This isn’t exactly a pitting, but there’s been a recurrent theme in a few recent posts by elmwood that I’d like to see explained. (I may be a bit late on the reaction, seeing how he made the last of these posts a few days ago, but I’ve just noticed it.)
First [post=9933990]this[/post]:
[QUOTE=elmwood]
Why is it when Americans are loud, it’s a bad thing, but when those from ther cultures are loud, it’s considered a good thing - their loudness is given positive labels such as expressive, animated, gregarious, and so on, or just accepted as part of the vocal timber of their native language, rather than considered “obnoxious” as Americans are?
[/QUOTE]
elmwood was the first one to bring “obnoxious” in the thread. Most people until then were agreeing (or disagreeing) with the notion of Americans (and other national groups) as being loud. Other than the condemnation of Fox News, there wasn’t much in the way of moral judgement either way. Then [post=9936212]this[/post]:
[QUOTE=elmwood]
Again, though, I’ll say this: why is loudness considered a bad thing when Americans do it, but a good thing when it’s other cultures?
[/QUOTE]
even sven also didn’t make any moral judgement. Maybe her choice of words wasn’t perfect (“open” and such), but what I understood her to mean was that some cultures tend to put more emphasis on the expression of emotions, while others are more phlegmatic and show less emotion. That’s certainly possible, and it could be expected that the first group would speak more loudly. There’s nothing “good” or “bad” here.
Finally, we get to [post=9955293]this[/post]:
[QUOTE=elmwood]
When Europeans prohibit name changes, or even restrict permitted names to a list of a few hundred or thousand, it’s sensible and logical; a way to prevent children from being teased, protect national culture, and so on. When Americans prohibit name changes, it’s because they’re too sensitive and puritanical.
[/quote]
Honestly, on boards like this one, I’ve never seen the fact that some cultures, notably European ones, tend to be less individualistic and more “communautarian”, so to speak, than the US, be considered a “good” thing in general. Indeed, since most of our membership comes from the US, the idea that in France parents must have their children’s names be approved by the government, or that in Germany people are forbidden to buy Nazi memorabilia, is often seen here as the first step on a slippery slope toward tyranny. (Myself, being from a less individualistic culture too, I tend to see good points in both value systems.)
So my question is, where did elmwood get the idea that people here give a break to non-Americans when they would blame Americans for the exact same thing? Because I didn’t see anything like this in the linked threads. I’d like to see some evidence of this hypocrisy or double standard.
so do Americans. I notice that my national TV - even in French-- is cluttered with US productions, including programmes like Ugly Betty, Lost, and Desperate Housewives, all of which are entertaining us in their dubbed-in-France form. Surely that’s a way of praising (albeit indirectly) American products. You are still Top Dogs in the world, and for that privilege alone you are bound to get criticized. It’s nothing new.
Anyway, thank you.