I agree with everything up to the WASP comment.

Seriously - when I have a problem in business or billing, whatever, I always seek out the "lady of African descent" - in other words, the black woman - to get the problem solved. And she does.

And apparently, I'm not just reading this post incorrectly?

Or all we all?

Please explain, Kort.

My reading suggests that Kortpeel is not necessarily racist - I don't believe he is. I simply see him expressing a preference for his own kind and status quo in terms of power bases, without necessarily putting another down. The insult is not really there, simply his preference. Hell, I prefer that my own kind have more power - gay eunuchoid nuns who dress well.

So many are very knee jerk reactive nowadays, terrified of offending any one else, or being called by some ism, that often we dont reflect on what we are doing. There are people out there that I utterly despise, and there are cultural"isms" that I detest and hold in contempt. That does not make me a bigot. It makes me the holder of an opinion - to which I AM entitled. Generally, I don't make unfounded judgments of others - I usually prefer not to make any judgments at all unless necessary. I usually have thought about my reasons, and sometimes even make poor judgments. Stuff happens.

My suggestion is pull in the horns and read closely - words have valued meanings - we just don't always see them. Sometimes we also don't express or choose them with optimum effect.

very good. I love words. Just look up "bigot" or "wasp"

In dictionary.com a wasp is a snappish or petulant person.

So then you need to look up "snappish" and "petulant".

And for a more complete explanation of "wasp", look up "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" in wikipedia.

words, used, or mis-used, have the power to inflict understanding, pain, or stir up emotions.

It is very difficult to convey meaning, or emotion, in typed messages.

If you do it well, you should be working for the news media and making money from your opinions.

if you do it not well, you get mis-understood and then it takes more writing to clarify what you intended or really meant, and you don't make money from your opinions.

I do believe the word WASP has a known meaning, I guess at one time I was a WASP but now I am just a WAS.

Take that meaning and run with it.

River

kristoff wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:32 pm My reading suggests that Kortpeel is not necessarily racist - I don't believe he is. I simply see him expressing a preference for his own kind and status quo in terms of power bases, without necessarily putting another down. The insult is not really there, simply his preference. Hell, I prefer that my own kind have more power - gay eunuchoid nuns who dress well.

So many are very knee jerk reactive nowadays, terrified of offending any one else, or being called by some ism, that often we dont reflect on what we are doing. There are people out there that I utterly despise, and there are cultural"isms" that I detest and hold in contempt. That does not make me a bigot. It makes me the holder of an opinion - to which I AM entitled. Generally, I don't make unfounded judgments of others - I usually prefer not to make any judgments at all unless necessary. I usually have thought about my reasons, and sometimes even make poor judgments. Stuff happens.

My suggestion is pull in the horns and read closely - words have valued meanings - we just don't always see them. Sometimes we also don't express or choose them with optimum effect.

AMEN!

Too many folks these days are too sensitive, and are always looking for ways to voice their concerns about being discriminated against.

The words Racist and Bigot and Discriminate are all rolled into one meaning by so many.

Yeah, yeah, not quite-on-point.

Kortpeel didn't offend me at all. I value other's educated, and even not-so-educated, opinions. It tells me they think. When someone zero's-in on ONE statement, it's usually to detract from the rest, or move a topic off-point.

I really think many posters and EA Members could benefit from researching the Libertarian view-points (not necessarily joining their platform, as I feel a connection toward their views, but still despise Party-ism in America).

The original posting was about

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:17 am The article is primarily concerned with the role of globalisation in America’s decline but in my book it is a failure to adapt to changing times that is the problem. What worked well in the past won’t necessarily work well today.

America has become a lazy nation full of folks who aren't willing to go the distance beyond the steps necessary to collect their welfare checks, social security & SSI checks, and/or other Tax-payer-freebies. The vast majority of folks I deal with on a daily basis TRULY believe the United States OWES them a living, not because of any particular deformity or inability, but due to ancient history, and must remain their pseudo-parent for the rest of their days. Education and involvement is not on the agenda. Security is. They are smart enough to use the Law to their advantage but oddly not smart enough to get off the Public teat.

...

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:17 am Mrs. Wobble slipping on to her fat backside in Wal-Mart and holding them responsible for her carelessness with litigation. Anything to make a buck.

The o

riginal article that Kortpeel indicated in the link, described Americans as feeling left behind due to Globalization and advancements of other nations.

There is a reason; and it's not just $, powerful big-business, or greed.

It's the lack of interest Americans have for Democracy and 'Government' in general (and an over-whelming need to get-something-for-nothing). Most are apathetic and are not willing to go to any effort beyond Party-ism. Party-ism is group-mentality, and a lazy way of getting things done. Trouble is,...you don't always get what you bargain for. 100 years ago this would not have been the case. Today people vote their emotions more than concience. No one 'Party' has all the answers.

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:17 am Nations, like people, get into a comfort zone and success does contain the seeds for ultimate failure if you let it.

I'm glad America is not where it was 100 years ago on a social-level, when the Church had a major say-so in politics. But we have become a nation of Dependants. I think the "Right" are too controlled by the Church and a scary need to Parent today; and the "Left" are too controlled by emotion, Security and apathy. Both Parties in power today will take your $ & run; will tell you everything you want to hear, and disappoint you in the end, leaving you wishing you'd voted for the 'other guy'. Singling out "the current President" at every opportunity is never the answer. Voting for the "lesser-of-two-evils" isn't either. Creating a government held-accountable is.

Study issues, elect from knowledge, and not group-mentality.

Not by divine right.

Opinions have value. Educated comments do too.

I, too, wish to not take Kortpeel's words in the worst way possible.

When I think of WASP, I think of waists, whale-bone corsets and prominent female pubic mounds.

Yum Yum! Chocolate-covered insects...

Please explain, Kort.

I took nullorchis's advice and looked up WASP on Wikipedia.I was astonished at the baggage that term carries in the US. It has complicated overtones of racism, bigotry, class distinction and them-and-us type exclusiveness. Even worse, the term has different meanings depending on context it is used in.

Yet here in South Africa, which at one stage was the racist capital of the world, the term is completely neutral. To say "Bill Smith is a WASP" is a simple statement of fact, like saying "a bicycle has two wheels."

So in trying to use it as short hand for general western civilised values you could say that I stepped in the dog pooh.

So what is the general western civilised culture that I was trying to convey?

Honour, general decency, meetings one's commitments, keeping one's word, having a sense of noblesse oblige where those less fortunate are concerned, general empathy for one's fellow humans, judging others on their quality as people not on irrelevant factors such as race or skin colour, being responsible for one's own life after the age of, say, 25, doing the best you can for your own kids, when you are in a position of trust you do not betray that trust.

All those things are part of general western civilisation that come to mind off the top of my head.

Probably there are other qualities too. Note that "honour" does not mean killing your sister because she brought disgrace to the family.

As a culture I would say that the above is something to respect and to be proud of. I believe that there are aspects of other cultures which are immoral, wrong or stupid.

For example the annual ritual of circumcising 15 year old boys without anaesthetic or sterile conditions is one that could benefit from updating. That ritual marks the transition from boyhood to manhood in some cultures.

A general belief that being in a position of trust is primarily an opportunity to enrich oneself is not conducive to good governance at any level. A westerner would call that corruption, to many others it is simple commonsense.

And I'm so pleased that we in the west no longer believe in stoning adulterers to death, if we ever did believe that.

Well, so much for a common language. At least now I understand the horrified reaction to my posting. My congratulation to those who had the insight to see what I was trying to say.

A word of advice to all: beware of knee jerk reactions.

Kortpeel

Thank you for the insight and clarification.

I had half a mind to send in a post about us pilling on, which is not a good thing. But it has ended nicely with your reasoned post. Thanks. Now we can all go out together and get pissed Australian style, not American style. Thanks again.

I call a wasp one of those bugs that stung me the other day.