|
generalising about nationality
i don't know if any of us can generalise about members of any nationality, can we. lumping everyone together just because they are from a certain country. aren't we not allowed individuality along with all our faults.
governments make rules---i did not vote for our present government and am very unhappy about many of its current changes--but i have to adhere to them. when i see someone dislike the brits--- really all brits are not the same are they thank heavens anymore than individuals from other countries are identical with others from their community, there is good and bad within every nation or group/community. i guess some of us tar the japanese with the same brush hearing about the group system--but individually i am sure they too have their virtues and faults. we receive certain images about americans via their films etc-- but i only know two americans personally-- one of whom bought one of my dogs from me at a very generous price. he is a fashion designer. both americans were outgoing and not afraid to say what they really thought. one needs to get to know people individually to really form a true impression |
Quote:
Of course, we should never judge someone solely on their nationality, and everyone is an inividual. In any society there will be a mixtue of good, bad, and everything in between. Then again, I do think stereotypes exist for a reason, mainly because it is possible for a group of people to share certain shared traits - not all, but many. I have a friend in America, and recently said something and I remember getting the response 'I can't believe it's true that the British really do say that!', and likewise when she said something all I could think was 'God, that stereotype about the Americans is so true' - now, I don't represent all British anymore than she represents all Americans, but I found it amusing in the respect that sometimes generalistions can prove true. I mean if you read many guide books you will find some generalisations are given, such as customs and manners and so forth. I think some things can be generalised because they are a part of culture. Every culture values different traits more or less than others, and every culture has different expectations for its people and has different roles in mind for its citizens. Surely there's a difference between 'so-and-so nationality exhibits this trait, seen in how they observe so-and-so customs/festivals/events', rather than 'this country is so stupid! Look at how they behave, haha!' So yeah, I think generalisations can be fair in certain contexts, just so long as one remembers there is an exception to every rule, and that the boundary between valid observation and verging-on-racist stereotypes isn't crossed. |
There's a pretty large gray area between justifiable generalizations and outright racism, and which side a comment lies on is so very subjective.
The fact is generalizations are necessary, it's not feasible for anyone to have an absolutely clean slate every time we meed someone, and even more difficult after we learn a little about them to not fill in the gaps with patterns we've noticed before. There's a separate issue also, factual evidence that demonstrates the opinions of the majority of the population of a country. For instance, votes in a democracy, it's perfectly appropriate to generalize a population on the votes of the majority. If there was a nationwide poll in Japan that asked "do you prefer pasta or bread" and it came out 8:1 favoring bread, then it's entirely okay to say Japanese people generally like bread more than pasta. Now bread and pasta is hardly controversial, but change that to a pass/fall for literacy, or a presidential election or whatever, and it doesn't change the facts. What must also be considered is what causes the results of the statistics, like, for example, when looking at the crime rate associated with a certain ethnic minority in a certain part of a country. To assume the results are due to the color of their skin is just misusing a statistic. I'm trying to skirt the issues raised in a thread that was closed while staying clear of any form of bashing, I hope we can continue this thread with consideration to all who are reading it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In a 50/50 case or 60/40, I don't feel it's wrong to say something like "Half (or over half / most) of Americans think ..." it's basically fact. For example, about half of Americans preferred Bush as their president over Gore. Is this an inaccurate generalization? Is it an improper reflection of the state of America? I don't think so, and I doubt you think so either, am I wrong? |
Quote:
All I can do is remind myself of how likely those memories are to influence my perceptions and conciously negate them when they begin to surface. And I have learned to err on the side of caution and regard any generalization more likely to be offensive to someone, than not. Unfortunately I have met far too many people who are either unaware they are doing this, or who see no problem with prejudice. |
We need to redefine "prejudice". Afterall, likeing greenbeans over carrots is "prejudice". Sometimes you make a judgement call in certain situations that would be "prejudice". Like avoiding a large group of young, semi drunk males (reguardless of race, cause young semi drunk males tend to act the same in my experiance) The action to avoid the situation is prejudice, though I would contend that it's prudence as well.
Generalizations can also be benificial. If it's known that culturally group A does such and so or enjoys such and so then it's easier to utilze these "generalizations" to interact. For instance, one would "generalize" that most people in Green Bay like the Greenbay Packers football team. While it's true that not everyone would technically like the Packers, it would still be something you could use to open discusions with the local population. Mentioning the Packers will give them the sense that you understand them a bit or have something in common, that opening allows further interaction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In other words, "more than half" or "most" are in fact perfectly accurate and not gross generalizations when referring to the out come of a national election. Most Americans supported Bush, twice. (discounting the non-voters and any foul-play that may or may not have occurred) That is entirely true, isn't it? I could also just as accurately say that "In all developed democratic countries, most of it's population support their leader, even more so if he is reelected." |
In 2000 Bush got 47.87% of the popular vote. 50.5 million votes
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html In 2000 the voter turnout was 51.3% of American eligible to vote. National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008 — Infoplease.com So we can only show that 24% or so of people eligible to vote actually voted for Bush. That's not a majority or more than half, no matter how you cut it. |
The real problem is that 50% of the voteing public even votes. So technically it would only be 25% of the available voteing public voted for Bush or Gore. Plus that's less that the general public because not everyone is registered to vote or old enough to. So maybe you have a combined 40% of the total population that voted for either.
Stats are allways problamatic anyway. Like Mark Twain said, " There are two kinds of Liars, poloticians and stataticians. The two generally work together too. |
Quote:
This is why I never associate a population directly with it's political leadership. |
Quote:
So it's relatively safe to say that the remaining 63% of Americans might have voted along similar lines as the first 37% and 47% plus or minus a few percent of them would have also voted for Bush. In this case it would seem like Bush shouldn't have won, so it's not accurate to say that most of America supported him, perhaps "nearly half" would be better, but how about the 2004 elections? |
Quote:
Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote in the 2002 election in Iraq. Do you conclude that 100% of the people in Iraq supported Saddam Hussein? Anyway, my main point is I do not judge a body of people strictly on their leadership. I talk to people all around the world, and rarely are they really satisfied with what their government is doing. Maybe that is the one generalization we can make about humanity on the whole. |
here in uk i have never voted for the winning party. i voted for the green party.
other brits here who will know the outcome of our present coalition govt, i personallly think the two men cameron/conservative/ and clegg liberal--are like school boys out to play with their toys. we have our hooligans who i would wish to avoid at all costs. sometimes they give a really bad image of brits---so people dislike the brits but majority of people are law abiding but with our latest changes i believe there will be many protests against the massive cuts in our country. |
definition
Quote:
|
Quote:
I vote green also here in NZ. |
Quote:
|
Just wanted to add that the United States president is not decided on popular vote, but rather Electoral College. Dwindling the "general opinion" of the people numbers down even further.
|
Quote:
anyone who gives a bad impression of the british people. there is too much binge drinking where they get bladdered-- often ending up needing hospital treatment if they hurt themselves, when we travel abroad we should behave in a decent manner not make others detest the rest of decent behaving brits. i feel sorry for our police and hospitals that have to deal with drink or drug related problems. i would believe that most brits are decent. football hooliganism is one example of bad behaviour. sorry i have a broken arm and cannot do capital letters easily |
Quote:
my husband alwas quotes--------- "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point. The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Englishman Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843–1911).[citation needed] basically don't believe a word about statistics and all the lies they use to try to influence everyone |
Quote:
Anyway this current criticism against our government really annoys me. Everyone I know denies voting for conservative/liberal, but the fact is that someone voted for them else we would still have the old government. I think these people who protest against the cuts are very short-sighted and a product of this 'now, now, now' mentality that Western society has, where we have to have what we want when we want it. If we don't make cuts then how will we get back the money that the previous government lost us? If we don't have cuts how will we get out of bankrupcy and avoid situations like in Ireland or Greece? I just wish there was a protest against these protesters, that I would gladly join! :D I do agree with you about the hooligan/chav aspect though, and the bad image of Brits due to that . . . then again I think they're just a product of society too, and so it's probably safe to make a generalisation about Brits based on their behaviour, because - frankly - when you walk out and about they are the majority, whether we like it or not. |
impression
Quote:
Quote:
Interesting, there is a special crime in a Soviet-Russian criminal Law called "hooliganism". Seems, this is borrowed word directly from English language. The crime could be depicted as "actions include violence and / or rude behaviour and demostrate negative attitude to society in general" |
Quote:
ah robin---we shall see what we shall see. i have lived through the war robin. i think our current representatives who have plenty of money in their own rights, cutting libraries life blood to so many= closing swimming baths-- restricting aid to disabled etc. oh yes very good, we have those who cheat the benefit system-- they need to be routed. why should tax payers suffer for those, however i do not wish to fight with you. we now have so many losing their jobs. lets see who survives all this. i do not like clegg or cameron playing with their puppets, they are okay jack. maybe the bankers and transferring most of our business abroad has a huge impact goldman sachs also has much to answer for getting our banks to take on loans that they knew would come to disaster. this country has lost so many industries to overseas companies less help for many who fought for this country, i worked and paid my taxes. what real future is there for our country to recover now. so called big society--- let the countrymen and women take responsibility rather than the so called government, clegg is an out and out liar reneging on former promises. they don't care how many they kick out of work. i believe them to be power crazy and mad. however i do not want to fight but they make me so angry. would you have been happy if you had not access to libraries? our nhs is in dire danger-- that also gets abused by many. our schools are expected to cope with thousands of non english speaking immigrants i do not like any that abuse our nhs--- we are so lucky but this is in grave danger also. many elderly are doomed to be stranded in their own homes because of cuts, cannot afford care workers ps plenty did not vote for them-- it is a coalition govt with clegg in thrall to cameron i certainly did not vote for them. i believe we need experienced politicians. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you personally were broke and in debt, what would you do? You'd stop going out, you would shop less, you wouldn't buy so much, you would perhaps sell some old things . . . because if you carried on spending you'd go bankrupt and have nothing. The country is the same. We have to make sacrifices in order to work our way back up to the wealth we once had. If we want a future that's filled with libraries, services, help etc., then we need to sacrifice some things in the short term to achieve this. Most of your other points - like Clegg reneging on promises can be pretty much explained with what I've said above. You can't give out free tuition to students if you can't afford to. To be honest politics is worse than religion in my opinion, with religion you can stand to have some resemblance of a debate, in politics everyone ends up in a schoolyard throwing mud . . . 'You labours are too short-sighted', 'you snobby conservatives are too out of touch with the people!' So I'll stop before it reaches that level. I think we've both made points and explained them reasonably, so forgive me if I don't respond after this. If there's one thing I hate it's politics! :P :ywave: |
I don't understand the negativity towards statistics (getting slightly off topic here). Statistics, if done properly, are essentially mathematical facts. The population of a country, the number of people who vote, the percent without jobs... These are all fact, or little pieces of truth. To call statistics lies is like calling math lies.
Indeed there are ways to present the numbers to skew conclusions about what they mean, but that doesn't mean the numbers are lies. |
unfortunately politics rule our lives. its acting like the proverbial ostrich just pretending everything is hunky dory.
house prices are scandalous, i feel sorry for young people trying to survive with all the massive rents and mortgages. cuts yet all costs rising. most young people stay with their parents much longer than they used to need to do. robin u do not need to reply to anything i write anyway because mostly you contradict me--i don't actually care though. you still have your life before you where mine will soon be closing. anway it was really about impressions and generalising about nationalities. we can be seen in certain ways-- but it is the politicianswho make decisions but the rest of the world might think that we all are in agreement with our leaders, sending men to war in places where we should not be. cutting our cloth to suit our means i think you mean, what makes you think that we don't. my daughter works her guts out to survive yet everything goes against her, stop the greedy landlords and property developers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
you are at the close of your uni studies--maybe their libraries and access to knowledge should also be denied, how would students progress without access to books/ its like those who received free university-- as many did-- now denying access to todays students--the govt has cut the amount they give to universities so the student now has the cost---blair wanted 50 percent of students to go to university-----------why? are they more important than the rest who don't get that extra education. anyway i will shut up now---businesses go abroad or big companies transfer from uk to overseas hence loss of thousands of jobs here. ps re clegg reneging on his previous promise about university fees, he lied and gave false promises in order to get the vote. why should anyone trust him again? see what goldman sachs is resposible for also |
Britian's NHS is messed up almost beyond repair. The US's will join it soon with Obama care. It's about incentive, national health systems don't have any incentive for medical persons, drug companies, medical equipment companies.
They take profit away from the inovators who desire it, take the incentive away and the desire to achieve through medicine decreases. You get fewer doctors and Nurses who work in the field, fewer drug companies doing research or development on new drugs. Medical companies that drop new surgury ideas or new medical research becuase the money isn't in it. To be successful drives everything, prevent avenues of success in the medical fields and the medical fields will stagnate. Communist Russia collapsed for the same reason, lack of incentive destroyed motivation to inovate, invent, or invigorate. MMM; Stats can be used anyway one desires. For instance, consider the statistic that over 50% of black families live below the poverty line while only 24% of white families do. You could argue that there are more black families liveing below poverty than whites. Except there are many times more whites liveing in the US than blacks and by actual numbers there are more white families liveing in poverty than black families. That's the trouble with stats, they can be rigged to work in any favor you want, based on your side of the argument. While it's true Numbers themselves don't lie, the people who present those numbers do, all the time. |
[quote=MissMisa;851252]I didn't vote for the Conversatives... lol, ew. They only policy I agree with is their one on immigration.
They way they are handling the NHS is terrible. Recently, they are expecting district nurses to transport soiled waste in their own cars (this includes fecal matter, used dressings etc) which are used to take their children to school and carry their shopping. These nurses already subsidise the petrol allowance. By giving managerial power to doctors mean that the doctors will now be dealing with the NHS's finances. This means that when prescribing drugs they will now be considering the cost of these drugs alongside the need of the patient. This is certainly not what I want for the NHS. QUOTE "don't get me going on that!!!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14 PM. |