![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 72. Go back in thread:
Posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 21:33:10
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:45:39
> Where you are, does English speaking generally mean Anglo-Saxon? That's not something that springs instantly to mind where I live. I think I may be slightly over 1/2 English, but I'm in the minority. Even our state law is based on the Napoleonic code rather than English common law.
>For what its worth I read Anglo Saxon in that post as referring to English speaking countries - specifically those that are English speaking due a heavy migration from England ie US, Canada, Australia. I'm not sure I agree with the assertion but I did read it as referring to a modern cluster of countries with some shared legal traditions.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:11:33
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 21:33:10
Lots of Murdoch media.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:12:09
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 21:33:10
I suppose my concept of Anglo Saxon is just a bit odd. Or perhaps it isn't in general usage in that sense here. Probably it's me. I generally take it literally.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:17:04
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 20:09:07
I don't know what else we can do. I rarely find myself excited about a presidential election. It's not as if we have the world to pick from. All we have to choose from is those who choose to run, and who gain enough momentum to make it to the polls. I've often wondered at the way the election process is structured, what it requires in someone to want to be part of it.
It's physically grueling. It's tough on families. Every word you say is scrutinized. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run.
Would the British system be better? I sometimes think it might.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:25:58
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » jane d, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:12:09
I tend to be very literal in general. But I wonder if it's because Angles and Saxons are real people to me? Not a concept. So Anglo Saxon means related to those peoples. (And me for that matter. - Well, Saxon anyway. Not sure about Angles. Where did they settle? And why are the Jutes always left out?)
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:26:39
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 21:06:54
I have heard of these big areas that have coal mines and are subject to civil war.
The Maoists are the main party in Nepal. I made a point of asking anyone I chatted with who they liked, but I am afraid I didn't learn much.
Thirty years ago my wife and I were walking along a dry river bed in Nepal, quite a way from Kathmandu and a man and a woman were walking toward us. The woman carried a bundle, and the man had an umbrella, but who the shade was for I do not recall. We said hello to each other, the man said they needed western medicines, the woman opened her bundle of rags, and in it was a baby who had crawled into a fire, quite charred and black. Their question to us was did we have any (Western!) drugs to cure(!) the baby. (Apart from morphine, is what came to mind). I asked them about their journey....where were they going? They said they were going to a medical station but they knew beforehand that there would be no drugs there; the drugs would have been entirely sold off. The journey was one of several days, and it was the saddest sight, (in particular the umbrella) and might go some way to explain the sympathy for the Maoists in that country
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:28:35
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:25:58
Anglosphere normally covers it.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:31:29
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 21:23:44
>For some reason, the periods before 1066 make me feel a bit anxious. Ok, they make me feel very anxious. I'm not sure why
Because the good guys lost?
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:33:03
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:28:35
Hey! What about us Saxons? Are we chopped liver? Hmmph.
:)
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:45:19
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:31:29
No... That's definitely not it. The Angles and Saxons and Danes had run out the people before them, you know. Or scattered them to the corners of the islands. Then there were the Vikings and the Danes.
Not that the Normans were the good guys either. I still shudder when I read what happened around York. I've still got a lot of anger towards William for that.
There's not always the good guys and the bad guys.
I like a quote from Young Indiana Jones. Something along the line of "No matter who is in charge, they take my chickens."
My Saxon ancestors drove out the peoples before them (some of whom were also my ancestors) and were in turn subjugated by the Normans (a very very few of whom were my ancestors). I come from a long line of serfs and defeated peoples. And rapining and pillaging conquerors. And they were not necessarily different ancestors.
But... We're getting better. We really are. We hardly every burn out villages any more, or stack dead serfs like cordwood, or consider other people to be no more human than the dogs or horses we own. Or take the family out to a public hanging and picnic. At least not a literal hanging. I sometimes wonder how much better our figurative lynchings are.
I've been trying to decide whether to buy this book. My nonfiction to read pile is so large now.
"The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined"
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 23:04:55
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:33:03
Maybe after 1066, I no longer feel even kinship responsibility for what happens?
No, that's silly...
I don't know.
Posted by sigismund on November 17, 2011, at 0:20:01
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:45:19
>We hardly every burn out villages any more, or stack dead serfs like cordwood, or consider other people to be no more human than the dogs or horses we own.
Yeah I heard some writer saying some time ago that this was one of the most peaceful times, (though you'd have to be careful with your history and geography), and that only 20 0r was it 10 million had been killed since WWII.
Foreign policy since WWII has been a bit dodgy. There's the long list.
I tell you one thing that would enrage me and it happened near here. Some young man was killed in Afghanistan and the leaders of the political parties went to the funeral. They talk about freedom, terrorism and staying the course, but every man and his dog knows we will leave as soon as the Americans do. And that may not even be a bad thing. But I would prefer straight talk and that they stayed away with their lies and half truths and left me alone.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 8:17:04
In reply to Re: definition of Anglo Saxon » Dinah, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:28:35
> Anglosphere normally covers it.
To clarify, I was just kidding. I think I prefer Anglosphere as it sounds quite a bit like English sphere, without being specific to England. It doesn't bring to mind the historical Anglo Saxons (or specifically the rulers of England from somewhere between the withdrawal of the Romans to the Norman conquest, with of course the exception of Sweyn and Cnut, who might object to the classification).
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 8:39:19
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 17, 2011, at 0:20:01
> >We hardly every burn out villages any more, or stack dead serfs like cordwood, or consider other people to be no more human than the dogs or horses we own.
>
> Yeah I heard some writer saying some time ago that this was one of the most peaceful times, (though you'd have to be careful with your history and geography), and that only 20 0r was it 10 million had been killed since WWII.
>
> Foreign policy since WWII has been a bit dodgy. There's the long list.
>
> I tell you one thing that would enrage me and it happened near here. Some young man was killed in Afghanistan and the leaders of the political parties went to the funeral. They talk about freedom, terrorism and staying the course, but every man and his dog knows we will leave as soon as the Americans do. And that may not even be a bad thing. But I would prefer straight talk and that they stayed away with their lies and half truths and left me alone.I wouldn't have thought it was even that many, since the end of WW2. But a quick google search on genocide in the 20th century shows that even since WW2, that number may be way too small. I can't provide the link, as it may be considered uncivil.
I guess I'm thinking in part about how the attitude towards wife beating and child abuse has changed even since I was young. When I was young there was still paddling in schools, and while I'm not sure I'd call it abuse for fear of minimizing the definition, it was certainly violence. When I was young, there were members of my family - mostly older - who couldn't understand why I would bring a dog to the vet.
The cynic in me says that when times are good people have the time and resources to develop their better natures, while our ancestors may have had to devote much of their attention to bare subsistence. And that the best way to reduce violence in the world is to bring people to the point where they aren't worried about survival. Yet that view also fails on closer examination, since the economic hardships of 1930's Germany doesn't really equate to the hardship our ancestors faced.
Violence frightens me, even nonphysical violence. I'm not a very visceral person.
I do believe that funerals are for families and loved ones, not for exploitation by anyone from politicians to clergy. I remember being upset once when the presiding minister used the opportunity to ask the mourners to honor the deceased by contributing to the church fund as the deceased did.
I've been reading (or listening to really) "Crossing Stones", and it really is managing to convey the pain of the loss of war to me so that it feels raw right now. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd be as caught up in it if the narrators weren't so very good. I'm shallow that way.
To tell the truth, I'm not that familiar with what happened lately in Afghanistan. I remember when my brother was there, we were happy he wasn't sent to Baghdad. And he said the people were very positive to the American military at that time. He came back feeling fairly positive towards the Afghan people. I don't know what happened since then. It makes me sad to think of it.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 9:37:27
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 22:45:19
>I like a quote from Young Indiana Jones. Something along the line of "No matter who is in charge, they take my chickens."
That's pretty good.
I have seen that book, the Better Angels. It seems persuasive. Then, just yesterday, someone was showing me footage of disabled planes landing on aircraft carriers (from WWII) and bursting into flames on impact. There were so many of them. Is it a trick film or technology that war now seems such a spectacle that it over shadows past histories of other wars, of deaths from plagues and more ordinary ailments, slaves, women in childbirth, etc? I don't know.
I googled early middle ages (pre-1066) and read a reference to the dark ages cold period and found this brief scientific speculation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040204000254.htm
Apparently it really was not a very good time.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 11:26:24
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 9:37:27
It was a very bad time. I don't even envy the very wealthy back then. It's interesting to think of the colder climate conditions as being caused by a comet rather than just a cyclical change.
I hadn't realized the black death had hit so early. I think I always associate plagues with the later middle ages, and the end of the feudal system, increased resentment towards the church, etc. All that societal upheaval makes perfect sense when considered along with the plague. Serfs could no longer be considered renewable resources of little value.
There is a series of books by Valerie Anand (aka Fiona Buckley), starting with The Proud Villeins, then the Ruthless Yeoman, etc. It actually starts near the conquest and moves forward, but from the point of view of a family who somehow lost their free-man status and became serfs, then the family eventually progresses up the social ladder again. I can't bear to read them. It is too upsetting to me. Probably if I ever got through the first book, or maybe the second, it would get lighter.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 11:29:29
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 9:37:27
Here's the complete quote.
"Listen, years ago I rode with Juárez against Emperor Maximilian. I lost many chickens but I thought it was worth it to be free. When Porfirio became President, I supported him but he stole my chickens. Then came Huerta and he stole my chickens. Then it was Carranzas term, and he stole my chickens too. Now comes Pancho Villa to liberate me and the first thing he does is steal my chickens.() What makes one different from the others? My chickens dont know. All over the world revolutions come and go. Presidents rise and fall. They all stole your chickens. The only thing to change is the name of the man who takes them."
http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Old_man_in_pueblo
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 11:43:51
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 9:37:27
By the way, I'm not sure if your son is old enough, but I really recommend "The Young Indiana Jones". We rented them, but enjoyed them so much we bought the set. My son has watched some of them many times, and even eagerly watched the documentaries that went with them. I learned more about WWI from that than I ever did in school.
Some are a bit too much like homework for my son's taste. There's one where the whole episode is not only about Kafka but is also kafkaesque. My son didn't really like that one, or the one about Picasso, where I think they tried to make the backdrop of Paris seem a bit surreal. On the other hand, I think I may understand now what kafkaesque means. :)
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 11:58:40
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 11:43:51
Posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 12:52:18
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 11:26:24
Oh. Sorry about needing risperdal. Otoh, I have been enjoying reading this thread. You have quite the head for history.
About the climate changes, I hadn't either, about the plague or the comet or other climate changes, (other websites list ocean current changes and such changes that are beyond my understanding measured by cave stalagmites?!). I do not know my history which is why I googled 1066 to see why someone might draw a line there.
I only read the Book of Judith in Old English once, and have forgotten just about everything about the language except that every single letter is pronouced unlike modern English. Our professor was such an enthusiast of the era before and during the writing of the manuscript (around 1025 or something) he made the that world seem pretty inhabitable and the genders by his theories had a fair amount of equality even if they did not have identical roles. I wish I had thrown over all I had studied and started Old English earlier because even though I am not gifted when it come to languages, OE was so enjoyable and relatively easy plus such an interesting window into history and language. And a finite number of texts to study :)
And it is beautiful read aloud....
I'll check out the young Indiana Jones. My son is seven, which might be the right age for some, but he knows very little about real war. It upsets him. He seems to need a lot of fantasy to make his suffering palatable. He has recently watched two of the star wars movies, I would call them the first and second (Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back). He manages this by running out of the room at certain key moments. His dad thinks this is fine. When he heard another child talk of what we refer to as a suicide bomber, he was deeply disturbed and came home, pumping me for information in that oblique way kids develop as they age. The real world insanity/logic of it was just too much for him. Of course, I am assuming that the Young Indiana Jones does not go into such depth. Yet light sabers and the Death Star blowing up do not upset him. I guess because it is couched in knights and nobility, and it's pretty obvious that Darth Vadar is the bad guy. Sort of. Because my son is fascinated by Anikin Skywalker's transformation into Vadar and back into Anikin upon his death.
This has nothing to do with politics now....
Posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 13:59:40
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » floatingbridge, posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 22:26:39
> I have heard of these big areas that have coal mines and are subject to civil war.
>
> The Maoists are the main party in Nepal. I made a point of asking anyone I chatted with who they liked, but I am afraid I didn't learn much.
>
> Thirty years ago my wife and I were walking along a dry river bed in Nepal, quite a way from Kathmandu and a man and a woman were walking toward us. The woman carried a
bundle, and the man had an umbrella, but who the shade was for I do not recall. We said hello to each other, the man said they needed western medicines, the woman opened her bundle of rags, and in it was a baby who had crawled into a fire, quite charred and black. Their question to us was did we have any (Western!) drugs to cure(!) the baby. (Apart from morphine, is what came to mind). I asked them about their
journey....where were they going? They said they were going to a medical station but they knew beforehand that there would be no drugs there; the drugs would have been entirely sold off. The journey was one of several days, and it was the saddest sight, (in particular the umbrella) and might go some way to explain the sympathy for the Maoists in that country.Sigi, I cannot imagine. So sold off meaning not enough to go around or black market?
In Nepal, the Maoists work for positive change? I know so little, and what I do can get so spun by conflicting reports.
I imagine you wonder about the fate of those three people often.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2011, at 14:41:32
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 12:52:18
My brain seems to be racing. But it's lessening a bit.
He might be a bit young for the series. Perhaps the first volume, which is more about young young Indiana. The second of the three sets was rather disturbing even for me. It's a very good way to introduce kids to history, and was made with that in mind. I can't recall how old my son was, but probably older than 7. He loved Star Wars at that age, I remember. And still does, if not as obsessively.
To put it in context of current affairs, they say that mankind is inherently violent, but my son and yours would tend to show that it's not true. That kids have to be accustomed to violence. I don't know how typical that is. In my experience kids have a rather natural sense of fairness and goodness. If there has been a diminishing level of violence in the world, maybe this is how it occurs. Each generation is exposed to less and less of it.
Or I could be completely wrong. Or perhaps very lucky. :)
Posted by sigismund on November 17, 2011, at 17:02:59
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 13:59:40
> So sold off meaning not enough to go around or black market?
I think so.
>In Nepal, the Maoists work for positive change?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe for people in the country? They wouldn't be my choice, but I understand.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2011, at 4:29:32
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 17, 2011, at 12:52:18
Hi, everyone,
I wonder if a lot of history is making our suffering more palatable.
If we blame focus groups, aren't we blaming ourselves? If we cast less blame, maybe we'd have more candidates we liked.
Bob
--
> Here it is the cynical positioning to find a (relatively) blame free position from which to cast blame on the other side, and this can get subtle and devious.
>
> sigismund> And nobody cares about the real issues. It's all focus group driven.
>
> sigismund> I've often wondered at the way the election process is structured, what it requires in someone to want to be part of it.
>
> It's physically grueling. It's tough on families. Every word you say is scrutinized. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run.
>
> Dinah> He seems to need a lot of fantasy to make his suffering palatable.
>
> floatingbridge
Posted by Dinah on November 21, 2011, at 8:44:19
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2011, at 4:29:32
> I wonder if a lot of history is making our suffering more palatable.
Mightn't it depend on how we see history? If we see it as something in the past that we've put behind us, then yes. It definitely does for me. It puts things in a context that makes doom seem unlikely. But if we see history as part of today, if we see those today as carrying parts as being somehow the same as their ancestors, or carrying the blame of their ancestors, I think it might increase suffering by increasing anger and fear of those around us.
> If we blame focus groups, aren't we blaming ourselves?
I don't think any of us see ourselves as part of focus groups. At any rate, television would be completely different had I anything at all in common with the focus groups they so rely on. :)
> If we cast less blame, maybe we'd have more candidates we liked.
>
> BobNow this I agree with. It upsets me a bit to see candidates, whether or not I like them, being laughed at for minor gaffes. It's not what I'd like for myself. I am sometimes taken aback at the scrutiny received by family members (tho I am sensing that this is improving a bit). I think many wonderfully qualified people choose not to run.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.