and police to be accountable for their actions through the democratic process. There are laws and checks and balances and, in the case of the Police, an Independent Police Complaints Authority to keep it that way. When things go wrong, which they do, individuals will complain and get heard. It's not perfect, but we think it works, and we're always striving to improve it of course. A free press that thinks critically and reports accurately and fearlessly is an important aspect of the checks and balances; they're not perfect either but their part in this system of governance is vital. These are some of the ways we manage democracy--in other words, make sure the democratic process works and the government and its officials are accountable to the people--without feeling a need to arm individuals.
In everyday life, we don't care for a climate of fear, wondering who's carrying a weapon concealed in their coat or under the driving seat of their car. So we control guns. Or at least try to. And knives.
(In Germany, democracy is not preserved by arming everyone. Nobody was going to propose that after the Second World War. Instead, they keep government accountable by splitting the major sources of national power--government, judiciary and banking--amongst three different states, because Hitler had risen to power by controlling all three, without too much difficulty because they were co-located in the same city.)
The gun debate is really rather falsely put. It's polarised between those who are portrayed as wanting to control guns, and those who do not. Yet, in America, guns are controlled. Can you carry a gun--or even a pocket knife--into a government building or onto a plane? No. Can you drive your own personal Sherman tank up Pennsylvania Avenue? No. Can you purchase a gun over the counter at Sports Authority without photo ID? No. It's a question of the degree of control.
While it's true that many Europeans feel that the European Union is chipping away at our democratic rights, I doubt that any of us feel that arming individuals is the right way to defeat that. The Irish got it right and voted against the European Constitution (or whatever it's now called). Sooner or later our elected national politicans will reign the Eurocrats in, or in the extreme there will be strikes and civil disobedience.
There's a shared belief, I think, that we have enough control over our governments and their officers through the democratic process. We won't need to take guns to the streets ever again. Or if we do, the consequences of mass carnage are too terrible to contemplate; all the more reason to make democracy work.
Finally, I don't think we should give up on understanding each other. As populations grow and global competition for natural resources intensifies nations must learn to live together, or die.
posted
Krio is a specific patois which is universal in Sierra Leone; there are five million people, sixteen languages, and that's the one everybody speaks. Historically it's the language of ex-slaves who were dumped at Freetown, several generations down the road, and very heavily Africanised.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Well put, and I think you laid out the central differences very well:
1) Europeans trust their governments to follow their own rules, or, if they don't, that they can be forced to return to the rules through peaceful means--in other words, that armed rebellion will never again be necessary to secure freedom--Americans assume the opposite; and
2) Europeans prefer to stop everyone from engaging in a behavior because someone might misbehave, while Americans prefer to let people do as they like and then punish those who actually do misbehave. I don't think it's too much of an oversimplification to say that Americans and Europeans just make very different value judgments about where the seesaw between liberty and security should lie.
As you aptly noted, it is (at this point in history) a matter of degree in some ways. A lot of urban and blue state Americans think entirely along European lines. But it's also a matter of fundamental differences in thinking, particularly as to point 1.
[This message has been edited by J (edited July 10, 2008).]
Even though I hail from a relatively rural, extremely conservative bubble of an environment. I agree with you, and have always found the British (and Japanese) perspective on the issue to be the most modern, the most socially evolved given this day and age.
However, I think it's intertesting (and important) to explore the psychology (as you have done) of different countries. For instance, if I was writing a modern Sherlock Holmes (type book) in London, it would be useful to understand how available firearms are, and what people think of them. I wouldn't want to assume they are thought of and treated the same as here in the U.S. by default, simply because I am ignorant.
Which is why I feel it is okay to express (here) your beliefs on the subject, along with your community and culture, to help us understand what the general feeling of guns is, by geography.
Definitely what I'm looking for. Knew it existed---didn't know how to get to it, at least not from Amazon's regular site. I'll order, once I figure out what and whether they can ship to the USA.
posted
Thank you for the clarification regarding Krio, RobertB. From your description, it appears to be a Creole, and perhaps the name came from the word, "Creole."
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly suspect that it did, sonce the pronunciation os the same. It's an oral language, and spellings tend to be rather fluid; 'Krio' is far commoner, but I have seen it spelt 'Creole'. The only place I've ever seen it written down is in the Freetown press, and most of that is in English. Using Krio in a formal situation (as one coup leader did when he declared himself President) is seen as ill-educated. Freetown is a rather snobby place!
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
RobertB, I worked with several refugees from Sierra Leone a few years ago, and they told me that they spoke "English" there. I wonder now if they didn't consider Krio to be English, because what they spoke only resembled English part of the time. (It was a lesson in listening hard in order to communicate with them.)
We also worked with some refugees from Rwanda, and I learned how to say "Thank you," in Kirwanda. They spoke French more than they did English, so that was another adventure.
Something for writers on coming up with names for your characters that I learned from a Rwandan: they didn't have family names (though they do have surnames that are different for every member of the family) because that way an enemy didn't know who your relative were.
posted
They have their own version of English, which is Africanised, but less so than Krio. Namissa used to teach it, but that didn't prevent endless confusion when we were first married, with the same word meaning different things to each of us!
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along with different meanings for words, pronunciation can be a real stumbling block in understanding someone who thinks they are speaking the same language.
I remember hearing Rick Steves (who does the "Europe through the Back Door" shows and books on how Americans can experience Europe the way the Europeans do instead of insisting on being treated the way they are in America--why go in that case?) say something along the lines that it actually helps when speaking English with someone who has a strong accent if you can imitate their accent (not in a mocking way, of course). If you can manage to pronounce English the way they do, then they will understand you better, and you may even get a better idea of what they are actually saying to you.
posted
I once asked for "butter" (pronounced, "butt-ah") on my sandwich in Florida. "Mustard?" asked the confused sandwich maker. With the busy sounds of a sandwich bar and my strange accent, all she could hear was "utar", and the softer English 't' can be sibilant enough to be mistaken for a lazy 'st'.
When I arrived in Florida I thought my English colleagues had cultivated comical, faux-American accents. But I learned though experiences like my butter request (it's "boodre", almost rhymes with "booker" and the "er" is foreshortened) that while our English accents were largely an attraction, certain words could get you into trouble and you had to change your pronunciation--or even the word--to survive. Examples I remember include "tomaydoe", "bayzil" (not basil), "process" (first syllable rhymes with product, not (p)rowing boat), "skedule" (not "shedule") --and, of course, trunk and hood, and fries not chips.