Democracy in America ~ Alexis de Tocqueville: Part Export

While all of the court cases may seem confusing to me i must admist i'm still stuck with the fact that the rules of counting and devinining votes from the undercounts is in the eye of the counter. This counter may be pulling for one side or the other. The law or rules must apply to everyone. You can't have a democracy if they are different for one than for the other. It seems to me that is the very essence of the law. If these under-votes are to be counted they same standard must apply in every precint. If not this is a sham. All people should be equal before the law and so should the way in which their votes are counted.

Count all the votes is such a simplistic statement. Count all the under-votes by all means but the same standard must apply across the State.

Mike comes up with what he calls a "weird scenario out of his weird mind" i.e. each candidate simultaneously deciding to concede because neither wanted to be a President who will be described as a "loser." This scenario will probably never happen, Mike, but nothing is surprising us anymore!

BE SURE YOU HAVE CLICKED ONTO THE "SUBSCRIBE" BUTTON ON THE BOTTOM, FOLKS.

Robby

Robby~Could you move his interesting post here from the closed discussion. It was such a great post that it seems a shame to 'lose' it.

Kath:--Here is Mike's posting at your request. (For those who wish to read any of the former postings all the way back to the beginning on July 28th-- click onto the red letters "Books and Literature." You will find in the list that comes up two saying READ ONLY and one the current discussion.)

mikecantor - 08:06pm Dec 9, 2000 PST (#1913 of 1914) As I read through all of your posts concerning the election fiasco, I am somewhat bemused by the complexity and hyperbole regarding all of the “what if”s” that are being explored and discussed in such minutia. There is no question that we are all observing a very important part of the history of this nation that will, whether we like the outcome or not, affect the future of Americans as a people in quest of a truly democratic nation. Unfortunately the purview of exactly what “a democratic nation” is varies, to the extremes, in the eyes of a variety of beholders of the democratic dream. Thinking along these lines has provoked some really weird images in my mind.

For example: Does it not occur to you all that the winner in this election, is, in reality, the loser? With a nation and a congress split down the middle as thoroughly as the voting population, no matter who finally takes the oath of office as the most powerful leader in the world, half of this country will never stop believing that they were disenfranchised and that the election was stolen through chicanery and misconduct.

That is a condition which no amount of rhetoric concerning the fairy tale political world of “coming together” and “reaching out” out to each other for the good of the country, will overcome. The result will be a “do nothing” Congress such as this nation as ever seen since its’ inception. As a result, our golden gilt-edged economy will take a nosedive into the dust dragging with it the fallacy of a balanced budget and trillions of dollars of a government surplus just aching to be spent on political pork projects.

As this nation staggers through a recession worse than anything it has ever seen before, who do you suppose will be blamed for it all? The party who won the election of course! The loser in this election will then be able to proclaim to one and all: “Well, if they hadn’t stolen the election from me, none of this would be happening to you.” And what is most important of all is that in four years, the loser in this election, together with his party, will win such acclamation from a disenchanted populace that there will be no question of a close election requiring hand counting of ballots. It will probably be more like a coronation.

I would not be surprised to discover that this weird little scenario I have envisioned in my weird little mind has already occurred to Bush and Gore and their respective parties. Would it not be hilarious, if as a result, they both decided to concede the election to the other SIMULTANEOUSLY!

I guess I really have to stop staying up all night and trying to absorb and understand what all the networks and their pundits are trying to drum into my head about what is going on in this mystified country of ours. I think it’s all really starting to get to me!

I don't understand why we should think what Congress or the President does makes the economy go or not go. Money and opportunity makes for good times, not a President or Congress. Your 4K (i think that is what you call them) plans are buldging with money and money needs a place to grow. They will continue to invest this money and make it work for them.

The new economy has recently gone in the dumper but i'm sure after a shakeout the thing will take off again. Many will by these now cheap stocks as many now look like a good buy. Greenspan has just brought the interest rate down, which will fuel the stockmarket yet again.

At least i think so.

)

Thanks Robby.

HERE IS THE EXACT WORDINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

Following is the text of the ruling yesterday by the United States Supreme Court to halt the hand recount in Florida and set Monday morning for arguments. The vote in George W. Bush v. Albert Gore Jr. was 5 to 4. The justices who voted to grant the stay requested by Governor Bush were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who wrote a concurring opinion. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented with Justice Stevens writing the dissent.

THE DECISION

The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the court is granted, and it is ordered that the mandate of the Florida Supreme Court is hereby stayed pending further order of the court. In addition, the application for stay is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The briefs of the parties, not to exceed 50 pages, are to be filed with the clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 4 p.m. Sunday, Dec. 10, 2000. Rule 29.2 is suspended in this case. Briefs may be filed in compliance with Rule 33.2 to be replaced as soon as possible with the briefs prepared in compliance with Rule 33.1. The case is set for oral argument on Monday, Dec. 11, 2000, at 11 a.m., and a total of 1 1/2 hours allotted for oral argument.

BY JUSTICE SCALIA, Concurring

Though it is not customary for the court to issue an opinion in connection with its grant of stay, I believe a brief response is necessary to Justice Stevens's dissent. I will not address the merits of this case, since they will shortly be before us in the petition for certiorari that we have granted. It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success.

On the question of irreparable harm, however, a few words are appropriate. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast votes."

The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

Another issue in the case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of letting the standard for determination of voters' intent — dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc. — vary from county to county, as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted by the circuit court, permits. If petitioner is correct that the counting in this fashion is unlawful, permitting the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent an accurate recount from being conducted on a proper basis later, since it is generally agreed that each manual recount produces a degradation of the ballots, which renders a subsequent recount inaccurate.

For these reasons I have joined the court's issuance of stay, with a highly accelerated timetable for resolving this case on the merits.

THE DISSENT By Justice Stevens

To stop the counting of legal votes, the majority today departs from three venerable rules of judicial restraint that have guided the court throughout its history. On questions of state law, we have consistently respected the opinions of the highest courts of the states. On questions whose resolution is committed at least in large measure to another branch of the federal government, we have construed our own jurisdiction narrowly and exercised it cautiously. On federal constitutional questions that were not fairly presented to the court whose judgment is being reviewed, we have prudently declined to express an opinion. The majority has acted unwisely.

MIKE: You have expressed by opinion exactly to a letter. Just like Clinton inherited the beginning of an economic upswing from papa Bush's administration, the winner of this election will inherit the start of an economic downswing from the Clinton administration. From all indications, it is most likely to be papa Bush's son George W.

I don't think we will have to wait four years for the downfall. The mid term elections in two years will drastically change the complection of the Congress, which after all is where the real power lies.

Phew, so many issues on the table. History shows we have thuout eons of time; Kings, their followers, and slaves or today with all our freedom it is; those at the top (richest is one definition, eqo satisfaction is probably more correct) the worker bees, (strugglers, i want it better than I have now) and poorest(without capability????) ie still three classes. My take is that you will have many philosophies depending on your perspective. And within the same party. It is more on how the solution is approached. One measure has always been the amount of the dollar that winds up in the hands of those who make direct use of same and how much goes to overhead (government, fund raising, etc). How much good is my tax dollar doing vs I need more, why can't they?

Another issue in the case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of letting the standard for determination of voters' intent — dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc. — vary from county to county, as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted by the circuit court, permits. If petitioner is correct that the counting in this fashion is unlawful, permitting the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent an accurate recount from being conducted on a proper basis later, since it is generally agreed that each manual recount produces a degradation of the ballots, which renders a subsequent recount inaccurate.

That is exactly my point. Do you believe in equality or not?

I think that equality was lost when some people got to vote with voting equipment in good condition, and others didn't. To be equal all should have access to register their vote. Soon after the election I saw a woman that demanded another ballot and machine. The machine she had would not allow her to push the chad through to register her vote. She was given another machine and registered her vote. She requested that the faulty one be removed and replaced with a working machine. Her request was ignored and it was put back into service. Anyone using that machine was unable to register their vote.

How many other machines did not allow voters to legitimately register their vote? Are the machines tested before being put into use? Were these machines deliberately put into areas that were mainly Gore supporters? I think there are just too many unanswered questions in this election. One thing I am certain of is that there was not an equal opportunity for people to register their vote.

Kath, my understanding is that the older equipment was purchased first as this is where the larger populations were. In time the state of the art machines became old technology. The accussations surrounding this election are making a failing system worse and no one will have any faith at all, in the system or the new President.

In an earlier posting I quoted columnist Neal Gabler who believes that America lost its "innocence" shortly after World War II. He likened it to seeing the Wizard of Oz come out from behind the curtain and that, at the same time, Dorothy and her friends began to see the "truth." Gabler went on to say:--

"There is a seeming obsession in America today with pulling back the curtain and revealing the wizard there. Magazines like People and Vanity Fair, gossip columns, cable TV shows and, above all, the Internet, are all largely dedicated to taking the public behind the scenes. Political coverage was now primarily concerned with stagecraft and back-room deal making, presumably because that is what the audience wanted to know.

"But revelation had another effect. It not only demystified; it also delegitimized. It was difficult to unmask the depravities of the leaders of a system without undermining the legitimacy of the system itself. How could one feel respect for the congressional leadership when one now knew so many were grafters or hypocrites? Idealism falls hard, but it does fall.

"Still, there had always remained one beacon of hope and belief -- the election process itself. The ultimate authority rested with the people through the exercise of the vote. The vote was holy! When one entered the voting booth, one was entering the real cathedral of democracy. You made your choice. Your choice was registered. The candidate with the most votes took office. The Republic endured. Then came "Florida." It helped demystify this last redoubt of American political idealism by demonstrating that not even voting was as sacrosanct as we believed just a few weeks ago.

"The power of demystification is that it serves as the great equalizer. Demystification of the vote sapped legitimacy from the political process. The electoral process itself has been both demystified as just another hoax and deligitimized. Whoever becomes president cannot possibly be a symbol of our idealism. He will be the one whose party managed to work the system better.

"The Presidential election has become the biggest pseudo-event of all. Power resides not in the electoral system but in those who feel they have the perspecacity to see through it."

Is this approach overly negative? How do you see it?

Robby

I don't think it is Robby. That makes me sad in a way. The media is as i have stated so many times before, OJing this whole thing. They proclaimed a winner before the polls in the Panhandle of Florida had even closed. This was all to do with their need to be first.

Sure, a mature democracy must look at itself with all of its warts. There is no sence pretending that the US has some mystical hold on all this is right, good and just. The realization of our warts makes us want to improve the system bit by bit. Pretending one is without fault makes one stay in one place and not move forward.

What nation in this world can say it is perfect? Pretending it is, is folly.

I agree with the concept that we now have a Divided States of America. I agree that we have lost our Democracy. I agree that, given the clear influence of the US Supremes over any legitimate, final (as yet completed) hand-count meeting the December 12th deadline, the USSC has coronated the next President by default, regardless of whatever sham presentation they provide us with on Monday.

The only way a USSC ruling in favor of completing the counts would be at all meaningful would be for the USSC to also move the December 12th date (one-time) to permit the counts to resume to completion prior to the establishment of electors. Any other decision, now that they have assured that no possible validated count can occur by December 12th, will be a sham ruling, and would be an insult to the American people and their expectations of such a high court. Hence, Bush has already won the outcome, and by default, the election.

On questions of state law, we have consistently respected the opinions of the highest courts of the states. Scalia has stumbled upon the gist of the decision. The Justices, for this single decision, have abandoned their unbiased, professional tradition, and have moved off-track for Bush's sake alone, choosing a biased Federalization of the State's effort to (without loss of credibility) determine who actually did win the most votes, establishing who the electors of Florida should cast their votes for on December 12th.

I surrender. I'll simply prepare for a non-Representative Republic, and purge all thoughts of any Democracy reigning in America ever again from my memory. I'll also remain as part of the 51% or greater of the nation's people who don't believe (and may never be permitted to believe) that Bush won the election legitimately. Perception is everything.

"WE HAVE LOST OUR DEMOCRACY." A simple but extremely powerful statement by Gary Moore.

Agree? Disagree?

Robby

The method of voting and counting votes has never been equal in the United States and won't be until there's a uniform ballot nationwide with a fail-safe system of counting.

I have looked, but cannot find Robby's post with Justice Scalia's and Justice Stevens' statements. What Justice Stevens' said about the role of the United States Supreme Court in relation to state Supreme Courts is far more important than anything Scalia said, in my opinion.

The obsession this country has with a kind of witch-hunt and character destruction has to stop, but it won't until we fix parts of our government which very much need fixing. Well, after this experience I say for myself that I have lost confidence in what was once an almost sacred method of voting. I have also lost confidence in the judicial system, especially the highest court in the land. I have not lost faith in the United States of America because it is, after all, my country, but I don't trust too many of the people who run it any more.

It's a sad, sad time, and if we don't do something about what is wrong, we are in for more trouble than we've ever known before. Show a weakness, and people jump in. I know this very, very well from living a lifetime with visible physical weakness which was used to judge me as a person and as a reason for very negative and harmful behavior to me. The way people judge and treat human beings is not so very different from the way nations treat other nations.

Mal

Gary, for goodness sakes look at all that is right with America, not just this one muck up. How can you lose faith in your country so easily. Lord, you have sent men and women all over the face of this earth for the right reasons most of the time. You have tried to help others build democracies. Why would you allow a need to have one or the other of these not so great leaders, to kill your love and pride in country?

This is the time to believe in the possible. Out of this will come something good and clean. It is the realization that all is not well that will propel you to become the nation you thought you were.

Good grief folks this is a pimple on the face of history. You lose faith now and you are a goner for sure. You took on the mantle of world leader and now you lose faith in yourselves. Get your rears in gear and look at what's wrong so you can fix it. This is no time to lose faith for goodness sakes.

I'm not the only one who has portrayed that perception on the discussions.

But, don't take my opinions to be totally negative in nature.

This may be precisely the outcome required in order to provide the groundswell for more election competition, an elimination of the stranglehold the Party Machines have over our election process and its peripheral processes, campaign reform of many types, and a revitalization of Democracy in 2002 and 2004, assuming Democracy hasn't been totally put asunder during the 2001-2002 and 2001-2004 timeframes by the illegitimate "winner" of the election and the majority Machine factions on the Hill.

[edit] following Idris' #18. As you can see above, it is not the country I've lost pride and faith in, it is the Republic Government, and those who do not subscribe to the fine attributes you describe in your para #1 that now have my disdain. The people's Democracy can rise or fall based on the manipulation of the Republic Government and the Republic Party Machine, and the Machine's minions (including the "winner" and the USSC conservatives). Of course, as you point out, it will be the people themselves that resurrect Democracy over the next two or four years, not those in control of the non-Representative, un-Democratic Republic.

That's more like it, Gary. When all is said and done America and other nations are her people more than anything else. You will fix this mess and you will come out the better for it. You will get moving as a people and make it work. You have always been that way.

A long long time ago in some forum here I shared an experience I used to have as a career Scout Executive. One of my responsibilities was teaching games to Scoutmasters they could teach their boys. One "game" went in this fashion:--

Take a long clotheline and put a group of boys at one end and a group at the other. They pull and pull until the rope breaks. Then the two frayed ends are tied together with a square knot and the boys pull and pull again. Ultimately the rope breaks again but it NEVER breaks where the knot is. The boys learned that what was once a weak spot became the STRONGEST part of the rope.

Any of that applicable here?

Robby

And Bush's Presidency will forever be an asterisk in your favorite Alamanac. ;o)

You now know where the weak spots in your democracy are. Hopefully many will see the same weak spots. If you can come together, you can fix this problem. If however it is seen from only a personal view, it will never get fixed. The blame game and name calling will continue and nothing will be resolved. I would also start looking at the media, big time.

Speaking from observation, reading and personal experience, I know that the weak point can become the strongest one. It takes an enormous amount of hard work, though, and that's what is needed in this country to overcome the weaknesses that have now been revealed.

Idris is right. The media need to be put in their proper place without infringing on the First Amendment. I've been preaching for quite a long time about how programmed and influenced people are by media which are only out for the biggest bucks. Either the media change or we do. Start ignoring those commercials for a while to make them a bit hungry. That might give them a clue.

Mal

Mike you really have hit the nail on the head! I believe your predictions will come true.

In our daily business reports here there is already talk of the American Economy beginning to go into recession mode.

Carolyn

Have to add small comment on Idris's Post. The media is very powerful even here. They are very partisan as well. When our new government came in to power most of the Newspapers predicted gloom doom etc etc. Facts were manipulated and the opinion polls began to be so gloomy on our prospects for booting up our economy.

Then our biggest paper the Herald has started a campaign detailing all the business successes, the new overseas investments etc etc. Within a few weeks the polls were up in optimism.

So Idris I agree the Press can really manipulate any situation! They should abstain from crystal ball gazing until they have the facts!

Carolyn

I have not lost faith in my country nor have I lost faith in our judicial system....Just because a ruling doesn't go in my candiates favor or for the philosophy I believe in doesn't mean all is lost for heavens sake...In many little cities and county's all over this land the election went off without a hitch...... Some things never change.Over 50 years ago I remember well an uncle who was involved in politics.....He would purchase pints of whiskey to give to those who would not otherwise vote and see that they were taken to the polls and voted the right way.....Kind of turned me off then and that sort of thing still does....

It is not because a ruling did not go in my candidate's favor; it is because courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, are showing partisanship. I would stand behind either man who is named President, but not when such partisanship and maneuvering are shown.

I received a letter today from a very good friend of mine, who worked in a very responsible career job in the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for years and years as a court stenographer. His position made it possible for him to be in close contact at many, many hearings with representatives, senators, Presidents and other world leaders as well as justices on the Supreme Court over a long period of time. His view has always been that of one who was far more "inside" the Capitol than any of the rest of us. What follows is a portion of what he said.

"I, like you, am now completely disillusioned about our political system, after all these years of believing in it. The highest court in the land is nothing but a bunch of crooked politicians, who have their own axes to grind. I am outraged and frustrated to no end. I am convinced more than ever that Ralph Nader had it right. Both political parties are just that, different parties without a difference. The judicial system has been shown to be a sham and a fraud. It doesn't matter that Gore got more votes. The recount will not be allowed, and Bush will go into the White House. We are the laughing stock of the world, as far as our electoral system goes, as well we should be."

Mal ....we will agree to disagree......I know some people feel this way....I do not

Wait a minute! Just a goldarned minute! Partisan the courts are, but both of them!! The Florida SC and the USSC seemed to have made their decisions along party lines. So what did we expect? Did anyone hear what Judge Sauls' wife said about his being harrassed and mistreated by the judicial branch so badly that he decided that he couldn't take it anymore. She said that is why the man recused himself. Its become a game of one-upmanship and the public be da--ed!

There is no question about that, Ann. Further reason for being discouraged, I would think.

Mal

Wait a minute! Just a goldarned minute! Partisan the courts are, but both of them!! The Florida SC and the USSC seemed to have both made their decisions along party lines. So what did we expect?

Did anyone hear what Judge Sauls' wife said about his being harrassed and mistreated by the judicial branch so badly that he decided that he couldn't take it anymore? She said that is why the man recused himself. IMHO, its become a game of one-upmanship and the public be dashed on a great big rock!!

What surprises me is why so many people are surprised about politics in the USA? Politics permeate the entire country, certainly in the Courts (Supreme, State and District). One of my uncles was a Judge in the District Court in Montana; I worked as a legal beagle at the State level; and dealt occasionally with other jurisdictions across the country. One of the local judges explained once that the reason he wore work boots to Court was "because politics is a dirty business." His folksy manner might not have been understood by some who did not know him, but those of us who worked with him regularly knew exactly what he meant.

Anne - you mean Mrs. Saul's comments about her husband not willing "to kiss their boots?" Yup, that's what it's all about. Even though he is recuperating from hip replacement surgery, I can just see Pres. Bush working the phones like mad for W. and telling Jeb to "lay low" for a while.

In Canada all judges are appointed, not elected. Their term is usually for life, unless they do something terrible or mishandle their courts. They can't support political parties and they are not given the right to vote. I have no idea if this is a better system or not, but they seem to be fairly independant from what i gathered in the 11 years i worked in a law office.

Hello everyone. There are so many of you I/m afraid that I might leave out one or two names--s --hello all. First of all, I most vemphatically that we have lost our democracy! Ridiculous statement! These pst weeks have been an eye-opening demonstration of Democracy in Action. Admittedly there have been some untoward and unfamiliar steps but, nevertheless, they are all steps within the law.

This will soon be over. The result will leave permanent scars for a very long time. That is unfortunate but these are not the first scars and will eventually heal as have all the others.We Should be turning our thoughts to emedies for our obvious inadequacies. In a previous post(a sort of mild temper tantrum) i spoke of a few problems that we ought to begin to ponder. Every one is so tunnel visioned now that it's hard to start thinking of the future.

There have been few times in our history--as the N.Y.Times editorial pointed out--that we have noy faced trangressions by those in government. Nor will it be the last unless some power finally does away with all human frailties.Every time thee has been such a scandal or crisis we have survived. This is a demonstration that Democracy does work,no matter how many asterisks there are in ones almanac.

I do agree that many in the media is partial but not all commentators speak with partiality and they are not all on the same side. If they had relied on polls, especially at the polling places they would not have started this whole screw-up. I also believe that they have been instrumental in teaching a lot of americans a great deal about their government and its workings. In many cases the first brush with such knowledge.

If you read my earlier post you know that I do not believe that judges of any court are anointed. They are subject to the same biases as are we lesser human beings. By the way how do feel about judges of lower courts? Do you feel that they should be elected or appointed?

More later, much more. Mary

I most emphatically DO NOT believe

I agree with what Gary says about this now being a divided nation. I do not believe what we have been seeing is democracy in action. On the contrary, I think it has been a determined, strong-armed strangulation of democracy. I am aghast at one camp being so blatant in their methods of publically stealing the election from the voters. It smacks of a downright religious fanaticism to grab hold of the office to wield power at any cost. God help us all.

Someone in another forum wondered if this would be made into a movie. How could it possibly be made into one movie? There are no disinterested parties to construct such a story. There will have to be 2 movies, one depicting each point of view.

May I call your attention to an article that appeared in today's Los Angeles Times written by Duke University Professor Alex Keyessar entitled "ONE MAN, ONE VOTE" . He discusses some of the lessons we have learned about presidential elections throughout the past month. Some of the things he points out are not very pretty. Try this: HTTP://www.latimes.com/opinion losalbern

On NPR an hour ago Nina Totenberg quoted some Democrats in Congress as saying that the U.S. Supreme Court will get its "reward" for this and Nina will not be surprised if, for a while, there will be vacant seats on the Court.

Robby

Article II, Section 2, United States Constitution.

The President, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the supreme Court..."

Robby--

You know, I think that this particular discussion, at this particular time has been very valuable, and worth preserving in some fashion. Is there any way to get a computer file of all of the comments we have submitted that could be edited, and then printed as a sort of book. As a matter of fact, it might even make a book. It couldn't be more timely, and would be a great record of a historic event. I'm a pretty good editor, I volunteer.

Finally turned off the news shows after Donaldson's show. If I have to see Jim Baker, sorry James Baker, just one more time-----

A couple of comments on some recent statements on news shows--

CNN 11/30: This week "law making takes a back seat to legal issues"-- what did that mean?

And this morning in a discussion of the intelligence/education of the American people, "Strong democracy requires an educated populace". The speaker was saying that this whole situation has been an education.

In 1877, after the disputed election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Smauel J. Tilden, Congress created a commission of 15 members to decide who had really won in South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida. The commission was to have a supposed political independent as chairman, Justice David Davis of the Supreme Court. But when Illinois elected him to the Senate, he was replaced and all 15 commission members voted on party lines, giving Mr. Hayes a series of 8-to-7 victories and the presidency, by a single electoral vote.

Ten years later, Congress passed a law that would deal with such problems in the future. That law provides that if the House and the Senate agree, they can reject one set of electors and choose another. But if the House and the Senate disagree on the legitimacy of electors, the set certified by the governor of the state prevails.

Probably a coincidence, but interesting that all three states were Southern ones.

Robby

Jean:--I'll follow up on that suggestion.

Robby

Last night my radio picked up a New York talk show. I can't tell you how upsetting that program was. You would think this was a religious war or something akin to it. Nothing will be solved if no one listens to each other. After half an hour of listening to screaming on both sides i turned it off. Very upsetting.

Idris if you go over to the Election 2000 results, It will remind you of your talk show you listend to last night.....On second thought that may be why I never see you post over there.....(smiling)

I don't do well in those discussions, Tigerliley.

)

Robby--

Oh good. It would be really nice to have a 'project' to look forward to in 001.

Jean, if you run out of stuff to edit i have over 200 fae tales that need editing.

)

Idris, you know that I would be very happy to edit any and all of your fae stories.

Mal

Mal, you have enough on your plate. I keep hoping i'll make them better on my own. Fat chance! At the rate i'm going i'll have to be like Robby and live to a hundred and twenty. Ah well, such is life.

Idris, the offer still stands.

Mal

Separate and aside from all we know in the news regarding the back and forth action between courts, the following action is already taking place:--

The United States Commission on Civil Rights has voted to begin a "systematic investigation" into complaints about voting irregularities in Florida, and perhaps other states, to determine whether the rights of minority voters were violated on Election Day. They voted to study assertions of police intimidation, ineffective voting machines, early closings of polls and the absence of translators for non-English speakers.

The Justice Department is already investigating complaints by prominent civil rights groups that blacks and other minorities in Florida were denied the right to vote. While the investigations would not affect the outcome of the presidential election, they could lead to prosecutions or civil fines. Said Mary Frances Berry, the chairwoman of the commission: "The enormity of the number of inequities is astounding." She said that the commission would "look into every single allegation on public record or brought directly to our attention."

The commission planned to take sworn testimony from Floridians who have said that their rights were violated and from election officials. The commission has no power to enforce laws. But it does have broad authority to examine voting rights issues and to forward evidence of illegalities to the Justice Department. The preliminary investigation should be finished by the end of January.

Robby

Then let's hope there is action if the allegations are true, Robby.

Robby, one more thought on this. I was listening to a black lady on NPR radio. I can't remember what degree she had but she knew what she was talking about. She said that in some of the areas of Florida there are large numbers of the population that are illiterate. She estimated 40%. Now if that is true, the changes would have to be more than just names on a page. She suggested pictures along with the names. I don't know if this might be part of the answer, but the teams that go out to look should also find out what the rate of illiteracy is.

In any event this is all about the Rights Revolution and possibly this is one of the good things that will come out of this mess.

I recall seeing on several occasions the sample ballot as printed by each party. This was pre TV and could have been in the early radio days, certainly no "Talking Heads" ( I like that expression). Shame on the parties that are not doing the same today particularly in the door to door efforts to get out the vote. For the unfortunate they did not need the Civil Liberties, all they had to do was carry in the sample ballot showing where to put the "X" (or maybe take in a hammer and punch

) ) whatever. And we had umpteen less laws for the legal eagles to earn money over. "KISS", The world is not all square, or round, holes. Yea technology

) .

Comments by columnist William Safire:--

"You cannot spit in the eye of the nation's highest court without suffering consequences.

"The Florida Supreme Court ignored the U.S. Supreme Court's order nullifying its deadline-breaking action and in effect told the nation's final judicial tribunal to mind its own business. Florida's four-judge majority, not content with taking over the lawmaking function of its state's Legislature, and brushing aside the dire warning of creating an unnecessary crisis from its own chief justice, arrogated to itself the power to pursue its political course -- despite direction to the contrary a few days before from the top of the nation's court system.

"Our political process was almot subverted by a runaway court."

Your thoughts?

Robby

In a ruling on a previous case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:--

"The Court's only real power lies in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people's acceptance of the judiciary as fit to determine what the nation's laws means and to declare what it demands.

"The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make. Thus, the Court's legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the nation."

The court has as much at stake in the playing out of this national drama as either of the politicians. This may very well affect the future make up of their own court since the next president may have the chance to select new Supreme Court nominees.

What do you think is going through the minds of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court at this moment? How do you see this as relating to deTocqueville's astute remarks above?

Robby

Idris--

What are your fae stories? If you'd like to send me one via e-mail, I'd be glad to look at it. I am much better, however, at editing non-fiction stuff that tries to explain things. Thanks to my 30 years as a technical writer, editor. Clarity is my ever-present goal.

Robby--

My thoughts on the Supreme Court situation? Well, I think GB appealed to them because several of them were appointed by his father (altho one of those was in the 4 who voted in Gore's favor). I think they are betraying the trust we have always had that they were impartial and could be trusted to be objective and fair. To feel that they can be bought just like others in public office is a great disappointment. I may be wearing blinkers, but I truly just can't see how GB can EVER expect us to believe he was fairly elected. I'm not absolutely sure that Gore would have come out ahead, but I AM absolutely sure that Bush thought so and hence his 2nd run at the Supreme Court.

One would expect the above statement from William Safire, who has never hesitated to reveal his conservative thought and philosophy.

Where in the Constitution of the United States is there mention of the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court over state Supreme Courts, the other branches of government and the people of the United States? I have looked at the Articles about the judiciary and cannot find mention of the position of the U.S. Supreme Court in relationship to state Supreme Courts and the other things I mentioned.

If the U.S. Supreme Court justices are truly nonpartisan and circumspect, they are thinking of fairness and justice as they apply to the law when they consider their decision. If they are not, they are thinking of the consequences their votes will bring as related to people in power in the particular political party to which they belong.

Mal

IDRIS: We should have known that this was going to happen in Florida. Ever since 1965, when Lyndon Johnsons administration pushed through the Congress radical changes in the Immigration laws and opened the flood gates there has been an uncontrolled immigration from the south.Coupled with changes in the laws covering the granting of citizenship, this situationwas bound to happen. It was just a matter of time. No longer are new citizens required to speak, read and write English (our common language for over 200 years). In additions , they need not even know anything about our history or common heritage.

The Clinton administration, under pressure from Jesse Jackson, has repeatedly granted amnesty to illegal immigrants by the thousands. If you are concerned about Civil Rights thenI say look to the Democratic administrations of the past 40 years that opened the doors to illegal and unregulated legal immigration of a horde of illiterates. There is ample proof that the Civil Rights of all of the rest of our educated citizens, of whatever color, have been irreprably violated.

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In all Cases ... affecting those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Good Grief! It was Florida that caused the problems in the election of Rutherford B. Hayes. How long ago was that? Was that due to the immigration policies of the past 40 years? I don't think so.

I just heard an attorney who was a guest on the NPR Diane Rehm show say that in some Law Schools applications have gone up 10 percent.

Robby

I still think the US Supreme Court is there to protect the greatest law of the land, the Constitution. All laws flow in one way or another from that document.

As to our paper ballots. To the left of the name of the candidate there is the symbol of the party affiliation. Anyone who looks can tell if they are voting for the local member who will give them a final party federal party member. A small thing but sometimes a good idea.

) Jean my tales are most certainly fiction. They are about a faerie called the Wee One. They are also for children but some older folks like them too. Here is a link to my webpage

Tales From The Little Woods

It wouldn't surprise me Robby. Too bad most of them will have to live with the fact that folks just plain think they are crooks and the B word. It is far from the truth, but it is a common perception. Most toil away and do the best they can for their client.

Mikecantor - re: post 1913 - I could's say it better. You should live in Canada where the elections are so much more predictable. We are also 'strapped' with a surpluss and people just want it not to go away. We need all the refund of our taxes we can get in one form or another. I stopped even looking at news about the US presidential election. You will continue to enjoy what you already have whoever wins the race.

Robby - I still read de Tocqueville, its more like a 'livre de chevet' I don't know how to translate it. He can pinpoint all the differences between democracy in the US and democracy in France in his time.

Is this a succinct way of explaining the law in Florida?

Quoted from another site:

It is not the USSC that is making laws, they are trying to stop the FSC from making laws that are contrary to both Florida and the U.S.

Election for President is a federal position and federal law via the Constitution details how it is to be done. States are giving the authority to run the election - BUT, the procedure for the state election is to be set by the state legislature - AND the procedure must be in place and approved by the US Congress before the election begins. This procedure was done by the legislature and the procedure was approved by Congress and here is the procedure: The votes are counted and if a recount is needed, ONE is done; These are the final votes with only one exception - that one exception is that the absentee ballots from overseas can be counted up to Nov. 14; AND once these votes are added to the results of either the original count or the recount (if one is done), THE ELECTION IS OVER.

No matter which party does not like it, IT'S THE LAW! If you don't like it, it can be changed next time - BUT NO ONE UNDER THE SUN CAN CHANGE THE LAW THIS TIME. At present, the FSC has tried twice and I think the USSC will vacate the decision twice. And the only one that can change it next time is the Florida Legislature, not the FSC or the US Supremes.

The USSC besides abateing the FSC's 1st decision, also expressed dislike for treating voters different in some areas. They called it a two-tiered system. And how did the FSC do in this last decision - by not setting standards on how to count the votes, THEY PROPOSED A 67 TIERED SYSTEM.

The 2000 Florida Statutes

Title IX
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 102

Conducting Elections And Ascertaining The Results

102.168 Contest of election.--

(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last county canvassing board empowered to canvass the returns certifies the results of the election being contested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the last county canvassing board empowered to canvass the returns certifies the results of that particular election following a protest pursuant to s. 102.166(1), whichever occurs later.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(d) Proof that any elector, election official, or canvassing board member was given or offered a bribe or reward in money, property, or any other thing of value for the purpose of procuring the successful candidate's nomination or election or determining the result on any question submitted by referendum.

(e) Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question or that the outcome of the election on a question submitted by referendum was contrary to the result declared by the canvassing board or election board.
(4) The canvassing board or election board shall be the proper party defendant, and the successful candidate shall be an indispensable party to any action brought to contest the election or nomination of a candidate.

(5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.

(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer.

(7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding primary or other election.

The complete Year 2000 Florida Constitution, laws and statutes, including information about vote recounts can be seen by clicking the link below.
Florida: Constitution, Laws, Statutes

Idris - From a Brennan to an O'Neill, you know perfectly well that faery tales are not fiction, and you'll never find anything in your kitchen again if you don't immediately stand on one foot and rock on your heel. Hurry up, mavourneen! I feel the swish of the wee ones running past my ankles already.

Mahalia, i'm more Welsh than Irish.

) If real is what is felt and imagined, then the Wee One is real.

)

After listening to the tapes of the Supreme Court hearing I heard a law professor say that if the Supreme Court ordered the recount to continue it would mean that the Florida law about recounts is unconstitutional because it does not detail the means by which votes could be recounted or tell exactly what constitutes a vote, thus meaning that the same law in many other states is also unconstitutional. He also said that if the case was sent back to Florida courts it would end up back in the U.S. Supreme Court. He predicts that the Supreme Court will set the decision back to when the votes were first certified by Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, with George W. Bush the winner. This would avoid either of the two above-mentioned possibilities.

If this does, indeed, happen how will you feel about Democracy in America?

Mal

I would imagine that issues of interest to many at this site will be addressed on TV's Politically Incorrect on Dec. 14. ACLU president Nadine Strossen is scheduled to be the guest. She was, probably still is, a law prof at N.Y.U.

I am so glad that under our MMP system of Government we feel we had our say at the Polls.

Today I am very glad I am not a disenfranchised voter! I am glad I do not live in Florida!

In a close election your system of voting is open to this confusion. It has happened before and will happen again unless changes are made. Does America really want to relive the past few weeks in a future election!

Carolyn

Did any of the questions by the SC Justices surprise you? Did any of the answers or arguments by the lawyers suprise you?

I heard a reprise (in essence) of the first hearing. However, anything is possible in this nightmare.

There was some concern about differing election practices evinced by some of the Justices.Perhaos a good sign of things to come. This destructive election must never be permitted to occur again and we MUST gegin to plan for the antidote to this poison. I shall post more about this whether anyone reads them or comments upon them. It is too important to ignore.

More later, lots more. Mary

Malryn, I asked. You answered. Was it too succinct?

Ann, your post was interesting.

I'm not sure why you have chosen to be annoyed with me personally, frankly. I have no argument with you or anyone else in this country and am not preaching a sermon or philosophy, though I have reacted to some things that have happened, I admit.

Because my polio-affected leg was broken in a fall the Thursday before the election and there was no way for me to get to the polling place, I was unable to vote. If I had been, I probably would not have voted for either of the candidates who are in contention at this moment.

I do not want to offend you or anyone else, so I am now taking my leave. Good luck. Be well.

Mal

Kiwi - As we await the outcome of the current fracas, I believe that across the USA, State officials are holding heated discussions with their constituencies, who is turn are sending messages forward to their Congressional representatives in Washington DC that changes need to be made. My sense is that groundwork is being laid right now to forestall the same uncertainties from happening again in the future. Fax machines in Washington DC's Congressional offices are on 24/7; email is coming in by the thousands and phones are ringing off the hook as people are making their annoyances known along the proper channels. As Washington DC continues preparations for Inauguration Day (building the stands, planning the grids for traffic, etc.) I'm confident that simultaneously there is planning going on so that we as a Nation do not have to undergo this uncertainty again.

Washington DC is a unique city and there are a lot of "undercurrents" going on that never see the light of day in TV reports or newspapers (which is exactly how it should be). Just because we don't hear of these "other" manueverings, doesn't mean that they are not taking place.

According to Larry Kramer, a constitutional law expert at New York University School of Law, December 12th is a deadline only for the purpose of establishing a slate of electors from Florida that would be conclusive in Congress. If they don't make that deadline, nothing happens. The counting could continue. The idea of December 12th as an immutable dedline has emerged in news accounts and in some court rulings.

According to L. Kinvin Wroth, dean of Vermont Law School and an expert on the selection of Electoral College members, a recount could go on right up to at least the day of Congress's joint session. That session will be on January 5th or 6th.

Robby

For many of the more sophisticated(?) or ideological voters, this was to be an election that, to significant degree, determined the makeup of the Supreme Court. It seems we may have something akin to the opposite. This may be an election where the Supreme Court determined the presidency.

Robby, i agree January 5th or 6th will be the days not Dec. 12th.

I half listened to the Supremes today as i was doing late critiques. I got lost in my own thoughts so have only caught snippets of it since.

I truly don't think these folks want to deal with this matter at all. I think they want a remedy that will send it back to Florida and get some norm standards set for the same ballots and then do the count of the undercount ballots. This would in some small way address the concern of legitimacy of the winner.

I also noted that Gore now has a team of lawyers trying to undo the count of absentee ballots. I don't think this is a hot idea. You can't say, "Count all the votes" and then add, "except these that may be for Bush." One must be consistant to have credibility.

The other point the Supremes seemed to spend time on, was the Equal Protection concern.

We shall probably get a decision tomorrow but in all honesty i think they want rid of this matter.

Florida's "Freedom of Information Act" will sometime in the future make the disputed ballots available for public inspection. The ballots may eventually be examined by the press and civic groups. So one day we may know who got the most votes in Florida.

Robby

Robby, i think one of the larger Florida newspapers has first dibs on the ballots. There are several universities interested too. As i understand it the ones that have a department interested in statistics. They also said they thought the punch card ballots would have lost some of their integrity in the constant shuffling about and handling. The statasticion (is that what you call them?) said he thought there would never be an accurate hand count. Statistically this is a tie.

"The more laws, the less justice."

- - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Now if we could just keep people from going to lawyers we wouldn't need so many laws for everything from soup to nuts.

)

Statistically this is a tie, and statistics very often lie. a non mouse
This afternoon watching tv talking heads recounting the days events in courts and what it means I had a stange thought....At last the lawyers are going to choose the president. The winning party means the party with the most persuasive lawyers will wind up being our next president so The Lawyers win

Malryn

No offense taken, believe me. I just wanted to know if this explanation is correct. Although it does not include all of the actual rules and regulations, I thought it was a fairly clear and simple way to see what is going on in Florida. Please forgive me for not taking into consideration, the contest rules.

Like you, I was not too happy with my choices for president but I did vote a party, which may have been a mistake, but its too late for regrets. My husband did a write in(a first for him, in 45 years of voting), because he couldn't stomach either candidate.

I have concluded from discussing with various people that many folks this year did, for the first time, vote for a party rather than a person. They chose the party they felt best illustrated their philosophy and hoped that candidate would do a job for them in the coming four years.

Robby

Committees in each chamber of the Florida Legislature yesterday passed identical resolutions superseding the results of Florida's still contested popular vote. The House is set to vote on its measure today. The Senate is to take up its resolution tomorrow. Their comment was that they were prepared to act if the United States Supreme Court did not quickly settle the state's undecided presidential vote.

Both committees approved the measure in the form of a resolution that could be enacted without the signature of the Governor. The committee votes split nearly along party lines. Said one Representative: "I don't think most people like it when a bunch of politicians go into a room and come out with the next President." Other lawmakers sid they had no choice because the uncertainty surrounding the Nov. 7 election thratened to nullify florida's 25 electoral votes.

What is your reaction to this?

Robby

Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code entitled "Disqualification of Justices, Judges or Magistrates" requires court officers to excuse themselves if a spouse has "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, a former Republican Congressional aide, works for the Heritage Foundation which has close ties to the Republican Party. The Foundation would probably have a say in the hiring of key government officials. In e-mail distributed on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Mrs. Thomas solicited resumes "for transition purposes" from the government oversight committees of Congress.

Justice Thomas was appointed to the Court by President George Bush, candidate George W. Bush's father. Mrs. Thomas says there is no conflict. She insists that she rarely discusses matters before the Supreme Court with her husband. A federal appellate judge, Gilbert s. Merritt of the United Sttes Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, said he saw a serious conflict of interest. In an interview in Nashville he said: "I think he'd be subject to some kind of investigation in the Senate." Judge Merritt acknowledges that he has a long association with the Gore family and was considered a leading contender for the Supreme Court early in the Clinton Administration.

Your thoughts?

Robby

Two small events in the crowd outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building:--

1 - Said a 26-year old tourist from Munich. "In Germany this mixing-up of both sides would never happen. The extremists on both sides would be throwing stones and beating each other."
2 - A 46-year-old school teacher carrying a placard, "Military Mom for Bush" bonded with a 56-year-old Gore supporter and former real estate agent. Asked why they were chatting, the Gore supporter said, "well, we're old."

Robby

MaryPage--

That was my reaction, too. I just couldn't see the connection.

That rumor that Scalia would retire if Gore was elected doesn't make a lot of sense. He would be doing Gore a favor, giving him a chance to nominate a moderate or liberal and tilt the court away from Scalia's views. Very often, justices who are ailing try to hang on until there's a president to their liking, and then quit. William O. Douglas was practically a basket case, trying to hang on until someone (Nixon?) was no longer president.

Incidentally, Eisenhower supposedly said, "I made two mistakes, and both of them are on the Supreme Court". He was referring to Earl Warren and Brennan.

Do not Justice Thomas and his wife have the same interest, not a conflict of interest? Philosophy may be more correct in place of interest.

Rambler, I agree. more I heard, he said, she said, they said, and on and on.

We have become accustomed these days to the marvelous capability of computers to process numbers without substantial error. I think we tend to forget that the numbers that matter originally arise from some sort of measurement/count/analysis which was an an attempt to transform some sort of physical reality into a number. These processes are never without error. The late W. Edwards Deming often reminded us that we can never know the "true value" of anything. The best we can ever have is an "estimate" of the true value.

When considering these estimates we must be concerned with both the precision of the process (the fineness of measurement, i.e. a single vote) and the accuracy of the process (the relative freedom from bias). Of the two properties, accuracy is generally the most important to us.

Bias in a measurement can arise in many ways. In general, simple processes performed by people are not very precise but the are usually relative free from bias. Highly automated measurement processes on the other hand can be very precise but are notoriously inaccurate. Improper calibration, wear, and god knows what often give rise to *consistent biases* so that the estimates produced are very precisely wrong, time after time.

A statistician can take into account random variations in a measurement process and make estimates of the size of the probable errors in the outcomes ONLY if the the variations are indeed random. If there are unknown biases present, any statistical evaluation of RESULTS are meaningless. Only when standard, known samples are repeatedly run through the process can a statistician or anyone else detect the presence of bias and make any statement about the ACCURACY of the measurement process.

So I do not accept the notion of a "statistical tie" in the Florida count. Who says so? How would a statistician know? Who has run standards through these counting processes?

What I do believe is that hand counts by ordinary people would be as accurate (unbiased) as we can hope to get now. I hope that this mess will teach us something that can be used in future elections. Namely, not to rely on machines in the hands of untrained people in 6000 counties.

I trust the people more than the machines. How about you GW?

"Untrained people in 6000 counties." What havoc they could (and possibly did) wreak.

Robby

Robby:

Don not rely on the nuber 6000. that was just a WAG estimate on my part. John

Denizen:--I understood it as such but if someone wants to give the total of counties or precincts in the nation (not just Florida), that gives the possibility of "mistaken votes."

Robby

The best quote I've seen all day:

(From the NY Times)The goal of the Supreme Court should be to encourage a solution — a statewide hand recount by a uniform standard — that would leave both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush with a sick feeling that once the recount has started they don't know who will win. When the court has re-established that sick feeling in both men it will have ensured a legitimate outcome and restored the authority of this election to where it belongs — with "We the people." It'll be a shame if it doesn't. After all, this is America.

Linda

I agree with that Linda.

I think it is beautifully and logically thought out!

But hey, what is logical about most of this?

Some comments are being made about the true count coming sometime in the future to be made by academia or the like and the potential of the President being disenfranchised, whatever that mean. With all the "chads" strewn about the floors as has been reported how can any future count be correct? And who is going to say the counters will be unbiased??

Robby, you made a comment a ways back re the voting along party lines??? Have not the registered Democrats always exceeded the registered Republicans by considerable and Republicans only won when the Independants voted with same?

Is it not self evident that the voting was extremely close to a tie, and from this cannot the conclusion be drawn that there were a proportionate number of voters going in to vate and lo and behold coming out that could not make up there minds.

The question becomes, if the American people will accept anthing but their own guy winning, now. Have people so dug in that nothing but their own party's leader must win, or the outcome is suspicious? That is impossible as both of them can't win. Is a party win more important than the system and therefore the United States of America?

Last week the British Parliament opened with the Queen reading a sort of state of the union address (written by Blair) midst incredible pomp and ceremony. I couldn't help comparing that with the magisterial trappings around our Supreme Court. These kinds of things have a purpose. I think they are designed to make us forget that inside those ceremonial robes are people who are not all knowing and have weaknesses and are just as fallible as the rest of us.

There is obviously a need for a Supreme court. They do perform a necessary function. Their authority flows from and is limited to the constitution. de Toqueville, I believe, and others construe the constitution as the soverign of this country wherefrom authority flows. In theory, in a democracy the people are soverign and the source of authority.

I think we are confused about that distinction. Sometimes we think we are a democracy and sometimes we try to invoke a *higher* authority. We want to have it both ways.

At this moment in history, those two conflicting notions seem to be in stark conflict. Which will prevail? Will the next president be determined by the "intent of the voter" or the "opinion" of the majority of nine justices. I am waiting impatiently to find out.

Or will the Supremes find a way to extricate themselves from this mess? A truly historic moment?.... maybe.

The Queen was reading "The Speach From the Throne." It is always prepared by the Prime Minister's Office and presented by the Queen or in Canada by the Governer General, as a representative of the Crown. It sets forth what the governing party will do in the next session of parliament. The Queen no longer has any power within government here. She is mearly a figurehead, representing our form of government which is a Parliamentary and Constitutional Democracy.

Idris I consider myself a conservative democrat and I voted for Gov. Bush.....I am prepared to accept either as my President and move on...I have complete confidence in the Supreme Court and what the outcome will be.....I believe also that this election was just to close to call.....I want what is best for my country and it's citizens.....We are blessed and need to move on no matter what the outcome and quit all this acrimoney......

tigerliley, that is so funny. I am a moderate Republican (an Eisenhower Republican, if you will) and voted for Al Gore!

Basically, I think our nation is made up of independents and no one can predict which way we will go, except the pollsters of 5 minutes ago, and even they may be mistaken!

MaryPage I am smiling at your post too....Most of the time I think I am a conserative Democrat, then I tell people I am Independent, which I am,lol, and sometimes I think I am a moderate Republican.....I do kind of the partys "bleed" into one another now adays don't you?

The WTO could not make up its mind between two candidates for President so in the end they decided that the candidates could work half the term each. Mike Moore from NZ is serving the first half of the term!

Your vote is so close I do not know why this would not work. The population would be then truly represented! I know this idea would never be accepted by the candidates in America but look at the money in lawyers fees that would be saved never mind peace of mind of the citizens! I think the election being so very close my solution would be true democracy.

I wait under my desk for the bricks to start flying!

Carolyn

Not only does Judge Thomas have a family issue so does Judge A. Scalia, who has two sons working for the Bush campaign. Also Fox Exec (George W's cousin Ellis) denies giving Bush Camp confidential data on election night. But he made Fox mad by publishing conversations with George and Jeb on election night. He's suppose to be publishing it all on something called Inside.com

Here is a fitting word that spans the time between the publication of Democracy in America to today!

Gumption ..

The oldest of gumption's meanings is 'common sense'.

Originally a Scottish word, gumption was common in some English dialects in the early 18th century: "'Tis sma presumption To say they're but unlearned clarks, And want the gumption" (Ramsay, Christ's kirk on the green, 1718).

In the 18th and 19th centuries gumption coexisted with the variants rumgumption and rumblegumption: "They need nae try thy jokes to fathom; They want rumgumption" (Beattie, To Alexander Ross, 1770).

Today this 'common sense' meaning survives in Britian and as an American Southern regionalism with some currency in the rural Midwest: "If you had the gumption of a goat you'd have dumped her in the crick" (Kellner, Aunt Serena, 1968).

The 'intiative' meaning of gumption is the result of a 19th century drift in meaning, first noted in J.T. Brockett's 1825 Glossary of North Country words: "Gumshon, gumption, common sense, combined with energy."

By the middle of the 19th century, the two meanings had diverged, giving us one gumption that meant 'common sense' and another that meant 'initiative and energy': "I like your enterprise, gumption, &c." (Browne, A. Ward, 1862).

Today the 'initiative' meaning is most current in the American Northeast, but may also be heard in the Midwest and West.

And so the Northeast, Midwest and West would probably say both Gore and Bush have gumption meaning they and their attornies show initiative and energy...Where as we in the South and rural Midwest just think they have common sense and would probably only agree that one or the other displays any "common sense."

Last week the British Parliament opened with the Queen reading a sort of state of the union address (written by Blair) midst incredible pomp and ceremony. I couldn't help comparing that with the magisterial trappings around our Supreme Court. These kinds of things have a purpose. I think they are designed to make us forget that inside those ceremonial robes are people who are not all knowing and have weaknesses and are just as fallible as the rest of us.

There is obviously a need for a Supreme court. They do perform a necessary function. Their authority flows from and is limited to the constitution. de Toqueville, I believe, and others construe the constitution as the soverign of this country wherefrom authority flows. In theory, in a democracy the people are soverign and the source of authority.

I think we are confused about that distinction. Sometimes we think we are a democracy and sometimes we try to invoke a *higher* authority. We want to have it both ways.

At this moment in history, those two conflicting notions seem to be in stark conflict. Which will prevail? Will the next president be determined by the "intent of the voter" or the "opinion" of the majority of nine justices. I am waiting impatiently to find out.

Or will the Supremes find a way to extricate themselves from this mess?

3 PM Central time. Waiting. Waiting. This is like waiting to find out how the patient did in surgery. Will it be a complete success and short recovery? Will there be complications and a long, torturous recovery? Will there be scars?

To follow on John's comments and others' on statistics, I don't worry that much about the lack of vote-counting standards or about the spin on all the delicate hanging chads. All this imprecision is spread out equally. If "over handling" the ballots would cause buckets of chads to fall out (unproven one way or the other), they would fall out equally across counties (or across candidates). If "intent of the voter" is applied differently from table to table (as David Boise said), again, this imprecision would take place equally across counties, candidates (and tables).

It was stated that the standards for voting procedures was posted on the voting room walls. If that is so there must be a standard that was put in law by someone. Too bad the Supremes couldn't just attach the existing standards as an addendum to the judgment...should there be one.

Idris, since the punch card machines spit out 5 times the number of unprocessed ballots ("undervotes") as the lazer machines did, I think it might be those immigrant machines who didn't follow the instructions. 8>)

Betty, behave yourself!

(i did a double-take on that one. that's one for you.)

It seems to me we have more than enough laws for every event and situation under the sun and then some. I just bet there are rules for counting these things somewhere.

Seriously, Idris, I know you're right. I liked the suggestion by Boise, that the Court adopt the specificity of the Texas law, that spells out the vote-counting procedures. Several of the court cases cited by Boise all along, though, come from the states (Michigan and ?) who have continued to stick with the broader "intent of the voter."

Ok, I'll behave. I feel irritable and fussy.

If they could find rules that were part of the system before this election then they would not be making new law. That is the job of the legislature. To attach existing rules of the state in which the election took place would help to clarify the situation and would not be seen as politically motivated but simply the rules that apply to the situation at hand.

I posted a link to the Florida 2000 laws and statutes yesterday. If the link below works, it will take you to Title IX, chapter 101 of the Florida statutes. When you access the page, click 101.111 Voting by Paper Ballot and 101.015 Standards for Voting Systems.

Florida Election and Voting Laws

Being a full-time "working man," I have been gone almost all day and just got back to find that a lively conversation has been going on all day. That is so great! That I why I enjoy being the Discussion Leader here. I don't need to lead -- I just hang on for dear life!

Robby

10 p.m.(ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has sent back the case to the Florida Supreme Court "for further proceedings."

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that vote-recounting in Florida should not be resumed. This was decided by the same 5-to-4 tally by which the Court odered a halt to the counting on Saturday afternoon.

The Court found that the vote recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on Friday violated constitutional due process. Governor Bush has now won Florida's 25 electoral votes. Five justices, Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas in a majority vote decided that the proposed recount endorsed by the Florida Supreme Court cannot be done justly and on time. Dissenting were Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens.

Robby

Al Gore will be the first presidential candidate in 112 years to win the popular vote but lose the electoral votes. Gore obtained 338,000 more popular votes than Bush. Breyer and Souter suggested that perhaps the recounting could go on in Florida until Dec. 18 but the majority defeated that. This gives Bush 271 electoral votes, one more than needed, and Gore takes 267 votes. The difference between the two was only a couple of hundred votes out of nearly six million.

Robby

"Justice Stevens said the court's action 'can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.'

""His dissenting opinion, also signed by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, added: 'It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.' "

See paragraph 4 above of what de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America.

May I please request those participating here to re-read deTocqueville's four quotes above about Judicial Power in the United States as he saw it in 1831 and share with us your comparison with judicial power as you see it now?

Robby

The U.S. Supreme Court first referred to itself and then to the Florida Supreme Court:--

1 - The dissenters said that the Court, itself, should not have reviewed either this case or the one it decided last week.
2 - Referring to the Florida court, the majority said: "We are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

When I heard the statement of Justice Stevens (quoted by MALRYN above I suddenly understood why I had been having such a feeling of dismay. I would truly have felt 100 percent behind the Supreme Court Ruling no matter who won the election if the decision had been Unanoumous. Oh I know seven finally approved of the unsigned version and that is a majority but still leaves the court decision looking so political as to be appalling. There are no winners tonite. Faith

I truly wish thatI could believe that today's Supreme Court decision to overturn The Florida SP was based solely on those 5 Justices philosophical leanings rather than their political allegiances--- but I cannot.

I feel so betrayed - the Supreme court stopped the hand count and than used its own directive as the excuse why the time was used therefore there is no longer enough time to complete a hand count with newly agreed upon uniform standards.

I'm feeling physical pain with no place to turn for justice - we may just as well go back to having poll tests that allowed citizens the privledge to vote while eliminating the less schooled!

To use the letter of the law in order to subvert votes feels like a basic tenet of Democracy has been crushed. Hmmm taxation without representation can be a cry today for many.

I too am speechless. Maybe tomorrow I will see this in an historical perspective. All I can think about tonight was the moment when lawyer Welch asked Sen McCarthy "have you no shame?"

7 of the Supreme Court Justices said that what the Florida Supreme Court did was unconstitutional....that is good enough for me.....Lets heal our wounds and hurt feelings and get on with the work of the country......I am sure as was stated somewhere in the opinion or the text that this was not something the Court wanted to adjudicate....It came to them to do......They did according to their best light.....So be it...........

QUOTES:--

Michael C. Dorf, professor of constitutional law at Columbia Law School:--"I think the reaction will be immediate outrage by Democrats, glee by Republicans and, in the long run, increased cynicism about the court."

Barry Friedman, constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law:--"It is remarkable that the Supreme Court decided for the State of Florida that the Dec. 12 deadline was more important than finding the will of the voters."

Jack M. Balkin, constitutional law professor at Yale Law School:--"I would compare this to someone seeing someone drowning in the sea. And then that person says 'Wait, I'll save you.' And then says 'I changed my mind' and then swims back to shore.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert:--"The Florida Supreme Court is a bunch of partisan hacks."

Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois:--"It's Bork. It's Tower. It's a whole group of people who have become victims of this process of destroying people because we don't agree with them, or we think they made the wrong decision, or cast the wrong vote."

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California:--"I had hoped that the Court would send a clear message but that does not appear to have happened."

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts:--"Frankly, given the stakes here, it seems to me that it's been pretty mild. Hey, Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. Historically, this is the calmest reaction we've had to this kind of thing."

Robby

Given that regulations governing the re-count were missing from the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, trouble was brewing from the very day the decision was made. Equal protection was not given to the voters. A state wide re-count of the under counted ballots, with regulations was the way to go, to provide clarity and equality.

The cases was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and it seemed to me they could not win no matter what decision they made. Having no control over what the Florida Court had done they simply will take the blame for the mess. This mess started with machines and folks who were too cheap to replace them with machines that would give clarity to the vote. One hopes this will at least be fixed.

America is a nation of laws. The Supreme Court of the United States represents that notion. I expect the talking heads will enflame at least half of the voting public to keep their numbers of watchers up. The highest court and ultimately the people of the United States will suffer for all that has gone wrong, which will become a lose in faith in their rule of law.

I expect no end to this in real terms. Some will not be happy until the system has been dismantled. I wonder if the machines will ever be replaced with proper ones. I wonder if the finger pointing will extent to those who actually caused the problems in the first place. It is so much easier to listen to talking heads and not have to think about what this actually means for the people of the United States, in the long term.

Robby, for balance how about some quotes from conservative constitutional law professors.....I think we should remember this...three of the FSC justices ruled against VP Gore....four of the Supreme Court Justices against Busch.....That is just the way it is. It is a philosophy thing.....(I think I spelled Bush like the famous beer!!!)

Well I'm finally caught up and here and I just wonder at the foresight of Robby in wanting to hold a discussion of this VERY book at this VERY time in history!~!!!

Isn't it wonderful to be able to come here and talk about this under the framework of DeToqueville?

Thanks to you all, I don't often post but I do come here for my daily fix to feel au courant!

ginny

It is not because one candidate was named President of the United States and the other was not that bothers me; it is because the voices of too many people in this country were not allowed to be heard. Even when it was judged that there was unconstitutionality under the Equal Protection Law, the deadline could have been extended to December 18, and the recount could have continued; so said the minority justices in the Supreme Court.

Not only were votes not counted, but it has been revealed that voting machines in rich counties were newer and better than those in poor counties. Do not the poor deserve Equal Rights Protection, too?

All I wanted personally was that the votes be counted to the best of the ability of those who were counting under existing, if faulty, regulations, so a true picture of the vote would have been seen. That was not permitted by what appears to me to be a strongly partisan Supreme Court, a court which will be very hard for me to trust or have confidence in again.

"Talking heads" did not create this situation. The United States Supreme Court did when they agreed to take the Bush vs Gore case in the beginning.

Mal

Mal, Again my hats off to you for your ability to search out and link us to the realities, ie the postings of the Florida Election Laws. Thank you very much. Sometimes I beleive we approached the street shouters in trying to express our opinions and unfortunately a lot is now being directed to tearing the Supreme Court apart. I do not beleive our founding fathers ever thought all decisions would come out unanomous. Of couse it makes us feel good when they do and more so if it is the way we wanted it.

Back to the Florida laws. I can find the requirements for posting "How to Vote" or whatever placards being required in each polling place for the electors (STANDARDS) but I wonder if they were posted in each place and what did the read? Also I cannot find the automatic recount section, and its counterpart what to do in case of a tie?

Mal, i believe that if the Florida Supreme Court had set standards that were uniform across the counties and at each table, the hand count would have been done properly. All seven Supremes agreed that there were serious consititutional problems with the recount procedure. The Florida Supreme Court failed to set proper regulations regarding the counting of the undercounted votes. They could and should have taken the time to prepare a proper judgment. They did not.

Do we have anyone from the "dimple counties" aboard that can furnish a quote (underline quote and in red, no I thinks please) the reading of the elector instructions placard required to be posted in each voting place?

Mal, posted that link above. Try scrolling back and i think you will find what you want.

From the New York Times Online, December 13, 2000

"In addition to joining Justice Souter's dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer wrote one of his own, signed by the three other dissenters, in which he recounted the history of the deadlocked presidential election of 1876 and of the partisan role that one Supreme Court justice, Joseph P. Bradley, played in awarding the presidency to Rutherford B. Hayes.

"' This history may help to explain why I think it not only legally wrong, but also most unfortunate, for the Court simply to have terminated the Florida recount,' Justice Breyer said. He said the time problem that Florida faced was 'in significant part, a problem of the Court's own making.' The recount was moving ahead in an "orderly fashion," Justice Breyer said, when 'this court improvidently entered a stay.' He said: ' As a result, we will never know whether the recount could have been completed.'

" ' There was no need for the court to have involved itself in the election dispute this time,' he said, adding: 'Above all, in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the court itself. That confidence is a public treasure. It has been built slowly over many years, some of which were marked by a Civil War and the tragedy of segregation. It is a vitally necessary ingredient of any successful effort to protect basic liberty and, indeed, the rule of law itself.' "

Based on what the Supreme Court justices have said, my opinion still stands.

Mal

I suppose it depends what part of the judgment one looks at Mal. I was looking at the 7/2 position where they agreed there were constitutional problems with the recounts. I take your point though.

I agree with Justice Stevens that the clear loser in this election is the court. We expect them to have the wisdom of Solomon and find that they have the same fallibilties of being human as we all have.

Then we should not bring them dog food and expect them to make a prime rib dinner.

Idris,

I think we should ALWAYS expect a "prime rib dinner" from the highest court in our land. In this case we were given "dog food".

The last one with the hot potato is it. This blame game will go on forever. It gets us nowhere.

It reminds me of the NAFTA agreement we signed with your government. It included the US right to purchase bottled water from us. Suddenly the rules changed after the deal was done and water was now seen as what was in our great lakes. The ever changing need to rig the rules after the deal was signed, gets us nowwhere.

Destroy your courts, it is none of my business.

There is no question of blame or intent to destroy the courts. As Persian asked in an earlier post, and I paraphrase, why are we surprised? This has always been a political nation. If we have idealized the highest court in this country, that is our responsibility.

Justice is portrayed as blindfolded. Perhaps that's what we as a democratic republic had in mind. Democratic meaning democracy here.

Mal

The irony of using equal protection concerns to thwart counting the remaining, uncounted "undervotes" is too much. The sloppy, improvident intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court produced the gravest disruption to equal protection to Florida voters. It is a rotten day in our history.

The upside? Leiberman kept his Senate seat. The confirmation process of Supreme Court nominees will be rigorous. Beyond that, this country has a history of weathering other morons as President; we'll weather this one.

I don't know if this is at all important to you, but it is to me, and I have to talk about it. I just walked from this computer table to the bathroom on crutches, a total distance of about sixty feet. After that I IMed my daughter in the main house and asked her to put my rocking chair back here in front of my computer. After sitting so high in the wheelchair for so long, I now feel as if I'm sitting in the cellar with the computer on the first floor.

This is the biggest progress I've made since I broke my polio leg almost seven weeks ago. Wish me luck. The next step is to walk through the kitchen to the back door, across the deck and the boardwalk and get in my car!

Mal

Be careful Mal, and then go for it when you are ready.

Mal: That is great news. I know how discouragingly slow the healing process can be. But then there often comes a time when a person can look back and marvel at the progress that has been made. I hope the same will hold for the healing of the break in the political body....John

John:

Me, too!

Mal

I am relieved and happy for you, Dear Mal.

I believe it is untrue that we will never know how the vote would have come out. Interested parties, and there are millions of us, will underwrite a freedom of information count. I am absolutely certain we will know eventually. Unless, of course, someone manages to "lose" some of the boxes in some manner. That would not surprise me, either. Little in the way of blatant usurping of the reins of power by hook or by crook will ever astonish me again. I am pumped clean out of enthusiasm regarding the sanctity of my voice as a citizen of these United States, or of the protection my interests under our laws.

A Florida newspaper has first dibs on counting the ballots. They will then be studied by universities. I don't think this is a question of you will never know. This is a historic vote as Hayes and Tilden was. It will be studied and the results known.

The Executive Editor of the Miami Herald has filed to get the ballots. The approved court order has a deadline set for tomorrow---if the ballots are not in the hands of the Miami Herald by tomorrow(and they won't be, some are still in Tallahassee), then the holders of those ballots have to officially answer why not. Tomorrow's deadline is neither here nor there, said the Editor, the ballots will be in his hands within days. Asked by CNN how the ballots will be counted, he answered that they will be carefully described---how many with clear punches, how many with two corners still attached, how many with anything resembling a dimple, etc.

There is one thing about your democracy that is rarely seen in other countries...everything eventually comes out in the open. You do not live in a country that hides things. You will find out for better or worse, one way or the other.

I have to ask. Does this paper have a political bent?

The Catch 22 facing the Florida Supreme Court----even if they thought more specific instructions were needed to count the undervotes (equal protection)---if they had tampered with the Florida election laws by adding counting procedures, the U.S. Supreme Court would have overturned the decision for THAT.

The legislature could have been asked to provide them, could they not? Listen i think this thing was a mess from the word go, but somehow you will find a way to muddle through. Who said life was fair, anywhooooo?

You now know what has to be fixed, so you fix it and it won't happen again.

If the newspaper in question has a political bias then half the population won't agree with the outcome. Darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Did anyone here see any interesting comparisons between deTocqueville's comments (above) about Judicial Power in the United States and what has recently been happening?

Robby

So far the Miami Herald only has an order for access to the Miami/Dade ballots. They will thus be able to get a scoop on the first count of th most contiversial ballots. I think that will only be the opening act. There will unduobtedly be many others looking at ballots thoughout the state. Who knows, it might even show that Bush actually won.

"Possession is nine points of the law."

Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution
Section 1. (Known as the Equal Protection Clause)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Robbt: A de Tocqueville said "law and good manners." I feel that both sides involved in this political morass have been full of good manners. The lawyers yes, the affected parties, yes, their minions, yes. Not the News commentators however some of them have made outrageous statements almost as if they wished a more violent confrontation

Here in this discussion I have also observed a true expression of good manners and the posts have in the main been restrained and respectful of others opinions. That to me is AMERICA. Faith Pyle

""Here in this discussion I have also observed a true expression of good manners and the posts have in the main been restrained and respectful of others opinions. That to me is AMERICA." Faith Pyle.

I agree with you 100 percent! Participating in this forum has been extremely pleasant, even while it was enlightening, and I look forward to many many more posts.

Robby

I spent an inspiring and enlightening hour this afternoon watching Justice Clarence Thomas speaking to a group of high school students--who by the way asked far more intelligent and thoughtful questions than the media usually does. It was a wonderful insight to the workings of the court and an even more revealing and impressive insight into Judge Thomas. It will re-air tonight at 8 p.m. on C Span. He does not directly address last night's decision because he said it was too recent but he in effect related how the justices might reach such an important decision. Really, really interesting.

To disagree is not a crime, not to listen to another point of view is a shame. I think that is the secret of this thread. We may disagree, but we do listen to another's point of view.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."

- - Thomas Jefferson (1816)

I think we all know we have a long way to go to get to equal and impartial justice, Robby. The Rights Revolution isn't growing because we have equal and impartial justice. We still have a lot of work to do on both sides of the border. To believe we have, is to do nothing about the inequities that still exist.

What really was the state of justice in 1816? Somehow i think we would now think it was pretty bad. Somehow i think our children will think ours was pretty bad too.

Watching our news this morning there was a BBC item outlining the Heralds intentions and the BBC said that Gore will come out the winner in the recount. The remarks about Bush's ability as an intellectual and a Statesman were less than complimentary.

I am very interested to see what happens in the unofficial recount. As someone mentioned the truth will out and that is one good thing about an open society. However if it is shown that Gore would have won. What will this do to the Bush Administrations credibility?

Ok Al Gore is a very serious man, but he does have a presence and a confidence in his own abilities. He also comes out as a chap who does his homework.

Bush has a very hard task ahead to prove himself to be the equal of his father, who although my ideology differs from his, was Presidential Material.

Watching from afar with interest.

Carolyn

"Public opinion seems always to sustain the power of the Court. The people have seemed to feel that the Supreme Court, whatever its defects, is still the most detached, dispassionate and trustworthy custodian that our system affords for the translation of abstract into concrete constitutional commands."

- - Justice Robert H. Jackson (published in 1955 after his death).

Idris--

You'd have a very difficult time convincing any of the folks I work with at the college that the final outcome (redundant?) of the election was based on ANYthing but ruthless partisan politics. The fact that Bush knew Gore had won the popular vote overall, that Bush's brother was governor, and that most of the decisionmakers in Florida were Republican made it possible to bulldoze the process. I was somewhat gratified by Justice Ginsberg's signing her comments with, "I decline" instead of the usual "I RESPECTFULLY decline." She knows where the bodies are buried. I don't intend to watch either of the candidates tonight because I won't be able to believe either speech. I don't see how a person can feel that his/her own vote will really count in a pinch.

I'm quite depressed over the whole thing. Guess I'll keep my head in the sand for 4 years and hope no one notices me.

KiWi Lady....Regarding the Miami Herald counting the ballots......I would just say that I wonder what standards they will use to count the ballots....That was the whole problem with the manuel count to begin with.... It is possible that you could have four different entities count and have four different results!!!! I don't believe it will prove anything......except that they came out with a certain result.....

Tigerliley, it probably won't matter who has the ballots first. A university will probably offer to let scientists (oh, brother, this isn't even rocket science) do a descriptive analysis of the evidence. Or, maybe, an international team of forensic specialists can clear their schedule. Or a seventh grade English class. I wouldn't even mind if the mostly Republican Florida legislature counted them.

By the way, my new hero is moderate Republican Justice Stephens.

Jean, i can understand why you are upset. Look at my country and what a President that lives next to the Mexican border will probably do to us. Chretien in all probability will not get along with Bush as they are so very different in their political ideology. Chances are he won't come to Canada for a long time and think we live in igloos. He will probably look to the trade between Mexico and the US as being important not our shared border. I have to just hope that we will be okay.

On the other hand, your system worked. If anything it means that next time there will probably be better machines, a set of rules for counting the votes and a better turn out at the polls. If more people had turned out to vote i'm sure the election would not have been so close.

One other think i must say again, we rarely have an election where the person who wins the popular vote is the Prime Minister. I therefore have trouble understanding why everyone is so upset with this oddity in your election. Should you have a good third party, you might see things differently.

If everyone concentrates on what went wrong they will not look at what is right about your election process. There were no guns in the streets, the government didn't come to a halt. All is well and functioning. I should think you would all be proud of the fact that your mature Republic came through this strong and civil.

Idris, we have all recently become aware for about the first time that there are things that are not good about our election process. This is a terrible disillustionment for many Americans.

Also, we have the Electoral College system, and it seems unfair to some of us that the person who received the highest number of popular votes lost the election by only two electoral votes. There are some, too, who are disturbed because the election was decided by the Supreme Court.

There are also many in this country who feel cheated because their votes were thrown out or not counted.

There were other Presidential candidates and parties in the United States:

Green Party, Ralph Nader
Right to Life Party, Pat Buchanan
Constitution Party, Howard Phillips
Libertarian Party, Harry Browne,
Socialist Workers, James K. Harris

None of these candidates won enough electoral votes to carry a state. We do not yet have a strong enough third party to compete with the Republican and Democrat parties.

Mal

I know Mal but sometimes when the folks get fed up enough with what the old line parties do or don't do, they kick their sorry ... out the door and invite a split party to come to the party.

Mal, nothing could be worse for the US than to think they are perfect in all things. A little humility would help you to be a better world leader. Lord knows the rest of know our governments have their troubles. It isn't bad to find out you aren't always perfect in all things. Maybe this will be the thing that makes you fix a system that should have been fixed years ago. You are not a perfect society and neither is anyone else's.

Idris...Maybe their is something really wrong with me....I have all ways known that our elections are not perfect.....I have all ways known that there are twists and turns and some illegal things that go on....I am not in the least bit disallusioned....Politics is rough and tough.....I am also not disallusioned with our courts or the country as whole........Nothing in this life is perfect or fair....We go on to another day to make it better.....

Idris, we are a very young country, and it has taken us a while to grow up and away from a kind of solitary idealism into a more realistic nation in a world of other nations. I'm sure de Tocqueville talks about this in Democracy in America. Perhaps Robby will quote some of what he said.

Mal

Like the rest of us Tigerliley. There is much to fix in both of our countries and there is not sense hiding from the truth. Maybe that is our greatest challange. The challange is to work to make our societies better for everyone. Each time we confront the things in our societies that are not what we hope them to be, we work to fix them. There is no one else to blame but ourselves if our systems aren't moving forward.

Mal, we are one hundred years younger than you are. Still, look around the world, we live in good countries. That doesn't mean we can't and won't improve. There are questions of fairness and justice that still miss the mark in my country and in yours. Do we leave them sit as a blight on our nations or do we work to fix them? I think we work to fix them and if the politicians won't listen you take your vote elsewhere. What use are tweddle dee and tweddle dum if they won't change the system for the better?

"In America democracy is given up to its own propensities; its course is natural and its activity is unrestrained. There, consequently, its real character must be judged.

- - Alexis deTocqueville

Idris O'Neill

December 13, 2000 - 05:49 pm

Robby, i have no idea what that means.

(

robert b. iadeluca

December 13, 2000 - 05:51 pm

Idris:--How about "America does its own thing."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 13, 2000 - 05:52 pm

Oh!

) Then why didn't he just say that. Some of us aren't too bright you know. (holding up her hand and looking embarassed smile)

Malryn (Mal)

December 13, 2000 - 06:12 pm

"That which unites us is greater than that which divides us."

Albert Gore
December 13, 2000

tigerliley

December 13, 2000 - 06:15 pm

Outstanding speech by the Vice President.....Couldn't have been finer......I was so proud of him............

kiwi lady

December 13, 2000 - 06:19 pm

Al Gore is and will always be a Statesman! I am sorry he lost very sorry for us and all the little nations!

Carolyn

Idris O'Neill

December 13, 2000 - 06:30 pm

We shall see.

robert b. iadeluca

December 13, 2000 - 06:55 pm

Let's now hear what Bush has to say.

Robby

FaithP

December 13, 2000 - 07:49 pm

I am so proud of America tonight. Vice President Gore made an unparalled speech of concesion tonight. He was a true Statesman and gracious, kind, humorous, and I am proud of him. Then when I listened to President elect Bush speak I again felt really proud to be an American or grateful perhaps as here was another real statesman giving an acceptance speech that was humble without giving in to false sounding humility, he gave credit where he could to his opponent and I really felt he will do his very best to do what he promised, bring this country together to work in a bipartisan way for the greatest good.

As I said this afternoon re: the quotes above This country will survive on the law and good manners. As far as that supreme court decision is concerned the court has always since inception been political in some sense, yet they render legal decisions and America accepts these decisions and we may argue with the decision but we do not defame the Justices. That again seems to be De Tocqueville Law and Good Manners Faith

Denizen

December 13, 2000 - 09:08 pm

You must remember that we have not always settled our differences peacefully. Once we took to civil war and that turned out to be perhaps the bloodiest fraternal war of attrition that ever was.

It was not over an election to be sure, but I think it looms over our history and, although it was 135 years ago now, it still reminds us of the terrible price of not settling things in courts and statemanlike concession speeches.

Some good came out of that horror and as many have said, perhaps we will fix the voting system now, so that this kind of minor skirmish doesn't happen again.

Having said all that, I do think this process has illuminated the deep philosophical differences that still exist. I get a little uneasy when I hear all this talk of coming together and bipartisanship. Pretending that there really is no fundamental split in America will not make it disappear. I hope this election will not become as forgotten as last year's superbowl.

Civil discourse, as we have had in this discussion, is the real hope.

John

MaryPage

December 13, 2000 - 10:00 pm

I thought the first gave a great speech and the other just gave his same old stump political speech.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 03:22 am

As we look out and listen to America today, many emotions seem evident -- pride, sadness, joy, concern, optimism, etc. But everything else seems dwarfed by a great sigh of relief that it is all over. OK -- all together now --

P H E - E - E - E - E W!!!!

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 04:17 am

Having listened to both men, i have a sense of optimism. Bush is not a great orator but he speaks simply from the heart. If he is indeed a moderate and gets the school system on the road to recovery, controls the looney right and builds consensus on important issues, he will indeed have accomplished much.

I will watch who he picks to help him, very carefully. This will be my indicator as to where he is going and what he wants to do. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and wish him well. A weak America is not good for the world, especially now.

I must however state, very strongly that i want the wacky press to lay off his daughter, Jenna. She is only 19 and i think out of bounds for this disgusting part of your media.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 04:57 am

Cross-section of quotes from average citizens across America:--

"I've had enough. The counting and recounting, the lower courts, the upper courts."

"We don't have a perfect voting system and we'll never have a perfect voting system, and that's what people need to know."

"Some good can come out of it if the country ends up with new, uniform voting."

People will forget after a year."

"Half the things the court said I didn't understand."

"I got so tired of it I didn't give a darn anymore."

"Understanding the course of events will take years and years. Whether the effect will be good or bad, even if it's what we think it is today, is going to be a long time coming."

"It was the final uncertainty that most disheartened."

"It's always going to be a mystery."

"This was all supposed to be about the right to vote."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 05:33 am

Robby, i have been listening to NPR this morning. Just how difficult will it be for Bush to get democrats to come onto committees with him or onto the White House staff? They certainly don't think this can happen easily because of partisanship and the party whips.

I know our system is different but it is never that difficult to do that here. I wondered if they were just not gilding the lily or is it that bad?

Hairy

December 14, 2000 - 06:27 am

I just love this place! I read and read to get caught up and snicker and laugh and nod my head and smile at you all. Such lovely people!

I have a couple of articles about who Bush plans to use as his advisors, etc. I will try to get them back here before my editing time is used up. I also have something about the Miami Herald counting the ballots. :::rushing off.....:::

OK, here is one of them The Brains Behind Bush

Another can be found at that place at the left. It's something about George II Prepares to Restore the Court of His Father.

Now, to find the info about the newspaper.....

They're not going to count votes per se, they're going to categorize the ballots according to what they SEE. That is....clear punches ### for Gore; same for Bush, hanging chads ### for Gore; same for Bush. Dopey Dimples/indents ###. So they won't be setting the standard, they'll be reporting as objectively as they can and let the others draw the conclusions.

That's what I heard.

Linda

jeanlock

December 14, 2000 - 06:31 am

TigerLily--

Yes, there are political shenigans all the time, but I just can't remember anything so blatant before. And as someone on TV said this morning, usually it's the President who chooses the Supreme Court Justices, this time the Supreme Court chose the President! And there was hardly any attempt to even make it LOOK legit.

Idris--

Did you see the picture of the front page of one of the British tabloids this morning? Showed a picture of a globe of the world, with, in huge very black letters, BUSH, WE'RE HERE and an arrow pointing to England. That really made me chuckle.

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 06:43 am

Jean, sometimes it happens that you elect a President who is isolationist and that causes big trouble. I know it is a fine line between sticking your nose in where it isn't wanted and being too isolationist. You have the job of world leader so there you go. I do wish Bush luck because it is important to the rest of the world.

Ann Alden

December 14, 2000 - 06:47 am

I felt very good last night after hearing both men speak. I feel that its time to put this all behind us and get on with the process of changing the guard. Thank goodness, we have checks and balances.

My thoughts on the Supreme Court decision? It was a pretty speech couched in many, many, many words which said, "Gore, you lose! ". But, I also, agree with a coment that I heard a radio personality say yesterday. "These votes weren't counted for a reason, they have never been counted before either, for the same reason. We always have uncounted votes, in every election." Also, Justice O'Conner asked, "Can't anyone read directions? They were very clear and posted all over the voting places!" Having voted with the card and punch before, I now remember what she is talking about. You were supposed to check the back of your card and make sure that the "chads" were knocked off. Oh well, this is all in the past now and as Robby says,

Wheeeeeeeeeewwwwww!

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 06:58 am

I shall wait to see what he does, dispite the contents of the article. If we judge people by what is said of them, we miss opportunities. If the idea is to scare the bejebbers out of Americans so the rest of the world can laugh at them, i think this sort of thing works to hurt America.

Do we now, because of things written, write world leaders off before they start? Do we say America is finished? I think not. It is this very sort of thing that makes the vast majority of Americans who hold the middle ground, sick of politics and politicos.

If Bush does his best and manages to get even minor changes in a drug plan for seniors, schools and even a minor tax cut it will be a miracle with the attitude given in the article. Who suffers from this, Bush or the American people? I say, the American people. Who needs to shoot themselves in the foot, in order to prove the man wrong?

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 07:01 am

At the time that this discussion group began on July 28th, who would have thought it? Although we had begun to discuss America, we emphasized that we were not a political forum. We discussed whatever face America was presenting to us at the time. And, although the first faces we saw were "political" faces, e.g. the conventions and the campaigns, we also were able to examine other events that make America what it is.

In August, the back-to-school month, we discussed education in detail. Then came Labor Day and we spent some time discussing the working man and woman in our nation and the related topic of immigration. During September came brief comments and memories about past State Fairs. Columbus Day furnished us the opportunity to discuss the origin and/or "discovery" of America followed by some other memories about Oktoberfests. We were not a political Discussion Group. We were a group discussing events of all sorts that transpire in America.

THEN CAME ELECTION DAY! And this forum has not been the same since! Who would have thought that Election Day would last five weeks??!! Although at the start of this forum we dutifully refrained from using such terms as Democrat or Republican or stayed away from naming names, finally the whole nation "heated up" and the temptation became too strong for us. We became "de facto" a "political" Discussion Group.

However, America moves on. As important as choosing a President may be, there are other things that make up our lives. And Alexis deTocqueville, in his inimitable way, seems to cover all of them. Think, for example, of how this whole recent event started. The "media" announced to us that Bush had won. Then suddenly we found that the media make mistakes. If we pause a bit, we come to the stark realization that 100 percent of what we have been "knowing" for five weeks has been what the media tells us. How powerful is the press! And deTocqueville realized this. If you look at his quotes above, you will learn his thoughts. Of course there was no TV or radio or Internet in his time, so when he uses the word "newspaper," we will read that as "media." For those who want to continue discussing political items such as Electoral College or what the winning and/or losing candidates will do, there are many very excellent political forums in Senior Net where you can share your thoughts, including two brand new wonderful ones titled "Administrative Branch" and "Legislative Branch." However, those of you who have some strong opinions about the media, whether related to the recent election or not, are invited to stay here and give your thoughts. We are all aware that deTocqueville's quotes above in the Heading change periodically to reflect the sub-topic we are currently discussion. What are your reactions to what he says? Do they fit in with what the media is doing in America today? Please re-read the Introduction above which contains our guidelines. AMERICA MOVES ON. As we examine the various types of media, how do you think they go about helping to make America or Democracy what they are?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 07:09 am

"The power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people." (P94, Liberty of the Press in the United States.)

I have very serious questions about not only the press but major TV news networks. I think they are biased, jingoistic, hungry for market share and more divisive than helpful. They thrive on what used to be fit for newstand trash.

Sorry, but that's what i think of the major TV outlets and many papers. They no longer report the news they seek to cause division and fear to sell soap etc.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 07:22 am

As we move into discussing the media, I should share my bias -- and that is the use of the term "media" in too general a way. The media is this, the media does that. Are we talking about the Inquirer at the check out counter? the New York Times? the serious radio talk-shows? the biased shouting radio talk shows? the commercial TVs? the non-profit TVs?

Painting with a broad brush called "media" can be meaningless unless we are specific.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 07:36 am

Under the Constitution of the United States, as amended, the people of the United States, as the Soverign Power in the land, created the legal foundation of the United States as a representative government. In order to insure that the delegated power is wisely used, the people of the United States and the individual states must be well-informed on important matters affecting the present status and the future of the country and the particular states. To be well-informed, the people must have access to all of the news on important matters affecting the present status and future of the United States and the present status and future of the particular states.

Do you see this as happening? Do believe that you, as an individual, know all that you are entitled to know about how your nation is being run?

Robby

Ann Alden

December 14, 2000 - 07:37 am

Robby, I think that CNN, the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR is what we most refer to as the Media. I do believe that as this country was getting started, the media became a place where the common man/woman could come and read others opinions and find that many people felt the same way about the country as they did. Editorial comment in small towns was aimed at these new citizens of the country. I think it made them feel that their thoughts counted. Mankind is a political animal and we do like to speak aloud our thoughts on the body politic. Sometimes, we forget that the media can lie,too, and we take what they say for truth without searching out the truth on our own. It is said often, that we take whatever they say for fact. And of course, for many busy people, its whats in the newspapers or on TV that they believe. The media has a great power that I think they abuse which is why one must "look within".

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 07:39 am

Most newspapers in Canada are known for their biases. We know what position they will take on any given issue. Their editorial pages will include both sides of the argument. The letter to the editor section is usually more heavily weighted with their bias. Knowing these biases one reads knowing this. That is why one paper's opinion is not enough to understand both sides of the issue.

Junk newspapers are just terrible and i don't read them.

The CBC has a bias but will fairly discuss both sides of the issue. Radio talk show hosts here are biased but state the bias. We don't have anything like a far political right so they straddle the far left or right middle. CBC has a noon talk show but it is certainly not like regular talk shows and tries to get both sides of the argument.

CBC TV may well have a middle of the road bias but issues are usually discussed with all sides presenting over a period of time. People are identified as having a particular party stance, should that be important to the discussion.

I personally can't stand CNN and had it removed from my cable service. If there is anything really important for me to see, CBC picks up the feed and i can then decide if i wish to watch. Any station that brings me a war, dressed up like a video game, a stupid car chase and Clinton's personal problems ad nauseum....out it goes. It becomes a feeding frenzy more like the tabloids. It is entertainment TV not news TV to my mind. Sorry folks, we are supposed to say it like we see it.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 07:42 am

Ann:--Thanks for your thoughts regarding this important topic. What are some of the ways you believe those media you named have used to "abuse their power."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 07:46 am

Idris:--Do you believe that most people truly know the biases of the various newspapers, TV, and radio shows so that they accept the news as "biased news?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 07:53 am

Those who read and listen do, i think. The Star and Sun read at a grade six level. The Star is middle left to left and the Sun to the right politically. Talk shows are easy to figure out as the beat goes on, the callers' opinions are all on the same wave length. The host will tell you point blank who he or she supports politically.

The National Post is politically to the right and The Globe is Liberal. They both read at a high school, plus level. The letter to the editor section is more thoughtful and the language used reflects the higher education level of the writers.

Hairy

December 14, 2000 - 08:25 am

Someone mentioned they'd like to know who Bush was going to choose to work with him. I knew of two articles that could answer that question. I'm sorry if they were inflammatory and biased. I only meant them to supply the names for you.

Of course, many newspapers lean one way or the other as does network television and the radio. Some of the radio shows that have been on for a few years sound like brainwashing to me.

We each need to sort out what is the truth the best we can by reading many things.

I feel that I've raised some ire here and that simply wasn't intended.

Linda

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 08:29 am

Linda (Hairy):--Don't worry about "raising ire." In this Discussion Group we accept disagreeing with each other so long as it is done "agreeably."

You say that some of the radio shows "sound like brainwashing." What methods can we "mere mortals" use to determine if that is the goal of the radio show and how can we counteract it?

Robby

jeanlock

December 14, 2000 - 08:40 am

I think, that in general, the term media refers to all forms of 'news' communication (actually, I suppose 'media' concerns other things, too, but I usually think of its political relation)--TV, radio, newspapers, tabloids, magazines, journals, et al. CNN has become my choice for breaking news. I don't agree that seeing a war start is not suitable TV. For me, that was one of the most amazing events of my life--not that the war started ( no real opinion on that war), but the fact that sitting in bed, reading, I saw the beginning of an historic event that was happening half a world away. What a far cry from days when someone had to ride horseback to bring news to distant locations. And it often arrived months after the event. In addition to the immediacy, I feel that seeing an event as it is happening irrespective of any one explaining it or commenting on it lets me see it for myself, and make my own judgement. Many times I will watch the actual event, speech, or whatever, and then listen to the commentary and wonder if that person saw the same thing I did. Often their 'news' is 'distorted' either because of bias, or because they interpreted it differently from the way I did.

Given the fact that I consider myself to be an enlightened liberal, the perceived 'liberal' bias among the TV and national press does not bother me. I always read with an eye to evaluating the expressed point-of-view to see if it fits within my own philosophy. I don't form my philosophy according to them.

Our local paper here is profoundly conservative and I can hardly bear to read their editorial page with the vituperative letters from the local populace. Last Saturday their political 'cartoon' linked Gore to Nixon and I felt that was just too much. However, I do take the Washington Post daily and usually respect most of their columnists and editorials. Jim Hoagland has a very good column today about the fact that the Bush family has succeeded in building a political family dynasty than even the Kennedys didn't achieve. t

PS (I don't read, watch, or listen to Robert Novak---ever!)

I also like CSPAN and CSPAN2 because you can see government as it happens without interpretation.

Phyll

December 14, 2000 - 08:47 am

It was immensely interesting to me to listen to the comments by the various reporters (is that old-fashioned word still used?) on NBC-Today Show concerning some remarks made by Justice Clarence Thomas in his meeting with a group of high school students yesterday that was shown in its entirety on C Span. The reported remarks were taken out of context and biased in such a way to completely change the meaning of the Justice's remarks. It clearly demonstrated to me what I have thought for many years---if we listen only to the reporter or the news analyst we are never going to get the true picture. It will always be skewed. And if we don't care enough to do a little research and find a text of the full story, if possible, then it is our own darned fault for being ignorant and un-informed citizens. We read or listen to incorrect and sometimes down-right false information fed to us by the "media" and accept it as gospel. We are the fools for not demanding more accurate information and for being so lazy as to never try to learn the facts.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 08:50 am

Jean has reminded us that we not only read newspapers but read magazines, journals, et al -- what is ordinarily called "the printed word." Might this not also include church bulletins, PTA flyers, advertising brochures, etc. etc.? As we think about it, are we not constantly being bombarded by the "print media" used in that sense? And are we immune to all that or do we find ourselves unthinkingly taking actions based on that "information?"

(Aside to Jean -- nice to see that you are feeling better and able to share your valuable thoughts with us.)

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 08:57 am

Phyll:--Concerning your referring to that "old fashioned word" reporter. Do you folks see Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, etc. as reporters? Just what is the responsibility of a reporter anyway?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 09:07 am

Have we perhaps forgotten another powerful medium of information -- the motion picture industry?

Robby

Phyll

December 14, 2000 - 09:17 am

Sometimes the news anchors that you mentioned are reporters and sometimes they are news readers. A reporter is, to me, a person who physically persues the story. In other words, they actually go to the scene or they directly interview the principals of the story. At other times they read a news story that has been written by someone else who may, or may not, have been at the event. And then, there are news editors who because of time or space restrictions can change the meaning of the story as well. To really find out the full and accurate story would be very difficult for the average citizen, I admit. But what we could do is read or listen to several different sources and try to determine the true story. So often, we listen to or read only one source and swallow it whole.

Hairy

December 14, 2000 - 09:26 am

The two articles in question were taken from this UK newpaper. This is a list of their awards. Judging from the list, this is a respectable newspaper with a leftist orientation.

<Guardian Unlimited-Awards

I have also enjoyed CNN, CBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, Salon.com, Brill's Content, and a list serve that has been very enjoyable sharing articles, letters, thoughts - some of whom are political activists deeply caring about what is going on and trying to improve the country.

I have also enjoyed coming here after giving you that deTocqueville link I had found at Arts and Letters Daily.

jeanlock

December 14, 2000 - 10:07 am

I saw the Clarence Thomas thing on CNN. Not the whole session, but the exchange with the student. Seems Thomas had been asked why he was the only one who hadn't asked a question during the two court sessions

Altho I didn't pay a whole lot of attention, I think he was saying that when he was young, and in school, he was the only black kid in the class. He never volunteered to answer questions, etc., because he had a dialect different from the rest. Thus, got in the habit of just listening. He also made some comment about why he didn't NEED to ask a question, that--as I recall--was rather disparaging of the justices who did participate. My impression was that he has been hurt by the comments that he was the only one who didn't ask even one question.

And, for the very first time since he careened across the national consciousness at his confirmation hearings, I felt sorry for him.

Robby--

I'm feeling fine, and much relieved that there is no life-threatening problem, at least so far.

jeanlock

December 14, 2000 - 10:11 am

Phyll--

I totally agree with you. Given the internet, I'd bet a nickel that one can find complete texts of almost any speech or interview.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 10:15 am

Do you folks agree with deTocqueville's quote (above) beginning "The power of the periodical press . . .?"

Robby

kiwi lady

December 14, 2000 - 10:46 am

The press does have immense power and whether we like it or not can make or break a politician or even influence voting on issues.

The sad thing we have here is a tendancy for personal attacks even in the most conservative of papers lately. The new editor of our National Business Review stunned the readership when a series of articles which personally attacked politicians in the most gutter press way was published early this year.

I and many other people phoned and wrote and withdrew subscriptions because we felt the paper had descended to the basest of levels and we no longer wanted to read it! But so saying the articles did cause damage.

Can the press not print the facts only and refrain from embroidering them. Of course we expect analysis from the columnists but not on the front page!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 10:54 am

Carolyn (Kiwi):--Do you then agree with deTocqueville's quote starting with "The characteristics ... ?"

Persian

December 14, 2000 - 11:17 am

Jeanlock - what I heard Justice Thomas say to the students was that the reason he did not ask questions from the bench was because if he "listened long enough, one of the other Justices would ask the question I was thinking about." I didn't feel that he was making a disparaging remark about his colleagues, only explaining that due to his isolated school experience, he had learned to keep his own counsel and not speak out publicly. Lessons learned in childhood are often hard to seet aside even, as we heard, by a US Supreme Court Justice.

Robby - it has been very interesting to read through the postings for the past couple of days. From my own early background in investigative journalism, there is 180 degree difference between a TV anchor or radio commentator and reporters in the field who file their stories based on first-hand, often eye-witness account. Once those stories are filed, an editor takes over and they can be massaged many ways.

I have heard national TV anchors say several times in the past few weeks, ". . . and that information was included in tonight's story because our Producer wanted it to be . . ." Regardless of whether we read in depth through several domestic and international newspapers or only a local one, listen to CNN or hate its type of reportage, BIG doses of common sense are key for understanding the true message. And often that message is so convoluted by "breaking news" (and the style of editing placed in the hands of the commentator) that it's hard to tell the real message. However, there are some really fine writers in print journalism and dedicated men and women in non-print media, who have devoted thousands of hours to their craft in often out of the way places to "bring the news to the American public." I applaud their effotrs - but still read with a discerning eye.

Mary W

December 14, 2000 - 11:18 am

Hello all: I simply cannot manage all the names.First--Robby; I believe that the press is primarily most influential to those who read only one local newspaper. They almost always reflect the attitudes af the community and so reinforce and qualify whatever the local reader believes. Re "Its real character must bebjudged" and Course is natural and Unrestrained" should be construed as a go-ahead signal to recog nize an event for what it is and take steps to effect a needed change. To me this is a "natural" function of the practice of Democracy in America. More about that later.

Faith: "This country will survive on the law and good manners" I think not .We cannot survive without either one but er are obliged to take steps to ensure that we will survive. It is an obligation to our Democracy in America.

Hairy: "The brains behind Bush" was scart as hell. I, as well as most thinking people have no desire to resurect an anachronistic (how about that word? I don't know if it is real) government or attitude of the world. I would hope for something alittle more realistic Nd reasonable for this century.

Ann Alden: The quuote by some media personnel about uncounted votes is absolutely true. It is a very sad for all of us. However I hope that this is not the be-all and end-all but a beginning of a search for needed reform.

Again Robby: Amen to your post re TV media. Most of the TV reporters are conscientious, hard working and tireless, working the clock around to bring breaking news. I also believe that most of them srive mightily to be objective and without obvious bias no matter what their opionions are. Newspapers and some magazines take stands on political matters and on candidates and support them in print. There are some networks that do the same and are blatantly partison. Here, in some parts of Texas, news which is contrary to popular belief areeither omitted or buried.These are items easily found elsewhere. We must, as Hairy says read or hear enough osourcesof differing opions to make our own considered evaluations.(and about Robert Novak--RIGHT ON!) Personally I like MSNBC. They have the brightest and most knowledgeable news staff and commentaters. We must hear or read entire speeches to really know what has been said. Sound bites dont do it. So far as "church bulletins, PTA flyers advertising brochures, etc." are concerned we must recognize them for what they really are. They are used to advance an opinion or belief or product for personal gain.

Phyll: I dont believe that the old-time reporter exists any more.Those who physically pursued stories are hard to find today. I find them almost exclusively in such magazines as Smithsonian, National Geographic or Archaeology.

Enough for now. More later, much more. TAke care all, Mary Sorry about the mistakes. Hope this is legible.

MaryPage

December 14, 2000 - 11:29 am

I have been a member of the press (finished in accounting), my husband started his career as a member of the press (finished in public relations)and we were both politically active for some years, with me having the heavier involvement there.

I found every piece of reporting to be totally dependent on either the instructions to the reporter from their boss as to what they were to report on OR on the particular observing inclinations of the reporter in question.

I cannot TELL you how many times I was present at a public meeting at which something really, really newsworthy was done or said, and then snatched up the next day's paper to see the story, only to see it either skewed all out of recognition as to what the story REALLY WAS or the main news event of the evening left out, just missed entirely, by that reporter!

I've also had the Joy of being nearby when some editor pounced all over a reporter who covered an event, only to completely miss the story!

Editors are dependent on the attitude of their publishers. Reporters are dependent on the attitude of their editors. And EDITORS can only deliver according to the aptitude of their reporters.

I think a similar situation probably exists in the broadcasting media.

MaryPage

December 14, 2000 - 11:43 am

One thing more, it takes an extremely courageous editor, even in OUR PRESENT TIMES, to tell some truths about the community they live in. There was a time in this country when you could get your newspaper office bombed or get yourself shot at or lose your job over such things as telling the truth about crime syndicates, local lynchings, hate crimes, etc. There are a lot of places right here in America today you dare not mention white supremacist activity, militia activity, and the political takeover of local politics by some of the local churches. These things are very real, and a lot of our citizenry are very upset about them and more than a few very threatened by them. But you put yourself in danger to take them on. These things chill my heart.

Hairy

December 14, 2000 - 12:07 pm

Some may disagree here, but I found young Bill Hemmer at CNN a highlight. He is probably not exactly a "reporter," but he researches and studies his subject. He knows what is going on and has an analytical approach and asks good, solid, right on questions. He's an up and comer, I would say.

Denizen

December 14, 2000 - 12:20 pm

I don't worry much about biases of the press. I have great confidence in the ability of citizens to consider the source and "not believe everything they read in the newspaper" or other media. What does bother me more is the difficulty of finding much of anything *new* or any unconventional wisdom in the media.

The media, like the corporations they are, suffer from the disease of me-too-itis. Like General Motors the decisons are based primarily on aping the competition. Hence we have thousands of journalists congregating at the OJ trial or in Tallahasee as if there was nothing else going on in the world.

Once in a while somebody innovates. CNN was something new in the world when it started 20 years ago. It gave us breaking news at any time of day or night. Unfortunately CNN and now Fox, CNBC etc have succumbed to the me-too thing and they all cover the same things with their interchangeable talking heads.

My solution is listening to TV with one ear and a channel clicker while facing my computer and gleaning what I can from the internet, like from the good folks at the de Toqueville round table. I have even given Matt Drudge a look-see once or twice!

As I was writing this the mail arrived with a parcel of Christmas goodies from a cyber-friend in England. The package contained Dec. 4 issues of the Times and the Telegraph. Maybe I can find something in them that is not old news?

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 12:20 pm

It is often the case in Canada that we have two ways to find things out the government wants to hide. One is the press. They will go after them big time. The talk shows pick it up and encourage calls to the level of government that is doing something they shouldn't. Then of course we have Parliament where every day they sit, there is question period. The Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Crown are present and get pummeled with questions from the opposition. This is televised and also makes the evening news.

Often we can get the government to fold a program we hate, fix one that needs fixing or route out something they have done that is just not right. This public scrutiny goes on daily so they are usually half decently good.

This last election we had was rather nasty. We referred to it as an American style election. I hope they cut it out and get back to basic issues next time.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 01:02 pm

Let me see if I get the gist of this. A reporter is a usually active capable person who passes his/her story to an editor who changes the story because he is responsible to the publisher who has an axe to grind (primarily running the corporation for profit.) In order to make money, he makes sure he produces the same product as his competition and is simultaneously satisfying the customer's narrow tastes by rehashing and rehashing the same old story.

So that's the Press in this Democracy of ours?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 01:09 pm

Robby, in our papers you can read the same story line, but the twist is different in each depending on the bias of the newspaper.

When you listen to "As It Happens" don't you hear a different point of view? The same goes for the BBC news. I always listen to the news package from the BBC as it gives me a different take on international affairs. We do cover international affairs but i think the reporters being on the scene, is better than just a newsreader reading from an AP source.

tigerliley

December 14, 2000 - 01:14 pm

I think we have a an abundance of "media" to choose from and inform ourselves with....I read the Washington Post, ( liberal leanings) The NY Times,(liberal leanings), BBC on line, The Wall STreet Journal Editorial page,(conservative) as well as much reading on the net...Slate and Salon or two good on-line magazines....National Review has some good conservative articles if you can plow through them.....C-Span I and II are where one can go for "undiluted" information.....I see no reason people cannot keep informed....I also try and not just read only the things which agree with my philosophy. An aside concerning Justice Thomas......He often speaks before School age childrens groups.....I have the greatest respect for Justice Thomas...He continues to take a lot of guff from people of his own race SIMPLY because of his conservative philosophy...

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 01:19 pm

If one only listens to what one agrees with, you never learn the meat of the matter.

kiwi lady

December 14, 2000 - 01:52 pm

Yes Robby I think I do!

I am happy to read personal comments and analysis by columnists because we know that is the writers opinion but what I hate is when this type of journalism appears on the front page as fact! It is very cleverly done too, mostly by innuendo to avoid libel suits!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 01:59 pm

According to a Gallup Poll conducted Dec. 2-4, 32 percent of the public think that news organizations "get the facts straight" and 65 percent do not. This reflects public cynicism about the news media. The margin of disbelief has never been greater than now in eight Gallup Polls asking this question since 1985. The earlier high point of cynicism in Gallup's polls came in August 1988 around the time of the political parties' presidential conventions. Then, the "often inaccurate" view outpolled the "facts straight" view - 50 percent to 40 percent.

What are the sources of news deemed most important by most people who followed the Florida recount fight?

1 - Network evening news programs - 44 percent
2 - Local network news programs - 28 percent
3 - Morning network news programs - 28 percent
4 - National newspapers - 24 percent
5 - Sunday morning televised political shows - 19 percent
6 - Internet - 18 percent
7 - Radio talk shows - 16 percent
8 - Weekly news magazines - 13 percent.

Ginny

December 14, 2000 - 02:09 pm

HUH. I get my best stuff (more details and diagrams, etc) from the news magazines, perhaps the way that question was asked influenced the answer, for late breaking news, you needed the television, no one would deny that. Why does that add up way over 100 percent, Robby?

I loved your stories about the press, MaryPage, just confirms what I have thought all along!

And of course any person who ever had any article written on them knows that what goes in is not necessarily what comes out.

ginny

MaryPage

December 14, 2000 - 03:05 pm

I believe the large, well established and profitable big city newspapers are less likely to be afraid to publish information the public should know than are the small, local newspapers which are just barely making ends meet. The smaller papers really are afraid to print stories that will upset their readers and cause small advertisers to withdraw. Every single bit of ad revenue counts with them. Newpapers DO NOT make their money from circulation. I am sure you all know that, but just in case you don't, the circulation figures are only good for setting the RATES they can charge for their display ad space.

You may think I am making this up, so let me give you a true example. You will seldom see stories about the latest scientific discoveries in local newspapers in the Bible Belt of this nation if these stories impact in any way on the beliefs of the community. The Washington Post had an almost full page article under their SCIENCE banner last week telling of the latest study proving, through mitochondria, that we all DID come out of Africa 130,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years. Well, this could not be printed in the Bible Belt, which is quite a large portion of the country. The phones would ring off the hook cancelling subscriptions and advertising. People would stand up in churches, PTAs, town hall meetings, etc., and denounce the paper and all those connected with it! This is just ONE of many, many examples of the public not getting all the information that is out there to be reported on. Basically, they want it to be what they want to hear, and never something different!

3kings

December 14, 2000 - 03:13 pm

I have been surprised at times, by the tremendous power that political cartoonists can, and often do weald.During the 30's to the 70's, one such person in NZ did more to nurse our right wing political party back to health, after the deprivations they suffered in the depression, than all the political speeches ever made. His clever quips and comments, and the humorous expression he could pack into a few strokes of the drawing pen, positively kept his chosen party in power. As I was of different political persuasion than he, this fact chargrined me deeply!-- Trevor.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 03:16 pm

I come back from a nice enjoyable supper, am in a good mood, sit down at the computer and there is my "wise-acre" Roundtables Host, Ginny, who is in charge of all Books and Literature. As I am a mere Discussion Leader, I am in constant deadly fear that she will throw curves at me. She doesn't seems to realize that I am the one here who asks questions. I'm not supposed to answer any.

But as we are talking about the Media and it's a matter of "just the facts ma'm", I am compelled to answers. The fact is that a person is counted more than once. If I watch national news TV, I am counted in the 44 percent, also read national newspapers and am counted in the 24 percent and, in addition, watch the Sunday morning political shows, I am counted in the 19 percent.

OK, Miss Sharp-eye, is that better now?

Robby

Phyll

December 14, 2000 - 03:18 pm

I think that any magazine, any newspaper, and any radio/tv news program cannot be completely unbiased--whether conciously or unconciously. My point (obscure though it was) is that we should never accept a single point of view. We should always try to weigh one viewpoint against another and let our common sense reason it out. It is the person who constantly starts out by saying "They say---" and then continues with a statement that they seem to think was chisled in stone---an absolute fact. Who is "they" and why should I believe what "they" say? As Mahlia said so very well, we must read (or listen, or view) with a discerning eye.

I am once again in awe of de Toqueville and his razor sharp observations. But I am, also, somewhat discouraged to realize that the power of press to sway public opinion has not changed in 170 years. That is not the fault of the press, that is the fault of the people who allow it. I wonder about de T's statement that the power of the press is second only to the power of the people---perhaps I am too pessimistic but I wonder if it should be the other way around.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 03:19 pm

Trevor calls to our attention another powerful medium -- The Cartoon! As deTocqueville says: "The influence of the press in America is immense."

Robby

Kath

December 14, 2000 - 03:34 pm

I wonder what the USA has against Great Britain. http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/international/ap130.htm

Denizen

December 14, 2000 - 03:35 pm

I can remember a couple of examples from back in the '70s when I was involved in pollution control and the media covered some of the conferences etc, which I attended.

One, a three-day meeting, went along without cameras for a while and then one afternoon a TV station brought in some cameras and when they turned on their lights the presentation stopped and a fellow in the audience stood up and asked a question which was answered by a panel member and then they packed up and left and the meeting went back to it's program.

There was also in attendence, a real old-fashioed reporter, Harold Scarlett, who sat all the way through all such public meetings and factually reported on what went on. Harold has passed away now and his brand of journalism has apperently gone with him.

Antoher time I attended a luncheon speech by the head of the state water quality board. As we left, I noticed the chairman remained seated and there were TV cameras brought in. That night I watched the coverage on the local TV news. Apparently he had repeated his talk for the cameras with only a few minor changes. For instance his pledge to "work with local industry" was changed ever so slightly to "work on local industry".

Don't believe everything you see on TV either. Cameras can lie as well as print.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 03:48 pm

"What you don't know can kill you."

The lack of information about what is going on in the real world, including the real world of the internal affairs of America, is a danger to America and is a danger to the future of the nation.

Robby

Ginny

December 14, 2000 - 04:21 pm

hahahaha, oh brother, hahahaha Robby, YOU are a hoot! hahahahaa

OK if YOU say it, it's true! hahahahaa

Constant fear, hah? hahahahaaha

OK, my final answer IS: 190 percent! hahahahaa

Wise Acre

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 04:39 pm

Another thing that bothers me is the ownership of different forms of the media by one owner, be it person or corporation. Somehow i don't think we get the variety of opinion and fact we should be getting.

robert b. iadeluca

December 14, 2000 - 06:05 pm

Idris:--Speaking of which, today the Federal Trade Commission approved the proposed merger of America Online and Time Warner, clearing the way for the creation of the world's largest media company. The government imposed strict conditions on the large cable company to assure that it keeps its wires open to rival Internet service providers. Consumer groups and small and large competitors of America Online urged the government to reject the deal. Earthlink, the nation's second-largest Internet service provider, reached a deal with America Online and Time Warner last month. The consent decree frther requires the companies not to discriminate against providers of programming for interactive television.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 14, 2000 - 06:20 pm

I was watching that on the news Robby. Somehow all of this merging of the different areas of the media makes me nervous. Conrad Black bought most of our newspapers and that wasn't good for us, i don't think.

Ann Alden

December 14, 2000 - 07:10 pm

Unfortunately, Robby, the description of journalists(around the world) by deToqueville still applies. All you have to do is pick up a newspaper anywhere in the world and the same pap is being printed. There are some papers that are more honest then others but they have to sell their papers and the advertising therein. Its a business!

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 04:20 am

Ann believes that what deTocqueville said 170 years ago still seems to apply. And she adds that she is referring to journalists around the world. Do we agree that the majority of journalists in America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, and other Democracies "abandon priciples to attack the character of individuals" as deTocqueville says in his quote above?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 05:06 am

And then there are those journalists who come from nations which are not Democracies. The editors of two opposition newspapers in Congo are facing the death penalty. One editor's crime was writing two articles that analyzed a tiff ebtween high-level officials. The second editor was arrested for refusing to give authorities the first editor's home address.

A Serbian journalist is now serving a seven-year sentence for disseminating false information after he reported on the Yugoslav Army's war cimes in Kosovo. As parliamentary elections approach in Azerbaijan, authorities have arrested the editor of an opposition newspaper on trumped-up charges that he participated in a hijacking attempt. In Paraguay a reporter was run over by a car driven by the security chief of the nation's former comptroller, who is accused of corruption.

Turkey, who has bid to join the European Union, has resonded to visits from the Committee to Protect Journalists by releasing some jailed writers and reporters. Liberia recently arrested a British TV crew investigating reports of diamond smuggling by the President.

The world is seeing an epidemic of government attempts to silence independent journalists. Azerbaijan was not persecuting independent journalists 10 years ago because it had none. Most nations now attacking journalists are quasi-democracies. Their leaders use libel sits and threats to stop reporters.

Now how do we look at our own journalists as they "abandon principles to attack the characters of individuals?" Does this world perspective change our attitude in any way?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 15, 2000 - 05:35 am

Ours look like a bunch of lazy cowards.

Idris O'Neill

December 15, 2000 - 05:39 am

A US film company is coming to Canada to do a film on the sex murders that took place in my town. Our Federal government passed a law to stop murderers from profiting from their crime(s). Our consititution proved to protect the murders and their right to profit from their crime. Our Provincial government is attempting to write a law that would do the same thing and one feels will be judged unconstitutional again.

Sometimes i wonder who really has the upper hand, the criminal or the family of the victums and society at large?

Okay, i'm ticked off!

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 08:44 am

In Post 258 I used the term quasi-democracies. This is not a term invented by me but is a term often used by others. Have you used it? In this forum we are asking: "What is a Democracy?" Is there such a thing as a "quasi-democracy?" What do you see as the difference?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 15, 2000 - 08:51 am

You get to vote for a leader but the support systems that are the hallmarks of a true democracy are missing. In other words codified laws.

jeanlock

December 15, 2000 - 09:38 am

pERSIAN--

re Clarence Thomas---yes, that was my take on it, too. And I actually felt sorry for him. Much to my surprise.

jeanlock

December 15, 2000 - 09:42 am

Robby--

In that survey, didn't they even include live broadcast of 'breaking new', that's what I rely on. What I see with my own eyes, and hear with my own ears.

Kath

December 15, 2000 - 11:52 am

Idris I saw that idiot Greenspan on Newsworld. NATURALLY he thought that the movie should go ahead. I wonder how he would feel if one of his daughters died in such a terrible way.

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 11:56 am

As deTocqueville indicated in his quote (above) beginning "A people never accustomed...", do you think that the "average" person believes what he reads or hears in the news?

Robby

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 01:00 pm

Robby, I will try to get the tone of this board and, in time, probably post here.

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 01:15 pm

Welcome, Roadrunner! Good to have you join us. As you can see by the Introduction, what we do is move right along with whatever America is presenting to us at the time. In August (back-to-school month) we discussed Education. Around Labor Day time we discussed the Working Person in America. For the last five weeks, one guess what we have been discussing. Now we have a president-elect but during that "election day period" many comments were made across America about how the Press treated the situation. So that is what we are discussing for a while.

Alexis deTocqueville made some remarks (above) 170 years ago regarding the Press. Read the four comments listed above (they are changed periodically) and share with us if you feel the Press is the same now as it was in his time or if you see changes.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 15, 2000 - 03:04 pm

I shall not be sending all of you Christmas cards but i want to give each of you a Christmas gift. Please click below

Merry Christmas

Texas Songbird

December 15, 2000 - 03:11 pm

Neat story, Idris. Thanks.

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 03:16 pm

Idris:--Very beautiful!! And THANK YOU!!

Robby

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 06:26 pm

Idris, That's neat. Thank you and may you too have a very Merry Christmas. To my friends of the Jewish faith let me wish you all a Happy Chanukah!

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 06:35 pm

Rupert Murdoch is negotiating to add to his already vast media holdings by buying WWOR Channel 9 in the New York City region and nine other television stations across the nation. The purchase would give his company, News Corporation, ownership of stations that reach more than 35 pecent of the viewing public in the nation, violating a rule of the Federal Communications Commission. This would give him two television stations each in New York, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Salt Lake City.

In New York City Mr. Murdoch owns not only another television station, Channel 5, but also The New York Post, one of three daily newspapers. Commission rules forbid joint ownership of television stations and newspapers in the same city except in emergencies. These rules are designed to preserve the diversity of news and entertainment on which Democracy thrives.

What do you see as the current relationship between "we the people" and the Press.

Robby

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 06:40 pm

I see a necessary evil. We can't live without them or we cut off our sources for information. That's why it is so important to read more than one newspaper, listen to more than one radio station, and watch more than one TV News program. After you have done that, then you need to decipher what was imparted to you and make a decision. You have to decide what to believe and what not to believe. You have to decide what is the true picture from all you have read and seen. Then, when the pieces fall into place, you are informed.

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 06:44 pm

RR:--Do you believe the "average" citizen has the time and/or the inclination to read more than one newspaper, listen to more than one radio station, and watch more than one TV News Program?

Robby

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 06:48 pm

Absolutely! They can read more than one newspaper at Breakfast. I do! I read two newspapers each morning. They can listen to news on the car radio as they go to work. They can flip between TV Channels as they probably did during the election results.

I believe most people look at more than one TV Channel for their news. I don't know about the radio but I do believe they read more than one newspaper, either in a hard copy or the Internet.

Idris O'Neill

December 15, 2000 - 06:52 pm

What is the average length of a Tv news story? I think 3 minutes. Now how do you explain anything that is complicated in 3 minutes? What you get are visuals and a few words. Somehow the more information we have the less we really know.

Robby, you will be very interested in tonight's As It Happens. It deals with your famous ballot machines. Not good my friend, not good. What wins hands down is the good old fashioned paper ballot and an X marks the spot. Why don't they do it? The media's need to know and report a winner right away. I say they can go fly a kite.

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 06:54 pm

Idris, you have to watch the talk shows as well. You're right about only 3 minutes but you also need to go to the discussion groups.

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 06:55 pm

Do you folks agree with Roadrunner's appraisal of the "average" citizen's time and inclination to double their newspaper, radio, and TV time?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 15, 2000 - 07:13 pm

"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself."

- - Salman Rushdie

Denizen

December 15, 2000 - 08:20 pm

As it happened as I was driving home last night through Tom Delay's congressional district I turned on the car radio and cought an interview on Pacifica radio. Houston is one of the 5 or 6 markets in this country where this "alternative news" network has a station. If you have never heard of this network let me just say it is a listener sponsored group of stations that have been around since the first station started in the SF Bay are in the late 40's. It has a long history of controversy because it has allowed every sort of alternative groups air space, even communists for a time.

Anyway, the program last night was an interview with a fellow (I don't remember his name or organization) from some press "watchdog" group in Canada. The subject was the coverage of Canadian affairs in the American media.

This fellow's take was that what coverage we get in papers like the NY Times and Washington Post, supposedly liberal papers here, get their stories from the conservative Canadian papers. He said the NY Times Canadian correspondent isn't even based in Canada but is in Denver CO!

Some of the examples were stories on the socalled "brain drain" and references to Canada as "America's Scandinavia" a place with excessive taxation. This fellow says the brain drain is a myth and that Canadians get services like Medical insurance for their taxes.

I was wondering if the Canadians tende to agree with this fellow's point of view or not?

I wonder too if anybody gets another slant on things from Pacifica?

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 08:28 pm

DeLay is a dangerous man. Even Dubya is fearful of him. I wouldn't be surprised if the Reps in Congress get an earful from Bush as it regards DeLay and they quiet him down. Look for something to go on, in the near future, between Bush, the Republican Party, and DeLay.

Denizen

December 15, 2000 - 08:46 pm

I didn't intend to be partisan by mentioning Delay. I was just struck by the fact that even in such a conservative place as Houston, which can send a Delay to Washington, there are people who will pay out of their own pocket to keep a station like KPFT on the air.

Even in this last election his opponent, an 80 year old lady who spent about $8000 on her campaign, got about a third of the votes. There ARE liberals in Texas. In a way, this state has a problem with stereotyping too.

roadrunner

December 15, 2000 - 08:52 pm

I lived in Houston for a few years. I never paid attention to their political beliefs but they were to the right in their demeanor.

kiwi lady

December 15, 2000 - 09:22 pm

When they poll on political issues here, it is always comes out on the conservative right. I am convinced that all the polling is done in our most affluent areas!

I live in a middle of the road area and not once in 24 years have I been polled. I take all the results of the polls with a grain of salt they proved horribly wrong in our last elections!

We have a listener based radio station and boy do you find out things you never would have known with no censorship by the stations owners! You are not allowed to use foul language be racist but pretty much anything else goes.

I read several papers watch the BBC watch 2 of our local TV newscasts and try and watch all political commentaries that come up. I used to watch CNN til I gave up paid TV and took unlimited internet access. I can surf and read any paper I want to almost anywhere in the World! I like the Washington Post! Historically newspapers are partisan! We all know which are the red neck ones and the leftie ones! Interestingly we have a new owner of the NZ Herald and he is trying to take a neutral stance and to focus on the positive and not always on the negative, since then we have had a marked upsurge in business confidence. They print business success stories every week in a special column. I think it has helped a lot to restore National Pride. This goes to show despite my cynicism the press can do a lot of good if it takes a bi partisan approach.

Carolyn

MaryPage

December 15, 2000 - 10:59 pm

One of the very best ways to get a full 360 degrees, as it were, of a given story is to read a detailed book about it.

First, of course, you have to make absolutely certain your author or authors are totally disinterested parties to the story itself. They must not be involved in the politics of it, or whatever. And you have to make sure they researched the story well and give their sources (excepting Deep Throat.) You must be sure these writers are not sneaking in on you with an agenda; something they want to sell you on or a point of view they want to convert you to.

If the book passes these tests, you can read it and trust, when you finish, that you have a blow by blow, complete story of an event in our history. Woodward and Bernstein did this for Watergate, for instance. Jim Bishop, now deceased, a former newspaper columnist wrote a number of books like this. You could trust those books. Evan Thomas of Newsweek has just written one about the Cuban Missile Crisis. (It is to come out as a movie released this month: THIRTEEN DAYS.)

You just have to be really, really careful you are not reading an account of a story that the author WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE happened in a certain way, while the writer is actually distorting some facts, leaving out others, and editorializing all the while.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 03:44 am

Do you folks agree with Carolyn (Kiwi) that "historically newspapers are partisan?" If you do agree with this, then how are "we the people" to know what is actually happening?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 03:50 am

According to Mary, if we truly want to know the accuracy of an event, we should read a book about it, but first:--

1 - Make sure the authors are disinterested parties.
2 - Make sure they have researched the story well.
3 - Make sure they do not have a hidden agenda.

Do you agree or disagree with the practicality of this suggestion? Do you do it?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 03:55 am

I think newspapers are partisan, as stated in my post above. It used to be the news was presented without too much bias. The editorial page told you the stance of the paper's owners. No more. We have "opinions" masquerading as "news" now.

Canada has always been seen by the "righties" in the US as some sort of socialistic haven. They should look at Europe and see what the rest of the first world is doing about poverty, health care and old age security, etc. The "righties" in the US are totally beyond my understanding. The US news people listen to is insular and everyone else in the world wonders why they are not understood by the people of the US. It is no secret to me.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 05:24 am

What are the reactions of participants here to deTocqueville's quote (above) regarding "advertising" and "anecdotes?" Is this the effect of Democracy on the Press?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 16, 2000 - 05:37 am

What de Tocqueville says above is at least partially true today. Newspapers and "periodicals" have to advertise to stay alive in a very competitive field. They also publish the kind of "news" that will sell. Life on the whole is relatively dull for most people; get up in the morning, go to work, come home, eat, sleep and do it all over again. For this reason, sensationalism sells. Publishers know this, so that's what they print. Publishers play to an audience. They play to the audience's bias. It might be a good idea to consider exactly what those audiences are.

I have a question to ask of those who watch many TV news shows and talk shows, read at least two newspapers and listen to several different radio news shows. When do you find time to work?

Mal

rambler

December 16, 2000 - 08:49 am

Work? Please, no profanity.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 08:57 am

Thomas Jefferson started his own newspaper because he did not like certain other newspapers.

Robby

Ann Alden

December 16, 2000 - 09:03 am

I could not agree more with Idris when she says, "We have "opinions" masquerading as "news" now.". She has summed it up for me.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 09:09 am

Thomas Jefferson started his own newspaper because he did not like certain other newspapers.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 09:12 am

Ann:--As we read our "news"paper, how can we differentiate between accurate news and opinions? We assume that items on the Editorial page are opinions but how do we know if a "news" article is accurate or is slanted?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 09:34 am

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge -- I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."

- - John Adams

3kings

December 16, 2000 - 09:41 am

I think bias in news reporting is as old as reporting itself. It is only in the last 2-300 years that any significant part of the populace could read. Before then, the town ' crier ' told the people only what the authorities wanted them to know. One has only to read accounts of the British army's "exploits" around the world as reported at that time, to realise that 'news ' has always been edited and biased. Today, when we have so many sources of news, comparison makes the inherent bias in each clear to all.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 09:46 am

Trevor:--With, as you say, "so many sources of news," do you believe that the "average" citizen is comparing them so as to "make the bias clear to all?"

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 10:04 am

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf" (1926)

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 10:29 am

"We do not have censorship. What we have is a limitation on what newspapers can report."

- - Louis Nel, Deputy Minister of Information for South Africa

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 10:39 am

Certainly if you repeat a short snappy lie often enough people believe it is true.

(

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 10:41 am

Do most of us here agree (or not) with deTocqueville's remark (above) beginning with "The power of the periodical press...?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 10:44 am

"The power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people."

I would suggest in some ways it is more powerful. We vote but only after listening to all of their garbage. What do most folks think is the truth...i bet it is what some newsreader tells them, most of the time.

rambler

December 16, 2000 - 11:25 am

I am less concerned about bias in newspapers and periodicals than I am about the large and growing number of folks (a majority?) who rely on TV for news and radio shouters for views. The influence of newspapers and periodicals is apparently waning, simply because younger folks tend to avoid them.

People who read have a nearly-infinite choice of what papers or periodicals to read and believe. People who don't read journals of news and opinion, and who rely on TV or radio, get a bland summation of the news from the former--something USA Today would cover in three or four paragraphs per story--and much the same from the major networks on radio. The radio shouters, nearly-exclusively right-wingers whose influence with listeners is as strong as their popularity with advertisers, often suffer (in my view) from what Harold Ickes said was Huey Long's malady: Halitosis of the intellect.

Denizen

December 16, 2000 - 12:00 pm

Mal brings up a good point. How does a busy family with 2 jobs and children in school, little league etc, find the time to read 2 newspapers, a news magazine etc.? The answer is they don't.

As I recall those days, I remember that I depended on a weekly news magazine, the evening TV news and reading only the editorial page of the daily newspaper. Another source was the lunchroom where my favorite table could be depended upon for a daily debate about something someone had read or heard.

I think most citizens rely on TV's talking heads to sift through the news for them and tell them what is important. But there always was the "word-of-mouth" media which was a sort of limit on the the power of the press. Nowadays, discussions like this via the internet have the potential of further limiting that power.

The difference is that the lunch time group was limited to my co-workers. Here we are not limited by time and geography.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 12:05 pm

Partial list of American News Magazines

1 - American Spectator
2 - Nation
3 - National Review
4 - New Republic
5 - Newsweek
6 - Time Magazine
7 - US News and World Report

Any readers here of any of those mags or others not named?

Robby

kiwi lady

December 16, 2000 - 12:11 pm

For myself I have never slept much even as a child. With four kids and working full time in your equivalent of the IRS (on the Prosecutions side) I still never slept much and could be often found up at 2am reading newspapers, listening to radio etc. My average sleep time is 5 hours so I have plenty of time to watch late news all night BBC and read papers. I admit not everyone has time but most people seem to have plenty of time to go out in the evenings. I am appalled by some people who are just not interested in world affairs at all. They live for today! Then when some crisis looms they are shocked beyond belief! We make a conscious choice in our lives whether to learn or bury our heads in the sand! If we really want to learn we find the time no matter what!

Carolyn

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 12:30 pm

I don't read any of those, Robby. I get McLean's Magazine.

My daughter was commenting earlier today that there are three women in her office. They all have different life styles and levels of education. One reads the hand out alternative press. Another reads the Globe and Mail and the third one only watches TV news.

Whenever they discuss something in the news, they each come at it from a different perspective. The one who gets her news from the alternative press is always confused. But hey, it's free and she can read it on the streetcar.

ALF

December 16, 2000 - 12:49 pm

Robby: I just had on CSpan-2 book review and they advertised that on Sunday evening at 8PM they will be discussing Dem In Am. They also said if you needed questions "for the classroom" to click on CSpan.org., then click on Book-notes . I thought you would be interested in that info, sorry to interrupt.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 12:55 pm

In February, Station WBBM-TV decided to crawl out of last place by offering a no-frills, late news program without all the flash and sensationalism. It decided to eliminate segments on the latest diet craze and ways to stay beautiful and happy chat of a standard, male-female anchor team. It stopped having typical closing shots of water-skiing squirrels and surfing dogs. Instead, the program featured a lone anchorwoman who delivered the news without pomp. Segments were longer. There were more investigative reports on complicated subjects like predatory loan practices. National and international stories were featured more prominently.

The program began to sink. The program's overall audience was about 20 percent smaller than that of the program it replaced. It lost considerable ground in its audience between the ages of 25 and 54, an important group for advertisers. In October it gave up amid poor ratings that showed no sign of improvement. It announced that it would go back to showng a more traditional evening news program. They returned to reporting the "news" from a brigheter, more traditional-looking setting.

WBBM-TV's move had been watched closely by stations across America, many of whom are seeking to stem a steady decline in the local news audience. The experiment's failure was taken as reaffirmation that a serious format cannot succeed -- that people need to be drawn in through celebrity gossip and miracle diets introduced by bubbly anchormen and anchorwomen.

Well, there you have it folks -- the status of the Press in Democracy in America.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 12:57 pm

Andrea:--Thanks for that info about CSpan-2 tomorrow night. I don't have CSpan but perhaps some others here might participate in it or review it and get back to us with their thoughts.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 12:58 pm

Pitiful huh?

Then again there is The McNeil News Hour on PBS and that is good.

)

rambler

December 16, 2000 - 01:03 pm

Idris: Younger readers, if we have any, might wonder what a streetcar is. I haven't seen any in this country for close to 50 years. (Big exception: San Francisco, where the streetcars run underground downtown on Market Street, and are thus invisible to most folks, then come to the surface when they leave downtown. They are an absolutely lovely way to explore the city. When I mention S.F.'s streetcars, friends often think I'm talking about cablecars. Wrong!) Buses and subway or elevated trains, yes. Commuter rail trains, yes. In your area, is a streetcar a one- or two-car rail vehicle that goes down a city street?

Of the news magazines, we get only Time, primarily as a diversion that's cleverly written. It's not the ideological rag that it was in Henry Luce's day.

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 01:22 pm

Toronto has many, many street cars better known as red rockets. They ride on rails and have a poll that contacts with an electric wire above on the street. This propells them. The whole of the downtown area still has streetcars as they are far less polluting than smelly buses. Toronto also has buses and an elaborate subway system to bring commuters in from the burbs. Only fools take cars into downtown Toronto as a method of getting to work. There are four and a half million people on the move every day in Toronto.

robert b. iadeluca

December 16, 2000 - 02:36 pm

In the last five months America Online has sold a half million subscriptions to Time Inc. magazines. On the surface this may seem wonderful to Time but it reveals a compelling set of questions for the magazine industry, even as it is scrambling for new ways to bolster circulation levels in the face of declining newsstand sales. There is also an expected increase in periodical postal rates and the collase of the sweepstakes houses which alone has removed millions of potential subscribers from publishers' pockets.

The questions:

1 - Will subscriptions gained online be as reliable as those obtained through trditional methods?
2 - Is there a possible liability in the vogue on the Internet for signing up so-called "evergreen" subscriptions? Those are the ones which are renewed automatcially on credit cards unless consumers specifically ask for them to be stopped. Many of the half million are not yet paid for. They were offered in pop-up boxes on America Online on a free-trial basis. Consumers get several issues of a magazine - sometimes months' worth - with the option of canceling before they are even charged.

The Internet brings more subscribers but it also brings fast-fingered consumers who later change their minds. So here is another example of how the Press operates in a Democracy. One type of medium apparently helping another medium but not necessarily doing so. Democracy in action!

Do you see the Press in America as what used to be called the Fourth Estate -- working on behalf of the people? Or is it just another system grasping for your dollar?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 02:52 pm

It used to be the Fourth Estate, now it is just a bunch of hawkers of advertising.

By the way "negative option billing" is against the law in Canada.

Denizen

December 16, 2000 - 04:44 pm

Several decades ago the Wall Street Journal tried an experiment in the newspaper medium. I for get the name of the weekly, but it covered only a handhul of stories each week in depth. A single piece might cover several pages of full sized newsprint. At the time I thought that this paper was to a daily paper what CBS's "60 Minutes" was to the evening news.

I subscribed to the paper and thought it was great but as you might have expected, it died for lack of advertizing revenue.

The corporations who own the media have a dilemma. There are not enough of us who want serious journalism to make for good ratings or circulation. They could put out adless low readership material for the few that do want in depth coverage and take the loss, but why would they? As for the advertizers, I suspect that they would be right in assuming that the thoughtful few would even less susceptible to their "pitches" than the average reader.

I must confess to all that I no longer subscribe to any daily newspaper. A few years ago, when the Houston Chronicle and Post merged, the surviving Chronicle doubled in thickness. It has all of the advertizing, carries all of the comics and results in about a foot of wastepaper per week, I estimate maybe 25 pounds. I decided to save a tree or two.

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 04:52 pm

Denizen, we get the weekend Globe and Mail and Mclean's Magazine. We used to take the local paper before it was sold to a conglomerate and The Financial Post. Yes, it sure save a lot of trees. I can forsee a time when most of the good stuff will be on the web and there are far fewer papers. We are moving that way in Canada now. I can go to CBC on-line and get some indepth stuff or one of the two national papers on-line.

tigerliley

December 16, 2000 - 04:55 pm

Idris tell us what McLeans Magazine is.....does it have a web site?

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 05:01 pm

Maclean's Magazine is Canada's largest news magazine. The have a webpage

MacLean's Magazine

Hairy

December 16, 2000 - 07:27 pm

There was a wonderful woman who was good at doing interviews on a Canadian TV station coming from Windsor, I think. She went into great depth and spent much time with her interview-ees. I can't think of her name. I saw her interview Art Garfunckel and another time she interviewed John Irving. She has a future! Now our TV won't get the channel for us so I have lost her. We could also get CBC on that channel. Very reputable.

Idris O'Neill

December 16, 2000 - 07:34 pm

The very best of our women reporters was Anne Medina. She is older now and just can't take the foreign correspondent beat in all of the places you get shot at. She is now doing current affairs reporting in Canada.

CBC does not have that much money to send reporters overseas now so we use a lot of reporters who are actually living in the war or trouble zones and BBC reporters. The BBC still sends reporters overseas. The US i'm told no longer does. This may or may not be right. Anyone know?

rambler

December 17, 2000 - 04:30 am

I think the major U.S. newspapers each have several reporters overseas. I don't know that they deliberately send them into war zones.

tigerliley

December 17, 2000 - 04:32 am

Thanks Idris....I bookmarked the magazine site and will surely be reading it......

Ginny

December 17, 2000 - 04:53 am

Robby, you asked way back there who read newsmagazines?

We take and I read all three of these:

5 - Newsweek
6 - Time Magazine
7 - US News and World Report

My husband says WHY do you do that? They are all the same. No, they are not all the same and the subtle differences are very interesting, to me.

To me the writing in Newsweek is better than any of the others, it's a pleasure to read the articles but I do believe they are politically biased.

US News and World Report is the best one for a precis of a lot of interesting articles and when they do decide to go in depth like some of their scientific articles they are unequalled. I like their choice of subject matter.

Time has changed a good bit over the years, I would say it's the most .....not sure, it used to be sensationalist and to some degree still is. It'a s pleasure to read it, it's like mind candy, it's fun sort of like PEOPLE for news.

If you ever need anything from any of the three, I do take them all as well as the New Yorker, and we do get the daily newspaper which is almost not worth having, and the Wall Street Journal (whose articles are about as good as you can find on a variety of subjects: the writing there is excellent) as well as the Sunday NY Times.

We also get several other magazines including Consumer Reports: the PO loves us.

In answer to this question:

1 - Will subscriptions gained online be as reliable as those obtained through trditional methods?

I would say I need to hold it in my hand while eating, etc, in the car, etc, the only magazine it is useful to have ON the internet for me is Consumer Reports: that one is almost MORE valuable ON the internet because you can access past issues in a trice when they may be under the refrigerator at home.

And in answer to this one:

2 - Is there a possible liability in the vogue on the Internet for signing up so-called "evergreen" subscriptions? Those are the ones which are renewed automatcially on credit cards unless consumers specifically ask for them to be stopped. Many of the half million are not yet paid for. They were offered in pop-up boxes on America Online on a free-trial basis. Consumers get several issues of a magazine - sometimes months' worth - with the option of canceling before they are even charged.

Giving some company an evergreen access to my credit card for any reason is totally scary!

ginny

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 05:07 am

Ginny:

Thank you for your detailed answer. You bring up some pertinent points, eg in this electronic age, there are still people (yourself, for example), who read print material. And then, at least from your point of view, all the news mags are not just pablum from the same box. You see a definite difference within the three news mags that you read.

You say that the daily newspaper is not worth reading. Why not? Is something missing? Is that your opinion of the newspaper you have in your home or is that your belief about all daily newspapers? And then of interest (to me, at least) is the fact that you don't discontinue Time Magazine because it is sensational. You like the "mind candy!"

You like a magazine made of paper that you can hold in the car. (I assume you are not driving at the time!)

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 17, 2000 - 05:38 am

I'm surprised that Ginny called Time Magazine sensationalist. It has a conservative bent, and I don't recall that it was sensationalist in the past. Haven't seen it in a number of years except in the dentist's office. At one time I subscribed to all of the magazines Ginny mentioned. I liked U.S. News and World Report best. I also bought the New York Times every day and the more conservative Wall Street Journal and the London Times once in a while. Now I subscribe to no magazines and don't buy newspapers. Why? Can't afford it. I browse through several newspapers and magazines online these days and read two local newspapers my daughter buys. Did you know a reporter for Salon has been sued by Judicial Watch?

George W. Bush was named Time Magazine's Man of the Year? I wonder how long that article has been in the works. AOL has a poll today asking who should have been named. I voted for the American Voter.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 05:58 am

Do you folks believe that News Magazines are an integral part of a Democracy?

Robby

Kath

December 17, 2000 - 06:33 am

I believe that the US uses freelance journalists and photographers now. Here is an example of what happened to one of the people they were using. I never saw it mentioned in any US newscasts though. Freelance

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 06:37 am

Good story Kath, i remember that. Sad story.

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 06:39 am

The electoral college meets Monday to place their secret vote for President in an envelope. The envelopes will be opened by Vice-President Gore on the 6th of January.

If three of the electors change their vote, he will be President instead of Bush? It was a quick story and i wasn't paying particular attention.

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 06:49 am

Sometimes America, and specifically the Media in America or any Democracy, can be best examined by standing off and looking at it objectively -- by not getting too close to the trees so that the forest can be best seen. Perhaps we can best observe what our media are doing (or not doing) by looking at the media in other nations. Take Serbia, for example:--

The new leaders seem reluctant to allow much independence of the media. Furthermore, according to some sources; "Current employees can't think and just follow political instructions -- they couldn't make good programs even if they wanted to. They still work in the same way. They've just changed their master." The employees are so frightened for their jobs that they would favor the new authorities without even being asked. The result is news that is "boring, predictable and uncritical". The media, and particularly the TV and radio network has been described as an "enormous prize."

Yes, we are a Democracy but is there a message there for us? Have our journalists slipped into being cheerleaders for the politicians in power no matter what party? Is every medium employee, electronic or print, striving to reserve a place for himself? Are we producing what the acting editor of the Serbian News service called "harmless shows about ecology, bugs and insects?" Are we doing here what is being done in Serbia, i.e. having a run of cheap talk shows and serious segments only late at night?

Milivoje Mihaljovic, who worked for the government owned TV, says: "Journalists must take responsibility for their own profession. We have a dirty yard and someone has to clean it. There is too much forgiveness."

Is any of this relevant in America or in any other Democracy? Are you folks here satisfied with our Media? If not, why not and what change do you suggest?

Robby

Denizen

December 17, 2000 - 07:45 am

I just read a lengthy review of a book, "AN ALL-CONSUMING CENTURY: Why Commercialism won in Modern America" by Gary Cross.

The author's basic thesis, I gather, is that consumerism became the overriding ideology in the 20th century. Is that a change from the America that de Tocqueville saw? Could he have foreseen that the basis of the citizens sense of identity would change from place of residence and family connections to one where the make of car he drives or the brand of sneakers on his feet became deterministic? Or that the automobile itself would become the symbol of his liberty?

We have been discussing the weaknesses of media that are supported almost entirely by advertizing. That much was true in de Toqueville's America too. (quote no, 2 above) Yet I have a feeling that in his time there may have been a clear distinction between the three quarters of the sheet devoted to hucksterism and the other quarter. Today we accept that the candidates for office are "packaged and sold" through the media. Is a staged sound-bite any different than an a paid adverisement?

Mr. Cross says that consumerism has been an ideological triumph and a triumph over politics. He says it is "the ism that won".

Harold Arnold

December 17, 2000 - 08:00 am

Though I dropped my active participation in this discussion in September when we began the Bradlee review followed by the “Lies My Teacher Told Me” discussion, I am returning to mention an interesting C-Span, Washington Journal segment that aired this morning. The guests were two foreign members of the Washington Press Corp, Paul Reynolds from the UK, and Yoichi Kato from Japan. During their hour they fielded many calls from a widely diverse worldwide audience. The callers included quite a number from foreign countries including Europeans and even one from Teheran, Iran. I was amazed that many American callers and universally the foreign callers had no real knowledge of the American system of government under our constitution. They simply had no understanding of the concepts of the separation of powers, and divided sovereignty that is the basis of our Federal system. The moderator passed explanations to one or the other of the guests neither of which were real clear in their explanations.

This led me to the thought that perhaps the time is right for a new 21st century de Tocqueville to update the old master piece. The author, he or she, could be a Brit or again French or from one of the other continental powers. Maybe from Asia or Latin America. I think it would be interesting reading, perhaps particularly so, for Americans.

Also tonight C-Span will air a discussion of a new translation of de T’s book. It’s scheduled for 8:00 PM (I’m not sure if that is central or Eastern time).

Merry Christmas to all!

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 08:42 am

Harold:--Interesting that you should suggest that the author to write the "new deTocqueville" book be someone from another nation besides the United States. In my posting above I mentioned the importance of being objective as we look at America -- of backing off from the trees to see the forest -- and you might be right on target. Is it possible that we Americans as we post in this Discussion Group find it difficult to see ourselves? Note, for example, the cogent remarks made by participants here who are from Democracies other than America.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 17, 2000 - 09:01 am

I think Americans' view of this country is based on personal beliefs, needs and wants or gains and success. The views I read here from people of other countries are much the same. The United States is a powerful, rich country, and if our actions bring need to another or threaten it, that is what creates the view. That view is not as objective as one might first think, in my opinion.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 09:19 am

Possibly newspapers and other news magazines should hold a mirror up to us so we can see ourselves as the country and communities we are. They should also be our window on the world.

Phyll

December 17, 2000 - 09:48 am

I think this quote I recently came across is appropriate to our discussion on the media.

"Journalism largely consists of saying 'Lord Jones is Dead' to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive." -- G. K. Chesterton

Gary T. Moore

December 17, 2000 - 09:49 am

A new DeT sequel wouldn't be apples to apples if it wasn't written by a Frenchperson, would it? ;o)

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 09:54 am

Gary:--Of course a book written by a German, for example, would not be written from the same perspective as one written by a Frenchman. But, then again, the France of today is not the same as the France of 170 years ago.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 10:12 am

Do you folks believe that "public opinion" is important in the running of a Democracy? Do you believe that there is an intense contest going on for public opinion and that the media are a major battleground? Do you agree or disagree with deT's comment (above) beginning with "The eye of the press ... ?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 10:34 am

Don't politicians poll daily to find out what we think? They don't really need the press to do anything but slant the news so we will have more or less one point of view. "Getting cynical here"

Hairy

December 17, 2000 - 10:58 am

I like to pick up magazines now and then and bring them home and also like to visit some on the Web. All the things I read and have read may seem a lot, but it is mostly in the last few weeks with the heightened interest in the election. Can't read that much all the time. I would never get anything done!!

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 11:00 am

Hairy:--Sounds to me as if you have your priorities straight. First read about our nation and what is going on and then dust the furniture!

Robby

kiwi lady

December 17, 2000 - 11:06 am

Sad to say there have been times in this Democracy where the voice of the people has been ignored. We have had several major law changes where the agenda of a lobby group has come before public opinion. Politicians must remember they are elected by the people for the people, not elected to rule the people regardless of public opinion!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 11:11 am

Carolyn (Kiwi):--Was the voice of the people ignored because the Media didn't tell everyone what the people wanted or because the Media did its job but the politicians ignored it?

Robby

MaryPage

December 17, 2000 - 12:06 pm

I think Harold is right about our needing a new "Democracy" for the whole world to read and understand our system.

And only that.

The nationality of the person would not matter, as long as that person is totally disinterested and non-political.

Christine Amanapour (spelling?) who reports to the whole world from the whole world, but who knows us well and is half-British, half Iranian, I think (boy! I'm not at all certain!), and married to a man who used to be one of our under secretarys of State but is now based in London, would be perfect for this assignment.

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 12:08 pm

She is certainly a wonderful reporter.

)

MaryPage

December 17, 2000 - 12:11 pm

Thanks, Idris! At least I know that my spelling did not preclude your understanding instantly who I meant.

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 12:17 pm

LOL No, not at all.

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 12:19 pm

I'm not sure what is meant here by a "new Democracy." Would someone please expand a bit on that?

Robby

Hairy

December 17, 2000 - 12:24 pm

MARY PAGE! Before I scrolled down enough in your post I thought of Christianne Amanpour! Well, I sure agree with you!! She would be great! And she has a great handle on things.

Mary W

December 17, 2000 - 01:07 pm

Hi everyone, Happy week before. Re De T,s "eye o the press" quotation I do not agree that the eye of the press is constantly occupied with detecting "secret springs of political design"and summoning "leaders of all parties to turn to the bar of public opinion". That was very likely true at the time it was written but this a very dafferent America today.We are aware of a much larger world and of our responsibilities to it and more aware, too, of our own problems--quite different from those of the eighteenth century.

I do believe that public opinion is impotant. On occasion it has been a determining factor in effective changes. Another reason why we need an adequqtely informed populace. This a monumental task! It should start in the home, be nurtered in the schools and finally to realize that it is necessary to be exposed to more than one opinion . You asked a while back about what publications we read. My sons grew up in a family where we read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the local newspaper,and several news magines--among them Time, and Newsweek. Our diner conversations frequently included discussions of current news events.It was important that we had these sources and put them to use because their Dad and I felt that they were inadequately taught in their schools.

It is imperative that we do not lose our perspective about journalists. We are too prone to judge them at this time by their perfprmance during this past election when everyones interest has been heightened to an unaccustomed peak. we do not always hang breathlessly on every word of every reporter or read every word of newsprint by every writer of every periodical. I do believe for the most part reporters for reputable publications are coscientious and strive to be fair and accurate.They only differ from us in that write for a living. If you were writing for the public I believe that you would write truthfully and "tell it like it is".There will always be rabid one-sidera but if we are fully informed we can easily recognize them for what they are.

Don't Dismiss my faith in journalists as the musings of a Pollyanna. I have lived too long and through too many crises to be wide-eyed about anything.

Take care all, Mary

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 01:17 pm

Mary believes that reporters for reputable periodicals are conscientious and strive to be fair and accurate -- but that this is "a very different America" from the one of deT's time -- that today the "eye of the press is not summoning leaders of all parties to turn to the bar of public opinion."

America may have changed but is it the belief of everyone here that journalists today see their responsibity as considerably different from the journalists of 1831? What was their responsibility then? What is their responsibility now?

Robby

MaryPage

December 17, 2000 - 01:37 pm

Hairy, thanks for getting her name right. I'm sure she would thank you as well.

I think she would be perfect for many reasons, among them: she is accustomed to telling her stories very, very directly without any mercy for any side. She is not a citizen of these United States, nor has she ever been, yet she knows us well and is known by us. As a person with dual citizenship from other countries, she will have a perfect instinct for what they lack in knowledge about our system; something we ourselves would be too blind to see, being in the middle of the trees, as it were. She speaks perfect English, and writes it better than most of us! Finally, if she makes any errors in fact in her manuscript, she will have the perfect editor right at hand.

Malryn (Mal)

December 17, 2000 - 02:27 pm

Why do we need a new Democracy in America written when we have eyes to see and minds to understand what's going on around us? I suggest to you that this same kind of discussion is possible without the de Tocqueville book as a springboard. What we get from a book is just another person's opinion, isn't it?

There's a wealth of material and opinions right here in SeniorNet if one takes the time to read many different discussions, analyze what is said, and see the trend of the times and points of view that are different from his or her own. This is true of many, many other web sites and articles found on the web.

Mal

Kath

December 17, 2000 - 02:33 pm

Idris I love to see programs by our Joe Schlesinger. Can't spell it, but you know who I mean. He is someone I believe 100%. Actually I believe more Canadian journalists than I do US.

Robby I know that you are an American, but I am heartily SICK of seeing a red AMERICA and DEMOCRACY. The USA is NOT the only democracy in the world. Hard as it may be for America to realize, many countries would prefer to be anything BUT American.

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 02:37 pm

Kath:--If a red colored "America" or "Democracy" bothers participants, I will not do it. It was done to reflect the Heading. I often use a red color "Democracy" even when it is not referring to America.

Robby

Kath

December 17, 2000 - 02:41 pm

It may not bother other people Robby, but it sure bothers me. As most people that post here are American it probably doesn't irritate them as it does me. I feel that it is meant to show that America is THE democracy. There are others around the world, and even some that America could take lessons from.

rambler

December 17, 2000 - 02:44 pm

If we really want disinterested, that is impartial, journalists, I think we are seeking a kind of vegetable life form. I wonder how any intelligent person could devote years of his/her life covering the political scene and not develop some opinion as to who is right and who is wrong on some of the issues.

And how can such a person prevent his/her views from creeping into his writing?

If you had spent years covering the U.S. Senate, would you not have a preference between the views of Trent Lott and Tom Daschle? In the House, would you not have a preference between the views of Denny Hastert and Dick Gephardt?

And, as a conscientious journalist, concerned with informing a public less informed than yourself, wouldn't you want to hint, however subtly, what your views might be?

Oh, that last sentence should bring a response!

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 02:47 pm

Columnist Frank Rich has coined the word, "Mediathon." By this he means a relentless hybrid of media circus, soap opera and tabloid journalism we have come to think of as All Calamity: All the Time. "War in the Gulf" paved the way for the host of breathless sequels that have blanketed the culture ever since; "The O.J. Simpson case," "Who Killed JonBenet?" The Death of Princess Diana," "John Kennedy Jr.'s Plane Is Missing," "Massacre at Columbine," "Will Elian Go Back to Cuba," and the biggest crowd-pleaser of them all, "Scandal at the White House." He says that mediathons are not merely "water cooler" progrms as TV exccutives refer to shows with the ability to stimulate workplace chitchat the next day -- they're total national immersion.

Does his term ring a bell with anyone here?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 03:44 pm

I don't know that one, Robby. I just call it the OJing of America. It isn't news anymore it is murder and meyhem as entertainment.

Hairy

December 17, 2000 - 03:59 pm

One of the first may have been WATERGATE, Robby.

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 04:04 pm

Yes and everything seems to end with a GATE now.

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 04:09 pm

According to Frank Rich, TV has offered "continuous" coverage of breaking news since President Kennedy's assiasination. But in "War in the Gulf," cable's first all-news network surpassed these forms by melding them, updating their primitive technology and bursting through their previous boundaries of time and space. The gulf war was the first war to have its own logos, theme music and telegenic overnight stars (whether leading men like Colin Powell or Robert Duvall-esque character types like Peter Arnett). Most important, it played out in real time before a mass audience - the first instance history has been shaped (and spun, often by the military brass) on the spot into a dramatic 24/7 mini-series.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 04:12 pm

That was a video war Robby. Yes, CNN made its name and money that way and forever shall the shallow reporting live.

robert b. iadeluca

December 17, 2000 - 04:19 pm

As you say, Idris, "War in the Gulf" was the ratings triumph that put the previously struggling CNN on the map. In the imitations that followed, it quickly became apparent that news as momentous and rare as wars and assassintions were not required to make the form tick. Sex, celebrity and money would do just fine and infrared videos of bombings or any other pricey special effects were not essential. An event as bland to the eye as a Ford Bronco cruising monotonously down a California freeway was enough to captivate a naton and provide major speaking roles for all the stars of TV news. Most prime-time network newsmagazines, which initially resisted cable's all-crisis agenda, soon fell into line.

Do you see that fitting in with deT's quote above about the "power of the press?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 17, 2000 - 04:31 pm

"The power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people."

I still believe the newspapers but most especially "horror tv" is telling us what is important. They hold the power because people feel this must be important. They talk about it at work and there is no real threat to them. I live in a town that lived through two horrid torture murders. We had a youngster found weighed down with cement, in Lake Gibson were we get our water.

You dare not let your children of any age out alone. Just walking from the bus my daughter was told by an older man to "get to hell home, idiot." Fear was everywhere as white cars were stopped and the man (or we thought only a man) was loose in our town and he was a terrible murderer. That is as close as i want to come to this kind of horror and yet we were outwardly calm.

Imagine what a real war would have looked like on TV not the video war everyone saw on CNN. By real i mean real people getting shot at and bombarded. Reporters in the field showing you what was really going on. No it was a tv video for most folks. There was no real fear, blood, cries in the dark...just a nice steril video war. What a load of junk (okay i edited that last word).

I felt like screaming...damn it get real.

mikecantor

December 17, 2000 - 07:52 pm

To: Idris O’Neill, Ref. your post #369:

“Imagine what a real war would have looked like on TV not the video war everyone saw on CNN. By real I mean real people getting shot at and bombarded. Reporters in the field showing you what was really going on. No it was a tv video for most folks. There was no real fear, blood, cries in the dark...just a nice sterile video war...I felt like screaming...damn it get real.”

You want “real” Idris? Then I recommend a book I have just finished reading titled “Flags Of Our Fathers” by James Bradley, the son of one those who actually raised the flag at Iwo Jima. It was a very difficult read for me as it renewed a vision of hell on earth battle that I was a small part of, as those who have read my previous posts on “The Greatest Generation” may remember. Reading this book, if you have the guts to do it, will enable you to experience more fear, blood, outright horror and cries in the dark, than you or anyone else with the exception of those who were there, could ever possibly imagine.

Is this what you would prefer to see on TV? I don’t think so! With all due respect I must tell you that what war is really like is more than you or most of the rest of the American public really want to see. However, I do urge you and others to read this book. It just might give you a new perspective on what you really want to see on television.

Malryn (Mal)

December 17, 2000 - 08:47 pm

Click the link below.

Happy Hanukkah

Malryn (Mal)

December 17, 2000 - 08:53 pm

Click the link below. I hope you'll listen to the music!

Seasons Greetings

Ann Alden

December 18, 2000 - 02:30 am

I received this in an email last week and am putting it up for anyone who wants to read it. I hope you all enjoy the tribute. Canadian Tribute to US

Mal, I wasn't able to open your greetings all the way. Just part of them came up for me but thanks anyway for the thought. Have a happy holiday!

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 03:40 am

Mike:

Yes, I remember very well your various postings in Greatest Generation. It seems that what we are discussing here is the difference between "reality" and what is portrayed on TV. And I suppose your implied question is: "Do we want to see reality on TV?" If someone is lying injured after he has been shot, do we want the camera to zoom in on the wound, to watch the blood pouring out, to hear the person screaming? Or would we prefer just the reporter asking the relative: "How did you feel after you saw he was shot?" Or would we prefer that television not report such events at all?

Perhaps we are back to the basic question -- what is news? The classic remark made a century ago was: "If a dog bites a man, that is not news. If a man bites a dog, that is news." "Mediathon" is controversial. The debate about what these bloated media circuses mean to the future of democracy has itself spawned a new, highly populated industry. According to Frank Rich, the stars of the Mediathons really see how the strings move. They see what happens in the wings. They see how the audience eats it up. They see the distinctions between what we think is "real" in the spectacle and the reality that they experience.

Is it in fact true, as deTocqueville said, that the "power of the press is second only to that of the people?"

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 03:43 am

Ann:

Thank you for your link. A Canadian expresses beautifully how there may be differences between Canada and the United States but simultaneously a very warm friendship.

Robby

tigerliley

December 18, 2000 - 04:30 am

Ann....thank you very much for the piece on Canada and America...Really enjoyed reading it........

Ginny

December 18, 2000 - 04:41 am

Have had to read these 50 posts VERY swiftly (boy this is a popular discussion!) on my way out of town so apologize if I missed any comments.

Robby, you nut, I have given up reading while driving tho I have seen others do it. Hardest to give up was reading at the stop lights, I always seemed to dream thru the light change, or WORSE, go at the wrong time. One day I went sailing across a huge intersection because the left turn lane went and I went too. Never again.

The local newspaper's worth is something my husband and I disagree on. He says it's the same news services as everything else but I find it different and the articles are such pablum (beyond the major news articles) that I can't stand it. It has been quite a while since I read it, and it's a subsidiary of the NY Times, but the local news is just awful. It's a bad newspaper.

On Time, Malryn, yes it does seem to me to be sensationalist. In any gruesome murder for example, Time will spell out every salacious detail. They're getting better but still go into the more titilating aspects of everything and that PEOPLE like ambiance is probably why I keep reading it, if I'm honest. They are improving or have in the last 10 years.

That of course is only my opinion.

The thing I like best about the news magazines is that they allow a slow and more thorough perusal of many issues that you only get in a sound byte on the evening news or in the newspaper and sometimes those little details are more interesting to ME than the major story was.

ginny

Ginny

December 18, 2000 - 04:43 am

Idris, I liked your observation about GATE! hahaha There are two new varieties of GRAPE with gate stuck on the end, SugarGATE and RedGATE and I think there's another one, too.

Interesting!

ginny

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 05:22 am

Mike, for the purposes of this discussion i would say the media would have to show the war. Showing the horrors of war would at least admit that our young men are being slaughtered or wounded. It would show the awful things we are doing to the other side. It would be real. It would make people want a diplomatic end to it. They would want a solution. Video wars are entertainment and war should never be entertainment.

jeanlock

December 18, 2000 - 07:36 am

Robby--

last night on CSPAN they had a man who has edited a new edition of D in A. AND, I taped it for you. If you'll e-mail your address to my e-mail (jlockwoo@mwc.edu) I'll put it in the mail as soon as I've watched it. I kept switching over to it during commercials on other programs I was watching, and I was quite taken with the man.

Won't have time for much active participation in my seniornet stuff until after Christmss--being in the hospital did me out of about half my Christmas fixing time.

jeanlock

December 18, 2000 - 07:40 am

Robby--

Are you forgetting that Hearst actually had a war started so that he could feature it in his papers? I think that was the Spanish American war (the one that spawned, again I think, "Message to Garcia". I may be totally misrecollecting, but I do know Hearst DID get a war started.

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 07:54 am

Yes, because it sells papers. CNN is selling wars and other stuff like entertainment and that sells TV time. Let's face it, these things are Yippeedoodle time for the media.

betty gregory

December 18, 2000 - 08:10 am

Many responses to catch up on. Waaay back, MaryPage, you gave excellent pointers on how to examine a book or article for an obvious or not-so-obvious slant. I would add that what I look for in a serious treatment of a subject, especially in book form, is acknowledgment of opposing views.

Outside the popular press---such as in medical or science journals---it actually strengthens a premise to point out various views, then an author can attempt to further general knowledge in a field by disagreeing with part or all of a view and backing it up with investigation. Then others are able to look at the latest investigation and do the same thing---so that the field progresses inch by inch.

In biographies, I look for the same thing. I respect an author who quotes what other biographers have written and reports if the present work supports or refutes the past work.

I am impressed if an author cannot determine the relative strength of two opposing views----for instance, some detail in a letter written by Virginia Woolf may be at odds with a detail recorded by someone else who was present for the same conversation alluded to in the letter. THAT kind of writing gives me a sense of the author's work and integrity.

------------------------------

Denizen, such interesting comments on that book about commercialization (consumerism?) of this century. Your comment about switch of source of identity from hometown to name brands reminded me how often I've thought of the difference of my high school years and kids in high school now. My mother sewed most of my clothes, by necessity, although I often got to pick out a fashionable pattern. I was one of the first high school girls to wear an "empire" waist dress to school---just ahead of those dresses hitting the stores. Nobody cared what the brand was, yet. So, when we speak of the pressures high school kids endure today (drugs and name brand peer pressure and AIDS), I think how lucky we were only a few years ago.

-----------------------------------------

Harold Arnold, I saw those two foreign members of the Washington press on C-span, also. I noted that the one from Japan said that as his country is debating a two party system, they were particularly unnerved by our recent election. Chaos theory came to my mind. (smile) A Florida county's out-of-date voting machines may have influenced the future of Japan. (Or maybe it was our U.S. Supreme Court's fall from grace/respect.)

-------------------------------------------

Robby, several times you asked about the power or importance of public opinion. Recently, two times, I've noticed public opinion being wholely ignored by our elected representatives to Congress. During the Clinton impeachment and during this past election. We didn't care, on the first, and we weren't in a hurry, on the second.

Also, Robby, on your questions/comments about mediathon and the 24/7 coverage aspect of the Gulf War, I want to tell about the one thing that truly bothered me during press reports. A general or some military official would be giving a report with graphs and details, etc., and I would think----"This is for the enemy to see." I didn't like wondering how they juggled the need to report the facts to the U.S. and at the same time slant some message for the listeners in Iraq.

Idris, on the same general subject, the Gulf War, I understood your comment "get real." It made me stop and think that we DO talk as if we actually saw a war happening before our eyes in real time, but WE DIDN'T, not really. And you're right, of course, if we had to see what we send our military women and men to do and see, it might change a lot of how we "do" war. Even those of us who think we can imagine how awful it is---the necessary civilian casualties, for example---imagining and being there are not the same. As some military people already know. I still recognize the necessity to do whatever is needed to thwart the insane bullies of this world, but I sometimes wonder if our diplomatic "readiness" is as up to date as our military readiness.

----------------------------------

My all time pet peeve about local and national television news is the amount of time wasted PROMOTING the upcoming newscasts---the teasers they dangle, the "News at 6" promo that drives me up the wall. In the time that they REPEAT asking the question, "Will it freeze tonight?" or WORSE, "death of Hollywood's leading man---news at 6" (where they don't even give the name), they could have given the answer 10 times and had time for other news stories. Will our auto taxes go up? Will the water restrictions be lifted? Did the fire kill the baby or not? We won't know until 6 o'clock. IT ESPECIALLY DRIVES ME CRAZY DURING THE NEWS for them to end each 5 minute news segment with the TEASER of what is to come at the end of the hour (or 30 minutes) so that they can keep people watching.

Harold Arnold

December 18, 2000 - 09:01 am

Last evening I caught the C-Span interview with Harvey C Mansfield on the new traslation of the de T’ book. The book is in the B & N catalog:

De Tocqueville, Alexis, Translated by Harvey C Mansfield and Della Winthrop, University of Chicago Press, November, 2000, 832 pp.

While I was not really impressed by the interviewer’s questions, I was very much impressed by Harvey Mansfield, how he answered the questions, and by him generally. Mansfield is a Harvard professor. He identified himself as an economic conservative and when pushed estimated that that position made him one of maybe a half dozen economic conservatives among the 700 tenured Harvard faculty members.

I was surprised to learn that this translation to English is only the third in the 170-year history of the book. The first was by an English friend of de T’ shortly after the original publication. De T’ was critical of this translation as too aristocratic. A more modern version that most of us are probably using was deemed diluted by its being less exact. He cited the fact that it did not preserve the author’s paragraph arrangement in the English version. In any case the new translation by Mansfield and his co-translator (his wife) is now available.

Some questions and answers related to Mansfield opinion of de T’s attitude toward our modern America included:

On the modern role of women: De T’ would have no trouble with the idea of equality, but would have trouble as to position. To de T’ women and men were and are equal but occupy different social roles.

On race relations: de T’ saw the danger of racial conflict and wars. Mansfield thought de T’ would be impressed with the change.

Attitude toward the Presidency: de T’ saw President Andrew Jackson as being weak because of his deference to public opinion.

Attitude toward Judiciary: de T would not be surprised by our litigious society. He even said that political questions often end as judicial ones.

Attitude toward modern American political Liberal/Conservative issues: both sides would find some support in de T’s position. Conservatives would take de T’s distrust in big government favorably.

Attitude toward the TV culture: de T would be critical on the grounds that it becomes a substitute for human association. Also he might find its tendency to provide detailed news of events in other nations that Americans have no capacity to influence as useless. Also he might be critical about the lack of news on local issues that people can influence.

MaryPage

December 18, 2000 - 09:46 am

I like the term "mediathon." I do not know that it was actually our first one, but the first time I remembering NOTICING this phenomenon was when Kennedy was shot. I had the feeling that the entire country was glued to their tv sets from the Friday afternoon shooting (well, it was afternoon EST) until Monday, at least.

Mal, it is unlikely that those of us posting here require a new DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. However, Harold pointed out the dreadful ignorance regarding our system of people calling in to a radio show, and many have pointed out how uninformed the world seemed during our election crisis as to how our system functions. Based on this, we were discussing the need for a new book for the entire world to read to explain this while the interest is still out there.

Malryn (Mal)

December 18, 2000 - 09:54 am

Mary Page, I doubt very much if people like the ones who called in to that radio show would ever read such a book unless it was published in comic book form. Actually, that's not a bad idea. Educate such people with comic books and cartoons on TV.

Mal

Harold Arnold

December 18, 2000 - 10:17 am

This relates to my post #335 in which I commented on the possible value to American readers of an update of the de T’ book by a modern foreign writer. In this post I will call attention to two 1940s –50s books that seem to have had that effect. An Englishman, Harold J Laski, wrote them. These books are still available through re-print editions listed in the B & N Catalog as follows:

The American Presidency In Stock: 24 hours (Same Day). Harold Joseph Laski,James M. Burns / Hardcover / Transaction Publishers / May 1980 (Ouiginally Published in 1940)

American Democracy: A Commentary and an Interpretation In Stock: 24 hours (Same Day). Harold Joseph Laski / Hardcover / Kelley, Augustus M. Publishers / May 1984 (Originally Published in 1948)

I remember the “American Presidency” as I obtained my copy in 1945 when we closed down the Navy base at Ulithi Atoll at the end of WW II. I picked it out of a pile of library books being accumulated for deep-six disposal. It was well regarded as an interpretation of the American presidency and the role and powers of the office. It was certainly considered a prime source for college government class reading in the early 1950s and the fact that it is still available in reprint attests to its continued significance.

I am less familiar with the “American Democracy” title. I was vaguely familiar with its existence, but I do not recall having read it. In many ways from the title and bits in the B & N catalog and the internet, it sounds as something of a 20th century parallel to the de T; book.

The author of these books Harold J. Laski (1893 – 1950) was a well-known British Labor Party Marxist theoretician. He was a professor at the prestigious London School of Economics. He was a WW II associate of Clement Attlee who was assistant PM in the WW II Churchill government. He was elected Chairman of the Labor Party in 1944 and presided over the party for its smashing election victory in 1945.

kiwi lady

December 18, 2000 - 10:29 am

Robby the politicians knew alright, they were handed a petition one third of the population signed which was against the proposed law change. That would be a huge proportion of the eligible voters in a country of just over 3 million at the time.

The law affected less than 10% of the population but they got what they wanted from the Government!

Carolyn

Phyll

December 18, 2000 - 10:48 am

Frankly, I think that the "media" listens very carefully to the public--especially the television media. What is the purpose of all these ratings if they don't pay attention to the public? How many formats have been changed on news information programs because the ratings were going down?

I have been very critical of all of the media and I probably will go on being critical but I can't help wonder when I read these posts if we aren't the real culprits in our beef against the media. After all, if we, or at least a large segment of the public, didn't watch these shows or buy these newspapers or magazines they wouldn't stick around very long. And that, I believe, is the real power of the people--but most of the time we don't have the guts to exercise it!

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 11:03 am

An advertiser has a product, but it has no real use or is of little use. He wants to make money on this product. He calls in his thinkers and they have a meeting. They come up with some reason why you should want this product. Indeed, can't do without this product. They then spend millions advertising and telling you why you must have this product or not be "with it" or "acceptable."

That is what these mediathons are like to my mind. The station needs money. They have sponcers. They need a story that can keep the money rolling in. It doesn't really matter what the story is, because given the right talking heads and something as stupid as a slow moving car, they can massage the public into thinking something "big" is happening.

The longer these folks can keep the story going the better. Ching, ching...ching, ching.

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 02:38 pm

Phyll points out that "we the people" have the power to turn off the TV or change the channel or not to buy or read certain print press but that we "don't have the guts to use this power." This would seem to reverse deT's view that the media is the second power after us and that the greatest power, in fact, lies with the media.

Agree? Disgree?

Robby

Gary T. Moore

December 18, 2000 - 02:41 pm

Wonder how the French would have considered a book written by a resident of the US named Toke that talked about nothing but France and the French people, but kept referring to them as Europeans?

)

Does anyone know why the United States began to be referred to as "America", or why DeT took it upon himself to assume that "America" referred primarily to the United States?'

Just wondering.

Kath

December 18, 2000 - 02:51 pm

Gary I also wonder how the United States got to be AMERICA. We Canadians also live on the American continent, but are not considered Americans.

Don't get me wrong. We LOVE to be Canadians, but I have often wondered why only one nation of 'the Americas' got to name themselves as the only Americans.

LouiseJEvans

December 18, 2000 - 02:53 pm

I guess America is sort of part of the name of the U.S.A. It would be hard to know what else to call ourselves. I do try be careful of my language when I am with someone from another country. After all there are 2 American Continents and we really are all Americans.

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 03:07 pm

The "Mediathon" solidifies its hold on our culture. One of its stars was Monica Lewinsky, a privae citizen dragged onto the national stage against her will. History will record, according to Frank Rich, that it was her misfortune to surface as a star player at the precise moment that the full arsenal of 21st-century media (as we know it so far) was falling into place. MSNBC and the Fox News Channel had been added to the competitive mix increasing the volume of coverage and its decibel level. So had the Internet.

Since Lewinsky's legal jeopardy prohibied her from talking to the press, she had no choice but to remain silent even as her image and her story morphed into profit centers for the entertainment industry. She says now: "When I was introduced to the world, I couldn't define myself." The media turned to the leakers and spinners. Once the name and picture were out there, then it was "Let's start giving her attributes and start forming her as a person."

The power of the press (in this case TV) continued to grow and perhaps become even greater than the "power of the people."

Robby

Harold Arnold

December 18, 2000 - 04:02 pm

Gary, Kath, I can't answer your question regarding how the U.S took on rights to the title, "American, but I can say that the Mexican people too contest our right to use it. They insist on referring to us as "Norte Americanos," North Americans. Of course that is not going to satisfy the concerns of our northern neighbor.

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 04:40 pm

Robby, parts of the media truly upset me. I have only one way of protesting. I pull the station from my cable grouping. To see what has been done to rather ordinary people, who find themselves hated and vilified because talking heads spin for a particular important person it not what democracy is all about. It more resembles the right of Kings. I find it terribly distasteful.

The latest, whether you like her or not is Catherine Harris. She now has a legal bill over $662,000.00 as she attempted to defend herself in court. I'm sure there are others but she is an example. How did certain sections of the media get so strong that they are allowed to destroy people? None of us are perfect or anywhere near it and yet we find it totally okay to have someone who is backed by party money and a vorcious media set upon high ratings, destroy someone.

This is not about the young woman, this is about what we allow those of power to do to less powerful people or people of no power at all. Yet, we watch and find ways to accept that this person can't be trusted, must be hated or laughed at. I truly find it disgusting.

EloElose De Pelteau

December 18, 2000 - 05:16 pm

Canadians call people who live in the US, Americans too. But we call ourselves Canadians. If I think about an alternative to the word Americans in French it would be virtually impossible to call them anything else because the name of the country has two words. De T. saw and knew very little about Canada or South America and it was the US's democracy that he wanted to scrutinize because it struck him as a democracy that was the nearest thing to perfection in his view. He sure wished that France could attain the same level of democracy as the US had in the 1830's but they were a groping new democracy and even De T. was an aristocrat and underneath very much a royalist.

Robby - I believe strongly that Television and the Press controls politics and if we look at it closely, it controls the lives of billions of people worldwide. So the media has the first power then the people. How unbiased and honest are they? That remains to be seen.

Ann Alden

December 18, 2000 - 05:26 pm

How and why did we get the name America? Reading this might help us understand. Amerigo Vespucci

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 05:35 pm

Well, i'm just a plain old Canuk and proud of it.

)

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 05:41 pm

TV news stars made insulting remarks about Lewinsky on the air even as they were sending fawning letters and fruit baskets to seduce her into an interview. She attributed that hypocrisy as well to "an unspoken thought that I must be stupid. There was this immediate notion that I was kind of a dumb bimbo. And that was really offensive to me because I'm not a genius, I'm not necessarily very intellectual, but I am intelligent." She gave her first major interview to Barbara Walters in part because Walters earned her respect by not trying to snow her with flowers and "some long letter."

As "Scandal at the White House" continued, Lewinsky became more like a hard-bitten star under contract to the old studios. She grew sophisticated about the assembly line that produced her show. The press didn't want to hear positive information that would contradict it.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 05:47 pm

Imagine the power of the press and TV shows coming down on any of us, bent on our destruction. To destroy her was to save the other. Who or what give them this power? It could have been any of us, given the right circumstances and our involvement with a powerful person. The powerful person is almost raised to god-like levels by their followers and hangers-on. The media darlings are without sin but the poor slob who got pulled in is the evil one.

Who gave them this power and why do we believe one darn thing they say? Why not just pull the plug on the evil? Who will be next? Will we believe the evil said about someone because we would rather believe the powerful person?

I swear it is just like the Salem witch hunts.

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 05:49 pm

Idris asks: "Who or what gave the press such power?"

Your answer?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 06:05 pm

Do you folks believe that deT's remark (above) starting with "The Journalists of the United States ..." still holds true?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 06:06 pm

Fat chance!

rambler

December 18, 2000 - 06:08 pm

Rambler asks: Why is this de T' discussion talking about Monica Lewinsky?

Idris O'Neill

December 18, 2000 - 06:11 pm

Rambler, i'm not. I'm talking about a number of people who are destroyed by the press. I am talking about the press and many who are nameless for the purpose of this discussion.

I'm talking about the power of a different forms of the media that have far too much power because we give it to them. We give it to them because we want to be entertained with so called news stories.

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 06:13 pm

Rambler:--Because we are talking about the Press (Media) in America. Earlier posts will indicate how she fits in with the "Mediathon." What is your reaction to deTocqueville's comment (above) starting with "The Power of the periodical press ...?"

Robby

MaryPage

December 18, 2000 - 06:33 pm

The media did not invent Monica Lewinsky.

Opposition politicians and their cohorts who were desperate to bring down a President at whatever cost (60 million and climbing, plus all the reputations and the cost to individuals) brought us Monica Lewinsky. Their fervor knew no bounds.

I (respectfully dissent) do not agree that the media gifts us with stuff going on. They just use their various types of bullhorns and make sure we all hear about it. It is their job. We both desire and need to know the news. Sure, we do get sick of hearing it when some of it turns into mediathons.

The whole, entire, complete enterprise called Politics, with its politicians, lobbyists, staff, campaign workers, public relations personnel, handlers, donators, spin masters, PACS, and so on into almost infinity, has become such a Business with so much Big Money involved and such very, very large numbers of people in each party who want to Cash In On being in power. These people become ruthless, and many persons are unfairly victimized in the process. Ultimately, we all become victims.

This system, set up so our legislators may fight for and protect our interests, is electing few high-minded persons who are actually in it to do just that. Sad truth, but we ourselves are the ones who have been "set up."

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 06:38 pm

If I understand Mary correctly, the "stuff going on" is created by politicians, lobbyists, staff, campaign workers, public relations personnel, handlers, donators, spin masters, PACs, etc. -- and the Media just "tells it like it is." Is that it?

Robby

Hairy

December 18, 2000 - 06:39 pm

You mentioned the "teasers" on TV and I thought of all the commercials which have turned us into a frenzied nation of consumers. (Try and walk through a shopping mall today) What power the advertising has!

Linda

robert b. iadeluca

December 18, 2000 - 06:48 pm

Mary:--You talk about the Media using "their various types of bullhorns" to tell the world what someone else has done. Is this similar to what deTocqueville says above that "The press cannot create ...?"

Robby

MaryPage

December 18, 2000 - 08:42 pm

Exactly, Robby.

There has always been a sensationalist sector of our free press. It existed even when Tocqueville was visiting. It exists in all free societies, and most of us ignore it, except when standing in line at the grocery store. No question about it, they make up a lot of stuff and have to be really, really careful with their wording so as not to be sued. The type of person who reads this stuff does not possess the aptitude to decipher the wording to catch this.

But most of the news we hear and read is not made up by the media. They exist for the purpose of tracking down every crumb of every cookie that crumbles, but they could not keep their jobs if they made this stuff up. Sometimes they have to retract their stories because their sources were making it up or committing gross exaggeration or just plain got it wrong themselves, but the press does not exist for the purpose of feeding fairy tales to the citizens of a free society. That is what totalitarian dictatorships do. SO FAR our very powerful politicians do NOT own our media, though they sure do everything they can to influence it. Failing to do so, please note it is THEY, the politicians, who then make every attempt, through their public pronouncements and letters to constituents, to influence US to believe all of our troubles are Caused by this media, and not by them. Oh mercy me, no, Never by them!

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 04:03 am

Mary:--You spoke of the sensational periodicals being at the check out counters. An interesting thought flew into my head. Silly question, of course, but why is it that the sensational periodicals are not found elsewhere at the store and the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. not found at the check out counters. I said it was a silly question!Maybe this emphasizes your point that we should look more at "we the people" than the press.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 04:59 am

Another "star" of the Mediathon is O.J. Simpson. He, of course, was a public figure whereas Monica Lewinsky had not been one. Simpson had spent his entire adult lifetime voluntarily before the media in widely varying roles, ranging from football hero to rental-car pitchman to Hollywood "actor" to presumed murderer.

But Simpson is not the star he once was. He fumes these days about a National Enquirer story alleging that he is suicidal. About this periodical and others like it he says: "It's all about finding out the dirt. When Walter Cronkite was doing the news at the beginning of his career, the news division was a source of prestige for the network. Once they saw you could make money, the promotion peole took over."

Simpson's biggest complaint is that the media are "lazy." "They sit back, they wait for a tabloid story, then they all jump on it. Our forefathers gave a certain autonomy to the media because they're the watchdogs of the system. The media are going to watch the police, they're going to watch the judicial system, when the simple fact of the matter now is that they became bedfellows with these people. I am more upset with the press than I am with the legal system."

Aside from your view about the trial itself and its conclusion, do you believe that he is a victim of the press?

Robby

Phyll

December 19, 2000 - 07:16 am

O.J. is a victim of O.J. and Monica is a victim of Monica.

Initially it was O.J.'s decision to abuse his wife (apparently proven by photographs and police reports) long before the sensational murder took place. And Monica didn't have to consent to be alone in the Oval Office with Bill Clinton even if he was the President. Why is it no one seems willing to take responsibility for their own actions these days? The media will pounce upon these stories because we, the public, allow and encourage them to. And that is my point, the public have power over the press but for whatever reason, at this point in our history, we choose not to use it.

Phyll

December 19, 2000 - 07:32 am

Just a note: When we traveled in Scotland and England it was pretty obvious that our accent was not British and we were almost always asked "Are you from the States or Canada?" I don't ever remember being asked if I was American. But, when all of U.S. citizens and most of the rest of the world speak of and think of us as Americans that becomes the accepted term. I really didn't think about it offending Canadians or Mexicans or any of the citizens of the countries of South America---and I honestly don't think that is arrogance on the part of the U.S. What would you suggest that we call ourselves----ah! ah! be nice now. 8-}

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 07:37 am

Phyll:--You have a point about people using what has become the "accepted term." The proper name is Myanmar but people still call it Burma. The proper name is Sri Lanka but people still call it Ceylon.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 08:51 am

The audience probably knows by now how many of the Mediathons are fiction. At the time of the Lindbergh trial, William Randolph Hearst said; "The public is even more fond of entertainment than it is of information." Says Woody Allen: "The film audience constantly grouses about the junkiness of films and television, and yet when they're given the choice, they choose the junk. And so the media are always going to give them the junk." Allen adds: "I followed the O.J. trial with great fascination. It was a fascinating piece of Americana in every way. It was real-life drama and interesting. There's a certain amount of news that falls over into entertainment."

Do you agree with Woody Allen? Do news and entertainment blend?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 19, 2000 - 09:19 am

Sure they do. What about this recent election drama? Wasn't that just as good, if not better than a football game with the field officials making the call on the last play?

Mal

3kings

December 19, 2000 - 09:42 am

ROBBY, the line between entertainment and 'hard' news is a very indefinate one, and it is not easy to agree just where that line should be drawn.The death of a well known and admired entertainer is undoubtedly news. Most other aspects of his life, such as his political affiliations etc, I would not class as news, but many people would. The death of Princess Diana was news, especially in the British Commonwealth, but the absurd hoohah that follow

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 09:49 am

Trevor:--Who caused the frenzy -- the people themselves or the Media?

Robby

3kings

December 19, 2000 - 09:57 am

ROBBY. They both did. They fed off each other I guess.

Sorry about those posts of mine. something is going wrong with my computer-- Trevor

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 10:14 am

Columnist Frank Rich sees the Mediathon as an unstoppable phenomenon, a product of a mainstream American culture that mixes fiction and journalism and the stirring together of all genres nto a single "lumpy stew." He says that in the all-American tradition of W.P.A. murals and Cinemascope, the Mediathon may be the closest we have yet come to creating our own Wagnerian epic. Ken Sunshine, a publicist who handles Leonardo DiCaprio and Barbra Stresand, says that Mediathons may win out in the mass market place by default because "culturally, this is one of the most barren times ever."

Already we see that if there's no spontaneous news event that lends itself to round-the-clock treatment, then TV revives an old favorite as an "updated" rerun or manufactures a reality soap opera from scratch such as "Survivor." Monetarily speaking, the "real" reality of "Scandal at the White House" or the false reality of "Survivor" are cheaper to produce than fiction like "West wing."

So -- who's running the show? The people? The press?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 10:48 am

"In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct."

- - Ernie Hal, coordinator of the Singapore Government Internet project

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 11:08 am

I think the media does. People have a tendency to turn on the boob tube and consume what is set out for them. They reason whatever it is must be important because it is there. Many folks just tune out the tube because they can see the manipulation in it. It is not what is truth but what sells that they present.

I also agree with the above statement in blue, Robby.

Lordy this is depressing.

(

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 11:13 am

Idris:--I'm not sure what you mean by agreeing with the fellow from Singapore. Are you saying it should be the same way in a Democracy?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 11:31 am

"In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct."

- - Ernie Hal, coordinator of the Singapore Government Internet project

If we take the statement and put it into our society we know that some folks speak in a politically correct manner when out in society. If we know them well enough we know this is not how they really feel. Indeed some of their views are downright scary. The point is they state what is politically correct even if they don't believe it.

I prefer my scoundrels out in the open. I can deal with that.

rambler

December 19, 2000 - 11:51 am

Robby: I don't think Heinrich Himmler could improve on that quote from #425. It says that you can say whatever you like, as long as the government approves of what you say.

betty gregory

December 19, 2000 - 12:52 pm

I disagree about Florida's (K?)Catherine Harris. I don't believe her "life was destroyed" by nasty comments from some television comedians (and others) or from politicians who were angry with how she did her job and that she campaigned for Bush. In fact, she received a standing ovation from both democrats and republicans in the Florida legislature and her office overflowed with flowers at one point.

It IS unfair that people in public service are raked over the coals, but ambitious Harris voluntarily took on public life and was not forced into the public glare as others have been. If she and Jeb Bush are politically tarnished for a while, well, that's part of politics. Their guy made it to the White House, however, so I expect they'll be rewarded politically (and by extention, financially), eventually. Besides, one of the greatest challenges in politics is to achieve name recognition---if Harris plays her political cards right, she can go far.

By the way, the perception of public (or private) mistreatment can often turn to political gold. Witness Hillary Clinton's path from political poison to a seat in the Senate.

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 03:10 pm

We all know, in general, what a news outlet is. We know where we get the news. But some college students have been saying that they get the news "through watching comedy shows." Said one: "The coverage on CNN is something I honestly find boring." The CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer speaks of the "power of the late-nights." His daughter said she was going to vote for one of the particular candidates because "he was cool on The Tonight Show." She said her friends feel the same way. Blitzer adds: "There's no doubt that all this comedy has an impact. Elections are won and lost on public perceptions in that kind of popular culture."

Late-night comedy has never been so subtly powerful. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that a full 47 percent of Americans betwen the ages of 18 and 29 often gleaned information about the presidential campaign from late-night comedy shows. And the late-nights' appeal is not limited to younglings. More than a quarter of all adults got campaign news from those programs. The link between politics and comedy is now fully institutionalized. News outlets now present comedians not as escapists from hard news but as legitimate commentators upon it. It's logical. A comic's take on politics is nimble, bite-size and utterly clear. And Americans prefer to take their news sweet.

Where do you go to obtain your news? Are comedy shows one of the outlets?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 03:24 pm

Please read deTocqueville's comment above starting "Nothing but a newspaper..." and then think of the Internet.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 03:31 pm

The Internet is the wild, wild west when it comes to news or rumours etc. There is no control in most forums. Every good post has a dark mirror image somewhere else. It can't be controlled and is a free for all in many forums. You have to be careful about how much credance you give most of it.

Malryn (Mal)

December 19, 2000 - 03:34 pm

Late night comedy shows, eh? And what did I say yesterday about using comic books and cartoons to educate people? Here's another thought. Get a real computer geek to create a PlayStation or computer Government Game for kids up to 30. Think it wouldn't work? I feel quite sure it would.

Mal

Phyll

December 19, 2000 - 03:36 pm

As long as it has lots of graphic violence and killing in it, Mal.

Kath

December 19, 2000 - 03:38 pm

GEE!! I am so pleased that I live in Canada. I can't believe that people can choose who to vote for by watching such idiotic programs. While I was driving today they (here in Canada) were discussing on a talk show if we should be fined if we didn't vote. It is the dumbest idea I ever heard. People will not consider where to make their mark. Just put it anywhere to prevent paying a fine. I much prefer that people who vote have put some thought into their choice. Even going to the polling booth and declining your vote is at least registering a thought out choice. If a political party chooses a leader that is not worth voting for we have the right to decline. We have the right to make it clear to them that they goofed. Next time they choose a leader they will think about the declined votes.

Malryn (Mal)

December 19, 2000 - 03:48 pm

Phyll, that would be easy, considering the nature of politics!

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 03:53 pm

The political story of a lifetime (the election dispute) came crashing through the door, creating what talk show producers say will be a potentially polarized political landscape that could feed ratings for four years. This could give the political talk shows a new, richly partisan and potentially enduring subject to mine. The future seems promising for continuing debate.

Do any of you folks receive your news from talk shows?

Robby

Kath

December 19, 2000 - 03:59 pm

Not me! I just happen to have a program on sometimes as I drive into town. Not a political talk show. I prefer to do my own research into everything. I do get a laugh sometimes from some of the callers.

rambler

December 19, 2000 - 04:49 pm

Pardon the doggerel:

There once was an heiress named Katherine Harris
Who had so little to do
That she ran for a post
Which not least, but at most
Picked the bigshot for me and for you.

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 04:51 pm

I have been a guest on two talk shows on the GST. It was a very interesting experience, if not somewhat frightening. I listen to my local talk show when things are going on in my little community. I want to know what my fellow citizens think on certain matters that i am interested in. I don't call anymore as my issue is over and we lost. Such is life.

robert b. iadeluca

December 19, 2000 - 05:26 pm

In November a three-page letter was sent to the President by four of the nation's largest news organizations. The chairman of CNN, the publisher of the The Washington Post, the president of the Newspaper Assocation of America and the publisher of The New York Times urged him to veto legislation that would greatly increase government secrecy by making it a felony for a government official to disclose classified information. The executives said they feared that the law would impede the flow of information to the public.

The "antileak" law was written into the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2001 by the Senate Intelligence committee at the request of the C.I.A. Intelligence officials. They were alarmed by newspaper articles tht have exposed the sophisticated eavesdropping devices used to collect information on foreign governments. Said the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists: "The information the law would keep from the public logically, legally and morally belongs to the American people."

The Radio-Television News Directors Association has also joined the call for a veto of the legislation. In the letter, the four news executives noted that government officials disclose classified government information "on a daily basis." They stated that the "leak" is an important instrument of communication that is employed on a routine basis by officials at every level of government.

What is the opinion of participants here? Should such information be available to all American citizens?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 05:38 pm

If all American citizens are in the know, so are all of your enemies. Some things just don't belong on the public airwaves as it can put the nation at risk. The problem of course is, will they classify too much. It is a delicate balance in a free and open society.

tigerliley

December 19, 2000 - 05:54 pm

I listen to talk shows now and again....everything from Diane Rheam to Rush Limbaugh....you can't get any further apart than those two shows....each has something to offer....one needs to know what to take and what to leave....Also Saturday nite live had some extremely funny spoofs about Vice President Gore and Gov. Bush , togather....I thought they were indeed very funny for the most part....

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 06:00 pm

We have two political satire shows both of which are truly something else. They smack the politicians upside the head and make fun of them. The funny thing is the politicians appear on the shows sometimes.

One of the female character from "This Hour Has 20 Minutes" dresses like an ancient warrior. A red sort of short dress and round bullet type things on her bust. Now, she is hilarous. She also goes right up to politicians unanounced and gives them whatfor in a crazy madcap way. They usually react very well and get a good laugh out of her but she is deadly with her sacasim.

Idris O'Neill

December 19, 2000 - 06:08 pm

Canada has just announced that it is forgiving $700 million in debt to the third world. Yippeedoodle...way to go Canada.

There is a book my son is reading and that i have heard talked about on NPR that sounds as if it might fit into one of Robby's discussions. It is called "Bowling Alone" by Putnam. I understand that he and another fellow have just published a new report, with the answers to the first book. It is called "Better Together."

Ann Alden

December 19, 2000 - 06:52 pm

We have always watched Mark Russell on PBS for our laughs about the Washington scene. He picks on everyone in every party. I like him a lot. Never watch late night comedy or talk shows as they bore me. We also enjoy the occasional spoof on the Garrison Keilor radio program on Saturday nights. Before this election debacle was settled, he and his crew did an absolutely hilarious skit of "phone calls" to the candidates. Really tickled my funny bone.

Robby, I think the fact that we must have some protection from people who don't have our best interests in mind may mean that government must do some things that sound questionable. Its goes with the territory of protecting our country.

kiwi lady

December 19, 2000 - 07:15 pm

If you take public office you take on board that the press is not only going to be interested in your public life but also in your personal life. If you screw up on your private life you can only blame yourself!

Also the remark about the young people voting for a person who was "cool" on a TV program.

My daughter once said a similar thing to me. I asked her what platform the candidate was standing on. She did not know. I said "OK you may vote for him cause he is cool but for all you know he may be planning to up the personal tax rate up to 50%" Should have seen the look on her face!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 03:54 am

Do news organizations have a responsibility to heal wounds and foster unity aftr a bruisingly partisan election and its savage aftermath? Does there need to be more reporting on what happened in Florida and other states? If the press turns away from chasing this story to its end, will it have neglected its duty?

The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among other media, have begun the cumbersome task of reviewing thousands of ballots that machines didn't register as votes. The Miami Herald plans to assign at least 50 reporters to a review of its own.

Does there need to be an exhaustive examination of what was happening behind the scenes? There have been specific charges. Were black voters systematically prevented from voting in Florida? Were there similar situations in other states?

Just where does the responsibility of the Media begin and where does it end?

Robby

tigerliley

December 20, 2000 - 04:26 am

I read this morning that reputable auditing firms declined to recount the ballots and more than one was approached for this task....Interesting that the media should be so determined to do this. I don't know whether this is to continue the unrest or to put it to bed....Why would we think that reporters would do a better job than professional auditing firms......It is said that the bulk of the print and T.V. media are liberal and democrats.......What say the rest of you......

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 04:47 am

The Miami Herald was negotiating with an accounting firm to assist it in tabulating ballots and The New York Times was discussing tabulating with outside experts.

Robby

Ann Alden

December 20, 2000 - 05:03 am

The media refuses to let go of this story and will squeeze it until dry. We need to get on in this country. And, I don't believe that recounting the ballots will change anything now.

The allegations need to be investigated, not only by the media, but by the government. Its their responsibility to make sure that everyone who is eligible can vote safely.

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 05:07 am

"A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."

- - James Madison (1822)

Kath

December 20, 2000 - 05:11 am

Idris I think "This Hour Has 20 Minutes" is SO funny. It isn't only funny, it is also very well done.

I normally don't like jokes and just delete them. This one I couldn't stop laughing at.

In 1555, Nostradamus wrote:

"Come the millennium, month 12,
In the home of greatest power,
The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader."

rambler

December 20, 2000 - 08:28 am

Robby: Re your #442: So, did the President veto the "secrecy" legislation to which the newspapers and TV networks objected?

I think it's well established that people in the upper levels of the federal government, of both parties, will invoke "national security" to keep embarrassing facts from becoming public knowledge. This happens even when national security is not remotely involved.

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 08:41 am

Rambler:--I haven't heard what the President did or did not do about that.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 08:45 am

The Freedom of Information Act was enacted by Congress in 1966 to give the public access to information held by the federal government. The Act gives any person the right to request and receive any document, file or other record in the possession of any agency of the federal government, subject to exemptions. The Act does not require the government to create documents in response to the request but simply to provide documents that already exist. While the federal Act does not apply to state governments, each state has its own laws governing disclosure of records held by state and local government bodies.

Robby

rambler

December 20, 2000 - 09:44 am

Robby: Re your #457: I think "subject to exemptions" is the key phrase. People who have large files in, say, the FBI because of activities of which J. Edgar Hoover and some of his heirs disapproved (like trying to secure voting rights for blacks in the south), and who request their files under Freedom of Information, often get "copies" that are largely blacked out and mostly unreadable. Who did the blacking out, and why? No one knows! So what recourse does the person who tried to exercise his/her rights have?

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 09:54 am

Rambler:--I agree with you completely. The exemptions are as follows:

1 - National Security
2 - Internal Agency Rules
3 - Information Exempted by another Federal Statute
4 - Trade Secrets
5 - Internal Agency Memoranda
6 - Personal Privacy
7 - Investigatory Records
8&9 - Two special-interest exemptions relating to banking and oil well information and they are not relevant to most FOIA requests.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 01:08 pm

But what's this happening? As we sail down the mainstream of America and other democracies, we see the election fading rapidly into the distance. And as we look out at the faces of the population, we see something of an entirely different nature. Here and there are houses with colored lights on them or perhaps wreaths on their doors. As we peer through windows we sometimes see a decorated tree inside. MY GOSH! Christmas and Hannukah are approaching. But wait a minute -- These are not American holidays. They are not even holidays related just to Democracies. They are holidays celebrated all around the world. So we realize as we look at the different houses and neighborhoods that they are holidays celebrated in as many ways as there are families.

Let us share! We have five days to go but for some individuals and families the spirit is coming upon us. Do you celebrate Christmas or Hannukah or are they just another day? If it is a special day for you, what do you do? Is it a happy day? Is it a sad day? If you are a grandparent, does that enter into it? How did you celebrate when you were younger and active parents? How about when you were a child? What did the holiday mean to you then?

Tell us what you are doing and what is going through your mind as holiday time approaches.

Robby

tigerliley

December 20, 2000 - 02:02 pm

It is such a sad time for me that I don't even think I will read the postings for the next five days or so.......I know they will be filled with family, joy, etc.....I will just excuse myself and return later.......

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 05:07 pm

Tigerliley:--I'm sure that everyone here feels bad that this is a sad time of the year for you. If you should want to lurk from time to time without saying anything, we certainly understand. I hope that you see us all here as family.

Robby

rambler

December 20, 2000 - 05:23 pm

I think it's an overcommercialized pain in the butt, the most depressing time because of buy-buy-buy. It's my least favorite time of the year. Hey, that could make a carol!

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 05:23 pm

Is there such a thing as an American Christmas? An English-Canadian Christmas? A French-Canadian Christmas? A New Zealand Christmas? An Australian Christmas? A British Christmas?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 20, 2000 - 05:49 pm

Here's what two very dear American friends of mine are doing this week to celebrate the holidays. On Saturday they are going to the home of their son to celebrate Chanukah with the Jewish members of their family. Sunday evening they are going to the home of their daughter, so they'll be there Christmas morning to watch their Protestant grandchildren open their Christmas presents. You know what? I wish I could celebrate these holidays in the same way, too!

Mal

Hairy

December 20, 2000 - 05:56 pm

The Miami Herald had a small article about the ballot-counting.This article will be available on the Web for a limited time: http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/111441.htm

mikecantor

December 20, 2000 - 07:00 pm

Here is a new version of democracy in action that may have escaped the attention of some of you:

The administration issued broad new regulations today safeguarding the confidentiality of American’s medical records thereby limiting what information doctors, hospitals and health plans can divulge without the patients consent. Patients written consent will now be required for even routine disclosure of information that would have allowed large self-insured employers access to medical records without patient approval.

Basically, what this means is that prior to this laws passage, a job applicant, for example, no matter how well qualified, experienced or well trained, could be summarily rejected if there is anything in their medical history which could possibly be deleterious, particularly with respect to possible future medical benefit payments for any illness.

Prior to the passage of this law, patients concerned with the disclosure of such information to employers and marketing firms have even chosen to hide such information from their doctors or have even stopped seeking treatment.

The passage of this legislation has been recognized, as the most sweeping ever in U.S. history which will have major impact on the entire health care field. The legislation, which will take full effect within two years, has the health care industry extremely upset over the new controls, which will serve to protect the privacy of patients.

Now here’s the other side of the coin! There are some 90,000 mistakes made each year in the medical care field, many of which come under the heading of medical malpractice on the part of physicians, hospitals, HMO’s and other medical care industry providers. The so called “laws of confidentially” protect the disclosure of any information connected with such incidents, even before state medical review boards, which will not permit the identity of any of the participants to be disclosed, primarily to avoid the possibility of lawsuits regarding medical malpractice. There is no other profession or industry in this nation, which enjoys the benefits of such protection.

So who is screaming the loudest at legislation designed to protect the privacy of patients? Why no one else but the medical care industry which with its estimated 40 billion dollars of power which has been well utilized to protect its right to confidentiality while denying that same right to the private citizens of this country.

The fact that this legislation has even reached this stage of its development is, I feel, a tribute to the American democratic process in action. However, it must be noted that this attempt to right a terrible wrong was done under the Clinton administration. There is always the possibility that President-elect Bush might seek to modify or even reverse the new rules. To do this, the incoming administration would have to show cause and invite another round of public comment before taking any formal action.

It is with great interest that those of us who have lost loved ones, as a direct result of medical malpractice will be watching how President-elect Bush handles this one. Those of you who have not experienced the tragedy of such loss would do well to observe what transpires in this matter as well. It has been said before: “There but for the Grace of God go I.”

kiwi lady

December 20, 2000 - 07:14 pm

Well its sunshine and cold salads. Often a barbeque with Christmas Ham cut cold on a platter, Pavlova, Trifle icecream and fruit salad. Many families take an elaborate picnic to the beach.

My eldest son and his wife will celebrate Christmas Day somewhere in the Hauraki Gulf on their boat with their baby son.

We are having a barbeque at my youngest sons with two extended families present there will be 6 children under 5!

Christmas is a very sad time for me personally I keep seeing my late husband in his wheelchair so frail drinking in the faces of his beloved extended family. Then us going home and he weeping telling me he loved them all so much and how much he wished his life was not being cut short and how much he wished he would have been able to see his grandchildren born. He was just 49 when he died of cancer after a 6 year Herculean Battle. So really life was tough for him from the age of 43.

But we must not take away from the real meaning of Christmas which was when God sent his son Jesus Christ for us to be reconciled with him by Grace.

One of our columnists wrote today. Christmas has been stolen from us and replaced with commercialism and the true meaning of Christmas which is the message of Gods redeeming love has disappeared!

At this point I should like to wish all our Christian netters a joyous Christmas and a wonderful New Year for 2001.

To our Jewish friends I wish them a Happy Hannukah and also the very best for 2001

Carolyn Auckland New Zealand

robert b. iadeluca

December 20, 2000 - 08:07 pm

Christmas seems to be a holiday of mixed feelings. Memories of sad events such as illness and deaths at too early an age. And happy present day experiences, in the case of New Zealand warm summer experiences such as picnics and barbeques and sailing. And for some families strong reminders of the religious meanings attached to Christmas.

What does Christmas or Hannukah mean to you and how do you intend to celebrate that holiday?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 20, 2000 - 08:37 pm

Well, Christmas morning I'll tuck the crutches under my arms and try to maneuver the stairs into the main house where my daughter, her partner and my grandson live. We'll have breakfast; then go in the living room and open presents. I told my daughter all I want is to have my books (now in the studio between this apartment and her house) unpacked and put on my bookshelves.

After the "opening" I'll come back to my place and do whatever I do until dinner time. Then I'll go back in the main house for a turkey dinner feast. I rather imagine after we eat I'll play some carols on the piano and we'll sing for a while. It sounds like a very nice day to me.

Mal

Ann Alden

December 20, 2000 - 10:40 pm

A piano player, Mal! Boy, I wish you were at my house. My grandmother played the piano for us at every family gathering and we had many a sing along because of her. Her last time was at her 60th wedding anniversary and my aunt even had the words to many tunes typed up for us.

We won't all be here this year but will have some extended family with us. Christmas Eve is usually celebrated with church and a fish chowder dinner. Christmas Day means dinner here but a shared experience with everyone bringing a dish. I will do the meat which is going to be a stuffed tenderloin if I can find it for less than $20 a pound! So there will be 6 adults and four babies. Mayhem will reign! Our 5 year old grandson reminded me that they "always" come to our house for Christmas Eve. He has so many memories! He is so old!! Well, he is one of the old souls in this family.

One of my favorite Christmas memories is of an old friend(since we were three) writing to me from Rome after Christmas(1991)and reminiscing about spending a Christmas Eve with my family and attending midnight Mass when we were growing up in Indianapolis, IN. She must have been 5 or 6 at the time and I don't remember it at all. But she recalled it while hearing Mass in St Peter's Bascilica in Rome on that Christmas. She is of 7th Day Adventist faith. Their sabbath is on Saturdays. They honored the sundown on Friday thru sundown on Saturday and we would all sit in their back yard waiting for Saturday's sun to fall so they could come out to play. Fond memories I have.

To all here, my wish for you is that you have a blessed and peacefilled holiday.

kiwi lady

December 21, 2000 - 12:48 am

I had to post tonight to tell you all how very proud I am of our Army who are based in East Timor helping a fledgling state to keep the freedom they have recently gained from Indonesia.

I have just watched an hour documentary and I am so proud to be a kiwi.Those men are something else. They are just like the guys from Mash. Except they dont have to break the rules to go beyond the call of duty to help the locals. They put their lives in danger every day as there are still pro indonesian guerillas on the loose. We lost one of our men who was shot and horribly mutilated recently. He was only 24 years old. Many of our troops are only 18 years old.

We saw them with the camoflage paint on their faces coming in from the Jungle worn out and they often exchange fire with the guerillas even though essentially we are on peacekeeping duties there.

We saw our field hospital and saw a wee baby being brought into the world by caesarian who would have most certainly died if our medics had not been there. The doctor told us that it was very special to have a live birth as the people are so malnourished and sick from the terrible time they have been through. The staff at the hospital were very emotional about the birth.

You can see the love our soldiers have for these people and how they in turn are loved. The children absolutely adore these big mostly brown men. Our army has a high percentage of Maori soldiers as the Maori are magnificent warriors. When they all did the haka (war dance) which is as much a part of our nations culture as the national anthem and which we do before any international sports contests. I felt tears come to my eyes.

Our soldiers are really something special for they have a real and sincere love for the people they are protecting. Our nation is 100% behind them. This type of soldiering we really excel in and we are always accepted by the locals wherever we go.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 04:24 am

I am beginning to see traditions mentioned -- piano playing, fish chowder -- things we "always" do on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. If these things were not done, would it not seem like the holiday?

And then there are those soldiers who are in foreign lands helping to keep the peace which ia supposed to be the spirit of Christmas.

Robby

betty gregory

December 21, 2000 - 05:35 am

Traditions. A few years ago, I let go of a tradition of being the one in my family who tried to get everyone together at Christmas. Even though being at my parents' house was always a tricky business---you never knew when an eruption was coming---I still held on longer than anyone, hoping that the adult children with their children would somehow take over as the center of things. The year I stopped working so hard at this task, everyone just naturally stayed away, as I did.

Strangely (or not so strangely, as I think now), staying away was a great relief, has continued to be a great relief. For me, the Christmas holidays are now something different every year. It's as if I'm rewriting it, still making it my own. Sometimes, it's really busy, when I say yes to lots of going and gathering with friends or at a brother's house. Sometimes, it's my private, very relaxed break from any going or doing. I still have to be careful, though, not to fall back into wishing it was a wonderful large family gathering---which it never was. Besides, the freedom to keep reinventing how I spend Christmas makes me look forward to this time of year---it's my new tradition.

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 05:44 am

Betty brings up some interesting thoughts. Traditions change - sometimes done purposely and sometimes due to the passage of time. Sometimes we have a "false" memory of a tradition which never really existed. Sometimes we find that we ourselves were part of a tradition which we never really wanted.

Betty talks about "rewriting" traditions. Has anyone else here done that?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 07:18 am

According to an informal survey of Christmas tree merchants, people are not buying trees in quite the way they have in previous winters, especially the larger trees. The speculative reasons are part financial, part practical, and part philosophical.

What's the "tree" situation in your holiday life?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 21, 2000 - 07:59 am

There's always a Christmas tree in my daughter's house, which she buys at a tree farm not far away. The decorations consist of many things we have made like paper ring streamers, strings of popcorn and cranberries and small ornaments. The last five years I was married, we bought live trees and planted them on the hill in front of our house after the holidays were over.

As far as "reinventing" Christmas is concerned, I had to start doing that twenty-five years ago when my marriage ended. There were Christmases I spent alone, but I always had some sort of decorations around, if only a small bowl of colorful ornaments. Often I'd invite a friend over for dinner. I have not been with all three of my kids at Christmas for twenty-five years, but I've had the pleasure of my daughter and her family's company for the past ten.

I'm really happy today. My daughter came in earlier and told me she's taking me out for a ride tomorrow night to see Christmas lights. Since I haven't been out of the house for eight weeks, I'll be flying when I get home!

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 10:35 am

I'm still curious as to whether there are such things as "American or Canadian or New Zealander or Australian or British" Christmases?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 21, 2000 - 11:59 am

I would assume they were different because of the weather, Robby. We are in the North and therefore have more snowy Christmases. I should think food is a family tradition so varies from family to family depending on one's heritage.

We have the regular turkey dinner with stuffing and veggies. Dessert is usually something light like a tray of cookies, which in this house means Naniamo Bars, etc. We add to this something like a black forest parfait, which is also light. Dessert usually follows dinner by a couple of hours.

Mainly it is quiet here as there are no little ones around. We play the normal games, listen to favourite radio specials we have taped, sit and talk. It is always hard trying to stay awake til bedtime as one is so full.

My son and his wife will be in Wisconsin for Christmas. They have the same basic meal but with the addition of ravioli, as they are of Italian heritage. There are also a lot of little ones and family about so it is a noisier affair. They too try to stay awake until bedtime, having consumed too much food.

)

Harold Arnold

December 21, 2000 - 02:59 pm

Robby, NPR had a radio sound byte this morning on a typical Australian Family Christmas. This report pointed out that the seasonal difference permitted outdoor parties. Essentially the report described a backyard family barbecue quite like an American 4th of July event. Perhaps I was still half asleep, but I don't remember mention of a Xmas tree or exchanging gifts.

KiwLady in message 472 also mentioned a similar outdoor custom in New Zealand. She too mentions "barbeque." And Kiwilady, all of us too are proud of your peacekeeping troops in East Timor and the troops of other nations on similar missions in Bosnia and Africa.

losalbern

December 21, 2000 - 03:27 pm

Robby, In my exuberance, I seem to have a knack for posting a message at the wrong place( Senior's View of the Future) and I apologize for that. But as an addendum to that misplaced posting, regarding our family Christmas Party last Saturday at our home, we totaled 32 people, ranging from age 2 to 92 years, three of whom were under five, all were delighted to note a third trimester pregnancy and her sister's brand new engagement ring. Lots of noise, talk, food and just plain fun. A super opportunity to catch everyone up on family happenings. After forty some years, even though it gets a little harder on the ever aging hosts and guests, no one is really serious about giving it up . A MERRY AND MEANINGFUL CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL!

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 05:51 pm

The nation's newest wave of immigrants, for whom Christianity is often an alien and mystifying religion, have radically sliced and cut, discarded what does not work and ignored what is inconvenient to fashion a palatable Christmas. The mutations represent the resignation of immigrants who must learn to accommodate, yet struggle to cling to the traditions and culture they have left behind.

Idris O'Neill

December 21, 2000 - 05:58 pm

There are many schools in parts of Canada that do not celebrate Christmas, they celebrate Winter. It looks about the same and merchandizers still get their money. ching, ching.

)

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 06:40 pm

A Hindu owner of a Diner which serves Indian food put up his colored lights in September for the Hindu new year, Diwali. He will take them down in January. The line between Diwali and Christmas is never demarcated. He said: "I do not know if you can say that we celebrate Christmas. We buy gifts. We even put a tree in the house, although most of wonder how this thing with the tree got strted. I like my Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I watched these cartoons when I was little, but as for Jesus Christ we have taken Christmas to the next level. We like more the Santa Claus thing than the Christian thing."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 21, 2000 - 08:04 pm

Said one Sikh: "The Sikhs really like Christmas, more than the Hindus. The Hindus never really like having to celebrate other religions, but we love it. Sikh cabdrivers put on red turbans and hang wreaths on the back of their cars. About 40 percent of all Sikhs live outsie the Punjab, so they absorb the Western culture easier. People go back home and tell their relatives about Christmas."

Whether we pause to realize it or not, America is ever so gradually changing and along with this go changes in holiday celebrations.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 22, 2000 - 07:04 am

Robby, i believe Christmas may take on different names for those of different religions but the spirit of Christmas or Winter Soltice will live on. This is a portion of a search i have just made.

Greece (Hellas) Near East Rome

Solstics Celebrations

Part 1: Modern and Ancient Festivals of Lights

The festival of the Kalends is celebrated everywhere as far as the limits of the Roman Empire extend... The impulse to spend seizes everyone.... People are not only generous towards themselves, but also towards their fellow-men. A stream of presents pours itself out on all sides.... The Kalends festival banishes all that is connected with toil, and allows men to give themselves up to undisturbed enjoyment. From the minds of young people it removes two kinds of dread: the dread of the schoolmaster and the dread of the stern pedagogue.... Another great quality of the festival is that it teaches men not to hold too fast to their money, but to part with it and let it pass into other hands. Libanius, quoted in The Xmas Story Part 3

I think man needs this celebration or it would not be in every culture in some form or other.

robert b. iadeluca

December 22, 2000 - 07:15 am

As you say, Idris, the spirit remains similar although the traditions are different depending upon the nation from which the newly arrived immigrant comes. One Chinese immigrant who owns a small pharmacy said she let her children exchange gifts, but would have nothing to do with Christmas stories. "We celebrate it like any holiday," she said. "It is a day off. But I do not put up a tree. I trained my children not to believe in this Santa Claus."

How do other folks here react to the changes occurring across the nation regarding Christmas?

Robby

Ann Alden

December 22, 2000 - 09:18 am

Did anyone happen to watch the CNN Talk Back Live yesterday where the question of the day was: Should the Christmas trees that are up in publice or government buildings be removed? Is the tree a Christian tradition? I know it came from Germany but its attachment to the actual Birth of Christ is not something that I have ever known. Caused a lot of talk, online and in the studio and on the phone.

Idris O'Neill

December 22, 2000 - 09:33 am

Ann this link tells about the tradition of the Christmas tree. It is of course a tradition from ancient times that has simply been taken in as part of the Christmas tradition.

The tradition of the Christmas Tree.

robert b. iadeluca

December 22, 2000 - 05:33 pm

Idris:--So there's the origin -- that if we pay homage to the tree, it will stay green all winter. We pay homage to it with decorations of all sorts and, guess what, they remain evergreen all winter. It works!!

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 22, 2000 - 05:39 pm

But of course, Robby. It works every time.

)

I am listening to a Charlotte Church cd, someone sent the Wee One. Charlotte's voice gives me shivers and tears all at the same time. I'm totally blissed out.

)

robert b. iadeluca

December 22, 2000 - 05:54 pm

For the Christmas tree salesman, it's shaping up as a terrible winter. Said one salesman: "Every year it's a little less, a little less. It's getting harder to make it." More and more people choose to live in smaller and smaller spaces. There is less inclination to take on a tree which occupies room, even if it smells good and symbolizes eternal life. Said one city dweller: "You know how much space a real tree takes up? They're messy and expensive. Some people are opting for space age slinky trees that light up and fold back in a box. Those old English country Christmases are a thing of the past."

How about your home?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 22, 2000 - 06:03 pm

I think everyone is busy, busy, busy, Robby. My daughter had to attend a meeting and missed her train, so i'm here.

My children were alergic to real Christmas trees so we purchased a very expensive fake one years ago. All of the decorations on the tree were made one very unhappy Christmas. They are all red or blue balls decorated with pearls and gold or white ribbon. I love my tree with its handmade decorations. It is a children's tree and full of love and good memories.

EloElose De Pelteau

December 22, 2000 - 06:19 pm

Christmas in Quebec has always been big. Since the trees here just grow outside your front door, we cut one that takes up too much room and put it inside and decorate it. In the olden days, say back 50 to 100 years or more, large families would all gather out on a farm and enjoy the special food and drink. Christmas meal consists, even in my house of "tourtière" a meat pie, stuffed turkey, some vegetables, different cakes, pastries, "sucre d'orge" a red very hard candy in the form of an animal, nuts. Tables would have to be made longer and kids would crowd around a children's table. The noise would be deafening as relatives, who might not have seen each other for a year would be catching up on the latest news. In our house this year it is a lot like that, but we live in Montreal. There will be 15 of us and only half of my kids and their family will be here. There is always friends who have no family to share Christmas with and we invite them. Since my daughter's family and I share a duplex, I do some the cooking and we eat at my daughter's downstairs. There will be 5 kids ranging in age 7 to 15. My grand'son still believes in Santa Claus. This Christmas we have a lot of snow and we all love it.

We celebrate to remember the birth of Jesus Christ. We pray God for peace on earth and ask His blessings for our family and friends. And to you my friends I wish you a Merry Christmas.

Malryn (Mal)

December 22, 2000 - 06:38 pm

That was nice, Éloise. Thank you so very much. Merry, Merry Christmas, Joyeux Noël to you.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

December 22, 2000 - 06:51 pm

This is a poem about Christmas in Australia posted by Vivienne Ledlie
in the Poets Press in the Writing, Word Play, Language folder.

CHRISTMAS DAY

To the Christmas Day tradition
We prefer our own rendition,
That's to gather in a park near waters blue;

There we take our Christmas hamper,
Cold meats, salads, Aussie damper,
Some refreshing drinks - maybe a wine or two.

We can hear the water lapping
On the rocks like gentle clapping,
In acknowledgement of bird songs from the trees.

Not for us the hot roast dinner
With the atmosphere asimmer,
Here life's tempered by the balmy summer breeze.

After lunch a stroll in bushland,
Or where mangroves grow in soft sand,
Then the yearly bocce game is under way;

After which we boil the billy,
Tell some nonsense jokes and silly
And agree we've spent a pleasant Christmas Day.

Vivienne Ledlie
All rights resrved
© 2000

robert b. iadeluca

December 22, 2000 - 07:31 pm

Eloise:--Now that's what I call a real celebration! A family celebration. Lots of food. Getting together after not seeing each other for a while. A live tree. Lots of snow. The type of Christmas which is not too apparent these days. Thank you for sharing all that. Merci!!

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 23, 2000 - 05:47 am

Eloise, thank you for sharing your Christmas with us. Much love to you.

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 08:41 am

Mal:--Thanks for that poem. Apparently there is such a thing as an "Australian Christmas."

Robby

3kings

December 23, 2000 - 09:43 am

ROBBY. Yes there is such a thing as a Southern Christmas. Especially in what are becoming known as the Tri-Nations ( Aust. NZ, and South Africa ) and I suspect in Argentina also, the summer weather is slowly enforcing a shift from the old traditional observance of Christmas. In my childhood, most families cellebrated in the traditional way, but these days beach, lake and river have replaced pine trees and snow. Similarly, cold meats and salads, along with cold sweets, have replaced hot, heavy foods. Also, along with these changes fewer people take part in any religious activities. Church attendance has dropped dramatically. Merry Christmas to all.-- Trevor.

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 09:54 am

"The summer weather is slowly enforcing a shift from the old traditional observance of Christmas."

According to Trevor Christmas can mean beach, lake, river, cold meats, salads, cold sweets. As we have been observing in this forum Christmas is not the same as a generation or two ago -- less use of natural Christmas trees, a new mix with the traditions brought in by immigrants, and now a realization that the kind of observance depends on the temperature. The traditional Christmas Card showing sleighs and snowmen may no longer be as relevant. Trevor also brings to our attention his noticing that Christmas church attendance is dropping.

What does the Christmas season mean to your family and in your home?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 23, 2000 - 10:48 am

Poet Vivienne Ledlie, author of Christmas Day above, lives in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. She calls herself a bush poet, and has been published numerous times in the m.e.stubbs poetry journal and other online electronic magazines as well as in hard copy books. Ms Ledlie is well-known as a poet in her native country.

To my family and me, Christmas means a day of joining together to exchange gifts and partake of food at a festive table. For me the Christmas season means more than that. It is a time when Peace on Earth, Good Will to All is consciously practiced in a way it should be every other day of the year.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 11:48 am

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, 55 percent of homes and apartments across the nation that have trees use artificial ones, up from 50 percent in 1990. Said a spokesman for Holiday Tree and Trim in New Jersey which specializes in artificial trees: "We're seeing more and more business every year. We're even shipping to Israel. Natural trees are dangerous and depressing when they're brown and dead. Our trees will outlive you."

All sorts of what are being called "Frankentrees" are on the market -- the fiber-optic tree with every needle lighting up; the custom-made artificial tree, fully assembled with a core light built in; the hinge tree for easy folding and storage; and the new plastic blow-up tree.

Robby

Ann Alden

December 23, 2000 - 12:11 pm

A blow up tree, Robby? I am amazed! Who would have thought! We have a beautiful tree which I forgot to water on the second day so we will taking it down early this year, before it turns brown! But, in the meantime, we will enjoy it with its old and new ornaments and its old fashioned bubble lights and the strings of wooden beads that look like a child's necklace or cranberries. Its lovely!

Idris, thanks for the history of the Christmas tree.

May you all have a happy holiday, be it Qwanza, Christmas or Hannakah or something else for you to celebrate.

xxxxx

December 23, 2000 - 01:50 pm

I wonder if to think about "media" only in terms of the (if I may say) old fashioned sense of news reportage and political commentary wouldn't miss some important points. The medium of television surely has to be one of the most, if not *the* most, important influences in American life and news is only a small part of it. And what is "news" on television. It certainly isn't the staid reporting head of late Forties and early Fifties, Ted Collins for example. News is also Bubba Walters, news is Oprah, 20/20, Prime Time, the "reporting" on the 700 Club, not just CNN. And the medium I am convinced does shape the message. News must vie with other more obvious forms of entertainment for a share of the audience, and therefore it has become in many of its aspects just another form of entertainment. More importantly, the news medium of TV is really primarily a means for shaping and influencing buying habits. The purpose of television is to supply a venue for messages that identify (and often create) images of personal need and insecurity and then promote a product or service that relieves that need. In our consumer society it is more important than anything else that we feel chronic dissatisfaction and that we believe that this can be relieved through purchasing.

In the consumer society that we have become is it even important that the news programming has to worry about competing with the WWF for attention? Isn't democracy going to be kept safe whether the news and political reportage is frivilous or not simply because a society which emphasizes individual liberty to the max is also the one where the individual is more likely to be focused on personal satisfaction and limited social obligations and ties. Business interests have reached the understanding that the free agent makes for the even freer spender, an informed citizenry is an anachronism in the age of where the individual's worth in society is the role of purchaser.

Jack

Harold Arnold

December 23, 2000 - 02:01 pm

Trevor (3Kings) in message #500 referred to the “Tri-Nations, Australia, New Zeeland, and South Africa. Tell us more about this association. Is there some formal treaty perhaps in the form of an area trade agreement perhaps similar the North American Trade Treaty or the more formally binding European Union? If so I have missed hearing the news.

I wonder about the reasons prevalent in the 19th Century UK Parliament that caused the creation of two separate commonwealths considering how close Australia and New Zealand appear to be geographically and socially. South Africa of course is more remote on both the geographical and social points, but I can see the possible existence of unifying economic and trade factors that could favor their being the third partner.

And a Merry Christmas to all, be you in the northen, southern, eastern or western hemispheres.

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 02:39 pm

KEVXU:--Good to have you in our Discussion Group! You are asking us to look at "news reportage" through different eyes -- "Oprah", for example, in terms of being news. I'm sure we would agree that she "shapes the message." Your definition of news in the consumer society is intriguing -- something that causes us to feel "chronic dissatisfaction" and the relieving of it through "purchasing." And the concept of Democracy enters into this because the "free agent is a free spender."

You are causing us to do some deep pondering and your provocative thoughts are most welcome here!!

Robby

3kings

December 23, 2000 - 03:01 pm

HAROLD ARNOLD. The term Tri-Nations has emerged over the last decade in response mostly to sporting contacts.( Rugby in particular ) South Africa did not have close connections with 'Australasia' until Apatheid was abolished. Since then many South Africans, mostly whites, have settled in Aust. or NZ. and they have kept close contact with their folk back home. These contacts are slowly forging economic as well as sporting ties amoung the three countries. Makes sense, three small nations, English speaking, with Southern Hemisphere seasons and outlook, and all with strong historical connections with the "British Empire". My wife and I are hosting a Black South African woman at this time. I am surprised at the number of South African whites who have noticed her in the street, and have introduced themselves to us. As she is Black, they recognise her nationality immediately. We would not have known they were South African. -- Trevor.

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 03:13 pm

Tonight I will attend an event that a couple I know have each year. It is a Winter Solstice Celebration. She works for the Nature Conservancy and they are very environmentally conscious. We gather around inside from 7:30 on and eat all sorts of goodies and at 9 p.m. they will have an outdoor bonfire. No "weird" actions of any sort - just a lot of fun around the bonfire as many of us may remember from our childhood days.

In their invitation card was the following poem:--

Through Winter's gauntlet we have come,
This longest night, we seek the Sun.
The Season's Wheel must turn again,
if all this darkness is to end.
And so we build the fires high
to guide the Light back to the sky.

Robby

mikecantor

December 23, 2000 - 04:51 pm

One of the greatest gifts that God can give a man is not life, but the dedicated love of a woman of courage.

One of the greatest gifts that God can give a woman is a man who comprehends the gift that he has been given and dedicates everything that he is or ever will be to such a woman.

My life is dedicated to the women of courage in my life who have sustained me in the bad times, rejoiced with me in the good times, and who sustain and rejoice with me still, even though they are now only with me in spirit.

I thank an all-knowing and generous God for that gift every day of my life.

Idris O'Neill

December 23, 2000 - 05:47 pm

Here is a link to an explanation of the Winter Solstice.

Idris O'Neill

December 23, 2000 - 05:51 pm

Here is another with stories Winter Solstice

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 07:37 pm

Mike:--While feelings of gratitude are apropos during any time of the year, there is a certain desire many of us during this season to give thanks for every thing and every person who has been special in our lives.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 23, 2000 - 07:42 pm

Idris:--Thanks for that Solstice "tone poem" about the "Powerful Returning of the Light." The desire for light is deep deep within us, isn't it?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 24, 2000 - 04:23 am

Robby, i haven't put any of my own work in here, other than the Christmas card i sent to all of you.

I thought the links were very good though. I think the need for light this time of year is part of our being as humans. Now, i must admit that the word "light" can mean many things to many people and peoples. From ancient times to this day people need to gather or celebrate alone their need for "light" and all that means to them.

robert b. iadeluca

December 24, 2000 - 06:15 am

CAUTION!!! KEEP THE HOLIDAYS HAPPY!!

A Christmas tree fire apparently ignited by a candle roared through an apartment in Washington Heights late Friday night, trapping a family of four between a wall of flames and padlocked window gates over a fire escape. Two small children were killed, and their parents were critically burned.

Fire officials said the circumstances of the fire typified many of the mistakes that can lead to tragedy during the holidays: a Christmas tree that was tinder-dry, candles left burning nearby, flammable gift- wrapping paper lying about, and escape routes blocked by locked window gates.

robert b. iadeluca

December 24, 2000 - 09:11 am

Shaswat Butala, the owner of an Emporium in New York City, which sells Indian books and musical instruments, said he would have to read more about Christmas to understand it. He said: "As far as I know, Santa Claus comes for the New Year and gives presents to everyone, but I do not know why."

Perhaps someone here has the answer.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 24, 2000 - 09:33 am

This site tells something about the origin of Santa Claus. Please click the link below.

Origins of Santa Claus

robert b. iadeluca

December 25, 2000 - 04:11 am

To all people of whatever age, religion, gender, or color --
A Merry Merry Christmas!!!

Malryn (Mal)

December 25, 2000 - 05:03 am

Merry Christmas to you, Robby!

Mal

Idris O'Neill

December 25, 2000 - 05:06 am

Have a bright and shiny Christmas everyone!

)

This is what it looks like in the Little Woods this morning. I think they are looking for the birdbath, which is now buried under the snow.

robert b. iadeluca

December 25, 2000 - 05:22 am

That's a beautiful picture, Idris!

Idris O'Neill

December 25, 2000 - 05:49 am

Yes, the female here is a more reddy brown colour but that is pretty much what they look like this morning. The snow is gently falling and there is about three feet on the ground. The cardinals sit on the overhanging branches of the beeches looking gorgeous against the white of the snow. The bluejays are up in one of the oaks chattering loudly. Our pupster Lindy has made her morning rounds of the Little Woods to make sure all is well.

robert b. iadeluca

December 25, 2000 - 05:52 am

And is all well in the Little Woods?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 25, 2000 - 08:04 am

Everything is always well in the Little Woods, Robby.

)

robert b. iadeluca

December 25, 2000 - 05:10 pm

If there is one word that seemed to pop up more often than any other as we progressed through the holiday season, it was "family" -- "going to spend time with the family," "the family is coming to visit," "good to see members of the family we haven't seen in some time," "some of the family members are now missing," "have memories of family members," "a sadness as we remember family members long gone," etc. etc.

When Alexis deTocquville visited America in 1831, he spent a considerable amount of time examining families in America. Please look in the Heading above to read four of the many remarks he made. Are the comments he made relevant to America today or do you see great change? Do the statements he made seem to point in one way or another at your family or the families of your friends?

What concept comes up in your mind as you see the word "family?" How would you describe "family" as we know it today?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 25, 2000 - 07:01 pm

Paternal authority did not exist in the family which raised me. My aunt worked, made more money than my uncle, and decisions were hers. I've often thought for my uncle this was the easy way to avoid confrontation and to keep peace.

In my own marriage those who stepped outside the boundaries of paternal authority were certainly made aware of their mistakes. There's a division of authority among my kids and their spouses today. I doubt very much that any of the wives would tolerate true paternal authority, thus the "species of equality around the domestic hearth" de Tocqueville mentioned.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 04:11 am

The traditional, average, all-American family, if it ever existed, is quickly fading. You hear about this typical American family -- mother, father, 2.4 kids and a dog. That's not been the typical family. That was only typical for a small group of people -- the white middle class. Already, families with a working father, stay-at-home mother and several young children account for fewer than 7 percent of American households.

So if that doesn't exist, just what is a family? And what is the relationship between the varous members of the family? Between husband and wife? Between parents and children? Who is the dominant person in the family of today?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 05:20 am

Do you folks include pets in the concept of "family?"

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 26, 2000 - 08:09 am

Yes, families have certainly changed. My two sons and their families live five hundred miles away from me, one North and one South. My brother and sisters and the one aunt I have left all live in New England. Here in North Carolina there are my daughter, her son and my Florida son's daughter. Rarely are we all together despite living in the same town.

In my family today I include all of the relatives I mentioned above as well as very dear and close friends I've met through my computer, most of whom I've never seen face to face.

My little black cat, my daughter's two cats and her new Labrador puppy are certainly part of the family living in this house. When my calico cat, Theresa Mary, died last Spring, I grieved just as I would have if she had been human.

Who's the dominant member of the family? It depends on the family. In my daughter's household, she is the dominant one. In my household here in this apartment addition to my daughter's house, my cat is!

The complexion of families has changed a great deal because of mobility now possible. Families no longer live in the same town, and for a whole family to get together there's the inconvenience of time expended, travel and money involved. I will say that my kids still consider their father to be the dominant member of their family, though their grandfather, age 99, holds a very special place of dominance and prestige.

Okay, I've said my piece two days in a row. There must be somebody else around. Come on in and post!!

Mal

Denizen

December 26, 2000 - 08:10 am

I saw a recent interview with former senator Pat Moynihan the other day. You may recall that he first achieved notoriety a generation or so ago when he did a study of the breakdown of the traditional family among African Americans. At the time, and I don't remember the number exactly, he found a very high incidence of out of wedlock births.

I was amazed when he stated in the recent interview that the rate of out-of-wedlock births for all of America has now risen to the level he found in black america years ago. (something like 30% but don't quote me). Not only in america, but in Europe and other western developed counties as well, the rate is now essentially the same. He further stated that the phenomenon has not yet reached the lesser developed counties like India where out-of-wedlock births are still rare.

I also caught part of an interview on Booknotes on C-span with the author of a study of children of divorce. The author had followed a group from childhood on and found that they not only had difficulty as children but, on the whole, found it very hard to establish stable relationships of their own as adults.

This all tells me that the family structure of the world is rapidly changing and must be very different in America from what it was is DeT's day. I wonder how democracy will adapt it's structures and institutions to this new reality?

It seems to me that family can be viewed as an economic unit. In earlier civilizations, larger extended families were the rule. On farms and in artisan families in cities, the labor of young and old contributed to the economic unit. The working father and stay at home with children mother, the 7% that Robby mentioned above, was apparently a transient phenomenon, convenient only under the economic system extant when we were young.

tigerliley

December 26, 2000 - 08:55 am

and of course in our more enlighnend society we have lesbian and gay family's too....some of these non traditional family's have children as well.....Also older adults living togather for economic reasons consider themselves to be family I am sure............

Kath

December 26, 2000 - 10:52 am

Our 'family' gets together for holidays. Our 'family' also includes all of our pets. Family get-togethers are very difficult for me as I always miss our two sons that are no longer with us. When I hear my two remaining sons laughing together the loss is very deep.

tigerliley

December 26, 2000 - 11:16 am

Hi Kath dear.....you and I need to make us a different tradition maybe for the Holidays.....Something new just for us.....a different way to celebrate and enjoy.....Let's think about what to do the rest of this year.....

Kath

December 26, 2000 - 11:29 am

Hi tigerliley. I have spent years trying to convince the family to allow me to spend holidays the way I want. Unfortunately they want to keep things the way they always were. It doesn't work for me and completely (sp?) drains me.

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 11:30 am

How broad is the definition of family!! -- Those who are biologically connected but are geographically separated. Those who are living together but not biologically connected. Those who are children of unmarried parents. Those who live with one parent but not with the other. Those who are no longer living but live in our memories. Those of different sexual orientation. Those who are not even the same specie.

Denizen sees the family of today as very different from the family of deTocqueville's day. He also says that a family is an "economic unit." Do you agree that this is true now regardless of the composition of the family? True in deT's day? And Denizen's most important question -- How will Democracy adapt its structure and institutions to the new reality?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 26, 2000 - 11:37 am

A family can be anything you want it to be.

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 11:39 am

Idris makes a simple but powerful statement. Do you agree with that?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 11:47 am

Is a group of prisoners in a peniteniary a family? Is a group of people sitting together in an airport waiting for the plane a family? Is a group marooned on a desert island a family? Is a collection of hotel customers eating in the restaurant a family?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 26, 2000 - 11:52 am

There has to be a certain amount of committment, caring and sharing going on for a group to be a family. I suppose any group or group within a group, can be a family. It certainly has little to do with age, geographical closeness or other things.

Malryn (Mal)

December 26, 2000 - 12:28 pm

What about the workplace "family"? I read of the killing at the company in Wakefield, Massachusetts. What a terrible way to resolve a "domestic" problem!

Mal

LouiseJEvans

December 26, 2000 - 12:29 pm

Me and my 2 cats occupy one house. If I didn't include my cats I would have no family and that would sound sad and lonely. I do have a sister but she lives in another state.

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 12:36 pm

Louise:I occupy my house with one indoor cat and a outdog. Of course they're family.

So what's the connecting link?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 26, 2000 - 12:48 pm

We care about them. We have someone to look after or feel a committment to. I think of our pupster as a member of the family. I love her very much and i look after her. I have a committment to her well being.

I know folks who have friends they think of as family. I know folks who see the animals at the zoo as family. I don't think it matters who they are, just that you love them.

Certainly as the world gets both larger and smaller, new ways of forming family becomes important to our own well being.

Children want love, acceptance and a sense of security. Are we much different? It is my belief that we are not.

The difference is that as adults we can ignore those that hurt us and keep company with those we feel better being with.

mikecantor

December 26, 2000 - 12:50 pm

Congratulations Idris. You have provided us with the best definition of a family that I have ever seen. To respond to your questions Robby:

"Is a group of prisoners in penitentiary a family?

Absolutely! I know that from personal experience being a twenty year administrative retiree from a Correctional system.

"Is a group of people sitting together in airport waiting for the plane a family?"

Abosultely not! Where is the committment, caring and sharing? Unless you count boredom, frustration,and anger at cancelled flights as one of these!

"Is a group marooned on a desert island a family?"

I would say yes, by circumstance possibly, but not necessarily. The dependency for survival,when based on a mutual need and contributive effort, is what has helped man survive down through the ages. That is what the family of man and nations that I often speak of is dependent on. Whether it ever becomes reality, as I sincerely believe that it eventually will, depends entirely on the paradox of "free will" and how we use it. After all, are we not all marooned on this planet called "earth"?

It is not a question of "if" but only a question of "when".

"Is a collection of hotel customers eating in a restaurant a family?"

Not unless they are all celebrating someone's birthday!

I will go with Idris's expanded definition of a need for committment,caring and sharing going on, for a group to be a family.

Its' power is in its' simplicity!

Ann Alden

December 26, 2000 - 01:26 pm

Oh, but Robby, when we have had a flight cancelled several times, circumstances made the people waiting, arguing with the ticket agent and just wondering when we would get to where we were going made us a "temporary family". Several times I have seen people helping the elderly involved with this problem, arguing for the children who were getting temperamental and needed something to eat and a place to sit, just encouraging each other while the wait grew longer. I think in that circumstance, we all sort of bond together with our problems.

My family had a wonderful day yesterday and it included the cats in one home where we gathered for brunch and a slaphappy dog whom we spoke with over the phone, asking him if he liked his new sweater. Nothing wrong with us!!

Ann Alden

December 26, 2000 - 01:33 pm

I don't know if you all were able to read Ginny's message in the Library but if you didn't here is part of it.

"This year I happened upon "What Christmas Is As We Grow Older," written in 1851 by Charles Dickens.

Here are some excerpts from this piece which I read for the first time this morning, do you know it?

"Nearer and closer to our hearts be the Christmas spirit, which is the spirit of active usefulness, perseverance, cheerful discharge of duty, kindness, and forbearance….

Therefore, as we grow older, let us be more thankful that the circle of our Christmas associations and of the lessons that they bring, expands! Let us welcome every one of them, and summon them to take their places by the Christmas hearth.

Welcome, old aspirations, glittering creatures of an ardent fancy, to your shelter underneath the holly! We know you, and have not outlived you yet. Welcome, old projects and old loves, however fleeting, to your nooks among the steadier lights that burn around us. Welcome, all that was ever real to our hearts; and for the earnestness that made you real, thanks to Heaven!

Welcome, everything! Welcome alike what has been, and what never was, and what we hope may be, to your shelter underneath the holly, to your places round the Christmas fire, where what is sits open hearted!

In yonder shadow, do we see obtruding furtively upon the blaze, an enemy's face? By Christmas Day we do forgive him! If the injury he has done us may admit of such companionship, let him come here and take his place. If otherwise, unhappily, let him go hence, assured that we will never injure nor accuse him.

On this day we shut out Nothing!

Not the shadow of the City of the Dead?

Not even that. Of all days in the year, we will turn our faces towards that City upon Christmas Day, and from its silent host bring those we loved, among us.

Lost friend, lost child, lost parent, sister, brother, husband, wife, we will not so discard you! You shall hold your cherished places in our Christmas hearts, and by our Christmas fires; and in the season of immortal hope, and on the birthday of immortal mercy, we will shut out Nothing!"

"Therefore, as we grow older, let us be more thankful that the circle of our Christmas associations and of the lessons that they bring, expands! Let us welcome every one of them, and summon them to take their places by the Christmas hearth."

Barbara St. Aubrey

December 26, 2000 - 02:31 pm

I wonder if we are confusing "family" with "community?"

Than there are words like intimacy and friendship and love and loyalty that can further define a group relationship. At times in my life I exerienced more intimacy within a community of fellow campers, volunteers, activists, and students of the bible than I had in my family. Today I am fortunate to have children that fit the traditional picture of mother, father and children (no dogs but mice and goldfish) I also have one son that has never married, lives alone growing fruit trees on a hillside in New Mexico with his inner demons at his side.

When I was a child we always lived around the corner from one aunt or the other and my both grandmothers were in our home at least once a week and I lived with my mother's mother for a couple of months when my sister had Scarlet Fever. All the cousins saw each other regularly and each of my mother's sisters had everyone including the other side of their family over to celbrate one of the holidays. My mother it was Thanksgiving, my Aunt Tootsie it was the night after Christmas with lots of music and singing loud since everyone played something from accordian to violin and my Aunt Margerat it was New Years Eve with fireworks for all the kids. Every event was a huge family celebration with cold cuts and music and lots of adults so that we kids ran and did without anyone telling us no.

My children missed most of that large extended family type of socialization since all the cousins moved away from our roots but I continued to create family that I would rather call community, with lots of friends and associates according to my current activities. My daughter especially did the same until this move to S.C. where she is struggling, often lonely, as people are not as opened to the casual socializing as she knows it. For that very reason they have bought land and are planning to move to a small mountain town known for its community atmosphere.

All my children are as attached to their childhood friends as folks are in the part of the country where I live. It is typical of my children as it is of all Austin folks to visit and alway get together with these friends that are within driving distance of as much as 4 or 5 hours away. Paul my youngest, when he came to visit from Portland Or. his childhood friends now living in San Antonio, Houstin, Round Rock and Kerrville all got together and now that he is back in Texas they get together usually in the summer for fun on the lake or something since they all have families. When my daughter comes each summer it takes her three days of luncheons, dinners, meeting at the pool or for a drink to catch up with just her childhood friends let alone all the other friends that she still e-mails regularly. So that in their own way they have created their extended family or community.

There is a new book out called Bowling Alone that the author is saying since the baby boomers community is losing out.

Seeing the annual Christmas Jimmy Stewart movie, It's a Wonderful Life reminded me how we may all contribute as we hear of need but seldom do we come together as a community sharing our bounty with our good friendly, loyal neighbors that we have laughed and fought with over some issue or other. Because my belief is to have real intimacy that makes for a feeling of family includes not only the good times but the struggles and the mis-understandings and the irrational blow-ups that are as accepted as part of each family/community member and as part of the make-up of the family/community that allows us to feel the attachment as real.

My life has been full and I am lucky to experience family, yes small as compared to my memories of this large often German speaking family but this Christmas included the sounds of excited children running along the hallway counting out the amount of time and rushing in to their trying to sleep parants announcing how much time was left before the alarm ringing allowed us to go to the "Christmas room" that my daughter and I wove our magic to help with future memories till 4 in the morning. I was priviledged to watch two contented boys play with their new toys the entire day with their Dad playing with them as if the whole world was no more than that experience. We took a walk and all napped and had a wonderful dinner - we could have been the picture postcard for "Traditional Family Christmas in the year 2000."

There was no fear nor hiding from adults because of abuse, no scolding because an adult was too centered on their own needs, no atmosphere of need or false gaity to hide pain or poverty or that the police may be knocking at the door any minute or the landlord may be knocking asking for overdue rent or any of the memories some of us experienced when we where children because family can mean many things and just having a traditional family does not in my opinion offer a child safty, love or opportunity to learn about and use their talents.

That to me is the blessings of today that, especially, woman can earn an income that allows them divorce and they can provide a safe if not always intimate homelife and that community can be created and replace abusive situations. But than is that not the history of this nation - where community often replaced family as folks seperated from their families as they reached for economic opportunity or religious freedom or safty from a government that was brutal.

Idris O'Neill

December 26, 2000 - 03:43 pm

Barbara, he has continued his research and has published a paper called, "Better Together." I assume he will turn the paper into his next book. In any event it answers a lot of the questions raised in, "Bowling Alone."

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 06:31 pm

Mike:--Following Idris' definition of "family" as a group that shows commitment, caring, and sharing in its relationship, would you please expand on how prisoners in a peniteniary fit into this mold?

Are we, as Barbara says, confusing family with "community?"

Robby

jeanlock

December 26, 2000 - 06:34 pm

I don't agree that we should forget about the shenanigans during the election. Of course nothing we find out now will change anything, but I want to KNOW! If it should turn out that there were no nefarious doings, fine; but if it was a put-up job, I want to know. I'm sorry, but i can't just say it's done, and forget it. I think we tend to forget too much some times in our everlasting urge to "get on with it", or (my pet gripe) "Put it behind us and get on with our lives". Seems to me that must lead to a pretty shallow existence. I like to ponder.

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 06:47 pm

Jean:--We are not forgetting about the "shenanigans" but are leaving that up to the Discussion Group, "Electoral College" and the other excellent political forums in the Senior Net to continue to examine that.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 26, 2000 - 07:04 pm

Marcia Bell, a Lexington Marriage and Family Therapist, says: "I don't see a family as necessarily a mommy, daddy and kids. Family is the support system you have around you. The members that you choose to be a part of your life."

Judith Stacey, a sociology and gender studies professor at the University of Southern California, says: "It's not always about love by any means. It's not about biology. It's about a sense of mutual relationship and obligation and community and support, which at its best includes a lot of love."

Here is a more prosaic definition, courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau: "Two or more people living together who are related by birth, marriage or adoption."

How do you see this as fitting in with deTocqueville's comment (above) starting with "In America, the family..."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 04:13 am

Robby, maybe i still have my bubblehead on but does he mean a male dominated household, where all pay homage through fear?

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 04:36 am

Idris:--I'm not sure if deTocqueville meant "father dominated" or "parent dominated." What do you see as happening in families nowadays?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 04:56 am

The husband and wife work and share everything. It is love, mutual respect, work load, and child rearing. I suppose like my marriage, but the woman now has an equal work position in the market place, due to a good education.

If things weren't so expensive life would be a lot easier for children today. Hubby and i didn't have to live in a big city and pay a huge sum for a good house, in a good neighbourhood. This of course means good schools. Life was easier for us as we could live within one hundred miles of family. Now the children must go so far away to make a living.

Sorry Robby, think i'm off topic again. I'll wait for the other posters to arrive and answer your question properly.

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 04:57 am

In my growing up years "fear dominated" was "parent dominated."

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 05:00 am

Idris:--You're not off topic at all. We are comparing families as we see them today with the family unit as deTocqueville saw it 170 years ago.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 05:07 am

Says one therapist: "Everybody tries to capture that ideal family life that has been ingrained in us forever. People come into therapy to try to create an ideal for themselves, even though it doesn't exist. The 'Leave it to Beaver' family is a myth."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 05:14 am

I have been a very lucky lady since marrying my hubby. Our marriage has been and is very happy and our children have done what they want with their lives. Whether they will be as happy with their decisions as we have been, is up to them. Next year we will have been married for forty years and it has seemed like a wink.

Hairy

December 27, 2000 - 06:58 am

"I don't see a family as necessarily a mommy, daddy and kids. Family is the support system you have around you. The members that you choose to be a part of your life."

I am married with a family today but many years ago I experienced family experiences with people I worked/played with. I was in a number of theatrical/musical productions and the cast felt like a family as we worked day in and day out for 6 weeks or more in preparation. Also, I was in a group of entertainers for 7 years - 4 guys and 3 gals. We felt very much like a family. How sweet is was to get paid for something we all loved to do, too!

Linda

Roberto

December 27, 2000 - 08:09 am

It's later than I think, and I am very uninformed as to exactly what is going on here. I gather it is a discussion about democracy, but from the few comments I have read, it seems to be more about one's personal life, past, present, and presumably future. I do hope you will clue me in as to how I may make intelligent contributions to this discussion.

If it is about democracy, ours specifically as I presume, right now I am in a rather foul mood about that. After being a political junkie for seven decades or so, I have been sadly disillusioned about the fairness of our "democratic system", after this last election fiasco. I am doing a 180 degree turn in my thinking, and still have a long way to go, before hopefully I am able to come to terms with what has happened.

I am convinced, most sadly, that through machinations bordering on the illegal, if not actually so, the actual loser, Dubya, has become the winner of the presidency. I only hope that others will not lose their faith in our system. I hope and pray that not only myself but all of us in this great country of ours do not pay a terrible price in the future, because of the dreadful failure of our electoral system to perform fairly and accurately as we all once thought it did.

Bob C

betty gregory

December 27, 2000 - 08:45 am

Aw, Robby, puleeeeeze let us talk some about the aftermath of the elections. Just for a tiny, limited time, maybe after the "family" thing. It will feel artificial to be banished off to those other, not as great, discussions, especially after we talked so long about the elections right here within THIS group.

Puleeeeeeezzzee.

Then you can send our new member Bob C and any others off to those other folders. Are you sick of the subject, or just think we'll finally digress into a food fight? The subject still meets your criteria of what "is happening in the U.S. today."

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 10:52 am

Roberto, if you scroll to the top of your screen and just below the picture of the book, you will see a number of de Tocqueville's quotes. Robby changes these from time to time. We are discussing one of the quotes.

kiwi lady

December 27, 2000 - 11:26 am

Yes there are many different sorts of families and I have all sorts in my extended family.

I have watched the development of the children in these families and whether we like it or not the children who are thriving and doing well at school and have little or no hang ups and great self image belong to the families where there are two very committed parents a mother and a father and the mother spends most of her time with the children at home. The father has a large input too in his time at home.

The children in the families who are single parented either by the mother or the father are the ones in our family who have behaviour problems, low self esteem and in several families there is drug abuse. I come from a very large extended family on two sides.

I know some of you will not like this analysis but I can only say it as I observe it in my extended family.

Carolyn

Harold Arnold

December 27, 2000 - 11:49 am

I snuck out of Dallas yesterday leaving a day or so early to avoid a pending Ice storm. It rained all the way as I drove the 277 miles back to South Texas, but there was no ice. Back home I read the messages here and drafted the following post. But when I was ready to click the post button I found the telephone line had gone dead. It has been coming on and going off ever since. It is a telephone Co cable and they are working on it. I’ll see if it stays up long enough to make this post.

Most all of the posts comparing the structure of the family today with the family concept existing in de T’s time note the great conceptual differences that have occurred. They also stress the weakening of the family structure within our lifetime. I can only echo with my agreement. For an intermediate view of the life of an extended family comprising the children and grandchildren of 19th century German immigrants click the “Pictures From The Past” link given below. This pictorial essay indicates early 20th century strong extended family cohesion having much more in common with that of de T’s time, than that existing today.

Pictures From Our Past

Barbara St. Aubrey

December 27, 2000 - 12:10 pm

"I have sought to discover the evils and the advantages which democracy brings." "My aim has been to show, by the example of America, that laws, and especially manners, may allow a democratic people to remain free."

When the law is not precise and those that judge using the imprecise law must than be swayed by manners - we have court room politics. When manners of a people are used to someone's advantage so that small avenues of behvior can make a difference in achieving your end you have a people feeling betrayed. We did have something called "good sportsmenship" in this country but for quite awhile this nation has turned to "win at any cost."

My belief is that the aggressive "need" to win at any cost is different then the belief in winning within a guideline of behavior that seemed to be prevelant up till Nam. Our national heros seem to be chosen now based on characteristics of Risk, Bravery and Creativity replacing the character virtues of Integrity, Loyalty and the good sportsmenship, leading from strength as exemplified by Teddy Rosevelt.

But also, up till Nam most children had more freedom to learn social behavior and group achievement in school rather than needing to comply with only learning to achieve test scores. I believe most have their early community learning in school and although their home life is political sandlot it is typically an example of this quote-- "In America, the family, in the Roman and aristocratic signification of the word, does not exist. All that remains of it are a few vestiges in the first years of childhood." In other words the aristocratic which was autocratic that goes with the lack of freedom in a small childs life now extended into the classroom and most afterschool activities I think encourages children to grow up and rebel.

Today there are more children living in cities where their freedom of movement and afterschool activities are limited. Their safty is an issue and they are not allowed off the street and many times out of their own yards. There are no adults in numbers sitting on front porches or outside the shops keeping their eye on neighbor children. Children are not being brought up by the village any longer. Even a simple Scout meeting requires parants driving the child and often staying at the meeting-- it is not the Scout organization of our childhood that encouraged a child driven group with individual children meeting standards of excellance. There are few if any sandlot baseball games, every activity is organized with adult supervision and expectation. Appropriate after school jobs are practically non existant there only appears to be low skill full time employment that eats a childs energy level needed to achieve in the classroom.

When do children learn to develop their own integrity, their own rules, practice building their own community? Possibly when they are in college but even there they are expected to carry out adult rules and so their first test of freedom creating their own community and their own concepts of loyalty, Integrity and good sportsmenship is when they are in the competitive world of the market society which give little forgivness for the risk of failure.

Full circle, winning is the sacrement of the day.

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 12:34 pm

Betty:--Far be it from me to "prevent" anyone from posting anything at all so long as it relates to the theme of "What is America? What is an American? What is a Democracy?" But the majority of participants indicated either on posts here or in e-mails to me that they had had enough of "politics." And as there are numerous political discussion groups in Senior Net and as America was moving on past the election to whatever else we do (which seemed at the moment to be going inside, shutting the door, and concentrating more on their families than the candidates), the faces that America were showing us seemed to be family faces.And deT had much to say about families.

Roberto:--Glad you found us and Welcome!! What we have been doing here is following along on a daily, weekly, or even monthly (in the case of the election) basis what major events are taking place in America and comparing them to similar events or behaviors that Alexis deTocqueville saw 170 years ago. If you can buy a cheap paperback copy of deTocqueville's book, "Democracy in America," that will help you. If you can not obtain a copy, you will find it helpful to check with deT's quotes in the heading which are periodically changed to fit the sub-topic. We examine America by pretending (sometimes it seems so real!) that we are slowly floating along in America's mainstream and observing each event as we pass it.

We have been doing this since July 28th (five months ago tomorrow)and I will re-post my original remarks to help you see what we are doing. This is a tremendous group, Roberto. We are looking forward to your being part of it.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 12:40 pm

Roberto:--This was my original posting as we opened this forum --

robert b. iadeluca - 07:25am Jul 25, 2000 PST (#1 of 1542) Discussion/Community Leader Welcome to an exciting adventure! We are about to launch into mainstream America and as we flow along day by day observing the sights and sounds of this vital nation with all its strengths and weaknesses, we will at the same time be making comparisons between what we see and hear and deTocqueville's comments concerning the democracy he saw.

We are slipping into this mainstream at a moment when a truly American "invention" is getting underway -- the political convention. Let us look at the convention as a foreigner such as deTocqueville might, or even as an alien from another planet would see it and perhaps wonder. Why a convention in the first place? What is the purpose? Are we accomplishing this purpose or are we drifting off into something which has no meaning? Just what is going on here anyway, regardless of party?

As the days and weeks go by, America will unfold before our eyes -- another convention, further campaigning, opening of schools across the land, a pause to observe the working person's holiday, more campaigning, celebration of Columbus Day, a unique American holiday, then the election itself, followed by Thanksgiving, also unique -- and so America moves on. Very little happened in the United States of America of the early 19th Century that deTocqueville didn't see and comment upon. And so much of what he wrote is apparently relevant to the America of today.

As you observe America and form your thoughts, may I suggest that you refer constantly to the quotes of deTocqueville above. They will be regularly updated so as to stay in line with what America is currently showing us. Is he relevant? Are his observations pertinent to our America? Come aboard and share your thoughts with us!

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 12:55 pm

I must admit to feeling sorry for today's children. In larger centres they are so restricted and everything must to managed by adults.

I live in a town of 120,000 people. Children in my own area still play road hockey, skip, play hop-scotch, and sell lemonade. I am painfully aware that i could move around more when i was young. I could be with the neighbourhood kids and just play or i could be by myself and take my bike miles and miles away from home to watch the ducks on Grenadier Pond.

I get dewey eyed when i read "Who Has Seen the Wind" by W.O. Michel. There was the freedom of space, dreaming and being a child. I find it sad that today's children have lost this freedom.

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 01:05 pm

In 1960, 52 percent of men and 35 percent of women aged 18-24 still lived at home. Today the figures are 65 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The nests are full.

Ring a bell?

Robby

Kath

December 27, 2000 - 01:30 pm

We live in a village of about 1800, where our children were raised.

Christmas was spent at our eldest son's home in Brantford. Maybe Idris knows the population, as I don't know. It is a small town and the home of THE GREAT Wayne Gretsky (for hockey lovers).

As we arrived at the home of our son the other grandparents were just leaving. The holiday was spent with family. My sister also spent the holiday with her son, daughter and their families. Maybe it is because we are Brits. That is the way holidays are handled there. To us the holidays mean family.

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 01:43 pm

Kath:--Do you see "holidays meaning family" more of a British tradition?

Robby

rambler

December 27, 2000 - 01:47 pm

Idris: Does your #570 refer to the personal safety of children, or just adult over-supervision of them?

If the former, under Sixth Sense of Humor, my #393 and the response #396 may be of interest.

Sorry, I have never learned (and never will) to copy and paste.

Kath

December 27, 2000 - 01:59 pm

Robby I am British born and raised. When we came to Canada the way of life was the same as I was raised with in England. As I have never lived anywhere else I am unable to talk about other places. I only can talk from my own experience.

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 03:55 pm

Rambler, i mean both.

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 03:59 pm

The fastest growing households are single-parent and remarried, or blended families. The Census says that in 1998 one-parent families made up about 27 percent of all families.

Robby

betty gregory

December 27, 2000 - 04:26 pm

So, from your stated figures, Robby, a little over half of ALL 18-24 year olds still live "at home" with either one or both parents. That's really incredible. I wonder what percentage of that total is attending college. Since college freshman numbers generally go up each decade and because people are waiting later to marry, I guess that's part of the reason for the increased total. Along with economic factors?

Idris O'Neill

December 27, 2000 - 04:29 pm

They certainly leave the nest later due to school. They also return if things go very badly with a job or a broken marriage.

Question: In Canada the divorse rate is 30%. Is it 50% in the US?

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 05:17 pm

Many young newlyweds have heard the feared statistic: Half of all marriages end in divorce. According to Judith Stacey, sociology and gender studies professor at the University of Southern California, a climbing divorce rate is inevitable in a society where marriage is voluntary and based on an ideology of romantic love, instead of the business-oriented arrangements that some cultures have. She said: "You cannot have a stable family system that's rooted in the freely chosen love and emotion of young individuals."

According to Marcia Bell, Marriage and Family Therapist at the Eastern Kentucky University, despite the scary statistics, Americans place a lot of positive emphasis on being married, which may contribute to the large numbers of remarried couples. She says: "We perceive married people as stable, successful and mature."

Stephan Wilson, director of the University of Kentucky's Research Center for Families and Children, says: "About 80 percent of people who get divorced will remarry. People don't give up on the lifestyle of marriage. We love marriage as a culture."

Robby

betty gregory

December 27, 2000 - 05:38 pm

This is from memory, so anyone correct me if I'm wrong. I remember the popular notion that 50 percent (or some such high number) people divorce. Actually, it's 50 percent (or high number) of those who marry NOW who will divorce. To illustrate, on one block of houses of say, 15 couples, the several older couples who have been married a long time (maybe one couple for 30 years and another for 27 years) are less likely to divorce than the younger couples on the block who have just recently married. The percentage of liklihood of divorce goes down the longer someone is married. So, the overall percentage of everyone who divorces is much less than 50 percent.

It's similar to the statistic of 8 percent of all women will have breast cancer, but age classes differ. The older you get, the greater liklihood of contracting cancer---the younger, the lesser liklihood. When everyone's probability is grouped together, the average is 8 percent.

Hairy

December 27, 2000 - 07:22 pm

Many children go to after school extended day care areas. When the children all go to the same school they tend to bond like a family. they are often together from 7:30 in the morning until 6:00PM. Unfortunately they also are a little reminiscent of Lord of the Flies which is scary.

About 25% of the children in a classroom are from broken homes. Some areas of town are much worse than that having parents who can't even read.

Our society or rather economy has demanded that women work in order to help pay all the bills. Has consumerism helped to make this problem? The lack of family time together is a terrible problem. I wish we could go backwards sometimes and get some of the good things back that we used to have. Not so many cars; a slower pace; manners!

FrancyLou

December 27, 2000 - 07:35 pm

I second that!

robert b. iadeluca

December 27, 2000 - 08:06 pm

Are you folks then agreeing with deTocqueville's comment above which starts with "The several members of a family...?"

Robby

mikecantor

December 27, 2000 - 08:35 pm

Robby: Ref. your post #550, Dtd. 12/26:

I am gratified to be given the opportunity to expand on how prisoners in a penitentiary fit into the mold of family, as defined in many of the posts viewed here. As one who has spent some twenty years in a day-to-day correctional environment, the opportunity has been given to me to observe a world of souls existing within another world whose population regards them with fear, trepidation, animosity, anxiety, and hatred as well as indifference. While some of these descriptives are correct as applied to some prison inmates, what is not generally recognized, is that they are not applicable to all.

I would ask you to consider the fact that the intense close confinement of prison life, especially in the many overcrowded prisons, also promotes close relationships which individuals, even if they do not desire it, are forced to live with. Lacking the “normal” close relationships of family and friends as experienced in the “free” world, even some of the hardest of prison inmates, eventually find a need to experience friendships which lead to commitment, caring and sharing.

What must be remembered is that the norms of normal society simply do not apply to a prison world. What many, on the outside fail to comprehend, is that a prison world is a world unto itself. Simple things like “right” and “wrong”, politeness, courtesy, and consideration of the individual rights of others, are simply not viable means of expression in a prison environment. They are more readily looked upon as signs of fear and weakness. Those can be deadly attributes to have in a prison and the results of such an evaluation by other prison inmates can make life more unbearable than I care to describe here.

What happens in a prison is that, families, ARE formed, sometimes, initially as a means of self-preservation, depending on the norm of society in any particular prison. But those families, as individual groups, do show commitment, sharing and caring that is just as real to them as if the members of the group were sharing those sentiments with their families or friends on the outside.

In point of fact, those commitments of sharing and caring, are very often of an intensity which requires risking one’s very life on a day-to-day basis for other members of one’s family. In the world of prisons, commitment, caring and sharing take on a meaning which can be entirely different than that which is involved in a community but which are no less valid than they would be in a “family” environment.

Recognizing that the concept I am describing here cannot be fully understood by anyone who has not experienced a world inside prison walls, I respectfully submit for your consideration, a reappraisal of what “family” can mean, not only for those of us who can walk and breath in a free, unconfined environment, but also for those who must live and often die behind bars of steel.

Alki

December 27, 2000 - 10:04 pm

I had the opportunity to spend my Christmas at Fort Clatsop, the national park service replica of the original Fort Clatsop, the winter quarters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition near the mouth of the Columbia River. Our group sat around in a log lean-to built to the plans of the original fort with just two candles burning, a small fire in a tiny hand-made fireplace with such items as wet wool socks hanging on a rope overhead to dry, and damp Hudson's Bay blankets on log bunks while the wind howled around the log walls and the rain poured in around the cracks. (No glass on the windows as there was nothing so luxurious during the Expedition's winter stay on the far west coast and few later settlers had such amenities either.) We wrote with quill dip pens and home-made ink on a small rough table made of logs just as members of the Expedition did. It was a fantastic experience to say the least.

Later, Gary Johnson, Chinook Indian Tribal leader, spoke on the ever-present problems of American Indians today. And then we had beaver, wapato roots, smoked salmon, elk, venison, hazel nuts, and huckleberries for dinner.

How different people lived just a short time ago. We seem to have become so dependent on everything being overly civilized in our culture. I had a closer feeling of Jefferson's concepts that night than any experience that I could have possibly had under the grandest of conditions. We talked about the why of the Expedition, the lives of the people involved in such a trying experience that went on for so long and the new concept of American society in the world of the early ninteenth century. It was like looking back through a window of time and seeing a vision of America that especially Jefferson had. I felt so fortunate to be there in such a setting for Christmas and the celebration of our new country, America

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 04:37 am

Two powerful postings by Mike and Ellen. What Mike said can be applied to both postings, i.e. "these concepts cannot be understood by anyone who has not experienced such a world."

In the case of Mike's detailed and well explained remarks about having "families" behind bars, I read and re-read his explanation and tried to apply the terms he used to "normal" families. Is there often close relationship promoted by close confinement? Are courtesy and consideration sometimes seen as signs of weakness? Do families, such as we know them, often remain in existence as a means of preservation? Have there been in families examples of risking one's life for another? As I thought these over in my mind, I think I began to understand (to some small degree) what Mike was saying.

Ellen also spoke of families in another world -- heat from a hand-made fireplace, light given by just two candles, rain pouring in, damp blankets on the bunk. This was how many families lived in that world and with that type of life "going on so long." Then I began to apply Mike's terms to the family life Ellen described. Was there close confinement? Did the families remain together as a means of preservation? Were there cases of risking one's life for another?

Thanks to both of you for helping me, ever so gradually, to understand the concept of "family" and, in addition, the concepts of being American and/or living in a Democracy.

Comments by others here?

Robby

Kath

December 28, 2000 - 05:11 am

I was married at 17 and have been married 45 years. Only one of our sons married and he has been married for 18 years. Our whole family is close and we always spend the holidays together. When our sons were at home supper was at 6pm. No excuses for missing it. We always ate supper together.

camron

December 28, 2000 - 05:31 am

Sounds like the definition of a family is in the mind of the beholder. No wonder Congress has such a time in writing laws

)

Still Happy Holidays everyone.

Phyll

December 28, 2000 - 07:48 am

One of the reasons I most value all of these discussions in Senior Net is the wide variety of personal experience that is brought to each discussion. I never would have had the opportunity to hear about prison life and how it would apply to "family" anywhere else and I appreciate Mike taking the time to explain it so well.

We are all so different---with different economic, religious, and social references that guide, knowingly or unknowingly, our lives. I have no magic answers to the apparent breakdown of the American family---I'm not even sure it is truly broken. It has definitely changed but who is to say that is bad? Social interaction has always undergone an ebb and flow and often society has to sift through a lot of chaff in order to find the grain---but somehow, it usually surfaces. Whether we like the change or not is our problem. The point, to me, is that society evolves constantly and so does a democracy. They have to! Otherwise, they would stagnate and die.

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 07:52 am

I think you are right, Phyll. People need a sense of belonging and will find ways to bring that about in their lives.

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 08:43 am

According to various historians, from the 17th to the 19th century (the century when deTocqueville was here), the family changed from a "little commonwealth," an intetgral part of society, to a more private group sharply separated from public life. In the 20th century (the century in which we folks here grew up), the idealized family was a "companionate" family based more on bonds of affection than on patriarchal authority. Since 1960 families have become more diverse, and family values more confused.

Three main factors account for these historical changes:--1) economic change, especially the decline of the family as a self-sufficient agricultural group, 2) demographic change, especially the decline in marital fertility and the aging of the population, and 3) changes in women's roles, including their deminished role in economic production during the 19th century and their recovery of such a role in the 20th century.

What changes have you seen from your grandparents' family to the family of your children and grand-children? And what do you think is causing these changes?

Robby

Roberto

December 28, 2000 - 08:54 am

One of the saddest things I've noticed in the so called "family" in our democratic society of today, is the role models that our young people have come to idolize. Marriage as a concept has become out of fashion, if one is realistic about it. I don't know how many remember Ingrid Bergman "living in sin" with her lover, so many years ago, who was exiled for her choice of life styles.

Today we have "entertainers" like Madonna, who make public display of their sexual preferences and out of wedlock relationships, making a mockery of marriage and family, as they carry on with their hedonistic ways. This "lady" becomes a goddess for all to emulate, and she is not alone. How can our young people perceive the value of marriage and family as an institution when drugs, vile behavior, and loose morals are the order of the day?

Bob C

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 09:59 am

I must say that i certainly would not like to emulate my grandmother or mother's married lives. They were vile. They would see my life as being blissfully old fashioned, calm and probably boring. My paternal grandmother's life and her raising of two children from a first marriage ended in all of them living in a workhouse in England. She married again when she came to Canada and that marriage was a total nightmare of booze, beatings and poverty. My maternal grandmother's life was just as awful. It seems to me the women were workhorses, baby factories and punching bags.

While my parent's marriage was not as sordid it was not what i would call great and there was also violence there. Nope, i would not give you two cents for their marriage either.

My life and marriage has been very different thank heavens. My son has been married a little over three years. His marriage is like ours. It is teamwork, respect, caring, sharing all problems and being there for each other. The main difference in their lives is that they are both well educated, interested in each other's work, plus all of the other things hubby and i have going for us. They also seem to be able to separate from each other for work purposes. Hubby and i don't seem happy unless we are together. I realize this may well be a very large problem later.

What i mean by this personal history is that not all marriages of old were very good. In fact many of them were terrible. Who are the folks we measure our ideas of marriage from? Surely it is not some wacky movie star. Is it not our marriages that our children look to for a guide, be it good or bad?

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 10:04 am

Idris:--Thank you so very much for sharing those memories of difficult times. As was mentioned in an earlier posting, most families are not replicas of "Ozzie and Harriet."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 10:14 am

No, and the good old days were often terrible. I also have a daughter who has no interest in being married. Most of her early married friends were divorsed by the time she finished law school and she decided to go it alone. There are more and more young women like her and that too should be seen as a viable way of living ones life happily. It seems to me, it takes a great deal of courage.

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 10:16 am

The Puritans who came to New England in the 17th century regarded the family as the most important social institution, responsible for performing a wide range of social functions. Marriage was a property arrangement rather than a romantic relationship. Households often contained other young adults beside the children, such as apprentices and servants. The Puritans considered the household, not the individual, to be the basic political unit. Church and state authorities closely watched families.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 10:29 am

I don't really understand why it was a political unit but a family can be very much like a family business. All must be dedicated to making it work for the benefit of everyone else. No matter how young you are, you have a function and are necessary. In time there may be branch plants of the family business. I sure hope this makes sense to someone other than just me. We had a family business and we were all necessary to making it work and do very well.

Kath

December 28, 2000 - 11:49 am

Like you Idris I was raised in the family business. We all needed to do our bit to keep it going. My grandparents also were in business and my father was also raised to 'do his share'. It is a great lesson in pulling together for the sake of the family.

kiwi lady

December 28, 2000 - 12:11 pm

Of course there is no perfect family or perfect marriage but the beautiful thing is that if two people are willing to work at it, communicate and are totally committed to each other there is no better way to bring up a family. I have a daughter and son in law who act on these principles and my three year old granddaughter is the most loving and secure child I have ever met. She has been taught love, consideration and communication from the time she opened her eyes. At two this little child was in touch with herself and others feelings. She can tell you if she is angry, sad, or hurt and she senses these things in others too. She has a new baby sister and has never been jealous of her from day one because she has such a secure family life and she knows she is special too and loved. I am very proud of my daughter and son in law the way they have worked at their relationship and the time they spend teaching their children life skills.

I had no security in my home and no communication as a child and if it had not been for loving grandparents I dont know how I would have emotionally survived. I have deep scars even so. The only thing I can thank my parents for is that they did not move around so I did have continuity of childhood friends and schooling and of course my beloved grandparents for support. There is another reason for keeping family ties-Grandparents. All of you who have grandchildren living in undesirable circumstances never forget what a contribution you can make to a young life. My Grandpa and Granny were my world, my safe place my everything!

Carolyn

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 12:47 pm

I have a feeling i'm not going to like long-distance Grandparenting much. However, i'm going to give it a real good old try.

)

Barbara St. Aubrey

December 28, 2000 - 01:38 pm

We compare family today or from our remembered experiences where as before the ninteenth century the important aspect of family was having the father's name - that the father's reputation and name either opened doors to education, jobs, opportunities of economic and social acceptance or not - being a "bastard" was beyond anything we can imagine today and the Hawthorne story of the "Scarlet Letter" was really more about neither men giving the child their name which allows her a place in society than the so called "sin" of having a sex and a child out of wedlock that so many critics like to focus on today.

I think what de Tocquvelle is saying here with this quote "In America, the family, in the Roman and aristocratic signification of the word, does not exist. All that remains of it are a few vestiges in the first years of childhood." is that democracy allows a child to build their own way, their own reputation, have education regardless of their place in life as established by the father's name or place in society, on and on.

And this realization makes me, for the first time, look at the diminishing affect that fathers have on a family. The more equality through democracy families experience the changing role of the father figure has yet been successfully identified by many men other than the ninteenth and twentieth century picture of "Father Knows Best." This picture of fatherhood is obviously not satisfying many men or woman today.

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 03:49 pm

I think it is unfair for any one person in a family to be responcible for everything. The family is a unit and all contribute its well being.

betty gregory

December 28, 2000 - 05:15 pm

Such wonderful posts!! What smart, thoughtful (thought filled) people posting here.

Phyll, you used one of my favorite phrases---ebb and flow---when describing the inevitable changing a healthy society goes through. That phrase has evolved into a zen-like comfort to me and often comes in handy when thinking about social issues or even personal issues. I use it to remember that things may be better tomorrow.

Also, Phyll mentions that the family may not be "broken." I agree. When anyone mentions what percentage of children come from "broken homes," or "broken families," I always remember that some of those children are finally, finally safe now, finally out of the abusive environments found in some of the "intact" families. Also, I'm reminded of the concept of "word magic," i.e., when "intact" could represent an unhealthy status and "broken" could represent a healthy status. Be alert for word magic.

Idris, thanks for the poignant examples of the bad "good old days." When we get away from generalizations, our individual stories often don't match them. It is fascinating how entrenched is the idea of "good old days." Simpler? Yes, of course. Firm rules of behavior and such limited power of women AND children made for a much simpler life. Actually, I see the "good old days" of men as limited, too. Still are. Think of the ridicule still heaped on young boys if they attempt to do anything that could be interpreted as girl-like.

Carolyn (KiwiLady), my grandparents played exactly the role yours did---"my safe place," you wrote. Mine were my support, my haven, my source of unlimited love. I've been thinking a lot about that the last few weeks. My very elderly grandmother is in the last stages of Alzheimers and has been in and out of the hospital with broken hip and pneumonia. Yesterday, she was discharged into a hospice-type place where she won't last long, as she has quit eating or taking any liquid. She worked outside in the garden or yard almost every day of her life, so I think her body outlasted her mind. That healthy heart just keeps pumping. It's funny, even though her husband was definitely the "head of the house," it is my grandmother's legacy of boundless love that seems to have impacted the family the most. My Mother and I were saying to each other the other night that her mother had had such a profound influence on so many of us----not her role, which I thought limited her, but her individual, remarkable love for each of us.

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 05:35 pm

I agree with Betty -- such "wonderful thought-filled" posts! And as some of you talk about your grandparents and your grandchildren almost in the same breath, I pause to realize that you are talking about five generations in one lifetime -- your grandparents, your parents, yourselves, your children, and your grandchildren. And some members of Senior Net even have great-grandchildren.

Children's lives in the Puritan society were very unstable by today's standards. Children were more likely to die in infancy, more likely to be sent to another household to be nursed, more severely disciplined in childhood, put to work at an early age, and often sent away from their families as teenagers to be apprentices, servants or boarding students. So much for the "good old days."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 28, 2000 - 05:41 pm

They belong to a past i'm glad my children never had to live through. There are some things you can romanticize and it does no harm. To want to go back to those days would do harm.

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 06:40 pm

In reference to earlier postings about children being raised by their grandparents:--

In 1995 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 4 million children in America were being raised in homes headed by grandparents. A recently released Current Population Survey estimates that the number grew to 5.5 million in 1997. This amounts to 7.7 percent of all children in America.

Robby

EloElose De Pelteau

December 28, 2000 - 07:31 pm

Mike - Thanks for making us aware that there are inmates out there who must miss a "normal" family life and bond with others in order to survive emotionally. I appreciated your post immensely.

Idris - Let me congratulate you for having come out of such a background as you describe. If there is one lady who is well "put together" it is you and you did this alone. So bravo.

Even if we were poor during my childhood, in our home we were not beaten or abuse. My mother would have prevented anything bad to happen to us. She consecrated her life to protect us from harm. She had a quiet strength, unwavering values that came from her own mother. It strikes me now that my father and grandfathers were not as strong as the females in my ancestors.

I can see my own children having the same values as they received in our home. The one thing that is different is the divorce rate. It is high. I have no grandchildren who are married yet, but if I go by what they do right now, they will have a family life very much like their parents.

Robby - There is no turning back the clock. Unfortunately there are some things that we wish were still there, but I want to accept what is new and reject what is I consider bad about what is new if I possibly can.

Alki

December 28, 2000 - 07:54 pm

In our modern state-run society we tend to forget that the family was everything in our original New England colonies as it was on the western frontier. Many activities preformed by the state today were the responsibility of the family. It was within the family that everyone earned a livelehood, educated the children, nursed each other in sickness, maintained religious and cultural traditions.

It was expected of the church and state to support those concepts, not to take over those functions. And out west (during the lives of my pioneer family), there simply was no state, the family was on its own against all odds. It was pure survival.

I think that one of the great tragedies of our time is that children and young adults are simply not allowed to have truly vital roles in a family. Look at the fantastic numbers of toys and games that are advertised on TV and the internet. Children are not even allowed to create their own playthings anymore. They are simply a marketplace. They sure aren't performing meaningful, productive labor that is truly critical to the family's survival.

Its interesting to me to note that the singular life in the early days of our democracy was a heck lot tougher than existing in a famiy unit. The typical western movie of today shows the rugged frontier loner against all odds but the real west was survival through the family. All of my many pioneer ancestors had their fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers and even young children close by in a tightly knit group that were all able to perform vital roles (and did upon many occasions) for the survival of the family.

robert b. iadeluca

December 28, 2000 - 08:11 pm

Ellen:--An amazing concept to think about as we examine the family of today. Out West back then "there was no state, the family was on its own - pure survival, educating the children, nursing each other, maintaining religious and cultural traditions."

"The family was everything in the original New England colonies as it was on the Western frontier."

I have read so many thought provoking comments in this forum since it started and the more I think I know America and other Democracies that clawed their way up from nothing, the more I have the utmost admiration for those who gave us the life we have today. We study about the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Lincolns (all great men) but increasingly I am beginning to understand the term "unsung heroes."

Robby

Alki

December 28, 2000 - 09:06 pm

The Virginia Company officials were all so eager to line their pockets with return profits from the settlement of Jamestown that they consistently failed to provide for the common good of the community. There was no shared sense of purpose, no common ideology except unrestrained self-advancement and the society splintered into highly individualistic, competitive fragments and so sealed themselves to total failure. Perhaps that is what is today happening to American society, especially the family.

One thing that was most unusual from the standpoint of the European experience was that of being a grandparent. People of early New England simply lived much longer than their ancestors who came from Europe (England) and so were able to experience being a grandparent, to see their grandchildren grow up.

This was a brand new phenomenon from New England-America. Better water? Better food? Abundance of land that was utilized in sound farming practices? Closer knit families?

Certainly a better base than those people had who settled on the Cheseapeake. Family members on the Cheasapeake and farther to the south just did not live as long as people in New England. And those southern families had slavery, servants, and steady, growing wealth from commercial crops such as tobacco and cotton. Yet their northern neighbors lived longer lives.

Something else to think about. In de Tocqueville's time, a good percentage of middle-class Americans had put in time in their youth as indentured servants, not the usual experience for the middle classes of Europe. This gave Americans a very different perspective on life and liberty than de Tocqueville could ever experience.

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 04:15 am

Ellen:--I wasn't aware that the early New Englanders lived longer than their British ancestors. This, most certainly, changed the family dynamics. I can also see the connection between this and deTocqueville's remark beginning: "The several members of the family..." Thank you for your input into this forum.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 04:49 am

Grandparents who become parents to their grandchildren are not all "seniors." Only 15 percent of these grandmothers and 21 percent of these grandfathers are 65 or older. And half of the grandchildren in these families are under the age of six. Could be that as we observe various families in the supermarket, that what we judge to be their parents are actually their grandparents.

Robby

Kath

December 29, 2000 - 08:43 am

Robbie I think the reason for so many grandparents raising grandchildren is caused by children having children. The children then go back to school and the grandparents take care of their children. At one time these babies would be put up for adoption. Welfare allows chidren to keep their babies, even if they are only 12 or 13. If this welfare was stopped the babies would be available for adoption again.

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 09:04 am

Kath:--Do you see adoption as a better solution than their being taken care of by their grandparents?

Robby

Kath

December 29, 2000 - 09:16 am

I definately think tht adoption is better than being raised on welfare by the grandparents. It would be different if a baby was born to a university student who would later be able to offer a child a good future.

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 09:39 am

This morning on NPR a person who writes about our society today was mentioning that girls become women at 12.1 years. This is very early to become a woman and is new to this society. Just a thought.

Barbara St. Aubrey

December 29, 2000 - 10:57 am

Oh Idris I think any child would do anything - accept any behavior - just to stay with family even if it is grandparants - having risked being taken from my family I know the trauma and the amount of lying my 5 year old sister and me at 7 did to stay in a very abusive home. I still rather have had all therapy that I've experienced than have been ripped from my family where I did recieve some good memories along with the bad and have especial fond memories of my grandmother who came often to our house.

I also have the family secret, shared when I was in my early teens, of my grandfather, a child of an Irish immigrant father who could not get work and the family finally asked for help. In that time if a family asked for what we call welfare today the children were automatically taken and so he and his brother were taken and raised in a Catholic protectory for several years until they were in their mid teens when both hopped the fense one night and ran away. He gravitated to a play area where my grandmother's older brother befriended him, took him home and within a year he and my grandmother married at age 16. For ever more in his anger he blamed his mother because she drank but, we also know the father had another family on the side so it was a mess that affected my grandfather who did drink.

I worked hard at getting us out of that poverty uneducated cycle to what we would call middle income socio economic circumstances. I have 80 some hours and no degree but I am and always have been a self-learner - the behavior within our family which is how we all raise our children and pass it down, is still being worked on by my children.

My daughter has her degree and her family is securely in an upper income socio-economic life style where as my youngest who bears the least of all the dysfunction is comfortably in the middle income bracket with some college under his belt, married to his college educated childhood sweetheart, expecting their three boys to further their life with a college education.

I emphasize education because I can see in my family those of us that furthered our education are the ones that broke out of the cycle where as my brother for instance who didn't even finish High School stayed in the mess and was ultimatly murdered about 5 years ago. I have several cousins that are still in the cycle of thinking and abuse that hangs over our family history.

Now you say that could all have been avoided if we were taken to another family - I do not see that it helped my grandfather - and I do not feel it would have made me so determined to do better than my parants and I wonder if I wouldn't have replaced one dysfuntion with another because my sense of abandonment would be enourmous had I been taken. I also think that society must have questioned the wisdom of taking children from their families or the policy would still be the same today for any child born between the cracks.

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 12:13 pm

There were many of us that were given away and later returned. It isn't one of my favourite things to talk about, but it happened a lot. So much for those old close families. It often didn't exist and i agree with you that education is the way out. Both boys and girls should be raised to follow their star and be able to make it on their own if they so chose.

tigerliley

December 29, 2000 - 12:54 pm

As I read these posts it has ocurred to me that most of us came from probably poor surroundings....I was born just after the depression and we had very, very, little..we raised our own food for the most part...barterd for other things...hospitals were practically unknown..babies most ususally born at home....neither of my parents had high school educations ...schooling and finishing school for we three children was a constant mantra with them...education was valued highly in our home....we were encouraged to read anything and everything....We three were all able to educate ourselves and have lived a much more prosperous life than my parents ever did.....Just look at our country as a whole and you will see that we are all better off at least as far as material goods goes...I too believe the family unit is changing or I should say has changed......We understand a lot more about dysfuntional family's .....Seems to me most all of them had some dysfunctional aspects!!!!!!!

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 01:00 pm

Then i think we can agree that the good old days weren't that good. We might also agree that current family problems just aren't that different.

tigerliley

December 29, 2000 - 01:35 pm

Idris my dear.....seems some things never change.....

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 01:46 pm

Makes me sick!

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 03:50 pm

I have just returned home, have read the interactions among those of you who are posting, and am completely at a loss for words regarding not only the experiences you have shared, but the stark honesty with which you speak of your own families. And so, being at a loss for words, I will merely say "thank you" for allowing the history of your material and emotional poverty to enrich this forum.

Robby

rambler

December 29, 2000 - 04:06 pm

I was looking at postings from 2-3 years ago on SeniorNet under Financial Topics, Making Ends Meet. I was disturbed to see the frequent suggestion that cancelling your newspaper subscription was a good way to save money, because "you can get all the news on radio or TV or the internet".

Yes, you can get the basics--the Pres.-elect nominated one Mr. Ashcroft for Attorney General today. But unless you read a newspaper that presents a variety of views (including letters to the editor and columns on the op-ed page), you may be unable to understand the significance of that news. I don't think one can be a well-informed citizen simply by following headline news or listening to TV and radio screamers. There is thoughtful stuff on editorial and op-ed pages, and I would hate to see people reject it just because newspapers cost money. If the paper is balanced, share the cost (and the paper) with your neighbors!

Malryn (Mal)

December 29, 2000 - 04:08 pm

Until I entered the Greatest Generation discussion, I had no idea how many people had very bad childhood experienes. My own childhood was one of poverty, serious illness, loss of a parent by death and being given away to relatives, but I discovered I was not alone.

Just this week in another folder there has been mention by two women of growing up in orphanages because of death of a parent and relatives unwilling or unable to raise them. The Great Depression had more than just an economic effect. Then again, I read of Idris and others who are younger who had hard and often severe times.

What I see around me now is better, whether a child has a single parent or both parents, though I know full well there are children who suffer today.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 04:10 pm

Grandparents raising their grandchildren have very little in the way of rights or benefits available to them. The U.S. Current Population Survey estimates that only a third of children in these families have health insurance.

Robby

Kath

December 29, 2000 - 04:12 pm

Robbie that is one of our Canadian treasures. No child in Canada need go without medical treatment.

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 04:22 pm

Robby, we can take all of the demographic studies in the world but if no one acts on the information then things will just go around in circles. I don't care if someone has two heads, if they love that child and are willing to raise it to the best of their abilities, i say go for it. Give them the tools be it legal, medical whatever. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't help children in trouble or being abused. Governments can pave the way to helping those who love these children to properly care for them.

How many generations of children will fail to thrive or grow fully if we keep putting roadblocks in the way. If the state needs to help out with health care or some small stipend to help the caregivers so be it. We can't keep wasting the lives of children and their potential. The circle has to be broken for as many of these children as possible.

Kath

December 29, 2000 - 04:33 pm

Idris it is sometimes the government that keeps children in abusive homes. I know of two small boys that were often taken from the mother. Meanwhile she was still claiming Mother's Allowance. They would then go back to her until the gas and hydro were cut off for non payment of the bills. The mother spent her money on drugs and alcohol. The children would go to school without breakfast. They wore running shoes in the deep snow. The last I heard they were still with the mother. She had absolutely no interest in the children and just kept them as a way to get money. No way do I think a home like that is the place for children to be.

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 04:39 pm

Kath, that is part of the problem. Those who simply have the child can keep it and those who could love and nurture it are not allowed to. Let's face it most children past babyhood are only wanted by members of the family. People like to put their mark on a baby and think by some magic it will be like them. I have no solution to any of this, but what we have been doing is just not working for many abused and neglected children.

Kath

December 29, 2000 - 04:44 pm

Idris I would have taken those boys, but the mother would never let them go. They were her meal ticket.

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 04:45 pm

Pretty sad huh? The value of a child...one meal ticket.

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 04:56 pm

Some famous people were raised by their grandparents. Among the more well-known recipients of grandma's and grandpa's love are: Comedienne Carol Burnett, Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown, Actress Victoria Rowell (The Young and the Restless), Singer Lou Rawls, and Actor Samuel L. Jackson.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 04:58 pm

If they can do it, why not?

Ann Alden

December 29, 2000 - 05:00 pm

More people, more problems! Today, we survive difficult births and live much longer than did most of the early population. We are more aware of dysfunctional problems of the families that have always been there but hidden. Considering what we have to work with today, aren't we lucky? We didn't have the good psychologists and psychiatrists then that are available now. We admit that we need help and search out therapy. We are becoming more educated and less fearful.

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 05:06 pm

The American Association of Retired Persons reports a 17 percent jump in the number of children cared for in grandparent-only households in one year -- 1992 to 1993. This is contrasted with a gradual 6 percent rise over the prior 22 years. And - 44 percent of the nation's grandparents spend 100 or more hours a year taking care of grandkids.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 05:09 pm

What do you think these numbers show Robby? I know more Grans are doing childcare but just what do you think this means?

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 05:30 pm

I really don't know. One bit of logic is evident. If children are being taken care of more by grandparents, they are being taken care of less by their own parents. Why?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

December 29, 2000 - 05:36 pm

Broken marriages and other problems that prevent the parents from raising their kids.

You know, the fact of children's being raised by grandparents is not new. There were several friends of mine when I was growing up who were raised by their grandparents.

My former mother-in-law, now age 92, was raised by her grandparents, and in turn, she raised my former brother-in-law's two sons. I really think because of advances in communication we hear more about these things now and are aware that they happen, just as I became aware that I was not alone in hardship in my childhood through this medium.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 05:36 pm

Oh Robby that is a painful question. I can think of a few. They were not wanted in the first place and were an error. They were far more trouble than the parent or parents thought they would be. They were not perfect. They were a girl and not a boy. They got in the way of the parents good times. I can think of a lot more but will leave the rest of the list to others.

robert b. iadeluca

December 29, 2000 - 06:03 pm

Dr. Margaret Jendrek from Miami University in Ohio identifies three types of grandparents:--

1 - Day care grandparents who provide regular daily care for an extended period.
2 - "Living-with" grandparents who reside with a grandchild but do not have legal custody (usually the grandchild lives in the grandparents's home)
3 - Custodial grandparents who have obtained legal responsibility for the grandchild.

Do any of you see this as relating to deT's quote above starting with "Parental authority...?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 29, 2000 - 06:11 pm

Paternal authority, if not destroyed, is at least impaired." (P228, Influence of Democracy on the Family.

Paternal or parental authority is impaired if they aren't there to do the daily duties of a parent.

Alki

December 29, 2000 - 07:34 pm

I find it interesting to compare the situation of grandparents raising their children's children to what was the way of the age of de Tocqueville's America, that is, the early nineteenth century. Outside of New England, grandparents were a rarety. Even parents did not live long enough to raise their children. High mortality in the colonies compressed the family life into a few short years. I think that the average marriage during colonial times lasted seven years as usually one partner died in that time span. Widows and widowers remarried soon after the death of a spouse. Was that not true with even so many of the leading families of the time? Look at the Washington, Jefferson, Meriwether Lewis families. All had suffered loss of close family members in their childhood.

It was even tougher on the population of the frontier. It was not uncommon for a child to grow up with persons who were no blood relation at all or who were older siblings. The family unit meant survival, but that family could be made up of children of former unions as well as children born of the new relationship. I had two different great-great- grandmothers who took care of their siblings after a parent died at an early age. My grandmother took care of her younger siblings when her mother died at the age of thirty-six.

I was not raised by blood relations (the Great Depression). People seem to learn to cope with a high degree of insecurity and learn to adjust. Maybe that's the way American life was far more than we realize. It does seem that the people of New England had it a lot better from a psychological point than the rest of the colonies. Peregrine White, the first English child born in New England, lived to be eighty-four years old, an unheard of old age of the times, but the average woman in the southern colonies lived a very much shorter life.

The way that it REALLY was is always fascinating, as to what we like to "remember" that it was. When I talk about the American family unit of colonial and frontier times, it sure the heck was not what we feel a "family" is today, anymore than my childhood can be compared to what my grandchildren's childhood is today.

mikecantor

December 29, 2000 - 08:34 pm

I have just received a most interesting revelation! As I sit before my computer reviewing all of your posts on, what I consider to be, one of the most fascinating discussions I have ever participated in, a beautiful star shell rocket exploded on the dark field of my consciousness. It was the realization that of all of the participants in this deTocqueville discussion group, less than one percent are male! Further, if you deduct Robby’s posts, that figure is even less, as amazing as it seems to me.

I had to ask myself: “What is going on here?”

There certainly never seems to be a dearth of male participation when a roundtable discussion relates to political and governmental environments, societal problems, technical ideologies, wartime nostalgia or potential threats against civilization! Why then is there this immense silence of a voicing of opinion and recollection of memories, on the part of males, when it comes to the subjects of democracy, its’ past, present and future, the trials and tribulations of families in the past and how they relate to the present, what we have learned about our collective past, and what we hope to change in the future?

I think I know the answer! It is no secret that we, all of us...both men and women, are in a metamorphosis of physiological cataclysmic change. I truly believe, however, that the women of today, particularly in the last 100 years, have accelerated their intellectual growth at a rate far greater than the male population of this earth. Consider that, at no previous time in the total of humankind’s existence have there been so many women heads of state, women actively participating in the formulation of laws, civic responsibility, holding a multitude of high political offices never available to them before, and sitting as judicial evaluators in the highest courts of all nations.

These attributes were not given to them. They fought long and hard and paid a great price of blood, sweat and tears for what they have gained, just as their male counterparts have accomplished. The difference is that the women of today’s world have been blessed with the ability to do it a little faster and with, what I believe, is a greater degree of comprehension as well as compassion. And most important of all, they are ready, willing and able to speak about what is in their minds and hearts letting the chips fall where they may.

I have been truly blessed with women cast in that mold that have come into my life, as I know that other men have experienced as well. Perhaps we are all just not quite ready to admit it or discuss it on a senior web site. That is regrettable but not irreversible.

Guys, I know that you are out there! Speak up and show your colors! It is something you will never regret!

Mike Cantor

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 04:38 am

Are men interested only in politics and, perhaps, religion? Why is it often said: "Don't get into a discussion about politics or religion as it will end up in an argument?" Are men only interested in discussions which are heated? Are men not interested in examining families?

Could it be that the great majority of Senior Netters are women and therefore Democracy in America reflects this? Or is it possible that the majority of men aren't aware that this Discussion Group exists? If this so, what are you folks doing about it? Or do you want to do anything about it?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 06:02 am

Dr. Jendrik found that the reasons for caring for a grandchild varied widely, depending on the type of care. Most day care grandparents cited the mother's full-time work schedule, while custodial grandparents noted the mother's emotional problems. Financial help was the most common reason given by grandparents who lived with a grandchild.

Overall, about two thirds of the grandparents had offered to provide care.

Robby

Alki

December 30, 2000 - 06:17 am

When and how did the term democracy first become generally used as a way of describing American institutions? Did not most of the founders of our country view democracy as a dangerous tendency that needed to be held in check?

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 06:23 am

Ellen:--Yes, the Founders did take that into consideration and we discussed that in detail when were talking about the origin of America. We have saved the postings from those discussions for anyone here who wants to review them. You can find them by clicking onto the red letters "Senior Net Roundtables" and after that clicking onto the red letters "Books and Literature." Under that you will find "Democracy in America READ ONLY I" and "Democracy in America READ ONLY II." In there you will find comments participants made on topics related to deTocqueville's book, eg politics, education, and occupation. As you know, we are now comparing families in America with families in deTocqueville's time.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 06:34 am

They are hiding Camron, cause we are very scary....Boooooooo!

)

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 06:35 am

Dick (Camron):--I'm not sure if you posted that with tongue in cheek or not as you are one of the active men here. Your thoughts are always welcome!

Robby

camron

December 30, 2000 - 07:01 am

Not sure what wound up getting posted? Had to go all the way out and login again to get started??? I notice technology stocks are down

)Have spent the morning in catching up.

IMHO, has progress destoyed the family. Assuming the increase in divorce rates is the measure, or out of wedlock births, or single mom's or???? maybe just sitting around the table with all having a common understanding of right or wrong, faith.

ALF

December 30, 2000 - 07:07 am

My eldest daughter and her husband have requested that my husband and I accept the sole responsibilty of raising their three children in the event of their untimely demise. We understand their concerns and have dutifully & willingly accepted this charge. I personally am honored to think that they prefer "our" way of cultivating young minds and souls. On the other hand, can you imagine what it must be like for some of these folks to alter their entire lives when such a tradgedy occurs?

Alki

December 30, 2000 - 07:12 am

What is the source for understanding American families in deTocqueville's time? Are we assuming those facts based on our collective memories (that occur from the late nineteenth century until the end of the Great Depression)) or is there documentation to base any comparison on?

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 07:12 am

Andrea (ALF):--You have brought up another concept of grandparenting -- doing so in the event of the untimely demise of the parents. And you bring up an additional concept -- the "honor" in being considered excellent pseudo-parents. What is the cost-benefit ratio? How does one weigh the pros of "this charge" as you put it and the cons of "altering your entire life?"

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 07:18 am

Ellen:--What we do here is compare families as we see them now to family life as DeT saw them. This is taken from his own book, "Democracy in America." Many of the participants here have this book and can look at their own copy as they see the pages attached to the quotes above. Or they may refer to comments they have read for themselves which are not quoted above.

Others here may not have a copy of this book (a paperback of which can be obtained cheaply) and rely on the quotes above to see what deT has to say about various topics. One of our active participants, Eloise, speaks both English and French fluently and enjoyed this forum to the extent that she went out and bought the book published in French, the language in which deT originally wrote it. If the French and English remarks occasionally vary, I'm sure she will call this to our attention.

The quotes are periodically changed and I recommend that participants not quickly scroll down through the heading but pause to see if the quotes have been changed. I, personally, stop sometimes just to watch the flag wave!!

Robby

ALF

December 30, 2000 - 07:46 am

In the Influence of Democracy on the Family DeToq notices that "in our time a new relationship has evolved between the different members of family, the distance between father and son has diminished and paternal authority, if not abolished, has at least changed form." He goes on to say, in America the family no longer exists. (If one takes the word in its Roman and Aristocratic sense.) Do you believe that? So you think that filial obedience has slackened? DeToq believes (pg 585) "In America there is in truth NO adolescence. At the close of boyhood he is a man and begins to trace out his own path."

Has the son really won the freedom which his father has refused him?

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 07:54 am

Andrea apparently has the hard-bound copy of "Democracy in America" from which she pulls a quote regarding adolescence out of Page 585. Those of you with the paperback Heffner version can find this remark (quoted above) on Page 229.

Robby

Phyll

December 30, 2000 - 08:27 am

I was especially interested in your post, Ellen, about the reality of "family" in Colonial and Frontier times. I am reading a book about G. Washington--Patriarch written by Richard Norton Smith in which he brings to life, for me, the real Washington and not the myth or legend that we were taught in school. Washington did not know his father well and, according to Smith, only mentions him twice in all his writings. George was born to his father's second wife, Mary Ball Washington, who is accounted to have been a stern, cold, dictatorial woman. His father died when George was around 11 years old. However, he was close to his half-brother, Lawrence, and seems to have learned a great deal from him. Apparently Washington's background did not include our idealized version of family.

I think Betty said sometime back that we all have the need to belong so even if the family group we are connected with is not in the mold of the "ideal" family--whatever that might be--we still think of it as family. The ideal family has altered from deT's time---it has even altered in MY time---but I don't think the need to belong to a family group, of whatever kind, has been destroyed and therefore, the family has not been destroyed.

I think we regret the loss of the romanticized idea of family that we are shown in books, magazines, movies, TV, etc. and after reading the stories that people in this discussion are sharing, I am questioning how many real families actually fit the romantic idea of family. Perhaps it is the so-called dysfunctional family that is the norm?

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 09:11 am

According to Dr. Judith Stacey, sociology and gender professor at the University of Southern California, we no longer have a specific type of family structure that is statistically dominant. There are still cultural preferences, but the diversity and the changing of families is here to stay.

In the 21st century, according to Aaron Thompson of the Eastern Kentucky University, gender roles will become less clear. (Shades of previous remarks by Mike Cantor). Thompson says that families will negotiate more about family roles and responsibilities. And no matter what other changes may come, family life -- in its many forms -- will continue.

Robby

Phyll

December 30, 2000 - 09:32 am

That pretty well re-inforces what we have been saying, doesn't it, Robby? The structure of the family institution changes but still remains a family. Once again the "ebb and flow" of social custom that is always so interesting.

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 09:49 am

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, families in which both parents are working have become the majority. Based on data from 1998, both spouses were employed at least part time in 51 percent of the married couples with children, compared with 33 percent in 1976.

Even married or single mothers of very young children were likely to work at least part time -- 59 percent of the women with babies younger than a year old were employed in 1998, compared with 31 percent in 1976.

The numbers are even higher for those with older children. Of the 31.3 million mothers ages 15 to 44 whose children were older than a year, 73 percent worked in 1998, and 52 percent worked full time.

Says the president of the Families and Work Institute: "I still meet people all the time who believe that the trend has turned, that more women are staying home with their kids, that there are going to be fewer dual-income families. That is just not true."

Robby

kiwi lady

December 30, 2000 - 10:04 am

My immediate family was dysfunctional and I grew up with no self image and extremely anxious. My husband grew up in a nightmare family he lived in more than 35 homes in 17 years and changed schools almost as much. His mother had an untreated mental illness and 7 children. All 7 of those children are deeply scarred but one thing most of them have is extreme compassion for others and generosity to help others. My husband also was able to share his feelings and I have never met another male who could talk like we women do. This is why men are inclined to dip out of this conversation they dont like talking about painful things. You see they have been taught its not manly to grieve about things or to sort themselves out mentally. I miss very much the long conversations I had with my husband who was the sort of person a stranger would pour their hearts out to at the first meeting. I never felt poor financially in my childhood but did feel the lack of parenting most sorely. As I have said before my grandparents stood in so I was lucky.

I ran into an old schoolfriend yesterday who said " It broke my heart when you did not go on to University, you were so bright" but you see I could not have been able to live at home which would have been the only way I could have survived on a part time income. As it turned out I was not disadvantaged in employment I could learn anything and I had as good positions as my friend who did go to University. She too had parents with big problems but they were insistent on college but the home was a very unhappy one. We are lucky to have counselling and therapy available and my kids often say this to me that their children are on the road to having an almost perfect childhood thanks to what they have learned about parenting and have taken on board.

There will always be those who will be bad parents. I just wish they would not have kids!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 10:23 am

Kath:--You gave your boys close motherhood which cannot be measured in terms of money.

Carolyn also points out the two sides of a coin, eg being able to go to college but being in an unhappy home. She adds: "Men are inclined to drop out of this conversation because they don't like to talk about painful things." Do the rest of you agree with this?

Robby

tigerliley

December 30, 2000 - 10:40 am

I have long believed that most families have some degree of dysfuntion..Some of course worse than others....Mine did and I carried some of that over into my own....working on "problems" I guess is a lifelong job....I could easily fall over in the spiritual rhelm here and say it is work here on earth to "learn these lessons" we have put here to learn.........

tigerliley

December 30, 2000 - 10:42 am

Oh....and I do believe that women are from Venus and men are from Mars...that is they really do have different ways of communicating with each other and communicating in general.......My dear husband is very uncomfortable speaking of things of the heart.....

Hats

December 30, 2000 - 11:13 am

I have been looking at the posts, and I have read the quotes. Now, I am anxious to start the book, Democracy In America." Unfortunately, I do not have the book yet. I will get the book ASAP.

Of course, I wonder will I be lost. Everyone is so far along in the book. Anyway, I will go the bookstore or library and get a copy. I know I will have to wait until the holiday passes. So, I probably won't have the book before Tuesday.

I am ashamed to start another book. I am already reading: "Animal Farm," the short stories and of all books, I have started Memoirs of Cleopatra. The style of the latter one is wonderful, but it will probably take the rest of my life and someone elses before I am finished.

HATS

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 11:18 am

HATS:--You can't get lost in this discussion group. We do not read the book page by page. We examine what is going on in America and other Democracies at the moment and then compare what we see with deTocqueville's remarks. At the moment most of America has closed its doors after being worn out from the election and from the holidays and is "retreating" into the family. That is why we are currently discussing Family. By the way, other participants here have found they can buy a new or second hand paper back for $7 of less.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 01:04 pm

The president of the National Partnership for Women and Families says: "Women are in the workplace to stay, and there's no telling how high the numbers could go. It'll be as high as women want it to be. Women are choosing to work outside the home, while continuing to be major caregivers in the home. It's a challenge and some employers are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee. Some companies now sell gourmet meals for employees to take home and put on the table."

Reactions?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 01:33 pm

My daughter-in-law telecommutes from Canada to Pittsburg every day. She has an office at the local university should she need to use it. There are many ways for women to work and keep an eye on things. Somehow i think the young women of today are flexible and will find ways to do things we never thought of. Hubbies can do the same thing and it works out pretty well for many.

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 01:35 pm

I didn't work full time until my youngest was 12. As i worked with my husband we had an executive phone line put into the house. This allowed me to be home when the children walked in the door and still do all of the things i needed to do at work. I gave up my lunch hour but that really wasn't a problem.

jeanlock

December 30, 2000 - 02:32 pm

I've been watching C-SPAN this afternoon and laughing my head off at some of the speeches at the White House Correspondents' dinners. During one of the 'breaks' they announced that on Monday, 1 pm, I think, they will be doing a program that duplicated Alexis d.T's trip through America. If I don't forget, I'll tape it.

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 02:35 pm

Each day we do the best we can. Sometimes when we look back and wish we had "done this" or "done that," we need to remind ourselves that we did the very best we could with the "tools" we had at that time. As best as I can see, we cannot try to re-do the past with present day tools.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 02:36 pm

Jean:--Yes, please tape that if you would.

Robby

tigerliley

December 30, 2000 - 02:38 pm

Thank you Robby......I really need to hear that...About once a day would be nice....I have a lot of trouble with regrets....Know that is not productive and try to nip it.........

jeanlock

December 30, 2000 - 02:39 pm

Robby--I PROMISE not to FORGET. I've made a note of it, and I'll just stick it on my TV screen where I can't miss it. Also on my computer screen. I can make up to three copies--would anyone else like one?

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 02:47 pm

Two things i've learned over the past few years. The first is the past is the past, so move on and go forward. To let the "then" rule your life is to give the sob's control over your future as well as your past. I refuse to be a victum again.

Second, i'm all grown up and i'm proud of who i am. I don't have to compare myself with anyone but me. I'm the best me i can be, right now.

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 02:55 pm

New numbers from the Labor Department and the Census Bureau have indicated that for the first time in more than a decade, single mothers are more likely than married mothers to be employed. The figures also show a large increase in the proportion of single mothers who are working, with explosive growth in work by low-skilled women with children born out of wedlock.

Even more remarkable, economists say, is the increase in work among single mothers who have never been married. In 1993, 44 percent of them were employed. The figure shot up to 65 percent last year.

Robby

tigerliley

December 30, 2000 - 03:22 pm

Could all this be a result of Welform Reform?

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 03:34 pm

It certainly explains why all of those grans are busy minding little ones.

tigerliley

December 30, 2000 - 03:39 pm

ummmmm.Could be Idris but I see child care centers all over this country...What about in Canada? Some mom's do not want their children in child care centers I would guess.....I really don't know.

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 03:45 pm

Good childcare is expensive so poorer Moms couldn't afford to send them there. It would be a fortune to send two children to daycare. Kids get sick a lot in daycare so some Moms would prefer to keep the children home. I think only a very few have infant care.

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 03:52 pm

Economists give several reasons for the increase in work among single mothers:--

1 - The strong economy has created millions of jobs and improved the quality of low-wage jobs.
2 - Welfare recipients are now required to work under federal and state welfare laws, and states have sharply increased spending on child care.
3 - The federal government and the states have adopted policies to "make work pay," in a phrase used by proponents of such policies. As a result, many single mothers find they are financially better off if they take jobs outside the home.
4 - Work has become more attractive because of increases in the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit, which can add several thousand dollars a year to the income of a low-wage worker with chikldren.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

December 30, 2000 - 03:57 pm

In Canada where Welfare Reform has taken place, you can also go to school to up-grade your skills. You just have to be doing something positive.

I think our tax structure is better for child credits on our taxes too.

Many areas have also moved to Jr. K which could mean a child as young as three could be going to school at least part of the day.

Our minimum wage is $7.65 an hour.

betty gregory

December 30, 2000 - 04:33 pm

Jeanlock---I've been watching C-span and laughing, too! Tapes of White House Correspondence dinners over the last 8 years---with all the funny speeches from Clinton and from guest comedians. Al Franken (a few hours ago) was a scream!! He's on again, from another year's dinner, later tonight. Clinton has had some incredibly funny speeches over the years, but just think of the wealth of material he gets to pick from. And, he gets to say just about anything to all those journalists---in jest---after they've written and reported ALL those stories!!

Anyone needing a lift in spirits---watch C-span today!!!!

betty gregory

December 30, 2000 - 05:36 pm

Robby, what prompted your interest/posts in grandparents raising grandchildren? Did the numbers catch you by surprise or do you have some theories? Did you see a natural extention of de Toq's thoughts on the loss of paternal (family last name) power?

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 06:23 pm

Betty:--My thought was to examine the "family" in all its ramifications and grandparenting is an important aspect of this. There are other perspectives of the Family that we haven't even touched yet.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 30, 2000 - 06:53 pm

For example -- while working motherhood is becoming more the norm, childlessness, too, is on the rise. Among women ages 40 to 44, 19 percent were childless, compared with only 10 percent in 1976 and 11 percent in 1984. The high rate of childlessness, while unprecedented in recent years, is similar to the rate among women a century ago.

But there are signs the childlessness now is often not by choice. The U.S. Census Bureau asked women aged 15 to 39 whether they planned to have children, and 90 percnnt of them said they would. But many of them never do. What happens to make the reality so different from the expectations is unclear. According to one researcher, maybe people are feeling like it's too hard to combine work and children. Or they are delaying marriage so long that it just doesn't happen.

American women's fertility has been relatively constant for the last 20 years, at about 2.0 births a woman. Natural replacement of the poplation requires about 2.1 births a woman, a rate exceeded only by Hispanic women, who averaged about 2.4 births each by the time they were 40 to 44 and their childbearing was mostly over. African-american and Asian-american women in that age range averaged 2.0 births, while white women averaged 1.8 births.

Robby

mikecantor

December 30, 2000 - 09:13 pm

“Men are inclined to drop out of this conversation because they don’t like to talk about painful things.” -----Carolyn.

There is a truism to be drawn from the converse of this statement. “Women are inclined to continue this conversation because they like to talk about painful things.” My problem with this is that I don’t happen to believe it!

I have previously stated that I personally believe that it is the emancipation of the female intellect in the last 100 years, primarily in its’ accelerated growth, as compared to that of the male of our species, which has not only directly contributed to the female interest in engaging in this type of discussion, but in so many other laudable achievements as well

There is, however, a much more important issue here, which should not be allowed to fall by the wayside. If we assume that Carolyn’s assumption is correct, should we not be asking ourselves, regardless of gender, as to why men don’t like to talk about painful things?

I would respectfully suggest that of the many reasons why men do not like to talk about painful things, the following might be applicable in some, if not many cases:

A reluctance to present an image of tenderness and sympathy as opposed to the false facade of stoicism and the male macho concept in which many men would prefer to be viewed and which they believe to be more popularly accepted as atypically male.

An innate belief that even their own loved ones and life partners might think less of them if they revealed the suppressed sorrow, and perhaps tears, that might be shed in the deep pain and sympathy they may feel for others.

Perhaps we should recognize that the above reasons do exist in the minds of males who choose not to participate in this discussion or even in similar discussions within their own families.

No matter how well you may think you know a person or a particular class of individuals, you can never really know them completely, down to the innermost depths of their souls. That is a privilege reserved to a higher power.

The question is: “When was the last time you really tried?”

Barbara St. Aubrey

December 30, 2000 - 10:11 pm

I think we are looking for easy answers as to why more men are not apart of the conversations about family, philosophy, social behavior etc. - it was noted that men do participate in great numbers posting about their painful memories of war.

I think the statement about Mars and Venus and that explanation may be closer to understanding the differences. Rather than bashing the men we could realize there are social mores that an individual man cannot change so easily.

From what I observe men under the age of about 45 are intimatly involved with the nurturing of family members and care for the needs of children as a socially acceptable way - where as men older have not felt the freedom or inclusion to a similar degree of intimate caring.

It is nice to hear a man recognize and speak admiring the depth and articulation of women that I think was always there but to most men we were chatting in the kitchen so to speak and not given much 'never mind.'

I am remembering my mother, with a ninth grade education, speaking her thoughts and beliefs as eloguently as many of these posts and I even remember my grandmother speaking her mind with clarity. Granted she often confused her German and English if she was excited. When you think, it was most often the women who continued the corrispondance keeping family and old friends updated on more than a chronological order of family events. Women traditionally gave family importance where as men traditionally gave importance to work, government, economics, skills that benefited the larger community.

But than I miss that men do not explore and define their values about the inner workings of the thinking and behavior of mankind. They seem to be more engaged in the doing than in the exploring and telling.

Without the doing we are helpless slaves of history, and the sharing interest in the content of democracy or family, trying it on, meansuring it is not acting on it. That to me is the real change in that women now act on the bigger issues of society and are not just chatting in the kitchens.

kiwi lady

December 3, 2000 - 10:51 am

The thing I loved most about my late husband was his tender heart. Dont think he was a whimp he was a tall strong man who would have defended his family to the death should it have been necessary.

Men who labor under the delusion that we want macho men are so mistaken maybe immature women like these sort of men but believe me my two daughters have chosen sensitive men and they have been so right in their choice.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 04:43 am

Let's narrow it down a bit as to the paucity of men in this forum. Those of you women who have men in your homes and who are aware that you are active in this discussion about families. Any reason why they are not active in it too?

Robby

Ann Alden

December 31, 2000 - 05:01 am

Some men do not like to talk about life but always have an opinion about other's lives. Maybe they are observers instead of discussers. On being presented with a horrible accident in which some of her classmates were killed, my granddaughter talked to all of us about it and then searched out some help from a therapist. Her grandfather just doesn't understand it. Says it used to be that the families gave a person all the therapy that was needed in similar situations. Is he right? For me, giving one tools to cope with such a sad situation may not be in the capability of some family members.

Robby, where did you get the figures for the births, from the census? Were these married women only? I am curious since I read somewhere that there was an 60% increase in illegimate births among the African-American females in the last ten years. Maybe the increase is in children having children! So sad!

Idris, we too have offered our welfare people the chance to educate themselves while on welfare. In California, it is common for a person to attend college while on welfare. I once heard a single mother say that because of the state welfare program, she had improved her family's circumstances by a 1000%, by getting her college degree and using it to find a very good job that supported her and her children. In NYC, there are welfare mothers attending high school with their children so that they may also improve their earning power.

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 05:54 am

Ann:

Yes, I got the figures from the Census. As you know, the Census Bureau just came out with the overall U.S. total population but has stated that it will continue to give sub-figures regularly up to the month of March. So I'm sure there will be changes.

Concerning the views of your grandfather and, I am sure, the view of many others -- As you know, I am a Clinical Psychologist, and in giving psychotherapy (which is not the same as counseling) to my patients often think to myself: "I am both a father and a grandfather and could probably help this patient without ever having received a doctoral degree." This is partly true. Undoubtedly the "wisdom of my years" comes into play but then how to use this knowledge. Furthermore, there is an advantage in that I am not emotionally involved -- which is not to say that I am not emotionally affected. A box of Kleenex is always available and when I see a patient (either man or woman) who is close to crying, I often say: "There is a tissue there for you and sometimes I use it too." This is not a lie. Tears do come to my eyes easily and I make no effort to hide them. I have always been that way. Sometimes when patients see this, it opens their floodgates.

I find that men in my office cry almost as easily as women but they know they are in a protected environment. When my door is closed, every single thing is confidential. Their family will never know that they cried. But I must emphasize that this varies according to the man. Many men cry in front of their families; some never do. This is often related to their childhood upbringing. But we are not talking here about crying. We are talking about men sharing their thoughts regarding their families. We are talking about their using small "four letter words" like love or home or wife and hopefully using these terms in this forum.

As Discussion Leader I try to be an impartial facilitator so please excuse my inserting my personal experiences into a discussion about deTocqueville's observations of the American family but I concluded by convincing myself that the two topics of "men's feelings" and "family" do go together. Thanks to Mike for having called this to our attention.

Robby

camron

December 31, 2000 - 06:22 am

I cannot agree that the emancipation of women is the cause for a higher participation of same in this discussion than men. The discussions go on and on to where if you miss a few days is it worth trying to recover. And when I do I must conlcude it is just talk. Robby throws out the question and statistics and in our minds we may reach a statistical average. But it is just that. And we are all individuals. Thank the Good Man. In my growing up, and at 79 I hope I am still, mindwise, doing just that, I have always been hit with what are you going to do about it? For all the questions being raised I really do not have the answers so therefore be quite. And I think there are a lot of other men like myself, but I cannot speak for them.

If you want a single answer as to what has changed lifestyles, the family, morals, etc, etc look at what we call progress and in particular TV. and creation of unnecessary demand through advertising. Keeping up with the Jones's it used to be called. And Boooooo to you to Idris. )

Guess I will have to break down and read Mars and Venus

Denizen

December 31, 2000 - 06:32 am

All right people, I accept the challenge. I can think of lots of reasons why men don't participate more in personal discussions and on the internet in general. I will try to speak for myself.

First of all, some people are more articulate than others. (I had to consult Roget for that word). It's been my opinion that men in general are grouped lower on an articulateness scale. My theory is that we vary a lot in how our minds work. Some of us think almost exclusively in words while others of us ideate mostly in pictures. I spent my work life in engineering where my peers (male and female, but mostly male) generally were whizzes at spatial relations and mathematical abstractions but struggled mightily when it came time to write the report. It may be our Y chromosome, or it may be a difference in how we were treated as infants, who knows? So that is my main excuse.

Antoher reason is that at our age there are just a lot more women on their own than men. Personally, I am here primarily because my dear wife, my life companion, died a few years ago. I have found about a 6:1 ratio of widows to widowers whereever I have gone and that is certainly mostly because of demographics although the relative sociability of the genders is part of it.

Finally, I have to agree that men find it hard to talk about feelings to other men. I find myself with a number of dear computer friendships that have developed over the last few years, all with women! All attempts to establish male correspondences have petered out quickly for, I think, just that reason. It could hardly be my sex appeal, although I have to admit that the majority of my cyberpals are widows and no doubt we are trying to partially fill a need.

I really don't mind the preponderence of women here and on other message boards. I LIKE all you ladies! ....... John

tigerliley

December 31, 2000 - 07:05 am

I think I mentioned this earlier....Men and women really have different ways of communicating...Denizen's post explains it pretty well I think...Think of the reading material which women like to read and then look at the reading material most men like to read.....I am not finding fault with either sex of course.....I love men and I love my sex also..............I am happy for the differences.

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 07:10 am

And if they didn't love each other, where would Families be?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 08:45 am

While on the subject of men in families, let us consider the following:--

In 1995, single parent households made up almost 31% (11 million) of the total family groupings with children under the age of 18.

Of those 11 million single parent households, 15% (1.7 million) represent single, custodial father households, a 330% (not 33) increase from 1970.

In 1995, 2.5 million children lived with ONLY their father.

This large increase seems to be the result of a combination of several factors.

1 - The introduction of no-fault laws, gender-neutral criteria, and greater attention being paid to children's wishes in the court systems making it easier for fathers to gain custody when they seek it. This coupled with the explosive divorce rate, accounts for some of the rise in single, custodial father households.
2 - The behaviors of mothers. Many women choose to pursue career or personal goals over family interests and favor father custody. Additionally, some mothers with psychiatric, or physical conditions are not able to care for their children.
3 - The increase in joint custody arrangmennts may also contribute to the increase in single, custodial father households,. Also, mothers remarry and relinquish custody, or one parent moves and the child moves too, creating a defacto single custody arrangement
4 - Fathers today are more willing than fathers in the past to become full-time caretakers of their children. The vast majority of fathers who have custody gained it by mutual agreement, rather than by a court battle.

What are your thought regarding the above, especially No. 4?

Robby

kiwi lady

December 31, 2000 - 11:41 am

I agree with the poster that consumerism is partly to blame for our children being put in day care etc. There will always be cases where the extra wage is desperately needed but there is always the cases too where luxuries are the things being worked for!

I look about and see young women who do not need to work deliberately going back to work because as one openly said to me "Its easier at work than caring for a toddler all day!" Toddler comes home from day care eats dinner has bath goes to bed! For five days of the week up to 12 hours a day some one else is bringing up these children and yes sharing in the joy that each new little accomplishment brings.

Sometimes I do not know why people actually opt to have children when they are considered as an interruption to their lives and a nuisance to their social lives!

Unfortunately for economic reasons I had to go back to work when my son was four. How over the years I longed to be with them during the day . I managed to do glide time for 8 years, I started very early in the morning and was home half an hour after school finished this did ease my conscience somewhat. I feel like I did miss out on a lot even so, when I see my daughter who has chosen and is able to be a stay at home mum. My granddaughters are two very lucky little girls!

In some ways yes our lives are so much better but in the things of life the world has no monetary value on I think we are sadly lacking!

Carolyn

ALF

December 31, 2000 - 12:00 pm

Robby, I think that it is just more acceptable in todays world to have the father as the primary caregiver of children. My Dad was the one person that I saw first in the morning and the last one that I kissed good night. He got us off to school each day and oversaw our homework in the evening. He accepted the responsibilities of fatherhood in earnest. Dad is remembered as the one who listened to Fibber McGee and Molly, The Shadow, etc with us. He is the one that dried my tears when I broke up with my teen-beau , argued with a friend, failed geometry and tried to "find myself " various times. He is the one I opened my soul to and who knew all of my heart's desires. Sunday nights are rmeebered reading aloud with my dad from first a book of my choosing and then we would read from one of his. He is the one that sacrificed his business and his meager savings so that I could attend college. The matriarch of the family chose the responsibility of cooking, cleaning and giving orders. I am a better woman and a far better person for having the influence of my father in my life. In todays world we witness this daily, 50 years ago this was not so.

Barbara St. Aubrey

December 31, 2000 - 12:09 pm

Oh Robby this issue is so painful for me - somehow the court system is not protecting children nor understanding children's needs - yes, in many instances fathers are a jointly agreed choice to have the main custody of the children BUT the way the courts make those decisions is not always protective of the child.

I have two friends who are in the soul wrenching helpless nightmare of having a court ordered joint custody that cannot be reversed because there is no case on the books or police report to substantuate the children's experience at the hands of the father. Therefore the issue cannot be addressed in the court case determining custody.

Children want - emotionally "need" and fantasize that their father will change so that their needs will be considered and therefore want to share time with the father - also, the way the courts hear cases is not conducive to a child sharing those issues that may make them feel yakie but the child is not aware the behavior is so damaging nor do they have anything else to compare with to truly understand, only seeing a war between parents that they feel responsible to stop.

Unless you have ever been in the position of being removed from a parent it is hard to realize the extent children will go to stay with a parent unless the child, as some do, become very angry. Those that become angry want to hurt the parent and often are even willing to hurt themselves to unleach their anger.

Family Court is most difficult and since often, the family having its future determined in Family Court, is only a family because there are children involved therefore I think Family Court needs an additional set of guidelines other than those laws on the books that allow lawyers the fuel for their attack and counter-attack as their means of arriving at equity. And no, I no longer say justice!

ALF

December 31, 2000 - 12:13 pm

I agree whole-heartedly with Barbara. The family court merry go-round made me dizzy for 10 years. I finally gave up. Had I been a welfare receipient the courts would have insisted that my children were provided for by their father. As it was, I was warned to sit down, shut up or I would be held in contempt when I told "his honor" that my children and I were just pawns of his court. This was said after the X husbands bail was exonerated. Women have fought long and hard and I am with them every step of the way when it comes to support.

betty gregory

December 31, 2000 - 12:23 pm

Just my opinion, but I like it a lot, Robby, when you tell personal stories. It doesn't detract at all from your guidance as a discussion leader and it always adds, measureably, to the discussion.

Terrific posts from so many! Ironically, this began with wondering why more men were not participating in this particular discussion, but here we are....several men and several women discussing just that and other related family issues.

First, I want to remind us that whatever lopsided numbers there might be are from Books and Lit generally....this discussion's numbers are just a reflection of the overall more-women-than-men numbers. This same subject has come up before in other folders and opinions were offered. Because we'd all like more men to participate, I expect we'll visit this subject from time to time and keep getting good ideas on how to attract, then keep more male participants.

As all the ideas in all the posts reflect, there are probably lots of reasons why more men aren't already participating. I don't know that women are any "better" at talking about painful things, or just relationship-type (family) things, but it's probably true that we do more of it---talking about it. The world in which we live has made it almost impossible for boys, then men, to practice telling what they feel, what they think about family issues. That's changing (as I think Barbara points out in the age groups), but ever so slowly. Just walk down any large toy store "boy" and "girl" aisles and you'll see how slowly we're changing. Most of the "boy" toys are still about "doing," as Barbara points out. Out in the world "doing." Most of the "girl" toys are still about inside-the-family concerns.

We don't know how much, if any, of the "differences" of men and women are biological.....or if they are all just socially reinforced behaviors that begin the moment a baby is born. A few biological differences of verbal and spacial skills have been measured in pre-teen years, but that seems to be more of a how-early measurement. Girls develop verbally before boys and boys develop spacial skills before girls, but it is still unclear if those differences continue into the teen years. What is completely clear is that schools often reinforce those early skills.

However (and this is amazing), even after all of that social reinforcement of separate behaviors, the very best up-to-date tests that measure all kinds of trait similarities and differences of women and men continue to show that we are much more alike than we are different---and in many categories are not different at all.

Even in the categories of expressing emotion and being concerned about relationship (family) issues, the scores of men and women are extremely close. AVERAGES, those insidious averages that get reported as "differences" in the media, however, continue the stereotypes that men and women are very different. For example, if 3000 men average a 89.2 on a 100 scale and 3000 women average 90.4 on a 100 scale measuring how "sensitive" or "nurturing" they are with children, often the popular press will report, "Studies still show women are more nurturing than men with children."

Pressure abounds to keep thinking of men and women as different creatures. It sells well. The men-from-mars-women-from-venus stereotypes have been with us so long and are so difficult to budge---and still fit so many of our other religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc.---and contain just enough historical truth---that the gears of change can rust in place between spurts of movement. How's that for a run-on sentence.

I think it's down right remarkable that we are as similar as we are, given all the school, family, religious, social, marketing pressures to be so different.

Note---One study I remember from 3 or 4 years ago made a convincing case for "how" men expressed emotions. Wish I could quote author and date. The author, a man, wrote that men often expressed feelings through action, which, of course, is a socially sanctioned form for men. The "I love you" often comes in the form of doing something to show love, as opposed to saying the words. An example he gave was a man stopping by his elderly mother's house to do repairs and heavy work, that his expression of care came through action.

Recently, my sister-in-law told me that she's learned in the last year just how much my brother really loves her. The example she gave was his rescheduling a meeting (which involved cancelling 10 or so airline tickets of people flying in from out of state) so that he could go to an important 6-month, cancer follow up doctor's appointment with her. When she told him how much that meant to her, he just shrugged his shoulders.

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 12:45 pm

Andy:--What a wonderful tribute to your father!

ALF

December 31, 2000 - 12:46 pm

I am heartily sorry that my children were never afforded this blessing!

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 12:52 pm

Do you folks agree with deTocqueville's remark above beginning: "The distance...?"

Robby

ALF

December 31, 2000 - 01:11 pm

I disagree. I think that the distance that has seperated father/son has widened. This could be due to many factors, mostly the "fractured" family problems inherent in our society today. Sons leave home, go out and explore their own pathways, never to return to the fold. Years ago father/son were one in family , in family businesses and in family decision making.

robert b. iadeluca

December 31, 2000 - 01:23 pm

According to research by Ohio State Family Sciences, the largest concern expressed by single fathers is over childcare, as it is with most working parents. Childcare concerns are most stressful for single fathers with children between the ages of 5 and 11. Men feel that they are judged, as well as judge themselves, by their success at work and often have strong internal conflicts over managing work and caring for their children.

Work-related issues connected to childcare that cause the most stresses are:--

1 - arriving late or leaving early
2 - missing work
3 - having to reduce work
4 - work-related travel.

Single fathers also struggle with establishing and being comfortable with an appropriate level of intimacy, especially with their adolescent daughters. Finding and maintaining a support network is also challenging for many single fathers.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 03:23 am

Greetings to our Australian friends this morning as they celebrate the 100th Annivsary of the creation of their Democracy!!

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 03:49 am

According to the Ohio State University Family Science Department:--

Single father families are distinct from single mother families.

Single father families are less likely to be poor and these fathers are more likely to be in the paid labor force than single mothers.

Single fathers tend to be younger (under 30) than married fathers, but not as young as single mothers.

Single fathers have fewer children than married fathers, but more than single mothers.

Single fathers are less likely to live in households with relatives than single mothers.

Robby

Ann Alden

January 1, 2001 - 06:02 am

One thing that has not been mentioned here is that for the most part, we women are raising the men. So, why are they so different from us when it comes to relationships? I find that my son is not the person that I thought he was and he says its my fault!

His father is pretty thoughtful with the whole family but it takes a kick in the rear to remind my son to be thoughtful! He says he is a product of having spent more time with me since his dad was traveling a lot in his growing up years. Now, what does that say for me? I have always been an enthusiastic person about relationships and pretty thoughtful,too. What it wrong with this picture? LOL!

Full time motherhood was what I had and I have never regretted it. Being there when the children come in from school is so important. Being a non-judgemental sounding board for them is of prime importance. When friends of mine wanted to return to work, I would tell them to find something part-time so that they were available to their children. I was a latchkey child at the age of 12 and didn't like it one bit. There is nothing deader than a empty house when a child arrives home from school.

Robby, I don't have any experience with the statements made above but one. Friends of my daughter were divorced and the family court forced them to live in the same neighborhood and share the children on a day to day basis. It has not worked out well as the mother is in need of therapy and the father is a jerk! If anything, the children would have been better off with grans or foster parents. Now that they are almost grown, they too need therapy. For them, confusion has reined! According to this court, children need both parents even when the parent is mentally unwell.

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 06:13 am

Ann:--Would you please expand a bit on your comment that "we women are raising the men?" Our previous postings about "feelings" on the part of men is what led us into the current discussion about Single Fathers. One would assume that these single fathers have feelings for their children as they raise them. This is true, of course, in the case of single mothers.

Robby

betty gregory

January 1, 2001 - 06:40 am

Ann----there is nothing "wrong with this picture." Even without knowing the particulars, I can safely say that the influences on your son came from many, many directions. You were an important influence, as any parent is, but the pressures on little boys, then teens, then men, to act and think and view the world in certain ways came from the world at large. Textbooks, television programs, television commercials, teachers, friends, friends' parents. Mostly, though, feedback from friends. Each moment in high school, each behavior has a reaction from friends. Boys learn quickly what is cool and what isn't. One example---anything that looks or sounds "like a girl" is not cool. Already, the value of "girl"ness is lower and not something a boy wants to be caught dead doing. Being thoughtful is often seen by young boys as very girl-like.

Give yourself a break. How he is came from many sources (as I've been telling myself the past 2 weeks as my son is going through an unexpected but nasty divorce.) But do take heart, your time of influence isn't over. In between weeks when I think men are a lost cause and I'm through "teaching," there are weeks when I am lifted up with hope and optimism and certainty that there are as many changes going on with men as with women. Ask the thoughtful men in this discussion if they lived though periods feeling superior to women. Change is all around us. Don't give up and quick taking all the credit for someone elses's thoughtless-ness.

Betty

Idris O'Neill

January 1, 2001 - 07:32 am

Betty, i agree there are all sorts of influences on a child. For any parent who has done their best to feel guilt if the child has troubles is not fair. It only causes guilt, and guilt is a killer.

One can't go on through life blaming parents for their troubles. We reach an age when we are responcible for how we think and what we do. The blame game is an adolecent way of dealing with the world. We are responcible for us. We are responcible for our own well being and who we are. If we don't accept responcibility for ourselves the circle is never broken and we never become truly ourselves.

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 07:42 am

At last count there are roughly 5 million non-custodial single dads. The term refers to fathers who are separated from their children, including those men who have remarried. Most of these men see their offspring infrequently, often no more than every other weekend.

Joseph Epstein, author of "Divorced in America," calls these visits "the keenest torture that divorce has to offer for fathers and their kids, because they serve as reminders of what was lost. With their children went some of their identity. Are they dads, or merely men who fertilized their former wife's eggs?" Dads, according to Epstein, "tuck their children into bed at night, help them with homework, laugh with them at the dinner table, ease their failures, share their triumphs, discipline their foolishness, embrace their childishness and love their mothers."

Says Epstein: "Non-custodial dads are confused about their role as fathers."

Robby

Hats

January 1, 2001 - 08:15 am

I do not think the distance between father and son has lessened. I feel that when we were an agricultural community fathers had the chance to be at home with their families, allowing them to be close to wife and children. Children saw their fathers working and loving their families.

Now, to survive men and women are out of the home striving to make a living. I feel that the gulf has widened between fathers for that reason.

Secondly, when men went off to war that took them away from their sons too. Are we in peacetime now? I am not sure with all the peace keeping forces scattered around.

I have heard that boys are always closer to their mother, and girls are closer to their fathers. Is it called the Oedipus Complex?

HATS

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 08:20 am

HATS:--Is it your belief, then, that fathers are having less of an influence upon their sons?

Robby

Hats

January 1, 2001 - 08:30 am

I do feel that fathers are having less influence on their sons. I feel this is because of the fathers leaving the home to work. Perhaps fathers were closer to sons when families owned small businesses.

My father was always at home because we owned a tailor shop. I saw my father as much as I saw my mother. So, I feel that their influence was almost equal in my life.

HATS

betty gregory

January 1, 2001 - 08:31 am

A historian, ______ Clemente, this morning on the news, was rattling off statistics of how different we are from our old ideas of Leave it-to-Beaver families. His tone was positive, upbeat. He predicted our next 1,000 years will be known as the Global Period---where we become more and more connected, that we will see our private worlds as interconnected in more and more ways.

One statistic in a long list of statistics (very similar to the ones you've been quoting, Robby) was phrased so positively, that it took a minute for it to sink in. When talking of "single parent families," he said that one third of all "first born children" are now born into single parent families. That's completely different from usual expressions of "out of wedlock," "without husbands," "illegitimate children," "babies having babies," etc. I've been thinking about that all morning. Of course, this isn't the first time we've changed how we speak of this. We used to call children born to single parents "bastards," later---"illegitimate." We don't say that anymore.

I suppose the "one third of all first-born children" could be divided into accidental and deliberate pregnancies. The numbers of women who have decided not to leave being a parent to chance--will I, won't I find a mate---are definitely rising and gradually losing a stigma. I'm not talking of celebrities, but of average women. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Mixed, I guess. As liberal as I am, I'm probably still one to hang on to the idea of 2 loving parents being better than one. However, MY life SHOULD have had only one parent---my father should not have been allowed within 5 miles of a child, but my mother felt bound by religious and social constraints to hang in there. She did not know how to protect her children.

jeanlock

January 1, 2001 - 08:40 am

Betty G--

It cheers me immeasurably to know that other seniornetters have been watching those CSPAN shows. I taped them, and intend to compare them with whatever Bush does this year. I'm keeping those tapes, and if I ever get so sick that I need some sort of mood boost, I'll just gather a few friends, a bottle of bubbly, and watch them again. Come to think of it, maybe I should send them to Lorrie--after she's better and can laugh comfortably.

Robby--

About why women work: I didn't see on your list the fact that the women's lib movement tended to push them out of the kitchen and into the workplace to 'fulfill' themselves. Upon mature, VERY mature, consideration, I think that if I were to live my life over, and had the financial and marital circumstances to make it feasible, I would elect to stay home. I did enjoy taking care of the first two kids during a time when I didn't HAVE to work, and deeply regret that I wasn't able to provide the last three with the same unharried, unhurried (so to speak) childhood their two elder siblings enjoyed. At least I THINK they enjoyed it.

Hats

January 1, 2001 - 08:43 am

I did mean it the other way around. I got tangled up in my deletes. I stayed up too long for New Years Eve.

HATS

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 08:55 am

Jean:--Yes, there is still much to be said about women in families. That list was about Single Fathers and became a sub-topic because the subject of "men with feelings" came up.

The executive director of Dear Dad, a single-father advocacy, says: "Losing the daily contact with your children is very much like losing them to death. You grieve. You learn to cope, but the pain never really goes away. There is a long period of mourning most newly divorced dads go through."

Says Epstein, previously quoted: "Some single dads mope, some scream, some pound on desks in anger, some beat their chests in defiance. Some try to go on as if nothing has changed. Others can't imagine their life ever being the same. But what they have in common is great pain."

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 1, 2001 - 08:56 am

It wasn't the Women's Lib movement that pushed women out of the kitchen to the workplace, it was the women themselves. Those of us who stayed at home were generally underpaid and unthanked for the jobs we did, and there came a time, I believe, when servant status was not enough for many, many women, including me.

Today most women have to work to help pay the rent or the mortgage on a house. I will say truthfully that I didn't fully understand what men must go through to support themselves and a family until after my marriage ended, and I went to work at various, also underpaid jobs to pay the mortgage on my trailer and support myself and my sick son.

"Things are seldom what they seem", and a man's life is not a bowl of cream but rather more like the skim milk in that song from the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

To go back a bit. Because of the Depression, lack of work for my father and two parents that didn't get along and live together, my mother raised her kids until she died too young. In the short span of time I lived with her, my brother and two sisters, I never felt the lack of a father.

After the childhood illness I had, I was raised by an aunt and uncle who were substitute parents for me. They both worked, and from the time I was barely 11 years old I spent all my summers alone, came home from school to an empty house, did housework and studying and music practicing and started cooking the supper food until someone came home at 6:30. Then I washed the supper dishes and went up to my room.

Now, which was worse? Being raised by a mother alone or having two parent figures in my practically all-alone life?

Mal

betty gregory

January 1, 2001 - 09:15 am

Until both man and woman take full responsibility for a child's life from the moment of its birth, the child will miss out. There are plenty clues that we still see the mother as more responsible for a child's life than the father. We ask of the woman, "Can she have it all, both career and children?"...but we don't ask that of the father. The man knows from childhood that he will have both family and career and he doesn't worry much that he won't be able to balance it all---the mother is presumed to support his life by caring for his children (even if she works full time outside the home). In my view, they are both missing out, and the children miss out when one parent is more involved than the other.

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 09:27 am

There appears to be a change afoot in the world of men's magazines, a change that seems suited to a moment in which the presidential candidates were availing themselves at every opportunity to let voters know that the women they were excited about most were the ones they were already married to. The fifth annual GQ awards celebrated men whom the magazine's readers ostensibly admire most. For the second year in a row, Michael J. Fox won a statuettte, this time for his courage in fighting Parkinson's disease. Other recipients included Ted Koppel, Matthew Broderick and Pierce Brosnan, who won for most stylist man of the year and talked about his teenage son when he went on stage to pick up the award.

Details Magazine was restarted a couple of months ago as a sensitive man's lifstyle book. Details offers newsy features like the one in which men are instructed on the virtues of making breakfast in bed for their girlfriends. The story includes tips for making homemade jam. The editor in chief of Esquire said what what surprises him when he meets with readers is the specificity of questions for which they seek answers. "They want to know exactly how to tuck their shirts in. One guy told me he clipped out recipes from the magazine. We get a lot of mail from people who appreciate its Martha Stewart aspect."

Robby

jeanlock

January 1, 2001 - 10:18 am

Robby--

All three tape recorders are copying the De Toq program which seems fairly interesting.

About divorced fathers: There are many who are unlike the ones you describe; my first husband, for example.

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 10:35 am

Jean:--Perhaps the differences is a generational one.

Says Keith Blanchard, a Princeton graduate and suburban father who has spent a good part of his career writing for men's magazines: "It's a strange time to be a guy in America. Men are entering into new worlds that our fathers didn't. Two generations ago, men didn't have to be good husbands. One generation ago, they didn't have to be good fathers. Now, of course, they have to be everything."

Said the editor-in-chief of Esquire: "There's an innate desire to know how to do things and a reluctance to ask. Men don't want to ask each other how to iron their pants. We all want to appear to be masters of the universe." In the November issue Esquire one can learn how to grow flowers from seed and the importance of donting money to charities. In the November issue of GQ, a newly installed column is devoted to the subject of rugs.

Any comments from the men here?

Robby

Mary W

January 1, 2001 - 12:55 pm

I never would have thought it possible but I believe I'm actually over-footballed and it isnt even nighttime yet. I've a long haul ahead of me until the last bowl.

I hope this new year brings only good things for all of you--better than last year.

For those of you who know about black-eyed peas and have them today--there's no problem. Y'all have it made.

Take care and Happy 2001, Mary

Mary W

January 1, 2001 - 01:46 pm

All families are different. I know that's a banality but they are VERY different. As a child our family was,in a way, a disfunctional one.At the age of eight my mother, who had been ill off and on ever since I could remember became an invalid--bedridden--for the next twenty years. My sister and I were realy not actively reared by anyone. My Dad was a wonerful man who took good care of my mother and, as well as he could, of his children. However he worked very hard and his time with us was necessarily limited. My ister and I wound up in a very strict boarding school where there were no real role models and I always felt that I grew up withut a mother's guidance and simply learned by doing--all of my life.

In our own home it was I who had the greatest care of our sons. I was a stay-at-home mom, was always there, except for car-pooling (sometimes three times a day when the boys were in different schools) and naturally spent more time with them than their Dad. We always had dinne together every night and our house was always headquarters for gatherings of their friends. Until you have lived through two combos in two different rooms with recorders playing , just for lagniappe, you haven't really experienced rearing boys. We were a happy happy family except fpr those occasional explosions which occur in every family.We were very careful not to repeat the mistakes our made with us. We both knew too well what they were but made mistakes of our own. I can see the fruit of those goofs today.

My husband and I are of that two or perhaps three generations ogo of whom Keith Blanchard speaks. We certainly expected our spousesto be good husbands and Mr. Blanchard has obviously not communicated well or sufficiently with or learned much about our generations. He, aparantly has been so bemused with men's magazines that his knowledge of women has suffered.

One generation ago when my sons married they certainly expeccted and were expected to be good fathers.

Today, I don't believe anyone expects to be everything.Somewhere along the way all generations should have learned that much.

Every person who is alive has experienced some trauma along the way. there are as many ways of reaching a cotributing adulthood as ther are stars. we each have to achieve it uour own way vey often family is not the determining force. we each take from our family experience what we can use and deliberately either discard or forget it. It is, in the final analysis, each ones personal responsibility.

Take care, all, Mary

Mary W

January 1, 2001 - 01:49 pm

That's "The mistakes our Parents" made etc.

Texas Songbird

January 1, 2001 - 02:58 pm

This is part of a sermon I preached yesterday. I think it fits into the subject. The theme of the sermon was that the choices we make each day make us the people we are, and if we want to be different people and be remembered differently, then we have to make different choices now (the idea being that we make New Year's resolutions to live out our Christian principles, and that those are all choices.) I began with talking about looking back and deciding if we liked what we saw, and then told a couple of my own personal regrets. Then I said:

"The other regret has to do with my children. I got married at 17 and my first child was born at 19, and I had no experience with children, so I didn’t really know what kids need. I wish I’d known more about kids and what they need to thrive, and I wish I’d done better at giving them those things.

But the main thing I have realized is that I wasn’t intentional enough about imparting my values to them. I think they’ve all grown up to be fine people, and I’m proud of them, but I think any values they have, they CAUGHT rather than were TAUGHT. If I had it to do over again, I’d sit down and first THINK about the values I wanted my children to have and then I would have intentionally focused on those things. I’d have TALKED about them more, and tried to exemplify them more.

Looking back, I don’t remember talking very much at all about things that were important to me, things like justice and how wrong racial prejudice is and other kinds of stereotyping that are so harmful to people. I’d have talked about the importance of a liberal arts education and continuing to learn your whole life, and about the love of reading. I’d have talked about honesty and integrity, of being a person of your word and totally trustworthy, about being kind to other people and helping others. And since many of those values are centered in and emanate from the Christian life, I would have talked more openly about what it means to be a Christian.

And so for those of you who are in this phase of your life or looking forward to that phase, or even dealing with grandchildren, I offer this piece of advice to you – TALK about the things that are important to you to your children and grandchildren. And, of course, do more than TALK. Live that kind of life before your children and grandchildren."

Malryn (Mal)

January 1, 2001 - 03:28 pm

Does the same apply if we are Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, other different religions or agnostic?

Mal

Texas Songbird

January 1, 2001 - 03:56 pm

Well, since I was preaching a sermon in a Methodist church, I mentioned Christian principles. I didn't mean to offend anyone here. I think it certainly applies to people of all denominations, faiths, or no faith -- the key idea is that we think about what we ourselves believe and consciously try to pass those ideas on to our children. My reflection was that I did not do that consciously enough with my own children.

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 04:30 pm

The changes in the family that occurred between 1770 and 1830 were as massive as the political changes around the same time. Alexis deTocqueville was the first to point out the connection between democratic individualism and the more egalitarian, private, and child-centered family that was emerging. The family was no longer a "little commonwealth," a miocrocosm of the community with the responsibility to carry out a full range of community functions. It was becoming a refuge from society, a place where selfless love was supposed to provide an escape from a more impersonal and acquisitive public world.

The most popular books around the time of the American Revolution attacked earlier families for their patriarchal authoritarianism and their emphasis on property in marriage arrangements. They advocated marriage based on romantic love and mutual respect, and parenting focused on development of the child's self-government rather than fearful submission to authority. Family relationships became warmer and less deferential.

Robby

jeanlock

January 1, 2001 - 05:48 pm

Robby--

I have the Toqueville tour tape(s). Tell me where to send your copy.

robert b. iadeluca

January 1, 2001 - 06:02 pm

Jean:--I sent you an email. Thank you very much.

Robby

Ann Alden

January 1, 2001 - 07:38 pm

Robby, what I meant about the women raising the men was that for many of us stay at home moms, the boys came under our influence the most. We were the ones who taught them how to say grace, how to go potty, how to blow their noses, etc,etc. We chauffered them to ball games and plays and to music lessons. Seems like we were the parent that they were around the most. I am not saying that the fathers weren't trying. Its just hard to go to work everyday and come home and be a parent. And, since, I, myself, was able to stay at home, I took on the larger part of raising the children. When I went to work part time after my children were in high school, I found out why my husband was so tired by Friday night. Wow! Not what I wanted to do! One of the things that always came to my mind was: If I choose not to clean today, that's okay, because I can do it another day, but my husband couldn't just choose not to go to work. How lucky I was to stay at home with my little family.

Betty, I do agree with most of what you said. My son did say this with a grin and meant it humorously! He is really a good dad and a good husband. He just doesn't think of the neat little gifts and jokes that his dad always did. I hope this changes with time(he has only been married 7 years and already has four little ones to support).

Our lives are always more interesting to us than to others until we learn that many of us grew up in the same situations. When I lived in California in the 80's and was a quilt guild member, I was surprised to hear the many members who were my age and older talking about being latchkey children in the 30's and 40's. Many of them were children of "Rosy the Riveteer" types and their dads were away in WWII, so necessity became the mother of invention.

Barbara St. Aubrey

January 1, 2001 - 08:55 pm

Ann the big difference that I see is that the latchkey kid of yesterday had neighbors - the policman on the corner - the shop keepers on and on who all knew the kids and gave them a hello that made the child feel less alone - adults weren't shy about streightening us out if we were acting up in public - todays kids are pretty isolated without much community letting them know they exist.

Also all the boy books that have come out in recent years seem to say mom has great influence on boys till they are about 9 - 10 or 11 and from than on if there is not a father figure around they are in trouble learning how to be a man. They may continue to act like the woman in their lives are important but their insides have already discounted us.

And lets face it some kids grow up with the difficulties of life that their answer is to blame their parents or one of their parent if their picture of life or what they wanted didn't come true and others figure out a life for themsleves - I have both kinds and I've desided paranthood is not the fantasy we imagine or see in the movies - I hate the expression " she did the best she could" it sounds so patronizing and does not feel like what I did do is honored.

Problem we and the world around us seems to want to place the complete success or failures of our children in our courtyard and if they are less than perfect, successful, less than socially OK than we the parents or one parent is at fault. I never thought to blame my parents for what I am or not so where did all this come from?

FaithP

January 1, 2001 - 09:19 pm

Personal experience being the basis of my opinion please No one take offense. My family were much better off with the father out of the home. He was not the person who inflicted the sexual abuse that was a different story, but his drinking and the fighting were horrible and my child mind has amnesia about him for most of the time he lived with u s. It is a bit like looking at a photo album with his picture torn out. Thankfully my grandparents and mother were able to provide real family and we remember our "family" lovingly. My father and his problems were accepted later in life when we were adults and most of we children formed a relationship with him and enjoyed him very much.As Adults we found him a pleasing, intelligent, artistic and wise man.

No Man in my family has had the role of single father. Yet. Who knows what the future will bring. I believe that in another generation or so it will not matter. Families will be the "group" that parents the child.

I don't think that after a child reaches purbetry a parent has as much influance as his peers do , his school,books, now days t.V. and Movies also influance him way beyond what happens or doesnt happen in his home. My own kids say so. And now that the grandchildren are turning 30 and so on so do they say so.

America does have a long drawn out adolecence for teenage men. Most men can expect to stay in school well into their twenties and get a great deal if not all of his support from family and scholorships and government loans etc. In 1880 at 15 my grandfather with 3 years of highschool left home to seek adventure and work in other states and in Alaska and Canada. He was expected to care for himself, get his own education if he wanted to, and so were his brothers. They were considered Men. That has changed a great deal. Fp

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 03:57 am

As deTocqueville continued to observe what has been called the "rise of the Democratic family" and as economic specialization eliminated most home production, people either had to leave the home or withdraw from production. Apprentices and other non-family members left the household, married men took jobs, and married women dropped out of production. Over the course of the 19th century, the average number of children born per woman dropped from seven or eight to three or four. This was partly because children were no longer productive assets and partly because parents in the new emotionally centered family wanted to devote more attention to each child.

Also legal changes supported the new kind of family. States broadened their grounds for divorce to make it a little easier for couples to end unhappy marriages. The "tender years doctrine" said that mothers should generally get custody of young children.

Do you folks believe that more lenient divorce laws have strengthened or weakened the family structure?

Robby

Hats

January 2, 2001 - 05:42 am

Robby, I think you wrote about the sorrow a father feels when he is without his children. I feel the pain must be very deep. My son is separated from his wife. He has a son. He sees his son whenever the mother feels that it is convenient for her.

My son is not afraid or ashamed to say he loves his son, and it shows. Yet, he never admits to feeling the pain of not seeing his son everyday and in every experience. I have told him he is in denial. He says it is not true.

Thank goodness, my son's wife is a good mother, but I would feel better if they were together as a family. My son says he just does not love her anymore. I am beginning to accept the fact that staying together just for the sake of a child could be very detrimental to my grandson. I am also learning that people do fall out of love.

I am learning to accept alternative families. Sometimes families just can not remain together. In the process, there is a lot of pain for all, including the grandparents.

HATS

Ann Alden

January 2, 2001 - 06:56 am

Just to give you an example of having caring neighbors when you are a latchkey kid, Barbara, I will try to tell you a story of my brother and I, ages 10 and 12. Shortly after our Dad died, we decided, at school, to go home for lunch one day. On the way, we got into an argument and when we arrived at the house, I locked the doors and wouldn't let him in. He went to the garage and got out some tools and started to take off the storm door. Fortunatly, our neighbor saw what was going on and called my mother at work. When our phone rang, I answered and my mother said, "Let him in and eat lunch and don't go home for lunch again!" We still laugh about not being able to get away with anything back then!

Yes, I think our lax attitude about divorce has made trouble for many families. It seems that the younger generation doesn't want to work at their marriages anymore. Personally, I am for teaching parenting in the first grade up and also, mediation among the family members. Of course, the schools officials would never be able to agree on the way to teach it or the books to use.

ALF

January 2, 2001 - 07:00 am

Do not forget the flip side of that coin. My children work twice as hard at their marriages than I would believe possible. This is due to the fact they understand the complexities and the terrors of children growing up in a single-parent environment. They do not wish this for their children; ergo they compromise more which is what successful marriages are all about.

betty gregory

January 2, 2001 - 07:29 am

Sorry, but I have to ask. When Mal writes that she wishes she would have divorced sooner, for herself and for the children, and when I write that my mother didn't know how to protect children and that my father should not have been allowed within 5 miles of children, does anyone believe this? Several of us have written that a single parent family was NEEDED for the children's health and welfare, but it feels as if the truth of that isn't sinking in, that beliefs about divorce and single parenthood cannot be changed.

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 07:32 am

Some results of research on "Problems of children of single parents"--

1 - Depression
2 - Higher rates of antisocial behavior, aggression, anxiety, and school problems
3 - Children report less support, control, discipline from fathers, and more conflict with siblings, less family cohesion, and more family stress
4 - Children of single parents tend to leave home earlier (girls through early marriage, boys through premature occupational choices such as the military)
5 - Children of single parents tend to achieve less education, occupational prestige, and income as adults, and have less stable marriages.

Robby

camron

January 2, 2001 - 07:32 am

Does not the ease of getting a divorce make it a little more likely that the attitude of "well if it doesn't work I can get out of it" and then the monkey wrench gets thrown in when the "in a family way" shows up? Do the partners work as hard at maintaining a marriage with the easy divorces? And then I watch the geese on the lake and see a greater responsibility toward raising the goslings than I hear about in the our families.

Malryn (Mal)

January 2, 2001 - 08:03 am

I wish now I had not deleted my post. This is a rather controversial subject, and I swore to try and stay out of controversies as much as I can in this new year.

Betty, I believe that people who have not experienced abuse in marriage in one way or another do not and perhaps cannot understand the need to dissolve such a marriage. An abusive relationship between a wife and husband is far more damaging to children than is divorce, though people who have not experienced such a thing find this very hard to comprehend.

My kids were fairly well grown when my marriage came to an end, and they all showed the effects of having had parents who were each very troubled in their marriage.

My daughter's son was 15. In other words, the really tender years which require much nurturing from two parents were over. Any problems my daughter and her husband had were not open ones, and those problems in their marriage were not revealed to their son. Because he knew nothing about them, my grandson went through a time of moderate shock when the marriage ended, but each of his parents helped him through that time, and he is fine now. Incidentally, his grades in school are above average, and he has not shown any signs of depression or negative reaction since his parents were divorced.

Both my own marriage and that of my daughter were based on relationships formed when we were very young, before we had jelled as adult people. If I had it to over again, I would advise my kids to stay away from permanent commitment to another person until they were older and had a good idea who they are.

There is not really a single parent situation for my grandson. My daughter, who is older now, has recently found a partner who is much better suited for her than her ex-husband ever was. He and my grandson are very good friends, and when my grandson is with his mother, he certainly does have an older man to whom to relate.

The situation is much the same for my grandson's father, so there are not single parent problems at all.

Camron, even geese make sure the goslings leave the nest when they get to be a certain age. Isn't that true?

I will say this. I have seen families with single parents that are very happy with very few problems such as Robby describes arising in those families, and I still maintain that a really bad marriage where problems cannot be worked out with counselling, which, by the way my ex-husband refused, is much worse for kids than the divorce of his or her parents. This post is written by a woman who at one time in her life was adamantly against divorce.

Mal

Ann Alden

January 2, 2001 - 10:29 am

Betty and Malryn, I do believe that some marriages must end due to many differences or abuses, but I also agree with Camron that the "well, we will try it and if it doesn't work out, we will divorce" attitude seems to be the overriding option in marriage. That it does take work doesn't seem to have sunk in and heaven forbid that we learn to compromise. I know that some marriages just don't work and that children are permanently damaged by a relationship that should have ended. There is no pat answer to the problems in a marriage and sometimes, ending it is the only solution.

Malryn (Mal)

January 2, 2001 - 12:43 pm

I have never known anyone who had the well, we will try it and if it doesn't work out, we will divorce attitude.
Has any of you?

Mal

Barbara St. Aubrey

January 2, 2001 - 01:42 pm

I have seen some divorce recently that I scratch my head when told why - I have seen some that divorce because they expected the feeling of being in love to remain without looking at what it takes to make love a verb - I do see there is a big difference in how men and woman want and expect, communications to happen and how they want their interests to be common to each other. The Mars Venus book helped me understand the huge difference. Than I see the large number of women that in the past had to put up with a degrading abusive situation so that they no longer even realized how abusive it was but now these women can earn enough to excape the humiliation, abuse and sometimes protect their children from further abuse by leaving and supporting themselves.

We forget that a family, whether blood or not, is really about folks that stay together because they honor the concept that they act not just in their own best interest but take the best interest of the family members into account. Anyone abusing is thinking of what they want not thinking if they hold the other in esteem and their actions are in the best interest of the other.

And so like all freedom there is the good and the bad - when fire was harnessed it could warm and cook food or it could burn down the house and be used as torture. And so with divorce it can be the saving grace for those in intolerable situations or it can be used as a tool to hurt or it can be used carelessly. With all that divorce entails it is hard for me to imagine using it carelessly but than I think it provides the engin that adds fuel to a small fire of resentment or lack of feeling and those feeling grow in a negative way as the divorce process proceeds.

We have grown past in most incidents the church concept of how to stay married successfully but we have not replaced that social school with another except the sitcoms on TV that too many of us forget are fantasy since the show does try to hook into the mainstream feelings at the time and we than are hooked thinking the show is biblical in its wisdom.

Jere Pennell

January 2, 2001 - 01:43 pm

Hi Ann and Mal

Re:748,749 & 750 - It seems to be a generational problem. Mal #750 your second question - Yes.

Please consider this: We learn from our experiences and our family-a given.

If our family is such that we do not learn how to have and maintain a stable healthy loving relationship when we go and marry someone who does, the results are problems and our children do not learn the right attitudes. Then those children go out and marry someone from a similar poor background the end result is not good. This cycle causes "changes" in what is known as family/marriage as it is known today.

Add to this, the economic problems, gender identity problems, mobility problems, the dwindling of the nuclear family and others too numerous to mention and in a few years we may not recognise the family and for sure if DeT came back to write his sequel, he would not recognise the family/marriage at all.

I did not post at the time as I had not finished reading all the posts but when you were discussing Christmas, Robby and asked for posts, from other Christian countries, (you did not say this but you named the countries and they were all what is considered Christian) was it intentional to ignore how Christmas is observed in non-Christian countries because it is?

Same subject, Christmas, one does not have to leave the US to find places that do not have snow, celebrate on beaches, and where the temp is 80 on Christmas Day.

Going further back to the subject of voting, I was surprised when I moved from WA state which has open primaries, to Hawaii which does not. It is startling to say the least to find that one must pick a party and then vote only within that party. It certainly changed the idea of democracy for this foreign born American citizen living in a foreign country.

Final comment - I wish to caution some of you and me too, that a prominent psychologist once wrote, Reality is as we perceive it."

Jere in Hawaii

Malryn (Mal)

January 2, 2001 - 02:31 pm

If reality is what one perceives, then my kids and I could be considered a bunch of kooks. We are actors, artists,
musicians, writers and/or an electronic publisher, who often are unconventionally creative in our thinking and our ways.

What the observer might also see is if he or she looked carefully is. . . . How did that song go?

Oh, yes. "A Whole Lotta Love."

Mal

kiwi lady

January 2, 2001 - 03:49 pm

Both my sons and my son in law have a very hands on influence in their childrens upbringing. They are as good as an old fashioned mum in the practical care of their kids, they can cook, they read stories, they take their infants out by themselves to give the Mums a break. They really enjoy their children and I have seen dramatic changes in their perspectives on life since they became fathers. Yay for hands on Dads! The kids absolutely adore their fathers, it is so nice to see such close relationships. I am all for it!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 05:55 pm

Jere: I just came home from my work (it is now 8:45 p.m. ET) and answered your email looking for Democracy in America but am pleased to see you already found it. You mentioned my asking for comments from "Christian" nations. What I had asked for was comments from people in Democracies. Actually, we would accept comments from any nation, even if not a Democracy, but it doubtful anyone in a non-democratic nation would post. However, who know?

I would hesitate to label any Democracy as a "Christian" nation, partly because, to my knowledge, no Democracy has a "state religion," (I am probably wrong here - I am thinking, for example, of Scandinavia) and partly because the United States, for example, is now composed of so many different non-Christian people it would be questionnable to label the nation as being any specific religion. However, we are currently discussing families and that topic will be covered at a later date as the weeks move along.

Thank you again for joining our Discussion Group.

Dolphindli

January 2, 2001 - 06:13 pm

Hello everyone and hanks for the invitation Robby, and while you are all on the subject of d-i-v-o-r-c-e - I worked for attorneys for 40 years of my life and found a lot of sadness. I found that today's generation parents just about (some did) mortgage the house in order to give their child that "special" wedding with all the trimmings, drum rolls, etc. The happy couple jaunted off to Hawaii for the honeymoon of the century; came home to the new house that Mom and Dad's from both sides contributed to; walked into a room full of new furniture and said: "OK - what do we do now? Needless to say, these marriages ended in divorce. It seems the minute that the word "communication" came into being, talking with one another went out the door.

Then the sadder divorces, the woman who put up with a ton of bull for 35 or 40 years but would never divorce because she was Catholic. Well, the Catholic church is no longer stringent in it's requirements for Catholic Annulments - I think they found they were loosing too much money (my opinion guys) so they have relaxed there rules. And, unless you were raised Catholic you cannot know the meaning of being in a battered, demeaning relation and hearing a Priest say divorce is not permissible! I'd like to tell the Priest to step into the shoes of those abused women for just one week or to be the children living in fear because they don't know what will set a parent off - it could be a wrong look.

In my opinion- staying together for the children - is not an option. The courts today, finally frown on battering and abuse. And in those cases, sadly, where two parties just don't love each other anymore - I say, go for the divorce and be the best of friends that you can be for the children. If remarriage enters into the picture, let the kids know it's OK - more presents (l0l). I think we should instill in the children that extended families mean more people to be part of their lives. If children see harmony, they will act according. Of, course, that can only work when both parents fulfill their obligations.

Aren't you glad you invited me Robby?

Chow everyone, Dolphindli

PS - Next time ask me what I think is wrong with America!

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 06:25 pm

Dolphin:--Of course I'm glad you found us and, except for the shy quiet introverted Discussion Leader, everyone else here pours out their thoughts and feelings. Our policy here is to acknowledge that what we are saying is our own opinions and that it is OK to disagree so long as it is in an agreeable way.

As for what is wrong (or right) with America, in a sense that is what we have been doing for five months now. America is so big the comments have to be divided into sub-topics, the current sub-topic being Families. And, of course, we constantly read what deTocqueville had to say to find out whether he was, indeed, astute in his observations.

We are also blessed in this Discussion Group because we have our good friends from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand who are able to look at us objectively and see things about ourselves that we can't always see.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 06:29 pm

Regarding the "problems of children of single parents" listed earlier, the same researchers suggested the following Solutions:--

1 - All young people, especially young women must attend to their education and training to become self-sufficient.
2 - Take care not to make decisions now that will negate options later -- such as marrying before school is complete.
3 - Plan your life, as best as you can, keeping a list of goals and objectives. Know that there will be a time for almost everything that is important.
4 - Become knowledgeable about the economy and use your money wisely. Start budgeting early. Save some cash.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 06:57 pm

Bill Cosby once said: "You aren't really a parent until you've had your second child." He was referring to the seemingly constant bickering and fighting between brothers and sisters.

This continual fighting between siblings is one of the major frustrations parents have. They feel that nothing they are doing is working. Parents' typical reactions to fighting include: screaming "Shut up! You're driving me crazy!" -- taking sides, threats, accusations, dismissing negative feelings and solving children's problems for them.

Any family experiences of this sort?

Robby

mikecantor

January 2, 2001 - 07:30 pm

“In this Discussion Group we are not examining de Tocqueville. We are examining America but in the process constantly referring to deTocqueville's appraisals. Although written 170 years ago, his astute statements are as relevant to democracy now as they were then.”

I feel that I must take exception to this statement! Particularly: “his astute statements are as relevant to democracy now as they were then.”

“as relevant to democracy now, as they were then?” I hardly think so!

As a summary review of what deTocquville has presented to us, the preceding statement, in my opinion, should be modified to read: “his astute statements, while most applicable to an idealized vision of the fabric of what democracy is and in fact once was, establishes a standard to be visualized and hopefully attained, probably in small bits and pieces, by future generations.”

If, as you say: “we are examining America”, then, in truth, we are examining a time and a place, (the present), which can only be viewed as a direct contradiction to the America deTocqueville wrote about 170 years ago.

In a subsequent paragraph, listing the topics deTocquevill spoke about, you mention: Art, poetry, the media, religion, men, women, orators, equality, liberty, associations, the law, physical well being, the family, wages, manners, business, and science. Any yet, I cannot think of a single one of these subjects that would now be almost completely unrecognizable to deTocqueville could he but visualize them today.

In the event that you may be asking yourself: “Why did he write this?” I would respond as follows:

In reviewing the many posts describing the good, (and mostly bad) conditions that many of us have been raised in, I sometimes wonder if we are not being too hard on ourselves in not recognizing that we are really products of our times and our own environment. The standards of yesterday, particularly the norms of society, are like none other that has existed before our time and probably never will again. There should be no feelings of blame or regret at what might have been if other circumstances had been presented to us. Never forget that we are the forerunners of totally new worlds, new beliefs, and new conceptual ideas of what is correct and of value in all of the peoples and nations of the world.

To borrow a phrase from the writings of a great lady, Maya Angelou: “I know why the caged bird sings.” And so shall you all!

robert b. iadeluca

January 2, 2001 - 08:08 pm

Mike:--Thank you for a well-thought out posting.

Is it true that deTocqueville's statements are not relevant to Democracy now? Are his statements applicable only to an idealized vision of the fabric of what Democracy is and was? Are we examining a present which is a direct contradiction to the America that deTocqueville wrote about 170 years ago? Is it so that any of the topics mentioned in deT's quote above would be almost completely unrecognizable to deT today?

In examining the present and our own personal lives are we being too hard on ourselves? Your thoughts?

Robby

betty gregory

January 2, 2001 - 08:26 pm

Respectfully, Robby, I want to disagree with your list of the troubles of single-parent kids. What's wrong, in my opinion, is that it leaves the impression that to be a child of a single parent means certain trouble. There are no qualifying words of "most" or "often" or "without counseling and careful monitoring, children may experience....."

My real complaint is that most of us (probably me, too, in a post or two) are writing in all or nothing terms. Barbara's last post (and someone else? uh, uh...?) corrected that and carefully acknowledged both the necessity for some divorces and also the too casual approach---electing to dissolve marriage when things get tough.

There are two fields of research that continue to get enormous funding---one is studying whether or not and to what extent children are benefited from or damaged by daycare. The second field is the effects of divorce on children. For several decades, thousands of studies have been done in these two fields, most with rigorous ethical and experimental standards in place, but not all.

Every few years, a survey study will be done---a study that combines the results of several hundred studies---to see if overall "results" can be determined. 25 years ago, many of those survey studies were pretty sure that both daycare and divorce were mostly detrimental to children. Recently, survey studies reported distinctions between good daycare (children were ahead of the game when they started first grade, academically and socially) and not so good daycare.

Survey studies looking at effects of divorce were also beginning to find a much broader range of results, recognizing that all divorces and all families in divorce do not look alike. Even the research questions have been changing. Researchers have begun to ask, why do some children fare better than others?

Intriguing is the recent longitudinal study that tracked divorced children into adulthood. I admit I have no idea if this researcher (who has been on all the news shows) has the backing of either the American Psychological Association or Americian Psychiatric Association. (Do you know, Robby?) Anyway, what she is reporting is very disturbing. Her findings go something like this----We thought we knew that divorce did not leave a lasting deleterious effect on children if they received proper intervention/care/counselling, etc., but these adults, these children of divorce who are now adults, are having serious relationship problems across the board. Afraid to commit, to marry, to have children, etc., etc. She paints a pretty serious picture. Sorry for not knowing if this researcher is legit---will try to find out.

Malryn (Mal)

January 2, 2001 - 09:15 pm

How's this for kids who had an extremely chaotic childhood? I have a brother and two sisters. I'm the oldest. My mother and father didn't live together, and when they did get together, there was trouble. It was the Depression, and my mother washed floors and cleaned houses to support her kids, despite the fact that she was a fine musician. The youngest was put in a day nursery when my mother couldn't take her to work with her.

Our mother died of appendicitis when I was 12, my brother was 11, and my two sisters were 8 and 5. The family was split up. I was already at an aunt and uncle's because of having had polio 5 years before, an illness which my mother could not afford. My brother came and lived with our aunt and uncle and me.

My sisters went to another state and lived with my father and his second wife. Then my father and that wife were divorced, and my sisters lived with him and his third wife.

My brother graduated from the University of New Hampshire, which he attended on the ROTC. He was in the Air Force 20 years, married, had four sons, and left the service a colonel. While in the Air Force, he received a master's degree in engineering. After his service career he worked as an environmental engineer for the state of New Hampshire.

One sister married a professor of English who taught at one of the State University of New York sites. They have three daughters. She's quite a well-known artist.

The other sister married a high school guidance counselor. They have a son and a daughter. She worked at a college in Massachusetts and retired just recently.

I graduated from a prestigious New England women's college, which I attended on full scholarship and was married to a Ph.D scientist-businessman for over 25 years, had two sons and a daughter and am the only one of the four of us who is divorced.

Can it be possible then that children of broken marriages who face any number of trials and tribulations can still turn out to be upstanding citizens and emotionally stable people? Judging from my own family, I must say they can.

Mal

kiwi lady

January 2, 2001 - 11:59 pm

I was in a large group of adults whose parents had divorced at various stages in their lives all said they were absolutely traumatised by the divorce. Some were adults in their 20s and said it still broke their hearts that their parents were not living together! Pretty amazing huh!

Carolyn

Ann Alden

January 3, 2001 - 01:49 am

Sounds to me like we all are born with a certain amount of self determination. And when bad things happen to good people, we all react differently. We lost my father when we were 12 and 10(my brother and I), our mother married again and when my new sister was 8 months old, her father died. During these times, my mother worked, after being available to us for 12 years, and we made it through. When mother married again, she chose an alcholic(whom she thought she could change). He abused her and the children(she had another boy) for 19 years. My husband and I were living out of state or 300 miles away and didn't even catch on that this was happening until 5 or 6 years before my mother ended the marriage. Having been a latchkey kid, I thought that I had done all right. My marriage wasn't perfect but acceptable and I was able to stay home with my children.

My brother, on the other hand, married another latchkey girl and his marriage was a mess as were subsequent marriages. Initially, he lost his three children, then his house, remarried, his children were awarded back to him and then that marriage fell apart. He spent a great deal of time in court trying to help his children, but in the end, they returned to their confused mother whom they loved without question. Now, after having children born out of wedlock, marrying numerous times, these adults are still living unproductive lives.

My much younger sister and brother have problems also because of the abuse in their lives. My sister is in therapy and has been, off and on, for 20 years. My brother is just like his father but fortunately has never married. I think that life goes on and some of us just get through it one way or another. We all approach our lives from a different perspective.

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 03:30 am

As Ann says: "We all approach our lives from a different perspective."

I am a member of the American Psychological Association, read their periodicals, and am acquainted with the research to which Betty refers which concludes that children of divorce later have relationship problems. But I am sure that we are all in agreement here that research results while carefully arrived at (let us not fall into the trap of making fun of statistics), this in no way implies that their result is applicable to everyone. There are, and always will be, exceptions, depending on numerous variables (the term that scientists like to use), or as Ann says, "different perspectives."

I have long come to the conclusion (disagree with me on this if you choose) that the participants in Senior Net are in no way representative of Seniors across the nation. We are not "typical." Therefore, it can be inferred that our families were possibly different from "average" Seniors. What we are doing here in Democracy in America is observing and commenting on what is going on in the Democracy in which we live but we observe from a special set of eyes. Our personal experiences which enrich this forum tremendously do not necessarily state what is going on in the world of Seniors across the nation.

Agree? Disagree?

Robby

betty gregory

January 3, 2001 - 03:47 am

Absolutely agree---that the people who post in Books and Lit don't fit the "average."

And I agree, too, that the new longitudinal study's results represent just a starting point. I kept grinning to myself when I listened to the researcher in different interviews, thinking I could hear the grant proposals by the truckload pulling into National Institute of Health, both APAs, etc. Tight university research budgets everywhere just got a boost.

And thanks for reminding me---that averages are just that and include a range of individual results.

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 04:00 am

And while we are examining childhood, how about a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences which speaks out against treating children as "premature adults" and speaks for the value of caring for children who are valuable in and of and for themselves.

They are concerned that American parents have become obsessed with raising smart, successful adults, that they have adoptd the view that children matter not because of they ARE but what they will GROW UP TO BE. Parents want to know how to turn children into smart adults. During the holiday season advertisements galore promoted toys that promised to enhance babies' intllects. The psudo-scientific super-baby industry was in full swing. Educational toys were actually being sold to the parents rather than to the young children.

The Academy emphasizes that developmental scientists don't study children because they want to know what they will be like as grown-ups. They want to understand what they are like now. Science has discovered that even very young babies already know important and abstract things about language and people and objects and that the everyday things parents do with young children, the baby-talk and the peek-a-boo, the kisses and the jokes, are far more subtle and intricate than was previously thought. They are designed to teach babies just the things they need. Even the high-pitched sing-song voice all adults use when talking to babies helps to make the sound structure of languge particularly clear.

Are we cheating our children out of their childhood?

Robby

Ann Alden

January 3, 2001 - 05:53 am

My gosh, I hope not! Last night, my son and I were picking up a pizza and he says to me that he needs some more mind bending toys for his older children. (OLDER=5yrs and 3yrs!! EGAD!!) What are you talking about, say I? Oh, you know, like the ones you and dad have--TinkerToys, Lincoln Logs and Erector Sets! MIND BENDING? say I? Yeah, the ones that make them think! Oh, okay, say I. I bought all these used toys because I needed to supply my new toy shelves in the new family room. And the 5 yr old spent 3 hours the other day working with the TinkerToys, trying to build a space station with gears that worked. He did pretty good with a little help from his engineer Granpa, and just plain smart Grama! I never considered it mind bending!! but what do I know?!! You know you can have all the toys in the world but if you don't join the kids in their play, they are all a waste.

Idris O'Neill

January 3, 2001 - 05:53 am

I think we are cheating them out of childhood. Children are not little adults they live in a world that is all their own but effected by what we do. They should be cherished for who they are.

They see things very differently from what we do. They have a gift we try so hard to squash...they have the gift of imagination. In a way this gift saves them from much sorrow and pain. On the other hand it turns the sorrow around them into horrible things that frighten them.

I will continue to write my little tales of imagination and love and find my child self where i have given birth to a whole new me.

This new years a friend of mine who works in a women's shelter read my tale Pelgrath's Loom to her clients. (The tale is published on Sonata this issue by Mal) There was silence when it was read and my friend thought a level of understanding as the discussion that followed was amazingly good and open. Okay, so i've not written the Great Canadian Novel but if my tale did anything to make these folks understand that they control their own lives once they leave behind the horrors and begin again then i'm delighted. We move on, or we live in the horrors or what i call in my tales, "the darkness of real," forever.

Malryn (Mal)

January 3, 2001 - 06:49 am

I loved your post, Idris. I'm so happy Pelgrath's Loom was read to those women.

As I think about it, my kids had an unusual childhood, but it was a childhood. I've mentioned that we are a rather creative crew. When my kids were small, they made up games. We created musical shows together which we performed in the living room around the piano. We also did a lot of artwork, from painting and drawing to "sculpting". I'll call it sculpting even though we were building chairs and tables for sets, though there was clay sculpting, too. We certainly had a lot of fun.

With their father they went tobogganing and skating and bowling and did all the physical type things I could not do. I'll say one thing. For kids who knew their parents had problems and the divorce that came, we are very, very close, and they are close to their father, too.

Last year at different times, both of my sons and my daughter told me I am their best friend. That is something I'll remember.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

January 3, 2001 - 07:04 am

I forgot to mention my grandchildren. The oldest will soon be 26. She has always been very artistic, and did paintings and drawings to amuse herself at a very early age.

My daughter's son began using a computer when he was very, very small. To amuse himself, he began creating his own computer programs, simple at first and now more complex.

My Florida grandson dearly loves to take things apart and put them back together. He's 9 now. His last big project was to take apart a car engine and reassemble it. Incidentally, he and some of his classmates visit older people in nursing homes once a month.

I think one break my kids had, and the same applies to my grandchildren was that none of them was carted off to half a dozen classes like dancing, swimming, you name it, after school. Nor has any of them been lavished with expensive toys, excluding a computer, which I think is a necessity.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 3, 2001 - 07:22 am

Our neighbourhood had a lot of children who didn't know what to do with themselves. I used to go to the library and pick-up plays for children. It became a great deal of fun for the kids to turn our garage into a stage with seating. The play was always re-written by the children. It would take them a week to get everything ready and learn their lines. We even had refreshments of popcorn and lemonade for sale. This became their way of raising money to pay for the few things they had to purchase like paint. I lost a lot of white sheets that way.

)

As they got older they moved to books, computers and writing. They are both wonderful writers and have been paper published many times. I wish they would find time to edit my stuff.

) The things they learned when they were "playing" became skills they could use later on, such as public speaking, writing, organizing and using their imagination. They also learned co-operation and working to complete a project.

Okay, enough from me.

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 09:14 am

How many of us have seen a child ignore an expensive "educational" toy and instead choose a plain old kitchen pot -- putting it on his/her head as a hat, pounding on it like a drum, filling it with mud to make pies, etc. etc. Comes back to Idris' imagination, doesn't it? Her story, "Pelgrath's Loom," is marvelous. Be sure to click onto Mal's Sonata Magazine and read her story plus all the other great bits of literature there written by Senior Netters.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 09:18 am

On Dateline on TV last night I saw a segment about a legal case coming up in, I believe, Utah regarding a husband who has five wives. The entire group which included over 20 children appeared to be and described themselves as happy. Would you define this polygamous group a "Family?"

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 3, 2001 - 10:17 am

I do not think that we can generalize but I think that each child needs his childhood. If he is removed from it too early then he acts "childish" later. When he has had enough of the "childhood" he will move on, changed by it.

Yes, Robby, Idris, and Mal, I agree that it is possible and may be likely to shortchange a childhood.

Mal, to be considered a friend is the highest compliment one may be paid,

camron

January 3, 2001 - 10:19 am

A study in human nature? If the divorce rate is increasing and the predominate theme appears to be it is better to divorce than to be unhappy and work makes most people unhappy and a successful marriage requires the couple to work at it, and people are all different, no two the same, therefore requiring the work,,, well----- ????

)

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 10:22 am

An interesting use of the term "childish" by Jere - as opposed to "child-like."

When does one stop being a child and become an adult? Do you agree with deTocqueville's remark above beginning with "In America, there is...?"

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 3, 2001 - 10:34 am

Robby

I think it is a family. I think that they are many things about a polygamous family that are good about it. It is just not legal,... etc.

Think about the extended families in Asia where multiple nuclear families live together efficiently and effectively. The aunts, uncles, and grandparents all help out with the parenting and the peer pressure resolves a lot of problems. This removes a lot of the pressure of parenting off of the "working couple" and they can contribute financially to the family support. This provides Society a well balanced member and removes a lot of the problems faced by the American society.

I used an extended Asian family as a example because I am much more familiar with it but examples abound around the world if I remember my Sociology classes and the National Geographic.

Jere in Hawaii

kiwi lady

January 3, 2001 - 10:40 am

In one sense we are, in that children are exposed to violence and adult style relationships on screen and on the Television. At times when children are viewing before bed there are many unsuitable programs. It has got to the stage where many parents have banned TV but others have seen so much of this type of thing themselves they see nothing wrong in allowing children to watch they have become desensitised!

On the other hand educating children in infancy does not rob them of their childhood if it is done balancing learning with play which is also a learning tool.

The other day my three year old granddaughter was sitting in a high chair eating a filled Pita Pocket she looked at the pocket and said. "This is a semi circle" My youngest daughter who was also visiting and at college almost fell off her chair. "How does she know that?" She asked Brooke to describe a circle. Brooke said " A circle has no points it is round" Brooke then went on to describe other mathematical shapes and told us "It is maths" But she also is read fairy stories, I teach her childrens poetry and we do play acting and role playing she has a vivid imagination and is a delight to interact with. She also is taken for bush walks and to the beach and her father rough houses with her. Her mind is like a sponge and she is lucky she has an extended family who are willing to answer her every question. No I do not think by teaching our children early we are robbing them of childhood years ago parents would say when questioned "Go away I am too busy!" like my mother did! I marvel and delight at the ability of my little granddaughter to reason and what a deep thinker she is for a three year old.

Carolyn

Jere Pennell

January 3, 2001 - 10:43 am

Childish is the term many adults use to describe that behavior. I agree that the term child-like would be preferable.

Jere in Hawaii

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 10:50 am

Carolyn suggests "balancing learning with 'play' which is also a learning tool." How and when does one learn how to be a parent?

Robby

kiwi lady

January 3, 2001 - 11:09 am

My kids have learnt to be very good parents because they have made it their business to read voraciously on the subject and also by observing other parents some things they will have learned from us but I am a far better grandparent than I was a parent because I too have made it my business to learn about child development etc. I do have boundaries for behaviour however and my grandchildren know when Granny says NO she means it. They love me and I love them. They know even if I admonish them I still love them. Parenting is learned I think I dont think good parenting is instinctive or is it Robby? Don't great apes learn off other great apes to parent?

Carolyn

Persian

January 3, 2001 - 11:41 am

Good parenting (and grandparenting) never seems to stop and it continually takes a lot of work. Carolyn, I think you're right about taking more time as a grandparent to read and learn about children's behavior as you go along being that great granny. My son and his wife have two children; the eldest is an 8 year old boy who tests off the charts intellectually. As teachers, his parents have concentrated on his intellectual skills, which admittedly are far above his age level. But when I'm around, I also make sure that there is fun. Being highly intelligent is wonderful (but also a great responsibility for the parents), but it's not all there is to life. I want to be sure that my grandson has laughter in his voice and eyes and knows how to have fun, as well as how to manage the world when he becomes 9. I think my son has learned to loosen up a bit, since the last time I talked with my grandson, he asked "Gram, did you really slide UNDER a truck on your sled?" Someone has been telling tales out of school and I know who!

mikecantor

January 3, 2001 - 12:06 pm

To kiwi lady; Ref. your post #783;

"Parenting is learned I think. I dont think good parenting is instinctive or is it Robby? Don't great apes learn off other great apes to parent?" -----Carolyn

In support of your hypothesis concerning learning to be a parent: I recently viewed a TV documentary and problems associated with "rogue" elephants in Africa. This particular group of elephants were constantly so rambunctious in their behavior against farmers and even other animals, that the government was appealed to do something about it, even if it meant destroying all of them.

Some brilliant researcher finally figured out that this particular group of elephants had all been orphaned by having their parents slain. They were, in actuality, an elephantine version of a gang of teen agers lacking any parental supervison. The solution, believe it or not, was to import much older elephants,to mix with the group, particularly those who had been involved in the birthing and raising of younger elephants.

The group then became homogenous and the young "rogue" members much more docile in their behavior, suprisingly accepting their role as normal "teenage" members of the pride.

It appears that your hypothesis is correct...at least for elephants!

Idris O'Neill

January 3, 2001 - 12:16 pm

Learning is part of childhood. It is the time when they are like little sponges. It is up to us to use that time of childhood for them to learn as much as they can before they think it is work. If we do it successfully they think "work" is play for the most part.

I am not a big fan of a TV being left on. It is a horrific thing for the most part. One must be careful and not just let children leave the thing on and get splattered with violence etc.

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 12:19 pm

On a much lighter (figuratively speaking) vein (while we are talking about children and elephants):--

A baby elephant was recently born to Chai in the Seattle zoo. Chai was pregnant for the normal time (22 months) and gave birth to a 235 pound baby. At the zoo, efforts to artifically inseminate the 8,800-pound 21-year old African elephant had failed to produce a pregnancy after six years. So finally nature was given an opportunity. In September, 1998, the zoo loaded Chai on a flatbed truck and sent her to the Dickerson Park Zoo in Springfield, Missouri, where she met Onyx, an 11,000 pound sire.

Female elephants ovulate once every 16 weeks and then have only about a 24-hour window to become pregnant. After the first attempt failed, Chair appeared to enter into depression and lost about 1,000 pounds. But in the second cycle, in January 1999, she became pregnant and quickly regained the weight.

The baby, who was born 4:48 a.m. on November 3, does not yet have a name. The zoo plans to have a contest to name the baby beginning in February. The person who submits the winning name will receive a trip for two to Thailand, where Chai is from.

I have no information as to whether the mother is hunting around for educational toys or whether the happy "little" baby is making mud pies.

Robby

FaithP

January 3, 2001 - 12:39 pm

re: many of the last 30 posts are about the single parent family ,divorce, etc. And Robby ask are we too hard on ourselves. I think yes. And too hard on upcoming young families. The notion of family that exists is mostly a pipe dream anyway. I can walk down any block in America and find 8 different kinds of family structure and I have no idea which is better than the other. Sociologist and demogrophers and psycologists etc will keep turning up studies such as the one Robby posted that started all this. I bet it will be moot in another few years. Especially now that the MORAL issue re: unmarried mothers is old news. Actually I have posted that my experience was it was benificial to my family to be a single parent family .

Malryn (Mal)

January 3, 2001 - 12:54 pm

Hooray for Faith! I was thinking this afternoon that my perspective about families must be quite different from many who post in this forum. Then I realized that for that past 20 years or so, I've been closer to people much younger than I am than to people my own age. Along with that, I have been near many different types of families, most of them happy with thriving, content kids. I won't even venture to guess which family structure is best at this point. It's been a time of change for quite a long time now, and perhaps we should begin to accept that fact.

Mal

kiwi lady

January 3, 2001 - 02:07 pm

I will never be other than convinced that children need 2 participating parents, a mother and a father. I know realistically that is not always possible. I know I longed for a father who cared when I was a child. Most of the solo parents I have come in contact with if they are women generally have terrible trouble controlling their teenage boys, nearly all remark to me that the boys need a male hand in their upbringing and discipline. I did know of one pint sized lady who commanded the utmost respect in her two boys but she has been in the minority from those women I have contact with.

It is the same when a man brings up a daughter. A girl needs a close female role model. Sometimes there is no family close by.

You will never convince me a family was not meant to be headed by two parents a mother and a father and I am not ninety two and I lived in the sixties and seventies as a young woman with all sorts of preconceived notions about this free and wonderful society, over the years as I matured my perceptions changed radically!

I gave away my muslin dresses and leather sandals and cut off my braids! I am wholly unashamed to say I have reverted to old fashioned values!

Carolyn

jeanlock

January 3, 2001 - 03:58 pm

Dolphindi--

Reminds me of the line (Tom Lehrer?) "If they can't communicate, couldn't they at least have the decency to shut up." I agree that the increasing use of what I always call California psychobabble (altho it seems to have spread across the country) has ruined good conversation. We don't tell someone something, we 'share'. Sets my teeth on edge. By moving away from precision in language, we dilute the meaning--especially for unpleasant stuff--and just talk in platitudes.

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 04:10 pm

Please keep in mind that deTocqueville considered the Family a most important entity to examine. He said:--
"I have examined the changes which the equality of conditions produce in the mutual relations of the several members of the community amongst democratic nations, and amongst the Americans in particular. I would now go deeper, and inquire into the closer ties of family. My object here is not to seek for new truths, but to show in what manner facts already known are connected with my subject."

He added: "It may, perhaps, be useful to show how these changes which take place in family relations are closely connected with the social and political revolution which is approaching its consummation under our own eyes."

Please note -- He saw a social and political revolution approaching. And he saw the family as being an important part of this revolution. We are spending a considerable amount of time here examining the Family and I submit that deTocqueville would consider that appropriate.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 05:29 pm

The O'Neills wrote a book in 1972 -- based on their experiences living an open marriage. By this they meant that their personal relationship could be treasured and special even though they shared their lives with others -- married or not. In their view, one person could be better able to meet the other's emotional, social, economic, and sexual needs if they were free to explore these same aspects of life with others. Quickly, Open Marriage came to be known as a "sexually open one."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 3, 2001 - 05:48 pm

It sounds like a totally stupid idea to me, but then that's just my opinion.

mikecantor

January 3, 2001 - 05:57 pm

Robby, hopefully the happy little elephant baby is making mud pies and will continue to do so until someone reminds him that “life”, as he knows it, is really not as good as it might have been. It’s a lot like being poor, only not knowing it, until some unkind soul explains why it is so terrible to be poor!

robert b. iadeluca

January 3, 2001 - 06:42 pm

Mike:--I should have mentioned that the baby elephant is a little girl and it is said that she has her father's eyes.

Robby

kiwi lady

January 3, 2001 - 06:53 pm

Human nature being what it is I dont think deep down an open marriage works. Don't know many humans who are so secure they may not feel jealousy. Like to know what percentage of these open marriages which were very popular in the seventies actually worked.

As for Psychobabble I am heartily in agreement with sorting oneself out even the churches have programs based on self analysis and ridding oneself of baggage. Mind you most people who have problems dont want to see them they just go about destroying themselves and others and sweeping the baggage under the carpet.

I myself have never had such good relationships with others since I got rid of my baggage!

Idris I agree with you!

Carolyn

Jere Pennell

January 3, 2001 - 07:11 pm

Robby Do you know what happened to the O'Neills marriage. Is that a message?

Jere

mikecantor

January 3, 2001 - 07:12 pm

Congratulations Robby!

Somebody finally said something on this website that made me laugh!

Thank you!

Mike

FaithP

January 3, 2001 - 08:13 pm

Well I have been off and on under psychiatric care for most of my adult life and I can babble with the best of them. I personally find that each time a situation would arise that called for the assistance of a M.D. who practiced psychiatry I learned more and within the last few years I have been able to dump out the negative stuff that made me sick, finally,and look at the past trauma with detatchment that is totally different than denial of problems I had. In the beginning I was positive I had a terrible disease and all the Dr.s were missing it and treating my emotions when I was dying. Ha, I bet lots of people have had that experience. So when I can say things now like it was benificial to have a single parent home, it is with hindsite and lots of learning and an understanding of myself and those who raised me. I am notrecommending a particular life style at all.Just commenting. Faith P

Barbara St. Aubrey

January 3, 2001 - 11:37 pm

Seeing the superb Master Piece Theater production of Henry James' "The American" allowed me to see how recently and maybe for many it is still a reality that marriage is nothing more than an economic alliance sans love. Wasn't it the middle ages that first exemplified Love? Well if this Henry James story is based on cultural fact than certainly 50 or so years earlier de Tocqueville as an aristocrat would have been more familiar with arranged marriages and would probably have seen the hoards of average Americans as a group living differently than the peasants of Europe.

Looking at our situations in light of history the majority of us come from families that had little exposure to the aristocratic life and with the many varied cultural differences that marrying for love bring to a family and the many varied cultural differences represented in those nations without a long history of aristocratic power I think it is virtually impossible for us to come up with a proto-type family and homelike. And in fact if you ever do go into one of the newer subdivisions that are usually similar priced homes the neighborhoods are boring without character.

I think what we ought to be celebrating is not how different or not the family or marriage is compared to when Democracy in America was written, but rather how much freedom we have to pursue happiness and the opportunity we have to support an environment that encourages equality so that marriage is not just an economic union binding abuse to forever and a society that cares about developing the emotional, spiritual, economic and physical health within a community of folks represented by families.

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 04:41 am

Jere:--In answer to your question as to "what happened to the O'Neill's marriage" --

The O'Neills divorced in 1975 and wrote a book about the failure of the Open Marriage concept in their case.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 04:49 am

Another alternative form of marriage is Communal Marriage. Communal living arrangements come in a variety of forms. There are no organized group marriages in America -- where the male group "marries" the female group. Almost all communes are heterosexual in nature.

In the 1960s and 70s some "family groups" were formed. These arrangements lasted only a few years and were organized around the drugs and psychedelic music subculture. Also, according to a few of the members of these communal families, things weren't as joyous and wonderful as the media had led us to believe. One woman noted that hepatitis and other diseses were rampant. Fathers often left the group and their children.

Today most communes share in the joined labor and economic efforts of the members. Childcare is shared, each person works outside the group and contributes paychecks to the "family income." Many of these groups have religious orientation as well, ranging from fundamentalist Christians to Bhuddist and Hindu oriented faiths. There are group sings and prayer sessions as well.

Robby

betty gregory

January 4, 2001 - 06:10 am

All the various forms of "family" today look down right conservative when compared to the open-marriage and communal marriage experiments of the 60s and 70s.

I like your thoughts, Barbara. You're having us pull back the camera for a wider shot to look at the overall evolution of partnered relationships. That helps (me, at least) be less critical of the present-day growing pains of marriage, in general. See, I don't disagree that there is a lot of work to be done on how much we GIVE (work-wise) to relationships, but I also like what I see in the overall picture---a movement toward the needs of children and women becoming as important as the needs of men.

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 06:14 am

Betty:--You bring up an interesting thought. Do you (and others here) believe that "family life" is becoming more conservative in its approach? Just as in business many of the younger "anti-business" people ultimately got Masters in Business Administration, do you think the same cycle is happening in the approach to families?

Robby

betty gregory

January 4, 2001 - 06:19 am

My "conservative" in the last post is another person's liberal.

I also added a paragraph after you posted.

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 06:54 am

Many scholars believe that the new roles of women are leading people to abandon the home. Families are experiencing two revolutions:--

1 - A rise in independent living outside the family
2 - A transformation of gender roles inside the family.

A trend toward independent living has been underway for some time, since the 1940s for the elderly and since 1960s for young adults. The new roles of women mean that they too can live independently if they so choose. Economically independent women can avoid a heavy burden of service by remaining remarried.

Another view sees marrige as a more voluntary arrangement that an independent woman can choose if she is able to construct a more equal partnership with a man. Women can marry later and more selectively rather than foregoing marrige for the sake of independence. Men and women can be household partners more as they were before industrialization removed men's work from the home.

The two family revolutions create two possible paths for individuals and society -- new families or no families.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 4, 2001 - 07:17 am

Someone mentioned "old-fashioned values". Well, say, when I was married that cold day in January all those many years ago, what old-fashioned values meant for a woman was essentially "pregnant in the Summer and barefoot in the Winter". For kids it was "don't speak until you're spoken to".

I happen to believe that women and children are people, too, with as many rights for expression and development as men.

I'll tell you one thing, if my husband had given me and my particular talents as much room and nurturing as I gave to his scientific bent and career, we'd be married now.

I like what Robby said about women's having the choice of marrying later or not at all and household partners.
It's high time. In fact, it's way overdue.

Mal

Phyll

January 4, 2001 - 07:25 am

I haven't said anything in this particular discussion on marriage because I guess I entered marriage for such basic reasons that they don't warrant much analysis.

I got married because I fell in love and I wanted to live with the man I fell in love with. As simple as that! And it has never changed!

Malryn (Mal)

January 4, 2001 - 07:37 am

I got married because I fell in love and wanted to live with the man I fell in love with, too.
The sad, hard fact is, it simply did not work out.

Mal

jeanlock

January 4, 2001 - 08:25 am

Omigod!!!!

I wasn't putting down legitimate psychology and psychiatry. It's just the superficial jargon that has come to be known as "California psychobabble"--the use of terms such as, "Let me share this with you", instead of something direct such as "I want to tell you this". There's a whole lexicon of such phrases. I'd never put down legit psych. After all, I've consulted a few in my day, and worked for one great one in my 'youth'.

Barbara St. Aubrey

January 4, 2001 - 08:51 am

I too married for love but something happened on the way to the forum after three children and a rising career - I can't even say I stuck it out for all those years - I could have dropped the marriage anytime I wanted, if I was willing to give up my kids - the church had me believing I would go to hell for getting out - there was no suport from family or friends to get out - at the time I had no college and no means of financing myself nor the ability to do anything full time for myself as I was a "homemaker" that was expected to stay a "Homemaker" - when after 38 years I finally did say "go" the bomb had dropped that things were even much worse than I had ever imagined - thank God I had already been working for seven years with two and half years of college under my belt that opened my eyes to my potential.

So yes I applaud any freedom that allows individuals the ability to escape another's damaging behavior. How someone becomes so controlling and sick (is all I can say charitably) I wish I knew. After these past 12 years I've finally quit spending my valuable time, energy and emotions trying to research and learn how others can become what they do. His behavior sure set an aggenda for me to learn how to take care of myself, how to get past so much trauma, and how to live an emotionally and spritually healthy life.

Malryn (Mal)

January 4, 2001 - 08:57 am

Barbara:

Good for you!

Mal

Jere Pennell

January 4, 2001 - 09:40 am

An interesting trend is developing in Japan and may be in the US. I do not know if it is.

Because of the high cost of housing, more and more young unmarried women are choosing to remain living at home with their parents while working at a job. This provides them with a lot of disposable income. Enough women are doing this that it is changing the shape of business giving rise to boutiques, department stores are increasing the trendy fashion oriented merchandise, etc.

Housing costs are so high that easily half of the income can go to housing.While most of the comments deploring this practice have been economic in nature, I wonder at the effect on the "family." By this I mean the remaining members of their family, delaying marriage, and for the first time in Japan, the rise of the "career" woman who eschews marriage and family for the single life.

Jere

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 09:45 am

Jere:

Thank you very much for letting us know what is happening in Japan. As indicated in the Heading above, we are interested in trends in all Democracies.

The advent of the "career" woman who is eschewing marriage and family must be having a cataclysmic effect on Japan considering traditional family values in that nation. This is intriguing. Please tell us more!!

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 4, 2001 - 09:46 am

Robby

I wonder where one leaves off and the other starts. Are they just different labels for a similar thing?

What path are you leading us down? Where are we headed?

Jere

Texas Songbird

January 4, 2001 - 09:46 am

Barbara -- Amen to Mal's "Good for you!" As another person who has been down that road, I know how difficult it is, especially when your church and the people you care about don't support you and when even a decision you make may be against your own personal morality and values. My parents were divorced and I vowed I would NEVER get a divorce, and I did wait until my youngest was a senior in high school, but getting the divorce was the best thing for me.

I think it's hard for people who haven't been down that road to understand -- like so many personal decisions (whether it's to divorce or to get an abortion or other really personal, hard decisions), no one but you can really know the agony of the decision and how long it takes sometimes (I was married for 10 years after my husband's affair, 10 years of having lost absolutely all trust and faith in the man, but staying because I thought I HAD to and because I was SUPPOSED to. But I lived in agony for 10 years.)

I see postings here and other places on SeniorNet from people who basically say "I was in that position and I didn't take that route," and I say, "Fine. That was your choice. But maybe you weren't in EXACTLY that same position. Who knows what you would have done in EXACTLY the same position with EXACTLY the same set of circumstances."

I've spoken before of my own personal travails of being on workman's comp for 18 months and losing my home and even being on food stamps and the county medical program when I found a lump in my breast when I was at my brokest. I am so thankful that those programs were there for me, and like the vast majority of people who use them, I was able to move on from there to once again become a productive citizen. But when the discussion of welfare comes up, there are always some people who talk about how awful their childhood was or their young married lives and how they didn't need that. And I say, "Fine. I am so glad for you that you were able to survive without that help. But I couldn't have survived without it, and maybe my circumstances weren't EXACTLY like yours."

One of my favorite quotes comes from Garrison Keilor. This is a paraphrase of something he said on Prairie Home Companion several years ago. I tried to write it down exactly as he said it. May I note that he uses the Christian setting, but I believe there is a kernal of truth here for people of all denominations, faiths, or no faith. He said: "In the Christian faith, we expect the kind of forgiveness that we would never give to others -- we want God to cut us some slack, but we never cut that kind of slack to others."

What I try to do in my life is cut other people slack. I try to be understanding of where they've been and what has brought them to where they are. I try to not be critical of the decisions they have made and are making, because who knows -- maybe I would make the same decisions in the same set of circumstances.

We've been discussing families and family settings, and we've talked about our own personal families and values. Can we all cut each other some slack as we continue the discussion?

Jere Pennell

January 4, 2001 - 09:55 am

"The advent of the "career" woman who is eschewing marriage and family must be having a cataclysmic effect on Japan considering traditional family values in that nation. This is intriguing. Please tell us more!!"

I would be happy to but an examination of the effect would lead us into such areas as gender discrimination, gender harrassment, and like topics which may take us off the subject you wish to maintain. Japan is in the 50's to 60's era in the practices in this area.

I defer to your judgement and the wishes of the group.

Jere In Hawaii now but returning to Japan on Saturday.

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 09:57 am

Jere:--To answer your last question first. The Discussion Leader (at least this one) is not leading us anywhere. Senior Net uses the term "leader" but I see myself as a Facilitator. The discussion is "led" by the interactions among all of you. I do use some sort of guidance based upon deTocqueville's remarks in his book, "Democracy in America," and the sections into which his book is divided, but from there on all of you move us forward. In other words, there is no destination -- to use a phrase which I use often and like: "The journey is the joy."

You have a point that those various forms of alternate marriage may, in effect, be the same thing.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 10:02 am

Jere:--

You are correct in that the topics of "marriage" and "gender" are related yet separate subjects. deTocqueville had much to say about gender and, with the permission of participants here, we will hold off a bit on that.

Have a good trip to Japan and please (PLEASE!) continue to post with us from there. Perhaps you have some Japanese friends there who would like to be part of our forum. They would be most welcome!!

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 4, 2001 - 10:09 am

"Who knows what you would have done in EXACTLY the same position with EXACTLY the same set of circumstances."

Texas Songbird

I believe that we all make the best decisions possible for us at a given time and place. Therefore I believe that if I were in your shoes and having walked that mile in them I would have done the same thing.

This is not to say that later on using hindsight I may not agree with my decision but I never look back because what is done is done and we have to live with that decision. Second guessing oneself is not productive.

So you did what you did, and I stand by you and support you for having the courage to do what you thought was right when you did. Please don't listen to others who may tell you differently. They do not know the situation exactly/completely.

Jere

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 10:17 am

Songbird:--In this discussion about families, you introduced the word "forgiveness." Perhaps others here might have some comments on this concept and how it fits into family relationships.

Robby

kiwi lady

January 4, 2001 - 10:30 am

Please do not get the idea that I think a sick marriage where one partner is not willing to get help for problems should be stuck to. I am saying that a good marriage is the ideal way to bring up family. I think it should be compulsory in high school to have a course on life skills. That is: anger management, reasons for drug dependancy etc. Budgeting. Understanding the needs of others within a relationship. How to communicate. I too married for love and we had a rocky road at times in our lives but each of us loved each other enough to sort out problems. Marriage like any relationship is not easy but provided both parties are willing to work things out together it is a splendid institution. My Uncle and Aunt were married 60 years they were as in love the day she died as the day they married. Their recipe for success was respect and consideration for one another. Treating each other as they would like to be treated. Their relationship was an inspiration to all who met them. My parents marriage was not a marriage! I think it was a battle ground! My dad did what he liked and my mum tried to stop him. This does not put me off marriage!

Carolyn

Malryn (Mal)

January 4, 2001 - 10:36 am

I'll stick my neck here and say I don't believe either Texas Songbird, Barbara, Betty or I am against marriage. My point here is, and has been, that there are many different kinds of families not just one, and it seems like a good idea to look at them impartially and without prejudgment. I feel sure that's what de Tocqueville did when he was here in the U.S. 170 years ago.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 10:41 am

Do you folks agree with deT's remark above beginning: "The several members...?"

Robby

Texas Songbird

January 4, 2001 - 11:07 am

Jere -- Thanks for your comments. I THINK (and I emphasize that because who knows what's really going on in my brain!) I was not looking for validation and affirmation, although that's always appreciated, so much as trying to make a point about all of us trying to picture ourselves walking in another's shoes and cutting slack to other people. I brought it up because I have seen too much of people not cutting slack and not trying to be understanding of the other person's view (not so much in this discussion group, but elsewhere. That's why I took a several-week hiatus altogether from SeniorNet and quit posting in some areas.)

Mal -- Absolutely. Heck, if the right guy came along, I'd marry again. (It's just that I'm a lot more picky than I used to be!)

Robby -- I think forgiveness is an important key to a good marriage and a good family life. Being able to say "I'm sorry" ourselves and being able to forgive the other person is essential for the 60-year loving relationship mentioned by Kiwi Lady.

Barbara St. Aubrey

January 4, 2001 - 11:48 am

Some things are beyond my forgivness and all I can do is let their God see to them -

Texas Songbird

January 4, 2001 - 12:16 pm

It just occurred to me that my last two posts are somewhat contradictory. That is, I said forgiveness is key to a good marriage, but I think it is also obvious from what I said earlier that I was unable to forgive my husband for his affair, as much as I tried. I think I have now, some 15 years after our divorce, but I couldn't during the marriage. What can I say? I'm human. Perhaps if we HAD a good marriage otherwise, it would have been possible. I don't know.

kiwi lady

January 4, 2001 - 01:49 pm

Yes to forgive is one of the hardest things we have to do, I find it hard to forgive also but I am getting better at it realising that until I do forgive I harbour bitterness which is coloring my view on life.

I dont know if I have yet forgiven my father for abandoning us. My father has told all his friends and family in Australia he had only one son and daughter he had four daughters and one son. He is a wealthy man but only his son is included in his will. One sister says she is going to contest the will to get a share for all of us but I do not know whether money is the answer it does not absolve the pain of being disowned. I think I have come to terms with my feelings and I do not harbour deep hatred whether this is forgiveness I do not know.

I count my blessings that I have 4 wonderful children and 4 healthy and happy grandchildren I dont think you could ask for more than that. I am cared about and spoilt by these children. I will really miss the twins when they leave for Europe and the UK in May and November. Vanessa has promised to come home every year and email every night. She is my baby daughter and I will have an empty space in my heart when she will be so far away.

I dont care how old a child is to a mother they are always her babies altho my two eldest are climbing the hill to 40 rapidly! I am extremely glad I had children. I never planned for 4 the twins were older children who were adopted after a workmate of mine died of cancer leaving them with no one in their family willing to take them. Now I am very glad I have a larger family and I have as much love for the twins as if I had borne them myself.

I think family is important.

Carolyn

Hats

January 4, 2001 - 02:30 pm

I think we do push children to grow up too fast. In the process, they lose the innocence of childhood. This time can never be regained, especially if it is never experienced.

I think of the Brontes. While children, the two sisters and brother wrote and put on plays. In "Little Women" the sisters put on plays too. Back then, they did not have to worry about t.v. and play stations. They had to use their imagination. This made them become the creative people we know today.

We want our children to be miniature Einsteins. Unknowingly, if not careful, we steal away what can make them be the creative people we want. We steal their playtime, pretend time. If they pretend too much, we take them to a therapist.

HATS

Malryn (Mal)

January 4, 2001 - 03:39 pm

For me, forgiveness is not the solution; acceptance is. Forgiveness implies guilt. Acceptance does not. Accepting a person in whatever relationship it is seems very important to me.

"Okay, you're you. I'm me. We have a problem; let's sit down and try to figure out why what happened that disturbed us came about. Then let's see what we can do about it."

This sort of talk was missing in my marriage because one partner was always "right" and thought the other was always "wrong". Because of this, discussion that might lead to acceptance was not possible.

After a very hurtful crisis for me occurred that brought about a request for a divorce by my husband and the end of our marriage, I began in time to know that this was what and how this person is. I accepted him and me, and a load fell off me.

This also occurred when I was trying to reconcile what my parents did to me when they gave me away when I was a child and when I tried to resolve the treatment of me by the aunt and uncle who raised me and hurt and neglected me in the process. One wonderful afternoon I was talking with one of my sisters about our difficult childhood, and we concluded that "They did the best they could." In other words, my sister and I both accepted the people who more or less raised us when we were children.

I think kids are great, too, but I long ago stopped trying to influence them and how they live their lives. I love them all very much, from my daughter who will be 41 the 15th of this month to my sons; one 45 in February and the other 49 tomorrow, and I know for sure they all love me.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 4, 2001 - 05:27 pm

Several trends suggest that the family itself is becoming less important. Childbearing has dropped a little below the level needed to replace the adult population in the next generation. Divorce has increased, and more couples are choosing to cohabit rather than marry or remarry. More children are growing up in one-parent families and stepfamilies. It is possible that as parents have come to emphasize the independence rather than obedience of children, they have allowed a further reduction in children's contribution to the household.

Robby

betty gregory

January 4, 2001 - 05:41 pm

The whole idea of forgiveness is tricky for me. Freedom for my mother never happened. I've had all these adult years to be involved with helping empower her plus watching how little things have changed. At a certain point, I gave up. Mother is pretty much responsible for her choices.

The abuse that my 3 brothers and sister and I lived through still shows up in our behavior today. All three brothers have such difficulty with extended family relationships. I think they still struggle with what being a man means. When it affects me, I can't help thinking where it comes from.

Some of my own past issues of not feeling safe as a child are coming into my thinking more frequently as my physical (disabled) body loses strength. Thinking about depending on other people physically---that doesn't feel as safe as I'd like. My day to day self feels pretty detached from events in the past, but current experiences with family members is always a reminder how little modeling there was of empathy or trust or open communication. Forgiveness of THAT comes readily.

Persian

January 4, 2001 - 07:07 pm

This forum has truly taken several interesting turns since I last posted here.

JERE - I'd be especially interested in learning more about the changes involving women in Japan. My God Father was Japenese and I am still in touch with his daughters, two of whom live in Japan. Each one has daughters who still live at home. And I have several former women students who are single, pursue interesting careers in business and continue to live at home with their parents in Japan.

I've found several of the other posts regarding marriage/divorce to be extremely thought provoking. Overall, they clarify for me what I've always believed (and tried to live by): "A woman's got to do what a woman's got to do."

FaithP

January 4, 2001 - 07:31 pm

I agree very much with Mal that forgivness is not the answer acceptance is. And when I lived in that subdivision with all those boring neighbors and I was one of them, I did not see that we were all alike. I did not see boring either. We all were busy raising some pretty fine children and doing the things parents did in those years. Of course I must say I had my family before most of you as I have children 59 54 50. So those people are the age of lots of the posters here.

I know it is a saying the mothers always think of their children as theirs,their babies. Now that implies ownership. Something that is/was rampant in the American family. Father owned Mother and the children as in "property". We have spent more than 100 years breaking out of that and even if the whole concept of family has to die it is better than the idea that wife and children are property of the male...

I see what you might call serial monagamy as the basic family right now . Man and Woman alike are free to choose a new mate, restructure the family into a new step family situation. I loved the thing a child of divorce said in some movie I saw. " It will be wonderful when the kids get to keep the house and the parents come and take turns." I loved that. My grandchildren had many extra grandparents who were step but we all were just grandparents to the kids. That can be a good enough situation to bring up children. Better by far than back in the dim beginings of the industrial age when all the children were farmed out to work in mills, mines, and domestic jobs, so that the father wouldnot have the burden of total support of his children past age six or so.

I am excited sometimes to see that the people in their twenties are talking about exactly these things. How to arrange "life" so that the most benifit for the most people can be the aim of the family. The young people I know think the children have a responsibility to the family as do the parents. They are not apt to let the children be as irresponsible as their parents were with them.My grand daughter said about her children.."They need to learn along with the benifits of being parented they are responsible for carring out the rules of the family and they owe the parents some basic things like civility and cooperation." That is new and different than Dr. Spock.

I have just read an article in a Discovery magazine about Adoption and the gene pool. re: adopting outside of your own race and religion and it is another aspect of family..all these families who adopt including same sex partners and how they are creating wonderful families .. Faith

Ann Alden

January 5, 2001 - 03:36 am

IMHO, it seems that if children are loved, then their particular life situation is normal to them. For the most part, children seem pretty flexible. If a life situation is happy then they are. The fact that they are living in a one parent home or have a step-parent might seem normal to them. Its when one has to deal with abuse or watching abuse that the future damage is done.

When my father died(I was 12), my mother looked for her blessings in all of that and went on with her life. She was such a strong example to my brother and I that we got through the sadness and tried to get on with our lives. My parents marriage of 13 years had been a happy one up to that time. They really respected and enjoyed each other and us.

There was much strength in my mother but her aim was to be able to stay home to raise her children. Losing a second husband to an aneurysm four years later, didn't help. Thus, her poor choice of husband #3, an abusive alcholic. She thought that she was strong enough to change him. Instead she became his victim. My younger sister and brother, who were stuck watching that beating down of our mother, still have many problems.

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 04:07 am

So many deeply thought-out and deeply felt postings here! They speak for themselves without my commenting on them.

May I call attention, however, to Faith's introduction of the concept of Families coming into existence through adoption. To my knowledge, we have not addressed that aspect as yet. Any participants here who have first-hand experience with adoption? Any others with opinions on that subject?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 5, 2001 - 06:27 am

The aunt and uncle who raised me adopted me when my mother died. To tell the truth, I resented it, especially since they changed my middle and last name. I might have had less resentment if they had not changed my name and made me different from my brother and sisters.

I have a writer friend who had two children of her own and adopted three children. I believe one child came from Fiji, one from China and the other from Latin America. Maxine is 61 now, and her kids are all grown and doing well. I visited her in California a few years ago at her apple ranch and saw where her children grew up. A wonderful place in the country in Sonoma County. All of them knew their share of working on the ranch, a good, wholesome, healthful life.

Mal

Cathy Foss

January 5, 2001 - 08:34 am

I, as many of us have, would be devastated if we had not been forgiven for a wacky philosphy conjured up in our youth to justify our existance. This is such a complex experience for most of us that we become mute in trying to understand why our progress in self development is always so controversial; however, thank God we resist the censure of our elders and carry on to new insights in our fight for a betterment of life. I forgive my elders for mistakes made out of ignorance BUT do not accept their declaration of infallibility of that so called wisdom.

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 08:56 am

Up until now, the movement of women into paid labor has not been matched by a corresponding movement of men into household work. Unless this changes, research has indicated that many women may choose the "no families" alternative rather than accept an unfair burden of family labor.

In at least one study, husbands did less than half of each task examined, doing the highest percentage of childcare and yard work and the lowest percentage of cleaning and laundry. Women who had experienced one-parent families or stepfamilies were likely to report less sharing by husbands, as were women with more experience of independent living. This was especially because the women relied on husbands less to do the traditional men's chores. On the other hand, men who had experienced one-parent families or stepfamiles were most likely to share tasks in adulthood.

Robby

betty gregory

January 5, 2001 - 09:09 am

It's that "help" word that signals the unequal home maintenance responsibilities. He often "helps" his wife with housework.

Cathy Foss

January 5, 2001 - 09:15 am

Robby - I can't believe how your latest comment touched on a scenario that just, today, took place.

My granddaughter just stopped by on her way to enroll in her second semester classes. She could not locate her mother and came by my house out of that frustration. She needed money to register for second semester classes. I, of course, was happy to write a check and send her on her way. However, there was a worry left with me.

This extremely intelligent girl was currently attached to a guy that is unable to hold a job, unable to succeed in a college setting and unable to make it on his own. It knocks me out. WHAT can she possibly see in him????

I must confess that I gave my granddaughter my emotions on the dilemma as I wrote that check. Did I make a mistake?

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 09:24 am

Cathy:--Another term for "mistake" is "a learning experience."

Robby

Denizen

January 5, 2001 - 10:19 am

You folks are too fast for this slow wit. By the time I think about the topic and have thought of something to say you have moved on. It's wonderful, thought provoking place to lurk though.

I agree with the several postings that said we cannot truly understand without having walked in another's shoes. For example, I have never been a woman trapped in a bad marriage nor was I raised by a single parent. But I have been around for a while and have some thoughts from my perspective.

I only fell in love once, with a 16 year old girl. When she died 50 years later we were still in love. Her death has been the hardest thing ever to accept. I am still not there. On a different message board which I fequented for a time, WidowNet, the accepted term for non-widowed persons is DGI (doesn't get it). How could anyone who has not gone through the sudden loss of a life partner be expected to "get it". (It's always sudden, if when it was lingering).

Parenting is a hard job even with two heads working on it. I don't know if two are enough, you know, the "village" thing. One of my grandchildren was raised by a single parent and is now a troubled 18 year old with a troubled grandfather wishing he knew how to help. I do think that having only me as a male figure was inadequate.

We raised 4 daughters and I have given away seven times. 3 of the first round of marriages didn't work. I often thought that "a good man nowadays is hard to find". (Who said that? Mae West?). It led me to understand that the male role in our society is not an easy one either. I have been greatly pleased by the improvement in the opportunities for women in these last years. I think the term "liberation" is a good one. But the difficulties of men are not a matter of freedom from constraints and taboos. I think that the list of requirements for a "good man" (prospective son-in-law) is just too much for many males to fulfill.

He must be strong but gentle. He must be able to earn enough to support a family when the wife is unable to work. We now accept that wives will contribute to the family income but most families expect that will not be life long. He should be it least equal to the woman intellectually, be able to fix things that break and do the heavy lifting.

Should we be surprised that many do not measure up? My heart goes out to those that cannot and to the women who pinned their hopes on them.

My daughters have been fortunate they have all found good men now and old dad is relieved of his reponsibilities for fixiing toilets etc. in so many houses. But two of the ex-sons-in-law never have been able to put their lives together. I have lost contact with the third one.

I don't have answers for the difficulties of so many American families. I do think that perhaps our happily-ever-after expectations may be unrealistic for the isolated two-parent nuclear family. Many couples need help and perhaps a more integrated extended family could provide that help.

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 10:41 am

"The male role in our society is not an easy one either. I have been greatly pleased by the improvement in the opportunities for women in these last years. I think the term "liberation" is a good one. But the difficulties of men are not a matter of freedom from constraints and taboos. I think that the list of requirements for a "good man" (prospective son-in-law) is just too much for many males to fulfill.
"He must be strong but gentle. He must be able to earn enough to support a family when the wife is unable to work. We now accept that wives will contribute to the family income but most families expect that will not be life long. He should be at least equal to the woman intellectually, be able to fix things that break and do the heavy lifting.

"Should we be surprised that many do not measure up? My heart goes out to those that cannot and to the women who pinned their hopes on them."

Any reactions to these remarks by Denizen?

Robby

ALF

January 5, 2001 - 10:49 am

When visiting NY during the holidays my SI L and I sat contemplating the woes of parenthood and fractured families. He cried talking about my daughter not being raised with a strong, male influence. He cried for her!! Is this no wonder that their marriage is so strong and secure?

Malryn (Mal)

January 5, 2001 - 10:52 am

I agree completely with Denizen. In an earlier post I mentioned that I never fully realized how tough life is on men until I went out to find a job that would pay me enough to pay the mortgage on my trailer, pay for doctors and medicine my son's condition required and still have enough for food and support my very sick son Rob and myself. It is idealistic to think men can be all that Denizen mentioned, just as it is idealistic to think women can fulfill all that is presently demanded of them. After all, we are human beings with all the foibles, faults and goodness that implies. And yes, we have idealized marriage, families, and numerous other things in the United States.

It's time to grow up and face some reality, I do believe. That demands what I called acceptance in an earlier post.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 11:07 am

Does any of this relate to deT's remark above about "adolescence?"

Robby

ALF

January 5, 2001 - 11:09 am

OOps, sorry Robby, no. I just responded to what Denizen had said.

Idris O'Neill

January 5, 2001 - 11:16 am

Adolescense is is a very long thing these days. They must live at home and attend school. It takes forever to become a person able to take on the things of adulthood. No wonder they are often feeling miserable. They don't have a purpose that makes them feel adult for a long time. They play at adulthood and often that leads to trouble they can't handle.

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 11:17 am

Andy:--I realize that. I was asking if anyone here saw any connection between what deTocqueville said about adolescence and what Denizen said about the responsibilities of men.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 5, 2001 - 11:34 am

The kind of idealism that says a man can be all Denizen mentioned and a woman who can meet all the demands of marriage, children and a successful career at the same time is adolescent thinking, in my opinion. de Tocqueville says there is little or no adolescence in this country. If this is true, then adolescence is prolonged into years of adulthood way beyond what it should be simply because it has been ignored or delayed.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 5, 2001 - 11:36 am

That was what i was trying to say, Mal. Thanks.

)

Phyll

January 5, 2001 - 11:58 am

Isn't Toqueville writing about adolescence in America as it was 170 years ago? I would think that at that time the male members of the family would have gone into adult employment in order to help support the family and therefore, really did not have an adolescent stage. Also, education rarely (for the common man) extended beyond the primary grades. As late as the early 1900's my own father, being the oldest son, left school after the 6th grade in order to help augment his father's grocery clerk income that supported a wife and seven additional siblings. If I could ask him I suspect he would tell me that he didn't have an adolescence such as we are talking about.

That is not the norm in today's American family, is it? I agree with some of the earlier posts that we over organize our children now but that really isn't the same as requiring them to assume a "man's" job in order to help feed and clothe a family, is it?

Dolphindli

January 5, 2001 - 12:07 pm

I liked what Denizen said

"He must be strong but gentle. He must be able to earn enough to support a family when the wife is unable to work. We now accept that wives will contribute to the family income but most families expect that will not be life long. He should be it least equal to the woman intellectually, be able to fix things that break and do the heavy lifting."

However, why is that too much to expect. Or maybe women should take the attitude: "if we don't expect we are not disappointed!"

Why is it wrong to expect a male to strong, yet gentle? Woman are. And there are many women who have supported famills, not just while the spouse has been unable to work, but because there is no spouse.

If a woman marries, just as when a man marries, there are certain things that should be expected. I have always felt that a good definition for love is the difference between having to take out the garbage - and - wanting to take out the garbage.

As far as fixing things, I have fixed more running toilets; my car's carburetor with my hair brush; not to mention pulling Christmas trees up three flights of stairs and carrying groceries is a whole 'nuther subject. How about carrying babies. How many men have had to take several small children to a grocery store; carrying groceries and the babies.

I do believe that men's role in present day society is changing and I believe that change is due to the "modern day mother's" who are insisting that their young boys do the right things, which includes doing dishes, laundry, etc., and be respectful of women. In the words, to be a man!

A woman is expected to work an eight hour day; pay for a sitter; pick up the kids after work; prepare full meals; transport to and from hockey games; ballet; baseball, etc. We must also teach the manners; help with the homework and do the PTA stuff. And weekends are for full house chores while the guy has stated that his foursome is waiting for him. If there is a leak in the roof - should a woman be able to expect him to fix it or find the solution? Of course. It is not that she cannot find the solution, but society defines that as "his job" or if you will, his contribution.

Yes, there was a time when men were the financial support of their families and the woman's role was equally important as a homemaker. I believe that homemakers are the backbone of the nation. And although women have returned to the work force en masse - (remember Rosie the Riviter?) they still are the backbone of the nation.

From reading Denizen's letter it's appears he had no problem being the man that any woman would "expect" to come into her life. My hat is off to you sir.

Dolphindli

Idris O'Neill

January 5, 2001 - 12:09 pm

In America, there is, strictly speaking, no adolescence; at the close of boyhood, the man appears." (P229, Influence of Democracy on the Family.)

In America today a boy goes from childhood to adolescence and then gets stuck there until they complete their schooling. That can be a very long time nowadays. If they can live on their own at university that helps to make them feel adult, but some can't afford to do that.

If they do not have those things which allow them to feel adult in some way, such as responcibilities within a family business or something akin to that, i think they are unhappy.

kiwi lady

January 5, 2001 - 12:24 pm

Yes we adopted twins aged 7 when their single parent died of cancer. She was a work colleague of both my sister and myself. My sister was the legal guardian of the children but she had decided to put the boy in boarding school and she was not coping with the 7 yr old girl never having raised children to that age. Her children were toddlers. After discussion we took them. It was a hard two or so years and in fact my daughter told me that subconsciously until recently she had never let me be her mother. Until she was 13 she thought we had all been lying to her and her mother would come back and get her. This shows that we cannot see inside kids heads.

I love my two adopted children very much and they have brought much happiness to our family. My two natural children after initial resentment tell me they are very glad we have a larger than normal family and my adopted son said he would like four children. Our family gatherings are fun and its great to see the toddlers together.

It is not easy adopting older children and you must have patience. I will never regret our decision. I wrote a poem for my daughter when she was at her most insecure called "Child of my heart" she wept when she read it.

The only regret is that my husband did not live to see the close bond my children have with each other now they are parents. They never squabble and they are really close to all the babies in the family. I am very content as a mother.

Carolyn

jeanlock

January 5, 2001 - 01:16 pm

I'm not sure if this fits into the current discussion of 'families', but my experience has been greatly different from many of the experiences I've read here.

I married a returning vet of WWII, who had deserted from the Anzio beachhead and through some sort of arrangement with the Army, after being convicted of being AWOL, was immediately re-sent back overseas where he was part of a group to be parachuted into Norway to liberate that country. However, the liberation came first so he got some easy duty before coming home.

He cheated on me almost from the beginning, and I was too trusting and dense to realize it. It took me 15 years and 5 kids before it really sank in and I initiated a legal separation only because my lawyer said I could not even get child support without some sort of legal action. (1960)

At that time, there was still quite a stigma attached to divorce, and consequently there weren't many divorces among the people I knew. I had no idea of what was the proper way to be single again, how to go about dating, etc. The only thing I WAS sure of was that he would quite soon stop the child support and I'd better be able to support those 5 hungry mouths and maintain some sort of the 'life style' I had always had. The next 6 years were hell on earth psychologically for me. I was trying to be a computer programmer (a brand new field for the world and for me) and constantly taking classes where I didn't understand one darn word, and then had to take a test. Somehow I hung on, and managed to survive although there was never a day that I wasn't scared absolutely to death that I'd lose my job and be unable to get another. Meanwhile, my accident-prone kids continued on their merry ways, and banded together to solve all of the little problems I never heard about til they were grown. Finally, I put my money where my mouth was, and joined a computer-dating service. The 3d man I met turned out to be the husband and father for my kids that I'd always sought. We had 9 wonderful years until he died in 1976.

All of this to make 2 points:

1. My kids grew up being interdependent, and --for the most part-- remain so today. All for one, and one for all. There is a strong sense of family, and even the older ones who were 'liberated' by the time I met Bob still remember him and talk about his influence. There may be some sort of inter-family feud between various siblings from time to time, but in any sort of crisis for one of them, or for me, they rally round like troupers.

2. I had a chance to find out what normal family life could be. Bob and I existed on a fairly co-equal basis. He was never jealous of any success I enjoyed--feeling, I guess, that it reflected well on him. And I found someone who knew just about everything I was curious about and whom I could look up to.

The most lasting effect I see in my kids that resulted from the chaotic life they led as youngsters is that they tend to plant themselves somewhere and stay. They don't want to travel; don't move from one place to another, etc. It's their security blanket, I guess.

If this wasn't appropriate, just delete it. I won't mind. But it IS one family's experience in 'modern' America.

jeanlock

January 5, 2001 - 01:31 pm

Back to "Democracy in America -- 2001-style"

Was very pleased to see Trent Lott and Tom Daschle announcing the arrangement for 'power sharing' in the 50/50 Senate. After hearing for a couple of weeks that 50/50 or no, the Senate was actually 51/50 and the majority party could prevail if necessary. But the arrangement they have come to about handling the introduction of bills, etc. shows that we can still work 'democratically' to solve our procedural problems. It seems clear, however, that the Repubs aren't completely pleased about being more or less forced to such an arrangement.

Jere Pennell

January 5, 2001 - 02:07 pm

Reading the posts and the problems reminds me that 170 years ago the US was not as industrialised as it is now. With the perspective of having lived in three countries, US, Japan, and Canada, yes Idris I am guilty of moving away, I find that industrialization brings its influence on the family for better and worse.

The US is having its problems with the family and society and Japan is getting to be the same way and is begining to experience the same kind of problems. Other more agricultural countries, No Idris, I did not have Canada in mind, do not seem to have the same problems.

Making a living is getting a job in an industrialized country but it could be working hard on the ranch or farm or "hiring out" vocational training with room and board for labor in a less indutrialized society, could it not? Then the learning situation is different. I do not mean there are no problems in an agraian society but they are different are they not?

For example, My wife works and I am retired and work as the house person. She cooks and does the budget, and I do the rest. This would not have been possible if my Mother had not made her three sons cook, clean, make the beds, do the laundry etc. as they were growing up.

It was a blessing when I went off to college and lived alone. I can definitely echo someone who said there is a difference between taking out the garbage and wanting to take out the garbage. When I "turned my head around" and did these things for my wife instead because I had to then Life was much more pleasant and enjoyable. Besides there is quite a kick from talking "shop" with housewives as to the best/easiest way to clean this or do that around the house in Hawaii.

It can't be done in Japan because men do not do housework in Japan and so women will not tell me where is the best place to shop , get the cleaning done, which cleaner is best for which. I have to have my wife talk to them and then have her tell me. Interesting eh?

Jere who is in Hawaii and is leaving for Japan tomorrow on the "red eye" special.

EloElose De Pelteau

January 5, 2001 - 04:45 pm

Jere - You are a brave man to go against the current in Japan. I think that Japan "wants" to be a democracy but it is still holding on to some of their ancient way of life. Its strange to see some countries trying to imitate America, but still hang on to their most traditional beliefs in religion and family values that America does not have. I notice in France that there is still a tangible class system that is impossible to break through. It might not be a monarchy, but it has the trappings of one in some areas.

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 04:57 pm

Jere:--Thank you for sharing those approaches to Family life in Japan. That helps us to realize that there are different kinds of Democracies. In one of deTocqueville's quotes above, he talks about "laws and especially manners."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 05:28 pm

I have thought carefully about introducing the following item into our discussion about Families and came to two conclusions:--

1 - The participants in this forum have been most courteous and considerate in past postings and there is no reason to believe that anyone is going to change now
2 - If we are going to thoroughly cover the topic of Families in Democracies, then the following can not be left out. It exists.

One in five homosexual men and one in three homosexual women enter into a gay marriage relationship, sometimes with complete exchanges of marriage vows with a clergyman present. Among many homosexual males and females, long term relationships are often as stable and committed as heterosexual ones.

You may or may not see such a relationship as a "family." Your opinion is invited. If you find it difficult to approach this topic unemotionally, you may want to lurk for a short period of time until we move onto discussing another type of family. Thank you for helping us to continue our ongoing serious discussion.

Robby

tigerliley

January 5, 2001 - 05:44 pm

This is my heartfelt wish....That every gay person has love and feeling of family no matter in what way it is structured..........

Idris O'Neill

January 5, 2001 - 06:08 pm

A person is a person.

robert b. iadeluca

January 5, 2001 - 06:26 pm

Vermont's new commissioner of education has been carrying a message of respect for diversity to the schools of the state. In October, he delivered the keynote address at a school convention. He said that humans are members of one big family, and asked: "Since we are all related to each other as brothers and sisters, don'tyou think we could be less prejudiced, more understanding, and less biased in our treatment of each other?"

Said Governor Howard Dean: "Diversity is the future of this country, and it's very important that we all learn how to walk in someone's else's shoes." Vermont's civil-unions law affords the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 5, 2001 - 07:41 pm

If children are to raised in a loving, nurturing environment I see no reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt them.

Mal

Persian

January 5, 2001 - 08:14 pm

Many of my former university colleagues and some friends make up same-sex families. I've known these people for many years, through the dating phase of their relationships, the falling in love aspect, the commitment, the telling their parents, the official wedding ceremonies and now, delightfully, becoming parents.

I have worked with homosexual men and women throughout most of my professional life. The daily, ordinary personality traits found in individual heterosexual men and women are present in my gay friends and colleagues, too. They just have to deal with an extra "burden" if they are in a conservative environment or less of one if they are in a more liberal environment. (Same sex relationships may be taken more for granted in the academic community that I grew up in, rather than in other professions, so I can only speak for my own experiences here.)

In the USA and abroad, I've witnessed wonderful examples of love and affection between same sex couples; commitment and dedication to making a good couple relationship work; professional encouragement and support for each other; emotional compassion and understanding when needed; caring and concern when parents or beloved siblings or friends are ill or die; joy at professional recognition or promotions. And also sometimes the arguments and marital fights that are common in any relationship. I've enjoyed wonderful professional relationships with gay and lesbian colleagues, individuals who work enormously hard, take great pride in their endeavors and are excellent team members. Those who are teachers bring a creativity to the classroom that is exciting!

I've also counseled with young homosexual men and women abroad, who do not have the advantage of knowing as much about homosexuality as is common in American culture. They experience great confusion and fear wondering why they "feel that way" and "not like others." Several of my students in China were gay and felt enormously unhappy at the thought that parents would force them into heterosexual marriage. One young man told me "you are the only person I have ever discussed my feelings with and only because you mentioned homosexuality in our American Culture class."

I've talked with young Middle Eastern women who had lesbian tendencies (as did their mothers, aunts and cousins who could not freely discuss their feelings, but were forced to marry in the traditional way and "get on with life" in a heavily patriarchal society), but struggled very hard to cover up their real feelings. The freedom in the USA to "be what you want to be" is not available in many countries. And that's sad.

FaithP

January 5, 2001 - 10:25 pm

There is every reason in the world for people who have same sex partners as mates or consorts or married, to add children to the family when and if they want to. Some people who have come to their choices later in life, after having natural children have been very good parents and step parents to their natural children. An adopted child could only add love and family sturcture to the arrangement.

I would not base my approval of a couple on sexual orientation at all. I would look at stability, civility, ethics and loving intentions, and the maturity and competence to maintain a family. And that would be the criteria for all parents wanting to adopt, regardless of the sex of the parents. Faith

jambo

January 5, 2001 - 10:47 pm

I read with pleasure the support offered by others to homosexual relationships. And I would like to add my voice to their affirmation. We offer the world an oppurtunity to witness people of diverse nations and backgrounds living together and the hope that such an endeavor is feasible. Our community is strengthened by its acceptance of diversity and although human beings have difficulty in accepting others who are different, I hope we can accept that to do so is essential to our survival. We do not harm our community by including in it people who make a commitment to caring for each other and for children as well. I do not know how to relate these views to de Tocqueville's book because I haven't read it, or even to democracy, but in a simplistic way democracy seems to me to rest on every member of a commnity sharing in its government and enjoying the priviledge of governing themselves. The members of a community will develop policies to protect theeemselves from harm. There is no evidence that I know of to support the view that sexual choice has brought harm to anyone.

from jambo

jambo

January 5, 2001 - 10:48 pm

I read with pleasure the support offered by others to homosexual relationships. And I would like to add my voice to their affirmation. We offer the world an oppurtunity to witness people of diverse nations and backgrounds living together and the hope that such an endeavor is feasible. Our community is strengthened by its acceptance of diversity and although human beings have difficulty in accepting others who are different, I hope we can accept that to do so is essential to our survival. We do not harm our community by including in it people who make a commitment to caring for each other and for children as well. I do not know how to relate these views to de Tocqueville's book because I haven't read it, or even to democracy, but in a simplistic way democracy seems to me to rest on every member of a commnity sharing in its government and enjoying the priviledge of governing themselves. The members of a community will develop policies to protect theeemselves from harm. There is no evidence that I know of to support the view that sexual choice has brought harm to anyone.

from jambo

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 04:57 am

Jambo:--Welcome to our Discussion Group!! And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. You may find it an advantage to pick up a paperback version of deTocqueville's book (less than $7) which will help you to move along with us as we discuss the topics which were of such importance to deT. In the meantime, his quotes above are periodically changed according to the topics we are discussing.

I assume you have clicked onto the "Subscribe" button at the bottom.

Robby

rambler

January 6, 2001 - 05:43 am

This is off-topic, so I will be brief. Read this in this morning's paper: "When they study our civilization 2,000 years from now, America (meaning the U.S. here) will be known for three things: the Constitution, baseball, and jazz".

In place of baseball, I would put two things: medical and technological advances, and the despoiling of the environment. (That last makes me wonder if there will be anyone around 2,000 years from now, except perhaps cockroaches and the like.)

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 06:07 am

A family involving homosexuality does not always mean a relationship between two gay individuals. It can mean straight parents with gay children. Many teenagers still attempt suicide and/or are thrown out into the streets because of their sexual orientation. Many adult children remain estranged from their families with no real hope of reconciliation. Many of their parents react, not because they don't love their children, but out of shame and embarrassment.

While it's many parents' nightmare that their children will be gay or lesbian, there are parents who choose to support and try to understand. PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is a national organization dedicated to supporting and understanding loved ones in the gay community.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 6, 2001 - 06:30 am

The daughter of very close friends of my family is a lesbian. I have known this young woman since she was ten years old when my family and our friends lived near Katonah, New York. She was my daughter's best friend and is my grandson's godmother. Her family has been very supportive and accepts their daughter's lesbianism without question. At the moment this young woman is working toward a Ph.D. degree at a university in California.

We have other gay and lesbian friends and lost a dear friend to AIDS just a few years ago. Our friends are fortunate because their families did not feel shocked or embarrassed by their homosexuality and lesbianism. As Idris said, a person is a person, and, as I believe, acceptance is extremely important in all relationships, be they parents and children, partners in marriage, or friendships.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 06:34 am

My experience with gay and lesbian people has been limited. I know only three and none of them that well. They seemed like nice people and were welcome in my home. If they hadn't been nice people i wouldn't have cared what they were, i just would not have invited them to my home.

I have know others through our business and they seemed pretty normal to me.

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 06:47 am

Families are made up of individuals. As we look around at families we know, sometimes we find individuals in those families that we like and sometimes find individuals in those families that we don't like. What deTocqueville was observing was the "effect of Democracy on the Family" and he inquired into the "closer ties of the family."

We, also, are examining the difference between families in a Democracy and families in autocratic nations -- whether the family is comprised of heterosexuals, homosexuals, married, co-habiting, single mothers, single fathers, two parents, six children, no children, working outside the home or not, or whatever combination you can think of so long as you consider the structure a family.

Just as we have been asking What is Democracy, so we can now ask What is a Family? -- and specifically, does a Family in a Democracy operate differently from a Family in an autocratic nation?

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 6, 2001 - 09:38 am

In this discussion, I would urge the careful use of the word "approval" versus "acceptance" as most of the Gay couples I know express indifference to to whether their relationship meets my approval but would like me to accept them. This is not to criticise anyone but as a English teacher cautioning that there is a difference between the two words and hoping that when we use approval that it is deliberate and not carelessly used. Our exchange of ideas here are all done through the printed word and we need to be careful of our choice of words

Jere the lurker

tigerliley

January 6, 2001 - 09:56 am

I would be very surprised if all of you posting here did not have gay members in your family...Perhaps not immediate family but close in your family....You may not be aware of it.......

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 10:36 am

There are only four of us, Tigerliley.

Cathy Foss

January 6, 2001 - 10:50 am

I have spent a bit of time assessing families that are known to me in a significant way. I feel there are many of our families in our so called democratic society that are not democratic but autocratic in nature.

It would be interesting to know how many families in our present culture could be called "healthy". The word "dysfunctional" is used frequently to describe present family status in many of our newscasts and cultural studies. I have had the statement made to me, frequently, that all families are dysfuctional. If so, what is the definition of dysfuctional families in America?

Jonathan

January 6, 2001 - 11:27 am

From my newspaper the other day:

' "Want to get a quick take on how your city or region is faring in the all-out competition for talent?" asks Fast Company magazine. "Start by determining the percentage of gays that are in your population. The 'gay index' is the leading predictor of a city's ability to attract and retain knowledge workers, claims Richard Florida, founder and director of the Software Industry Center at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University and professor of regional economid development. ...[A]gay population is a dependable indicator of the environmental factors - tolerance, openness to diversity, and lots of urban-oriented amenities - that are critical for attracting world-class workers."

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 11:50 am

An interesting point brought up by Cathy -- A family can exist in a Democratic society and yet not itself be conducted in a democratic way. Does living in a nation which is a Democracy help us to learn democratic principles and then to practice them within the family unit?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 12:53 pm

Another aspect of Family Life today is one that is so close to us that we may not have thought of it consciously. Families are having fewer children but they're more likely to include Seniors thesd days, a result of longer life expectancies. Is "getting grayer" a part of your family or of families that you know?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 12:57 pm

Is a family a democracy? No. When children are little it is a benevolent dictatorship.

) When they get old enough to hand some freedom and responcibility it becomes more democratic. By the time they leave home it is more like a democracy.

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 01:00 pm

How about the relationship between the father and mother after the children have left? Equal votes or is there a problem with chads?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 01:02 pm

Equal votes. We share everything good and bad.

)

EloElose De Pelteau

January 6, 2001 - 03:25 pm

In Quebec, since last year, schools admitted tots as early as three. That leaves mothers free to get a job since the child can stay there until 6 pm. I am sure that the welfare system profits from that and also the family budget. My personal opinion is that a child of 3 to 5 still needs a lot of mothering, the right loving kind and day care workers cannot give the same TLC as mothers can.

A very young single mother and her child does not constitute an average example of what generally understood is a family. Since statistics prove that one in two mariages fail, and children are often split down the middle as to who's example he/she should follow it is no wonder that children just don't know what is right and wrong. Father and step-mom, or mother and step-dad. Most often it is single mother, step-mom and dad. That child goes often from one place to the other and he/she is too young to really know what is in his best interest for his/her future. The children are confused and think they can run their own lives according to what message the TV sends.

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 04:00 pm

Eloise uses the term "what is generally understood to be a family." There was a time when my wife and I with two children constituted a family. Everyone lived together under the same roof. Rent or mortgage was paid, utilities were paid -- there were interactions within the same domicile and, although there were friends and neighbors "out there," there was a certain element of privacy "within" separating us from the outside world. We were a family. A unit unto ourselves.

Now I live with one dog and one cat. I pay a mortage, pay utilities and the three of us interact. I have friends and neighbors "out there" and the privacy of the three of us "within."

Am "I" a family?

Robby

Barbara St. Aubrey

January 6, 2001 - 04:01 pm

I have considered this question of gays so passé I couldn't think of a thing to add until I realized I have one problem and that is those gays referred to as "flaming" in positions as role models in youth organizations. But I have no probem with the typical gay as a role model active in youth organizations. I do not quite understand the problem service men have with gays - something about close living - I could be wrong but that says that if they ar close to a woman all they can think about is sex and therefore the are interpreting a gay mans mind to only be on sex.

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 04:21 pm

If all that holds a family together is sex then they are not really a family.

Robby, i don't think so but if a family can be whatever you want it to be then i guess it is. I'm confused at this point. Many older people (me included) see pets as part of the family. They say people with pets live longer and are happier too.

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 04:22 pm

Gee Barbara there are a lot of Canadian authors and stars that are gay and have had the same partner for over 20 years. Seems to me the relationship they have goes way beyond sex.

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 04:24 pm

Eloise uses the term "what is generally understood to be a family." There was a time when my wife and I with two children constituted a family. Everyone lived together under the same roof. Rent or mortgage was paid, utilities were paid -- there were interactions within the same domicile and, although there were friends and neighbors "out there," there was a certain element of privacy "within" separating us from the outside world. We were a family. A unit unto ourselves.

Now I live with one dog and one cat. I pay a mortage, pay utilities and the three of us interact. I have friends and neighbors "out there" and the privacy of the three of us "within."

Am "I" a family?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 04:29 pm

You hiccuped Robby.

)

Malryn (Mal)

January 6, 2001 - 05:19 pm

I lived with a husband and three children in a great big 10 room house at one time. Now I live with one little black cat in a one room apartment with my daughter as my neighbor. Are my cat and I a family? You bet your life we are.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 06:14 pm

How does living in a Democracy affect families? In an earlier posting, I asked about siblings. As deTocqueville observed this relationship, he said: "Democracy binds brothers to each other. The affectionate and frank intimacy of early years easily springs up between them. Brotherhood brings them daily together without embarrassing them. It is by common associations and by the free sympathy of opinion and of taste that Democracy unites brothers to each other."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 06:18 pm

So what happened to sibling rivalry????

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 06:21 pm

Idris:--deT was of course comparing families in Democracies to families in Aristocracies which was familiar to him. Perhaps he meant that there was no rivalry in aristocracies because everything (inheritance, etc) was laid out according to law and custom.

Robby

Persian

January 6, 2001 - 06:26 pm

Jere - going back a few posts, I think you make an important point about the use of the words "acceptance" and "approval" in discussing our feelings about homosexuality. Point well taken.

Robby - as the cultural aspects of the population in the USA continues to change dramatically and numerous families relocate from traditional societies, I think the autocracy within those families (especially the ones from strongly patriarchal cultures) will be more visible. "Coming to America" is a dream fulfilled for many and a nightmare for others, who once they are here, must learn to understand (if not actually accept) what Americans consider freedom of choice and speech. So certainly there is autocracy in the family, while living in a democracy. And unfortunately, they often do not work well together.

robert b. iadeluca

January 6, 2001 - 06:29 pm

"Autocracy in the family while living in a democracy." Sounds like a difficult conflict to overcome. And do we also have "aristocracy in families" who have lived in democracies for years?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 06:31 pm

Well i always think to myself that some folks may not approve of the way i live. We each have our own way of dealing with life. As for acceptance, what is not to accept they are there and they are human.

Malryn (Mal)

January 6, 2001 - 07:26 pm

We are here, and we are human.

Idris O'Neill

January 6, 2001 - 07:35 pm

Exactly Mal. We start dividing up the human race into groups of human and not so and we are in for big trouble.

FaithP

January 6, 2001 - 09:31 pm

Idealistic thinking and I wish it were true that people did not divide up the humans on this planet into human and less than human ..but we do and it is so hard not to. As to what de T was comparing these "brothers" who had such close companionship to, I wonder. I don't know enough about his French family background except in a general way. Did he mean it in the sense that all men are brothers when raised in a democracy?

I think the average American family, at least second and third generation families, in the past were not democratic but they were patriarchial. The nature of a Judeo-Christian population, who were the first settlers and people who became those first American families were patriarchal and stayed so at the time de T visit. As more diversified families with other family politics arrived the whole population change.

We now are really a polygot of family styles. I imagine the politics of an Oriental family are quite different and so are the mid-eastern families yet upon emmigrating and becoming American they gradually change along with the whole population. I don't think democracy can describe a family. It has to be a Benevolent Dictatorship and then as the children reach maturity they bring about a revolution of sorts within the family.

It is a great blessing when the "Dictatorship is abdicated willingly and a new form of family take its place as the family ages and gains maturity and responsibility. To my mind it is difficult to discuss this process, but we did live it to a certain degree in our home. And when Father became frail and ill, my Son assumed a totally new role dealing with Father. Now that I am becoming "elderly" in the my kids eyes I notice the relationship is subtly changing. I presume for the better, at least the benifits are mine. So of course in lots of families Robby there are included the old, middle age and young with children. We don't live in the same house or on the same plot of land but we remain Family. Fp

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 12:06 am

Faith says that "in lots of families there are included the old, middle-aged, and young with children."This concept naturally leads us to the topic of family caregiving.

Family caregiving has emerged as a public issue due to an increased number of persons who are living to be older and experience extended periods of chronic disability. Hence, the dependency needs of older persons today have shifted from the primarily economic to the physical. The physical dependence of the elderly has remained a private problem to be confronted largely by family members who serve as caregivers.

Caregivers must deal with issues of memory loss in addition to limitations of physical functioning. The number of people with Alzheimer's disease is expected to grow precipitously in coming years. An overwhelming risk factor of the disease is age, and those over the age of 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the adult population. Currently, Alzheimer's disease is estimated to affect about five percent of the populaton 65 and older and the prevalent estimates for persons 85 and older range from 20% to 47%.

As you observe your own family and families of your friends, what impact are the elderly having on these families?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 01:02 am

Since 1965, the Older Americans Act has provided important services to older Americans including meals, transportation, legal services, information and assistance, employment and volunteer opportunities, health promotion, and protection from abuse in institutions and in the community.

Anyone here who has benefited from this Act?

Robby

Ann Alden

January 7, 2001 - 05:01 am

Ourfamilybenefitted from the "Meals-On-Wheels" for several years when my mother was aging and unable to cook disinterested in cooking but wanted to stay in her own home. She enjoyed the social interaction with the deliverer of her meals also.

At the moment, we have a dear friend who has had a stroke. In talking with his wife, I was able to discover all the many benefits that are out there,ie. transportation of her husband to physical therepy provided by the county plus a visiting nurse and physical therapist. She also spoke highly of her senior citizen center who were able to help with transportation,too.

I know of two ladies, mother and daughter, who are mentally and physically handicapped and they get all kinds of help on a regular basis,ie. a helper who bathes or helps them bathe, twice a week, a cleaning lady, plus someone who checks on their meds. They pay for this but the charge is according to their income which is limited.

camron

January 7, 2001 - 05:50 am

I would add to Mal's post, "We are here, and we are human.", and we are all different as individuals. Right on Idris.

betty gregory

January 7, 2001 - 06:46 am

Time to catch up on so many posts. Jeanlock, I just read your moving story, yours and your now-grown children's. It wasn't off-topic at all, but added to discussion of what impacts children's lives. Thank you.

Good point on use of the words "accept" and "approve." It made me think (not here) of reading of a husband "letting his wife," or "allowing his wife" to do something. Words tell attitudes.

Gay and lesbian family issues. I'm honored to be a part of this inclusive, more than tolerant, accepting group of posters. Nothing to add.

On the subject of family in a democracy, there is a television special on MSNBC (or is it NBC?) tonight on the "new" heroin epidemic in the U.S. If I remember what I've read correctly, heroin is the impossible-to-kick drug, the one with terrible rehab statistics. At some point in this discussion, I suppose we should look at the impact of all drugs, alcohol included, on the family. For those interested, watch the special, then we can refer to it whenever this discussion winds around to that aspect of family.

On the subject of eldercare or caregiving in the family, my grandmother died last night at 7:32p.m. in the last stage of Alzheimers. Or, possibly, as the result of hundreds of tiny strokes that began a few years ago and misdiagnosed recently as Alzheimers. At any rate, my mother has had daily care of her mother and for a few years made all the tough decisions. My mother's brothers didn't do as much but my mother never complained (others did).

I won't list the many ways in which the health care community did a haphazard job of caring for my grandmother, but it's been a nightmare to watch. From her first day in a regular nusing home last summer, the doctor over-medicated her, basically because there was a staff shortage. My letters to mother suggesting that she insist on more up to date medication did bring about some changes, but so slowly. All this has left me with an increased conviction that we do a lousy job taking care of our seniors who are seriously ill.

I won't say this to my other family, but I'll say it to you, my family here, that my grandmother died of hundreds of tiny strokes, a broken hip and negligent medical and nursing home care. She probably would have died soon anyway, but could have died with less on-going trauma to the caregivers loving her.

I'll miss her terribly but she still lives in me, is a part of who I am. She tempers my outspoken anger and is in every moment of compassion I feel, is all of my kindness, is the playful part of me. I wrote to my mother last night that there is so much of her in all of us, that I fully expect that 10 or 20 of us in the family will have strange urges to plant a garden this spring. My grandmother knew how to grow everything, plants and us.

Malryn (Mal)

January 7, 2001 - 06:48 am

"We are here, and we are human" was in response to Idris's statement, "They are here, and they are human."

Idris O'Neill

January 7, 2001 - 06:58 am

Faith i don't really care what the rest of the world believes or does not believe in terms of acceptance. I can only change me and no one else. Therefore i choose to be accepting.

We have lived through a horrible war where some folks were seen as less human that others. Surely we learned something through that whole evil mess. It is still going on in this sorry old world.

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 07:04 am

Betty;--My condolences to you regarding your grandmother but as you say she "lives in you."

Regarding your comment that "my mother has had daily care of her mother but my mother's brothers didn't do as much" -- Government research indicates that the majority of caregivers are women. When caregiving is defined to include the full range of helping tasks from visiting and occasional assistance with chores to intense personal care, there is a greater representation of males and more distant relatives. Where the focus is on activities of daily living (ADLs), caregivers include a large proportion of women and of spouses. The general consensus is that one family member serves as the primary source of care for an impaired elderly person, although others in the family and friend network may serve as "secondary caregivers." Women and daughters are more likely to be "primary" rather than secondary caregivers.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 7, 2001 - 08:05 am

That appears to be the usual pattern, Robby.

As an only child i was responcible for the well being of my father through his alzeimers and my mother's illnesses and final strokes. I had to make the decision to put Dad in a home in order to save the parent who could still manage. Independance for her lasted for another five years before things starting going terribly wrong again. I became my mother's parent with all that entails. Thankfully i had a very helpful hubby as my children were only little when my parents died. I think we do the very best we can.

Malryn (Mal)

January 7, 2001 - 08:21 am

I was caregiver for two elderly men at two different times. Some years before they had helped me at the end of my marriage. The most important thing I did for them was not cooking meals or doing their accounts, it was getting them up out of a chair, into my car and out somewhere. I cared for both of these men until they died.

I also was caregiver for my elder son, who suffered a brain injury in an automobile accident and was left with schizophrenic tendencies and prone to psychotic episodes. This was the most difficult sort of caregiving I ever did, and in order to do it without great effect on me, I sought counselling from a fine psychologist.

For the past ten weeks I have been confined to a wheelchair, and though I don't really need care, there must be errands run for me, and I need help cleaning my apartment. Both my daughter and granddaughter have done these things for me. There is some guilt involved for me, since I've been very independent in my life, but I remember helping my daughter several different times in her adulthood, and I spent a year helping my granddaughter begin her recovery from a drug addiction, so I stopped feeling as guilty about what I am unable at this moment to do.

Role reversal is not an easy thing to do, and that is what people sometimes face as they grow older.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

January 7, 2001 - 08:26 am

Betty, please accept my most sincere sympathy for the death of your grandmother.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 7, 2001 - 08:28 am

My condolences too Betty. hugs

Idris O'Neill

January 7, 2001 - 08:31 am

Mal, if they are sick enough they have no idea they have become the child and you the mother. Families are there to help each other and make decisions they no longer can make for themselves. I think a certain amount of guilt comes with making these decisions for your parents. It makes it worse if the caregiving you received from them was next to nil. You second guess yourself and wonder if you are doing the right thing. Sooner or later you come to terms with it and accept that this was just part of what must be done.

Cathy Foss

January 7, 2001 - 08:33 am

How I admire those posting here, and their heartfelt acceptance of certain human conditions that others of us are uncomfortable with.

I, for one, would not hesitate to accept in my "family" those of minority status. I do not have a racial problem; however, I am accutely uncomfortable with homosexuals. I have no explanation of this hesitancy unless it is rooted in my background from a Christian family. I am not proud of it, nor am I ashamed of it. I have great oppostion to hurting someone, anyone, because of their beliefs. I know I would never let my feelings of discomfort make life more difficult for those who habor them.

Malryn (Mal)

January 7, 2001 - 08:38 am

A small correction. Homosexuality and lesbianism are not beliefs. I have always felt that any person's natural sexual tendencies are not any of my business, nor is mine any business of theirs. I am not uncomfortable with gays and lesbians, any more than they are uncomfortable with my handicap, which makes me "different", too. The gays and lesbians I know are wonderful people, and I am fortunate to have these people as friends. This group includes some really fine people I have met right here on SeniorNet.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 7, 2001 - 08:40 am

Cathy, for the most part would you really know? My kids didnt' bring home "whoever" the homosexual. They brought home a fellow student who wanted to know how to make homemade bread. We had a great afternoon and sat in the kitchen eating warm homemade bread with E. D. Smith's blueberry jam and discussing Wordsworth's poetry. What difference would it have made straight or gay?

Phyll

January 7, 2001 - 09:00 am

I have a young friend who has chosen not to get married and when I was asked if I thought he was "gay", I replied, "I haven't the slightest idea. He has never asked me about my sex life and I have never asked him about his!" Why today's society seems to think everyone's most private behavior (as long as it does no harm to anyone else) is fair game for intrusive questioning is beyond me.

tigerliley

January 7, 2001 - 09:02 am

My son is gay.....He did not choose to be gay....It is genetic...He is very bright and a handsome man....He has not had an easy life.....I cannot write anymore about this as I become to emotional...

Malryn (Mal)

January 7, 2001 - 09:13 am

Tigerlily. Big hugs for you and your son.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 09:18 am

Tigerliley:--On behalf of the participants here, thank you for considering us a "loving family" where you can open up your innermost emotions. Please continue to lurk or participate as you see fit.

Robby

Phyll

January 7, 2001 - 09:25 am

Tigerlily,

I don't think there is anyone here who does not empathize with your pain. It is not the road you would have chosen for your son, I am going to presume, but whatever road he has taken doesn't change the love you have for him. It is ingrained in a parent, I think, to want the easy life for our children. To go against society's "rules" is not easy.

tigerliley

January 7, 2001 - 09:29 am

This is a fabulous group in this discussion ....It is also a loving group..I would be most upset if anyone here were to write anything hateful about gay or lesbian people.....I don't expect that to happen....I have been reading here to long....Thanks for the hugs Mal and the kind words from all of you.....

Cathy Foss

January 7, 2001 - 09:40 am

I knew my views on homosexuality would likely make a target of me. I must emphasis again that: no way on this earth do I wish to make life more difficult for a person with a viewpoint different from mine.

I feel we must be cautious as to what is acceptable in human behavior. I have often thought it a possibility that homosexuality was one of the ways that NATURE chose to regulate the population. Could it be? SURE!

Let it be known I have not the least intent to harm the lifestyle of any group making it through this life we all find on our hands. I just wish we understood more about our possiblities AND our limitations.

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 09:44 am

Cathy:--You are NOT a target! You are a member of this Discussion Group entitled to give your opinion just as all of us are. Our sole principle is that "we disagree in an agreeable way." And this you have done.

In no way would I expect everyone here to think exactly the same way on every single subject. When that happens, this "discussion" group is dead.

Robby

tigerliley

January 7, 2001 - 09:51 am

Cathy.....You didn't say anything at all unkind about gays or lesbians...Many people are not comfortable for some reason....Yours was a very honest posst. I don't think you are a target at all...This is a very good and kind group .....Please stay right here and continue to do your posting and give all your opinions in this discussion group...... This particular thread hit very close to home as you can imagine....regards....Nancy

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 10:30 am

As everyone here is aware, the average age of Americans is increasing -- what is ordinarily called the "greying of America." Thirteen percent of Americans are over 65 and they use 43 percent of the medical services. Many of us remember the Great Depression and remember the government efforts to help us get jobs and receive health benefits of one sort or another. So now among older Americans, the request (if not cry) for government services is an important issue.

This past November an amendment to the Older Americans Act was signed into Law. The amended Act provides essential home and commnity-based services to millions of older Americans. In addition, for the first time, it will provide critical and much needed support to FAMILIES who are caring for their loved ones who are ill or who have disabilities.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 12:43 pm

The legislation approved by Congress in October contains the proposed National Family Caregiver Support Program. This is part of a long term care package introduced in January of last year. It will provide support and respite care to hundreds of thousands of FAMILY members who are struggling to care for their older relatives at home.

Services to be provided to caregivers include information and assistance, training, counseling and support, as well as respite care for caregivers.

Robby

jeanlock

January 7, 2001 - 01:45 pm

Robby--

Does your household constitute a family? Not in my way of thinking, but perhaps you feel differently. I live alone--not even an aloe plant, and am definitely NOT a family. BUT, I am definitely the MATER FAMILIAS and think of myself basically within the framework of me and my children. That is the family--the whole cotton picking bunch.

Aristocracy in families? The Kennedys? The Bushs? The Rocekfellers?

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 01:46 pm

Jeanlock took the time to make a couple of videotapes of a CNN documentary about deTocqueville and very kindly sent me a copy to view. It is marvelous! Lasting over an hour, it gives a realistic picture of deTocqueville's travels in America during the seven months he was here, showing the varying locations -- how they look now and how they might have looked then.

Jean has a copy for herself and we both agree that many of you would be interested in being part of a "round-robin" wherein we circulate the tape. If any of you are interested, please so state on this page. I heartily recommend that you see it. It will help you even more to see America through the eyes of this young Frenchman in 1831.

As far as I personally am concerned, it helped me to love and appreciate America more (if that is possible)>

Robby

Hairy

January 7, 2001 - 02:32 pm

I would like to view the video tape and would promptly pass it on to another.

I admire your approach to sensitive subjects and appreciate the honesty and compassion shown here. I agree with what you have had to say. I don't know what I can add. I think it will take a long time for all people to feel as you do, however. Some are still very, very unkind.

Linda

betty gregory

January 7, 2001 - 02:39 pm

Proximity and information will probably continue to help those who are uncomfortable around people with a homosexual orientation. I didn't start out being comfortable, goodness knows, but through knowing individuals (who turned out to be gay or lesbian) and by reading, I moved from discomfort about the unknown to comfort with the known. My discomfort was so long ago that I can't quite remember what it felt like, but at least I once knew what Cathy's talking about.

Philadelphia, the movie, is on telvision tonight (for such an anti-tv person, I sure am advocating it a lot, recently). The movie does a wonderful job of showing all the permutations of bias, all the myths, and the hatred. It also depicts a loving gay couple and a family supporting that couple. Joanne Woodward as the mother is wonderful. Gay people everywhere should have such mothers, such support.

EloElose De Pelteau

January 7, 2001 - 05:35 pm

Robby - I for one would be very very interested in viewing the tape that you mentioned about De T's trip to America. Unfortunately I could not tape it. How do I go about getting a copy?

kiwi lady

January 7, 2001 - 06:12 pm

I live with two dogs, Zoe and Penny. The breed I have is known as an eternal toddler. They are up to about the level of a 2 year old in understanding but now my 3 yr old granddaughter supercedes them and she now is the boss in the games.

I think I have a family, no mortgage but land taxes, vet bills and hairdressing bills for my "girls" All I know is without these two wee dogs my life would be very dull. It never seems like the house is empty! My extended family include the dogs in all family gatherings, think they accept them as family too! My christmas cards are sent out from all three of us!

Yes I think my household is a family!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 7, 2001 - 06:36 pm

Eloise:--I have marked down your name as being interested in the tape and we will circulate it.

Robby

FaithP

January 7, 2001 - 09:02 pm

What wonderful thoughtful post from all.Betty, my condolances to you. I have been through the loss of my mother not so long ago. When I say my family I do not mean "in my house" because there is just me and so I am head of my household but my family involves many people who are my direct decendents plus my syblings who are living and their mates. I still think of us as family as much as if we did live in a community together. I think many others do that too. We are joined together by phones, cell phones, computer e mail and snail mail too.At any time of the day or night I can reach out and touch someone by phone. My kids all gave me their cell phone No. and are encouraging me to get one.

I am really please to say that California too, is making an effort this year to address the difficult problem of inadequate care given in nursing homes. Some patients in Nursing homes have not seen a M.D. for six months yet they are on medication that may or maynot be adequate. In sync with the program of Adequate Pain Control maybe some good will come this year. Hopefully. I have read to much scary stuff about the care of elderly in the past in not just America but other countries. I think with people living to such great ages now we are facing a whole new set of problems as to numbers. Faith

Jere Pennell

January 8, 2001 - 01:31 am

I would like to see the video if you are willing to mail it overseas or pay for a copy if you would not. I will reimburse the costs of either venture. I did not get to see the program nor tape it.

Today is a national holiday here in Japan. It is called Coming of Age Day. Those who turn 20 are celebrated for becoming an Adult with all the responsibilities for their actions. Ceremonies are held at the city hall auditoriums in the smaller cities and other auditoriusm in the larger cities. the 20 year olds are expected to return to their hometowns for the ceremony and celebrations, parties etc.

It is interesting to me that such a "do" is made of it here in Japan and yet many other countries do not. It is the equivalent of a rite of passage and is important to the culture.

Please excuse my getting off the topic but the day is significant here and I thought you may be interested as it fits the Family.

Jere the lurker here in Japan

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 05:02 am

Jere:--I have noted your interest in the deTocqueville videotape and we will make arrangements.

Robby

Phyll

January 8, 2001 - 06:59 am

Robby,

I know that you were a Boy Scout executive for many years and I am certain that you are aware of the policy of the Boy Scouts against allowing homosexuals to be troop leaders. If you feel comfortable commenting on your opinion of this policy, I would be truly interested to hear them. If not, I understand.

My personal opinion is that the policy is at the least misguided and at the most, tragically wrong. I think it can only convey a message of intolerance to these young people, which seems to be to be a contradiction to the outlined "teachings" of the Boy Scout organization.

Idris O'Neill

January 8, 2001 - 07:13 am

Did de Toucqueville write about how we as a society and other children in particular treat very bright children? I think for some of us this was one huge trial and almost weekly fight with the school system and a lot of handholding re their piers.

It seemed just fine to be a sporty type but a very bright child was seen as something weird.

Cathy Foss

January 8, 2001 - 08:13 am

It would be very interesting to have a "de Tocqueville" to visit America today and have his objective analysis about our being a democracy. With the electorial method of election, which we have, we can only declare to be a republic.

I am for eliminating the electorial election of our presidents.

Tigerlily - you are indeed kind to be so patient with my viewpoint. I thank you for your graciousness. I am inclined to agree that homosexuality is "given" and would hope that soon this can be proven. It being proved would certainly lighten the condemnationists'argument.

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 08:51 am

Phyll:--I think that the Boy Scouts of America is wrong in its attitude toward homosexuals. However, we must take into account that not only do societal changes occur but they change slowly. "The mills of the gods grind slowly but exceedingly fine." I never remember seeing my mother's leg above the ankle. Now I see women of that age in minisksirts. This did not happen overnight. Is that "bad?" The majority of the 1920 generation would say it was. The proportion of those considering it a "sin" is much different now.

The B.S.A. movement came to America in 1910. At that time the concept of being "morally straight" related to the morals of that time. There are those who would say that we should return to the standards of that day and that topic is debatable but the fact remains that we judge people differently now, partly because of what we have learned about that being called a human. For example, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) used by psychiatrists and psychologists not too many years ago labeled homosexuality as a "disorder." With the rapid voluminous amount of knowledge in the field of genetics coming to our attention and the related realization of what makes us what we are, that "disorder" has been removed from the DSM.

Even the meanings of words change. Cub Scouts decades ago promised to be "square." Now no self-respecting boy wants to be known as square and that promise was removed. The Boy Scout manual of my day was 99 percent woods and included Merit Badges about such things as Camping and Tracking. Now there are Merit Badges created for urban boys who have never seen the north side of a tree (where every Scout used to know that's where the moss grows.)

So the Scouting movement does change. It can and it will, in my opinion, for the same reason that women (except when following temporary styles) no longer wear their dresses to the ankle. It will be forced to by societal changes. The Constitution of the United States can not be easily and quickly changed nor can the Constitution of the Boy Scouts of America for the same reason. But it will change its attitude toward homosexuality. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but it will happen.

This is a bit off the topic of this Discussion Group and is a long-winded answer but as you probably guessed, Phyll, I couldn't resist commenting on a part of my life which is still with me. They say: "Once a Scout, always a Scout."

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 8, 2001 - 09:35 am

Change? You bet. I was a den mother for my son Chris's Cub Scout troop in the mid-sixties when we lived in Indianapolis. My knowledge of knot-tying and tramping through the woods was nil, so I took those boys to the fine art museum downtown and taught them something about artists, sculpture and painting. I also took them through a room-sized computer at a downtown bank, and we did other unorthodox things. We learned something about gardening, and at the final session in an auditorium with other troops and guests there, we presented a musical show called "My Green Thumb" which the boys wrote with a little help from their musical den mother friend.

Mal

FaithP

January 8, 2001 - 03:33 pm

Cathy we are a Republic and the founding fathers made sure of it by its wording in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We can not change our constitution just because some people do not like the outcome when we use the law to decide an election. The thing is in a true Democracy the States would become so much less powerful with fewer and fewer rights, and we would have a massive all knowing Federal government. fp

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 04:32 pm

U.S. Census Data show that the Hipanic population has grown faster than the overall U.S. population since 1990 and is projected to become the largest U.S. minority group in five years. The majority of Hispanic households are married-couple families but a significant proportion are also female-headed families. In 1997 nearly one-fifth (19.7%) of Hispanic households were female-headed households. In comparison, 8.9% of White households and 32.4% of Black households were female-headed family households.

What effect do you see the Hispanic population having on America in the coming five years?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 05:11 pm

Traditionally, the Hispanic family is a close-knit group and the most important social unit. The term "familia" usually goes beyond the nuclear family. The Hispanic "family unit" includes not only parents and children but also extended family. In most Hispanic families, the father is the head of the family, and the mother is responsible for the home.

Do you see this Hispanic increase and its culture as changing America in the next five years?

Robby

Ann Alden

January 8, 2001 - 05:21 pm

I am afraid that what may happen, Robby, is that America will change the Hispanic idea of family. Although, the American younger generation seems to be paying more attention to having an extended family in their experience. My sons and daughter talk often of their extended family which includes their nuclear family plud their work friends and neighborhood friends. We are included in their neighborhood get togethers as are the other grandparents. Its nice to have our children's neighbors recognize us when we are out and about. Kind of interesting, since many of them, knew us when they were growing up, here in downtown Gahanna! :<). LOL!

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 05:26 pm

Hispanic family ties are very strong. When someone travels to another town or city to study or for a short visit (eg vacation, business, medical reasons), staying with relatives or even with friends of relatives is a common practice. Families often gather together to celebrate holidays, birthdays, baptisms, first communions, graduation, and weddings. Hispanic families instill in their children the importance of honor, good manners, and respect for authority and the elderly.

Will our current "American" habits overpower their current culture?

Robby

Hairy

January 8, 2001 - 06:07 pm

I didn't notice that you said my name in reference to the video. To just say it again in case it was missed- I, too, would be interested in viewing the tape. Thanks!!

Linda

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 06:43 pm

Linda:--Yes, you are on the list. I will be mailing it tomorrow to Ella who, when she is finished will mail it to you. She will be needing your postal address.

Robby

Persian

January 8, 2001 - 06:59 pm

Robby - I believe that the Hispanic hundreds of thousands of Hispanic families in the USA have already affected the American culture. And in some ways that one would not ordinarily expect. The ties of family in the Hispanic heritage culture are as strong as those of the Middle Eastern traditional culture with which I am familiar.

This morning I posted information in the Religion forum (Islam folder) from a recent Washington Post article about thousands of Latinos leaving the Catholic or other Christian denomination churches and converting to Islam in the United States The main attraction within Islam is, not surprisingly, the strong family connection, outreach to community (especially for individuals who are away from their own families) and direct contact with God, rather than through Saints or the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

In many areas, we hear or read only negative comments about the Hispanic community (gangs in large cities, drugs,etc.), but there are many areas of the country where Latinos have worked hard to overcome English language problems, support their local, regional or State elected officials - run for some of those offices themselves - spoken out on the dignity and rights of women (even though the Latino culture is heavily patriarchal), worked enormously hard to support their families, educate their children and take care of their elderly relatives. All traits of traditional family customs. I think these are the good points that the Latino community brings to the USA - and has for many years - and my sense is that it will continue to improve as the younger generation become better educated, chooses to work in positions of public service and stretches a hand back to "pull up" the next generation.

robert b. iadeluca

January 8, 2001 - 07:18 pm

Please read deTocqueville's comment above beginning "Paternal authority...", compare it with Persian's remark about the "Latino culture being heavily patriarchal" and share with us where you think we are headed in America.

Robby

betty gregory

January 8, 2001 - 07:37 pm

I'm not sure, to answer whether the hispanic priority of family will be influenced by "American" culture. That part of hispanic culture is so deeply embedded. I don't know what to compare it to, maybe something like the frontier spirit of those original settlers who kept pushing west...that lives on. (poor analogy, but I can't think of another)

For several years in Austin, as I've written before, I rented 2 front bedrooms of my house to a hispanic graduate school classmate. Her family gatherings I attended were really amazing. Such love and connection and constancy. And so many traditions observed---some just silly private family traditions but religiously kept. Making tamales two weeks before Christmas, for example, brought many aunts and cousins and a grandmother from out of town. Then for several days of laughing and catching up on news, these women would make homemade tamales. I just realized that it is only me that would have to add "homemade."

In a really cute movie, Fools Rush In, the white guy (Matthew Perry?)is attending (for the first time) the family gathering of his hispanic girlfriend (Salma Heyek). As they come into the backyard of her parents' house and see several dozen people preparing to eat outside, he's in shock and says, "This is your family?" She says, "I guess some couldn't make it tonight."

Great story and even greater analogous points in your boy scout comments, Robby. (I do like your personal stories!!) Change is, indeed, almost univerally resisted but inevitable. One story I used to tell patients about the fear of change was that it might feel like the moment the trapeze artist lets go of the first bar and has not yet grabbed on to the next bar---there's not yet the security of the new behavior.

Ann Alden

January 9, 2001 - 03:07 am

Hey,Robby, I believe that I requested that video awhile back but just want to reiterate. I will now borrow the tape from Ella before she mails it on and then go from there.

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 04:27 am

America is obviously undergoing a great change. We are not always sure where we are or who or what is causing the change or is undergoing the change. I like Betty's analogy of the trapeze artist who has let go of one bar but has not yet grabbed onto the next one.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 04:40 am

The Hispanic population in America is approximately the following:--

Mexican American - 63.3%, Puerto Rican - 10.6%, Cuban - 4.2%, Central and South American - 14.4%, and "other Hispanic" - 7.4%. In 1997, 91.2% of the Hispanic population was estimatd to be White and 5.6% was estimated to be Black.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 05:31 am

The United States is most definitely an "eating" nation. No one can deny that. But what about our current eating habits? And what about the eating habits of Hispanic folks coming to our nation or those already here? Who will change whom?

In Hispanic countries, a light meal is served for breakfast. Lunch, referred as el almuerzo, usually is the main meal of the day for Spanish-speakers. In some countries, it is customary for adult family members and children to come home from work or school for about two hours to be together for this meal. La siesta, which is a rest period taken after lunch, is known to be a common practice among adult Hispanics. In the early evening, la merienda, a light snack of coffee and rolls or sandwiches, is served. In the evening, often as late as 9 p.m., la cena, a small supper, concludes the day's meals.

Are those settling in the United States adopting the three-meal system? Are Anglo-Americans trying out the Hispanic system? Who is changing whom?

Robby

tigerliley

January 9, 2001 - 05:38 am

Robby....In a humorous vein...We in the United States eat non stop!!!! I think that after being in this country for a while other ethnic groups begin to have the same problems with obesity, and many of the chronic diseases which are attributed to overeating and an unhealthy diet.....

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 05:49 am

Tigerliley: I would suggest that this is not humorous at all. Obesity in America is a serious subject. Will this change as we are affected by the increase in Hispanic families?

Robby

Phyll

January 9, 2001 - 06:44 am

I appreciate very much your "insider" view, and personal opinion, of the B.S.A.'s policy concerning homosexuals. I am pleased, but not surprised, that you feel this particular policy is wrong. I also agree that the wheels turn very slowly--perhaps faster now than in past ages--but that eventually the policy will change. As we learn more and more about homosexuality and its causes (? not sure if that is the word I really want but can't think of a better one right now) many attitudes and old policies will change.

Explanation: I do not always have the chance to respond very quickly and it seems that I am ignoring someones answer to, or question of, me. I share computer time with my resident computer guru and while he is very generous I am aware that there should be time for him to indulge in his computer "hobby", too. So I don't always get back here on the same day. If I am slow, it is not because I am ignoring anyone.

kiwi lady

January 9, 2001 - 11:18 am

One post reminded me of another type of family. The work place family! There are some work places where the staff really are like a family. I worked in a large government department for eight years. It was a department not liked by the public and often we were subject to much verbal abuse. The staff there were truly like family. In all facets of our lives we supported each other mentored each other. When I left and went out into the Corporate world I really missed the sense of security and support I had in my work family.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 11:29 am

Carolyn (Kiwi):--Yes, Carolyn!! Well put! None of us here thought of that but all of us who have worked for some period of time in one office or shop know exactly what you mean. Members of the "workplace family" often eat together, share personal feelings with each other, lend each other money, often go out together, celebrate birthdays together, etc. etc.

Thank you for reminding us of that further definition of a Family.

Robby

Texas Songbird

January 9, 2001 - 11:33 am

Kiwi Lady -- Definitely some work places are like families, of the best kind (and some are as dysfunctional as the worst families!). I was fortunate to work for a place several years ago that definitely was like a family. We all really cared for each other. I remember when my father died, it was shortly after I had separated from my husband, and when I returned from the funeral there were two laundry baskets full of food and paper/cleaning supplies (like toilet paper, cleaning materials, etc.) on my desk. I was so touched.

A few years later we changed bosses, and I realized for the first time the difference the guy at the top makes, even though both men were devout Christians. The workplace was no longer like a family, and turnover increased at a rapid rate (and it continues at a rapid rate about 12 years later). Not only is turnover high, but production and morale are extremely low, and the company no longer has the respect of the community that it once had.

I personally believe that those factors that made us a family also made us a good business -- that those factors are not namby-pamby feel-good fuzzy kinds of things but actually good business principles.

Persian

January 9, 2001 - 11:41 am

Carolyn - thanks for your comments about the workplace family. I remained in an academic department at a large university for 22 years; grew up with some of my colleagues and our children then grew up together. Shared the professional and personal joys, turmoil, excitement of promotions and sadness of termination with many fine people. We learned from each other, depended upon each other, cheered for each other and basically functioned as a large family. Then the early 1990's brought about major changes in academe and I moved on into other sectors. But I still fondly remember my "growing up years" and know that the encouragement I received in my former "home department" allowed me to be just as supportive to new colleagues in other venues.

LouiseJEvans

January 9, 2001 - 01:59 pm

I am only speaking from observation, not from actual knowledge. But it seems to me that Hispanics represent several culturals. Here in Miami most of my Hispanic friends have Cuban roots. I am imclined to think that us Anglos and our Cuban neighbors are sort of adapting to each other.

When I worked in the hospice unit of a hospital I noticed that on Friday night some patients would get lots of noisy visitors. I learned that often this is "party night. They certainly seemed to be having a good time. On Christmas they roast a whole pig. I haven't had a chance to ask about it but the one they showed on TV was flat as though it had all its bones taken out.

I am not sure about their actual routine meal of their plan. We all have picnics together.

To me the thing that is remarkable is this. We are Jehovah's Witnesses. The hall where my congregation is located once had only ONE English speaking congregation. Because of the great Immigration into this country the hall had to be enlarged to become 2 hall. There are now 7 Congregations of Spanish speaking people and only one congregation for those of us who speak English. Many of the English speaking members have Hispanic routes. Many have difficulty in proouncing my name and I usually have to spell it. There once was a time when businesses posted the Sign: "Se Habla Español" Now it would be good to know if English is spoken there.

Hats

January 9, 2001 - 02:38 pm

Eating in America is very important. I think how and what we learn to eat when we are children stays with us as adults. When I grew up, my father expected everyone to sit down at the dining room table and eat. My mother, like Edith Bunker, waitted in the kitchen by the stove so that she could be sure and bring each dish to the table while it was hot.

My father also believed that each meal had to end with a dessert. Thank goodness, the dessert did not have to be homemade. It could be something from the bakery or the corner store. Thank goodness, my mother was already exhausted. Often, she was too exhausted to enjoy her own meal.

When I married, my family grew up without the worry of table settings and dining room tables. Because I had to work I could not worry about such etiquette or protocol. In a way, I feel we have more fun. At least, there is a lot more chatter going on. When it comes to eating, we are a noisy group.

I guess my interest is eating and family manners.

HATS

jeanlock

January 9, 2001 - 02:50 pm

Robby--maybe I should find tape #2 and put it in circulation?

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 05:30 pm

Currently the videotape of deTocqueville's "Democracy in America" has been mailed to Ella who will pass it along to Ann (who lives in the same comunity) and will then mail it to Hairy (Lynda). Waiting on the list are Eloise and Jere.

Folks, please let me know if you are interested in seeing this tape so Jean can decide as to whether she should put the duplicate tape in circulation. I thought it was extremely interesting!

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 05:42 pm

Louise's description of her English-speaking congregation remaining at one and Spanish-speaking congregations moving to seven helps us graphically to see what is going on in America. This, of course, is taking place in Florida but New York, Texas, and California are following the same trend. Remember deT's constant use of the term Anglo-Americans to describe all the residents of America at that time?

Comments by HATS makes me wonder. How many of you continue to sit around the table and eat together as a family?

Robby

tigerliley

January 9, 2001 - 05:45 pm

Still sit at the table for meals...with placemats or table cloth, napkins etc.....I enjoy mealtimes and preparing meals and setting a pretty table....

Idris O'Neill

January 9, 2001 - 05:48 pm

Me to Tigerliley.

) Even when the children were infants we put them in a little chair thing and they sat with us while we ate. Nothing stops that, it is the very best time to talk and laugh and enjoy.

)

robert b. iadeluca

January 9, 2001 - 06:24 pm

The growth in the Hispanic population is largely attributable to increased birth rates and a rise in the level of immigration since 1990.

From 1990 to 1996, Hispanic women between the ages of 15 and 44 were estimated to average 106 births per 1,000 women yearly, compared to 67 births per 1,000 births for the total population.

The immigration rate for Hispanics was also higher than that of other groups between 1990 and 1996, with an estimated average of 15 immigrants for every 1,000 Hispanic persons per year, compared to 3 immigrants for all persons.

Robby

betty gregory

January 9, 2001 - 07:32 pm

Robby, I wonder if some of that difference in birth rate is also from a decreasing birth rate from Anglo women.

FaithP

January 9, 2001 - 08:25 pm

California has always faced the inclusion of the Mexican population, and of course the European immigrants took it from Mexico, and our border is constantly at war. I see here that the people who come here give up their customs very soon, and grow more and more like the general population. My own relatives who married Mexican partners formed families that were a definite blend of cultures. We talked of melting pots when I was young and you do not hear that much anymore. Perhaps it is politically incorrect.

The meal time chamged of course because of work habits and all my extended family now use the evening meal for family, talk and community. I have been privilaged to be invited to the home of my mexican sister in law for making of holiday tamales and it is a wonderful party time and a full work day too. An uncle who also married a partner who was from Peru also carried on a blended family tradition. The major grief I have is none of the offspring of these marriages use the Spanish of the mothers at all. Never did learn it. And really gave up their own traditions except in regard to their religion. Fp

kiwi lady

January 9, 2001 - 09:57 pm

Here in New Zealand we have had a lot of Pacific Island Immigration and immigration from Asia. European women and to some extent Maori women are not having many children whereas other cultures are. It has been predicted that in less than 100 years if birth rates continue Europeans will be in the minority. I wonder how our Nations culture will be changed then as the minorities very much continue their own cultures.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 10, 2001 - 03:21 am

Based on comments by Faith and Carolyn, it appears that deTocqueville was absolutely right that the culture, law, and mannerisms of the Anglo-Americans will take over the immigrant cultures. Does the nation gain or lose by this change?

Robby

Ann Alden

January 10, 2001 - 08:31 am

Remember, from history, that tribes moved constantly and can be traced from Russia to South America through Alaska, the US, Mexico. I think that the world population is constantly ebbing and flowing from one place to another. As I have mentioned to someone, the spirit of freedom seems to be the predominate feature in the US.

Eating habits? ? We still sit at the table discussing the day's events and did same when raising the children. My daughter(working mother) insists on this same arrangement. She says that most children today don't even know what the family evening supper is. My son's family is the same as he grew up this way and so did his wife. I,too, love getting the meal planned, putting out the placemats and napkins, charging someone with the water and condiments while I cook. It was just a good way to end the day for me. Of course, the children might have had homework to do and me, clothes to wash, but that was acceptable.

Our Hispanic friends in Austin,TX during the '50's started the day with the traditional tortillas and beans and eggs. My friend made her own. When I lived in California, I learned that many of the Mexican people who lived there had been chosen by their Mexican families to go to the US and send money home to help the family. In order to support themselves plus send money home, frequently these hard workers had three jobs. I also had a Hispanic friend from Denver and she seemed to eat very American but she was born in the US and came from a family who had been here for awhile.

Idris, I keep meaning to tell you that I enjoyed your story in Sonata. Very meaning-filled and poignant. I can understand why the women at the Center for Abuse were silent. It so applies to them but then, to all of us, in one way or another. We do need to be taught or to learn that we write our own pages in the book of life!

Idris O'Neill

January 10, 2001 - 08:39 am

Thank you Ann.

)

Mary W

January 10, 2001 - 09:25 am

Families probably started to changein nature and structure before the ink was dry on DeTs manuscript. We have never been a static nation nor have our families been static.

You asked, Robbie, if we have lost or gained by the intrusion and acceptance

of foriegn manners and mores. I think both. We may have abandoned some of our cobwebby and perhaps stuffy family and community practices but we have embraced many customs which, I believe, have immeasurably enriched our lives. These new friends and relatives have certainly increased our knowledge of others beyond our inherited views and have,or should have, greatly enlarged our sometimes terribly circumscribed vistas. To me this inflow has been just one part of a growing, developing Democracy.

In our family we ALWAYS had dinner together--every night, The table was always set prettily and we all sat down together. We all led different daily lives. Our sons were five years apart in age, attendd different schools and had totally differnt extra-curricular activities. Their Dad was, of course, at business all day and I did the thousand and one things all mothers do during the day. But every night we all drew together and became a family again for a while. Even now that our

family, still in Texas, consists of only my younger son and me we still have dinner together together as we always have. I'm not sure that this tradition is carried on any more in the rest of my family. They are all out on the west coast now and although we keep in close touch I haven't a clue about their daily lives. Perhaps that's some kind of progression,too.

Families change,thank God, I cannot envision anything more stultifying than an unchanging, static life.

Take care, all, Mary

robert b. iadeluca

January 10, 2001 - 11:44 am

Mary W. uses the words "static" and "stuffy." Is the "lifeblood" of America kept healthy by the steady infusion of blood from other cultures? A number of participants here have spoken about marriage within their families to people from other cultures. Is our national and familial "open door" policy (if that is what we have) what makes America different from most other nations in the world?

deTocqueville says he "went back from age to age..." Do you, also find "no parallel?"

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 10, 2001 - 12:35 pm

Previous postings discussed families with homosexual members. Following is an excerpt from an article in this morning's New York Times:--

"Reform Jewish leaders are recommending that parents withdraw their children from membership in the Boy Scouts of America and that synagogues end their sponsorship of Scout troops, the strongest reaction yet by a religious group to the Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts to exclude gay members.

"The Scouts' persistence in banning gay members and leaders, the memorandum says, is 'incompatible with our consistent belief that every individual -- regardless of his or her sexual orientation -- is created in the image of God and is deserving of equal treatment.'

"Said the executive vice president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis in returning his Eagle Scout badge: 'Being a Boy Scout really had an influence on my life, and it was a painful decision to have to write that letter. I felt it was untenable to support or be part of an organization that discriminated against a group of people.'"

Robby

FaithP

January 10, 2001 - 02:40 pm

Change is good. I view the inclusion of other cultures habits, rituals etc. as being similar to a great supermarket and we can learn about, and try new things,new holiday practices,new attire, new manners and several ways of being Polite, based on cultural mores.

That brings up the fact that we really have a mix of food from ever culture in the neighborhood supermarket today. Some I have put on my shopping list always like Salsa, and some I dont like like soy sauce. It is just personal taste. I eat my noodles with plain chicken broth no soy sauce. No matter how good soy products are for you I cant use them. Most Portuguese. Mexican, Spanish, Italian, and Greek food are the top favorites of mine. My Mom and her family were typical British Isle. and my Dad was some of that with the Louisianna and Texas flavors added. Some of my childrens friends had never tried any Spanish or Mexican food until they came to our house. I learned a lot from a Portueguse Step mother, Mexican Sister in law, Spanish Aunt, and my husban had an Italian Aunt in his all English family, who taught me a lot too.

I can not look back in history and see exactly the "blending" of cultures as we gave done in America, but of course we can look back in history and see that the Winners in a War did take brides and have offspring with the subjected Peoples in all most all cases. So we have had perpetual mingling of genetic dna through out history. Fp

jeanlock

January 10, 2001 - 03:14 pm

It has occurred to me that as the tape travels from one to another, it should record its travels and how it was received by each recipient.

robert b. iadeluca

January 10, 2001 - 03:33 pm

As America developed, slavery imposed great hardships on Afro-American families. Slaves lived in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions that resulted in high rates of disease and death. Immediate family members were often forced to live in separate dwellings, or on different farms in the same area, or too far apart to maintain a relationship at all. Despite these conditions, most managed to maintain two-parent families, as well as develop extensive kinship networks. The movement of slaves from one farm to another encourged kinship connections, as when relatives cared for a child who had been sold onto their plantation, or when husbands visited the families of the wives with whom they weren't allowed to live.

The white master's control affected the relationships within the slave family. Children were more subordinate to masters than to their parents, and they left their parents' cabin to live with other children around the age of seven, after they had been put to work.

The culture of current Afro-American families is completely different from any other families in America. The ancestors of current Afro-American families did not come here voluntarily. Furthermore, while their ancestors might have come from Africa which, of course, has its own centuries-old mores, there is not in the now-a-day family an unbroken line of customs, manners, and law which they could insert into Anglo-American life.

And yet, Afro-American families are a significant segment of life in America. What effect do you see them as having on the nation?

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 10, 2001 - 03:49 pm

Gain or loss, better or worse I do not believe should be used. It is different. "Judge not lest ye be judged" works in both cultures.

When I married my Japanese wife my lifestyle changed. We adopted the best of both worlds. Why should she stand in the long foreign passport immigration line when she can come with me and go through the much shorter US passport line. On the other hand if the other line is shorter we take the shorter line.

Culture wise I eat much more fish and very little meat and what meat we use is for flavoring. A quarter pound of beef (100 grams) goes a long way this way and is much healthier. Lunch today is fish and rice and we celebrate New Years and not Christmas although Christmas presents for the children is a acquired practice in our extended family demonstrating that we adopt the best of both worlds and can learn from others. Oh yes! I like and use the Hispanic siesta and in Japan it is called hirune (noon sleep) proving again...

Jere the lurker

Jere Pennell

January 10, 2001 - 03:55 pm

Aren't we all economic slaves?

robert b. iadeluca

January 10, 2001 - 04:33 pm

Jere:--Thank you for giving us that Japanese perspective and I hope your lovely wife shares with us from time to time her views of America.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 10, 2001 - 05:26 pm

Of course, the greatest way Afro-American culture is reflected in the United States is in music. From W.C. Handy to Wynton Marsalis and Marcus Roberts the African American influence can be heard. Early Jazz, Swing, Rock and Roll (Rock and Roll is an Afro-American term, by the way), Punk, Rap, Funk, Fusion, musical shows, Operettas like Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, contemporary opera, classical music and more have been influenced by African American music. African beat and rhythms can be heard every time one turns the radio or TV on. What a fantastic contribution to our culture. It has influenced music all over the world.

Mal

FaithP

January 10, 2001 - 08:04 pm

Yes, Mal music for sure and when I was watching some programs on World TV re: music the premise was that the beat and what we might call the pathos of the hymns and on into the blues was in the original drum and flute music in Africa and they had many examples. it was really wonderful watching(listening to) that program. There also has been an ongoing influance in Fashion and of course Sports. I am just mentioning the things that the rest of the culture immitates and admires so much in the American black family.Fp

robert b. iadeluca

January 10, 2001 - 08:06 pm

Music, fashion, and sports. What a powerful force the "minority" in America apparently has on the "majority."

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 10, 2001 - 09:01 pm

A trip from the East coast to the West Coast or from the North to the South will reveal the effect of the "minority" influence on the majority.

If you can not travel then borrow a magazine from the public library. I suggest Sunset Magazine for the Western and Southwestern influence. Others of you can suggest better than I, magazines for the other regions.

Idris, look at Quebec and compare it to B.C. An astonishing difference pointing out the fact that those differences are not limited to one country.

Robby. You really hit it on the head with your "Music, fashion, and sports. What a powerful force the "minority" in America apparently has on the "majority." Don't forget food as if I could!

Jere the lurker (actually in a much different time zone)

kiwi lady

January 10, 2001 - 11:00 pm

In the 21st Century we are slaves to consumerism hence economic slaves striving to earn far more than we actually need to survive.

I always wonder at this and have tried not to fall into the trap. I have a minimalistic wardrobe, appliances are kept until they die and my computer is updated rather than thrown out.

Carolyn

Ann Alden

January 11, 2001 - 04:09 am

KiwiLady, so glad that someone else is trying to preserve the idea that updating, repairing and saving most appliances is worth doing. The only thing here is that there are not too many repair shops around so one must learn basic repair techniques. I can rewire a toaster, an iron, etc. Very simple electric appliances. In many instances, I can even repair a toilet. Not TV's, nor computers(but I will try-LOL) or VCR's. Sometimes it is less expensive to replace an item than to repair it. We have a printer that my husband tried to upgrade or put a new board in and to just try making it function, one must spend $200 or more. A new printer of the same category is around $125 so what does the minimalist do?

Has anyone here been watching Ken Burns' "Jazz"? Incredible history of the inventing of jazz by the black population of New Orleans and elsewhere. Extremely well done but, according to the NYT music specialtists, not complete. They have many more names that could have been included in this history. But, its already 18 hours long and maybe you can't name everyone involved. The next segment, #4, is running on Monday night at 8 or 9pm. Its worth a peek! Here's the clickable for the NYT article NYT's Article on "Jazz"

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 04:38 am

Contrary to the views of earlier sociologists, slavery did not destroy the black family or turn it into a matriarchal system. The two-parent family remained prevalent during slavery and its aftermath, and it was supplemented by a strong kinship system. Afro-Americans continued to place a high value on marriage, although slave marriages had no legal standing and could be broken by sale.

After emancipation, many slaves tried to find spouses from whom they had veen involuntarily separated. Under the sharecropping system, former slaves worked as tenant farmers on small plots of land. Many of the women did less field work and concentrated more on housework and child care.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 04:53 am

Please note the quotes of deTocqueville above on the topic of Majorities and Minorities.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 06:23 am

Canada is now more than ever, a nation of minorities.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 06:31 am

Idris:--Please tell us a bit about the various minorities you have in Canada.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 06:38 am

Everyone, Robby. Just pick a group and they are here. We have Quebec which is predominantly french speaking but there are also many minorities within the larger french speaking society. So within Quebec you have a french speaking majority but within Canada they are a minority.

In British Columbia there are Anglos, Chineese, Indian and Aboriginals plus many more smaller communities. One can't say there is a majority of anyone there.

Toronto, Ontario is the most cosmopolitan city in Canada and has over 128 different languages spoken as the mother tongue.

We are a community of communities and a nation of minorities who are only a majority within their smaller community. We are smaller in population than California and our land mass is much bigger than that of the USA. We have ten provinces and three territories in the far north. It is not an easy country to govern.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 06:51 am

A nation of minorities where everyone is a minority. What a concept, Idris!!

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 06:54 am

Yes, and where everyone feels like a majority within their smaller community. This is an experiment that no other country has tried and who knows if it will fail or be a light to the world.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 06:58 am

Idris:--I'm not quite sure what you mean by an "experiment." Just what is the experiment?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 07:07 am

There is no larger majority to bring cohesion to the whole. We are all minorities vying for our place in the sun. Different languages and societies live within the same larger communities. Often they live as they did back home. They keep a strong sense of where they originally came from. The nation as a whole lacks a central core of oneness or solidarity.

One is more likely to see a Greek flag flying in Greektown than a Canadian flag. Indeed it is hard to find a Canadian flag flying in most places here.

In Quebec they fly their provincial flag as a national flag. On and on it goes. The concept of a community of community strengthens the differences and plays down the oneness. I can't really explain it. You would have to be here to see how it works on a daily basis. It is very different from the American experience. It breeds tolerance and special community loyalty all at the same time. It is odd but so far it works for us and makes for a very vibrant society.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 07:17 am

Idris:--Thank you. You have explained it very well. As we continue to examine minorities in America and other democracies, I am interested in the opinions of others here.

Robby

Phyll

January 11, 2001 - 07:43 am

I hesitate to post this quote because I do not have an official reference source at hand. Anyway, I believe it was Peter Jennings who said, "The U.S. is the first country in history to have immigrants from every other country in the world." I don't know the basis for his statement but I am inclined to believe it.

There is an old axiom----"New brooms sweep clean but old brooms get in the corners." I think new blood is very good for us as long as we keep some of the old blood that defines America.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 07:48 am

Phyll:--Would you say that the "old blood which defines America" is composed of Anglo laws, customs, and manners? And if so, what of the Africans who were here prior to our Independence? What of their culture?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 07:52 am

Phyll you would think Peter Jennings would know better than to say that...he is a Canadian.

You may make it as having Anglo customs but when you go the route we have you have no idea where you will end up. If you don't like it then that is just too bad. This is a new world and we learn to live together by living together.

Hats

January 11, 2001 - 08:02 am

I wonder if the majority in society should be feared. If they are in the majority are they always stronger than the minority? Perhaps, the minority might be the more frightening ones because they have to use more force to assert themselves.

For example, the Texas Seven who just escaped prison on Christmas Eve. They are the minority, but they certainly are more frightening than the majority.

HATS

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 08:09 am

Are they frightening because they belong to a minority group or more frightening because they belong to a criminal group?

The questions becomes are you tolerant because you are a member of the majority or tolerant because you are part of a community of communities and may well be a minority in many situations? It is easy to be tolerant if you are in the majority.

Phyll

January 11, 2001 - 08:30 am

Robby, and Idris,

I think we can assimilate, meld together all of the cultures that have immigrated here. "We learn to live together by living together" is exactly right but I personally feel that it should be a blending, melding, of all of the cultures both pre-United States, and since our country was formed. Each cultural tradition adds a newer richness. Many Anglos take on various parts of new cultures and blend it with their own heritage. Speaking only personally, I was born white, protestant, and of Welsh/Irish heritage. And yet I love Mexican food and the Mexican tradition of luminaries at Christmas, Chinese food, and Japanese watercolors, and many other traditions of culture brought by immigrants. Conversely, I cannot say from personal experience, but I believe that most immigrants begin to take on some of what is thought of as Anglo culture and blend it with their own traditions. If not the first generation of immigrants then definitely by the second or third generations.

In regard to the African culture that was pre-United States---much of Southern cooking encompasses African cooking. Music of Africa (have you been watching "Jazz"?) has become a very large part of American culture but I think I am right in saying that the African music has come to be played on instuments that could be considered a European invention.

I am not sure I answered you exactly but I guess I am trying to say---that in time we all blend together and that is good for our country. New thoughts, differing experiences and viewpoints can only keep us vital.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 08:55 am

Free blacks, before and after the Civil War, were usually among the poorest residents of the cities, victimized by considerable racial discrimination. Although most lived in two-parent families, a substantial minority formed female-headed families. The reasons for this were primarily demographic and economic, including high rates of mortality and widowhood, chronic unemploment, and the large number of women in urban service jobs.

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 09:05 am

Our east coast provinces have pre-US freed slaves. Most of the folks we have here who are black come directly from Africa and the Carribean. Carrabbana in Toronto each year is the largest such gathering and parade anywhere. Millions come to see it every Fall.

We have a different mix.

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 09:31 am

One might ask why or how the freed slaves came to live in our eastern provinces. Here is a link that tells you the story of one such man.

A freed slave and the Underground Railway.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 10:13 am

"Although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence."

--Alexis deTocqueville

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 11:15 am

There were 30,000 freed and runaway slaves that crossed the border through the Underground Railway to Canada. Some settled for a short time in Niagara. There were still those that came across the border and hauled them back so they moved through Niagara and up to the Eastern Provinces.

Most returned to the US to fight in the war between the North and South. I believe only some 3,000 remained in Canada at that time.

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 11:19 am

One more point i forgot. When the folks were removed from the coastal towns of Africa many were fishers and farmers. The east coast was a perfect place for them because they could fish and farm. However, they must have wondered just why the heck they came to such a cold place.

FaithP

January 11, 2001 - 11:34 am

(I care but little to know who oppresses me and I am not the more disposed to pass beneath the yoke because it is held out to me by the arms of a million men."(P149, Influence of Democracy upon Intellect.)

The majority that rules must always be aware that the minority may be laying in wait. There is fear of the minority and not just a criminal class. The Owners of Business feared the Workers who allied and became a majority force in many countries. Politically too . I like that quote and it seems very appropriate to me. That means I am more disposed to rebel against the "yoke" if I feel as the above quote indicates. Fp

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 11:38 am

Faith:--Over and over again deT used the term "tyranny of the Majority."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 11:59 am

So just who is the majority? It can be just about anyone of either sex given the right circumstances. It is politically correct to put the blame on the white male but i hardly think that is a wide enough circle. Just my opinion.

)

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 12:25 pm

This is a speech that Mandela gave on fear. Now i happen to think that a lot of our problems with "others" comes from fear. So here goes. Delete if this does not fit, Robby.

Fear - Nelson Mandela

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our Light, not our Darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves: who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you NOT to be? You are a child of Spirit. Your playing small does not serve the World. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that others won't feel insecure around you. We were born to manifest the glory of Spirit that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in EVERYONE. And as we let our Light shine, we give others permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence liberates others".

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 12:29 pm

A most powerful quote by someone of the "minority" color in South Africa although people of color were actually the majority in numbers.

Is there a fear lurking in the hearts of the "majority" - that is, the "right" color?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 12:35 pm

Hmmmmmmm the right colour. Okay we have a problem right there Robby. What i am trying to get at is that colour is majority or minority depending where you are within a society. Sure Mandela was a member of an oppressed "majority" but within the black townships all were equally black. There were those within the townships who were feared because they formed a powerful and feared "minority." See how it works...minority or majority there was fear. The ordinary folks black or white often found/find themselves in doo doo.

If one is the only Jewish family in a Catholic neighbourhood one is a minority. One Catholic family in a Jewish neighbourhood is a minority. It depends where you are and what circumstances you find yourself in at the time.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 12:43 pm

In a recent nationwide poll conducted by the New York Times, a majority of Americans maintain that race relations in the United States are generally good, but blacks and whites continue to have starkly divergent perceptions of many racial issues and they remain largely isolated from each other in their everyday lives.

There appears to be what was described as a "stubbornly enduring racial divide," and the poll suggested that even as the rawest forms of bigotry have receded that they have often been "replaced by remoteness and distrust in places of work, learning and worship."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 12:58 pm

It won't change either. It is one to one contact that will help but you can't cure fear and distrust with laws.

(

tigerliley

January 11, 2001 - 04:36 pm

Idris what a co-incidence....My yoga teacher today read the quote you just posted from Nelson Mandela....during a relaxation period....I thought at the time how beautiful it was and what truth....Interesting.

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 04:39 pm

I suppose because it is simply worded and it is a truth.

)

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 04:40 pm

By the way when in Martin Luther King Day? Was it today? The "I have a dream" speach is something else too.

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 04:44 pm

This is a link to a document. If it had been believed in then history in France would have been very different.

France

tigerliley

January 11, 2001 - 04:51 pm

Martin Luther King Day is January 15th I believe...The "I have a Dream " Speech can still give me cold chills....A glorious and powerful speech......

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 04:53 pm

Thanks Tigerliley, i've marked it on my calendar. Yes, some speaches speak to many people.

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 05:45 pm

In the New York Times poll this past summer, 74 percent of the respondents said the country had made real progress in reducing racial discrimination -- 25 percentage points higher than in May 1992, just after the deadly rioting that following the Rodney King event.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 05:47 pm

Wishfull thinking????

robert b. iadeluca

January 11, 2001 - 05:57 pm

In the same poll, a core of blacks - about 4 in 10, many of them college-educated -- found little to celebrate. They said they thought that race relations in America were generally bad and that there had been no real progress in eliminating racial discrimination since the 1960s.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 11, 2001 - 06:07 pm

Reality is a cruel thing isn't it.

Jere Pennell

January 12, 2001 - 02:52 am

I am "intrigued" by the use of the term Anglo. Anglo is used loosely to mean the majority in the US and elsewhere although it came from Anglo-Saxon which was Germanic in origin.

I am also intrigued by the thought triggered by the Idris' phrase, "within the black townships all were equally black." I understand that within the Black community there is racial discrimination based on how black the color of the skin is. My information comes to me from conversations with Kenyans, Ugandans, Nigerians, and Ghanaians and other blacks from Africa. This has been confirmed to me by Japanese who has been to those countries.

These educated Blacks, usually part of the diplomatic staff here in Japan say they have experienced the same in the US.

More interesting to me was that the "blacker" the skin color is the lower on the "totem pole" the person is.

In conclusion, it is an interesting experience for me a "white" member of the US majority to live in Japan where I am definitely a member of the most minor of the "minorities."

PS The original inhabitants of Japan, the Ainu, are Caucasian, a minority within Japan. Most interesting.

Jere the lurker

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 03:50 am

Jere:--The term Anglo-American was used extensively by Alexis deTocqueville and one of the early sections in his book was entitled "Origin of the Anglo-Americans." In this Discussion Group we spent a considerable amount of time discussing the origin of America and Americans.

What is your reaction to deT's comments above about "majorities" and "minorities?"

Robby

Ann Alden

January 12, 2001 - 05:17 am

I was listening to TalkAmerican yesterday while out and about and they were interviewing Robert Reisch. One of the things that he said was that race relations have not improved under this president or other presidents since the '60's. Are we stuck on "hold" or is it that as separate persons, each of us handles a situation and no one hears about it? I, for one, hate to hear a person say, in polite conversations, that they are not prejudiced. For me, if you must mention it, you are prejudiced. I guess that's my prejudice! I guess we all are, in one way or another, be it race, color, religion or politics. Thats just the human condition and we will be fighting it (or not) until we die.

Hats

January 12, 2001 - 05:32 am

FaithP has put in perspective my feelings about minorities. "I view the inclusion of other cultures, habits, rituals, etc. as being similar to a great supermarket." I like the metaphor.

Perhaps, I can get my thoughts better organized. I just received my book in the mail yesterday. I am anxious to find the quotes Robby listed above and underline them. Then, ponder them more closely. By then, you guys will be on to another topic.

HATS

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 05:40 am

HATS: Glad to hear that you have received your book. The topic of "majority vs minority" was an important one to deT so we will be discussing this for a while. Feel free to quote any other remarks of deT that you may find in the book that you believe are relevant to our current topic.

In the poll mentioned in previous postings, "blacks and whites seemed to be living on different planets." Blacks were roughly four times more likely than whites to say they thought blacks were treated less fairly in the workplace, in neighborhood shops, in shopping malls and in restaurants, theaters, bars and other entertainment venues.

Robby

EloElose De Pelteau

January 12, 2001 - 06:03 am

Yesterday our Provincial Prime Minister, Lucien Bouchard resigned from office. It might not be very important to Americans, but for Canada it is a major happening. He was a man who had charisma and he could effectively express his views and his passion about Quebec's sovereignty even if a referandum on that question did not go get the majority of votes.

Ottawa now can breathe a sigh of relief because no one else in their view can replace such a man and the Canadian unity issue is reinforced. Since the beginning of the threat of Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada some 40 years ago, I still remember it, things have changed. The old guard are all gone and the young hard liners are not as numerous as they were before. In Bouchard's resignation speech last night, he said that he failed in bringing seperation to Quebecers and he was sorry about that.

Actually, if someone could have done that, he could. The reason that it did not happen is because people in Quebec don't want separation. Quebecers enjoy a standard of living unparalelled in former times and why should they change to something worse. Could anyone see a French speaking country, sparsely populated surrounded on all sides by uncooperative neighbours? The young people of Quebec are smarter than that. They want to belong to the world's strongest force that is North America with its democracy and its strong economy. De T. said that no conquered nation is ever very nationalistic and while we speak French in Quebec, it will remain that way.

If seperation threat brought anger and economic slowdown, in the long run it brought more equality and transparance between the the two founding nations which, in my view has been beneficial to correct the inadequacies it had before.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 06:14 am

Eloise:--Last night I listened on As It Happens to an interview of a friend of Lucien Bouchard and I realized, as I listened, what a momentous event this was to all Canadians, not just those in Quebec. What I see (from the viewpoint of an outsider) is that the Quebecois are a minority in Canada and yet they wielded power - primarily the young ones - to keep Canada unified. Your quote of DeT was most apropos.

A thought to those of you who are newcomers to this Discussion Group, Eloise is reading "Democracy in America" in its French version - the language in which deT originally wrote it.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 06:27 am

I most strenuously disagree with the part of the poll Robby quoted about blacks saying there has been no change in discrimination since the 60's. I lived in Durham, North Carolina in the late 50's when no Afro American could earn a decent wage. There were two water fountains in public places, one marked black, one marked white. Blacks rode in the back of the bus. No black child was allowed to go to a school where there were whites. Blacks were required to yes, ma'am and yes, sir whites to the point of kowtowing to them. Were there lynchings of blacks? Yes, there were.

Ask Charlayne Hunter Gault if there has been change. She was one of the few children whose parents sent them to an all white school and was turned away at the door. Ask Colin Powell. Isn't he the Afro American who is going to be the Secretary of State in this country?

I moved back to the Durham, NC area in 1990 and was astonished at the changes I see. Is that bank president who lives in a ten room house in an exclusive neighborhood here in Chapel Hill an Afro American or not? Isn't that couple who owns the thriving business in Durham black? Aren't those black kids who live just down the street from me in a $300,000.00 house? Don't they attend the same school my white grandson does, and aren't they his friends?

Frankly, either people want too much, or polls are not to believed. I prefer to think the latter.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 06:36 am

Eloise, i like you have a great deal of respect for Mr. Bouchard. I remember when he lost his leg to that terrible flesh eating disease and how terrible i felt. Regardless of his views on separation i sent him a card and wished him well. That is the oddity of Canada i think. We can hate his politics but respect him as a good person and a leader of Quebec.

I have no idea if Bouchard's going will lessen some Quebec hardliners to want to leave. Somehow i don't think the problem will ever go away. One thing i do know the gentlemen (?) who made those racist remarks set him off. Bouchard is a democrat and i think those statements plus the statements of a few of the hardliners hurt him terribly.

He is an older man with a young family so it is just as well he take time to live and let others carry the separatist flag for awhile. In all honesty i think most Quebecers where just as horrified as Bouchard with the statements of a few hardliners. It hurt them deeply.

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 06:41 am

I don't think i could ever say that is was not prejudiced. I must be. I remember moving my son to Chicago and being left downstairs in an alley while the fellows took the furniture upstairs. It was dark in that alley and i had all the money plus the credit cards. I sat on the back of the truck looking at graffite. I had never seen graffiti before and it made me feel uneasy.

I heard someone come down the alley. Out of the darkness a very large black man came carrying a ghetto blaster on his shoulder. I was frightened. He must have known this and smiled at me. He said good evening and moved on down the alley.

If i were not prejudiced i would not have been frightened.

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 06:59 am

Graffiti won't hurt you, Idris. One of the well-known artists in America was Basquiat who started his career doing graffiti.

The appearance of neighborhood you were in, the strangeness of it and stories we all have been fed caused you fear, not the smiling black man with the boombuster on his shoulder. I don't call that prejudice. I call it an unnecessary adrenalin rush primarily instigated by media manipulation of too many minds. Not that there are not neighborhoods to be wary of. I wouldn't go in the drug-selling areas of Harlem if I was paid to go.

It reminds me of myths I've heard about New York City. I have walked those streets and avenues alone in the past, as safely or safer than I walked the streets in my New England hometown.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 07:01 am

I must say i didn't like the whole idea of him moving to Chicago in the first place. I thought it a very frightening place as a whole. As it turned out it was a lovely place to live and he enjoyed his stay. He was thankful to get back to Canada though.

betty gregory

January 12, 2001 - 07:11 am

Malryn, what you write makes sense---that things have changed for the better for Black Americans, yet it is also at odds with what I still believe to be true, that life-threatening eruptions are just below the surface and that lives are still in danger. I probably could not have come to this belief on my own, but, as I've written elsewhere, my friend Alyce patiently suffered my questions through the years and finally offered what is rarely talked about with whites....that she and her large extended family in many cities and friends and neighbors, virtually every Black person she knew, did not feel safe driving home from work. She felt that at any minute, some rogue cop could find a reason to stop her and that from that moment, her life would be in danger. That sort of thing still happens in the south just often enough to remind people how things are.

So, no, I don't think the fundamental valuing of Blacks has changed that much. This is the same conclusion reached by that year long essay-study from the New York Times, if I remember right. Or, maybe it was that each editor and journalist on the team came to such different conclusions that there was not a concensus.

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 07:32 am

All right, Betty, it's time to take another step. What I've seen has been most encouraging, and it's not possible to ignore what has happened since the 60's.

I am reminded of living in Indianapolis in the mid-60's. I hired a woman to help me clean. She also worked for a woman down the street. This woman I hired talked to me about her teen-aged daughter and the fear she had that the girl might become pregnant. I told her some things. Among them was where she could find out about birth control methods. Not long after that the woman down the street came over and gave me a stern lecture about how I was corrupting the "help" and said if I was going to live in that neighborhood I'd better keep those "niggers" in their place. I simply do not see and hear that kind of thing now.

Evolution is slow, and if some police officers act with violence because of a person's color; then the next step I spoke of is more and even more education.

There is absolutely no comparison to what I saw, lived with and wrote about for publication in the 50's and 60's with what I see today.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 07:55 am

Mal, that may be true but that is not how this particular minority perceives it. What is truth? Is it not what we ourselves perceive? If that be so then those minorities who were not around in the 60's perceive the world they are in as not being terribly welcomining and that no progress has been made.

Truth like beauty may well be in the mind of the beholder. Just wondering.

betty gregory

January 12, 2001 - 08:02 am

How do you explain, then, Mal, that most thinking white people agree completely with what you wrote and a growing number of Blacks across groups (economic or education groups) simply can't agree.

I wonder if the status of women, in general, is analogous. Everyone agrees that things are remarkably better for women across the board. If that is so, why is Roe v. Wade at greater and greater risk?

It's the insidious, subtle and less observable inequities that remain...maybe something akin to a fault line underground.

This is difficult to explain, but I believe both positions, therefore, the unsettling cognitive dissonance---two things at odds in my brain.

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 08:05 am

I know nothing of your racial problems. I do know that when an American black comes to Canada they notice a real difference. What is it? I have no idea. Are Canadians racist? I should think so as i believe most folks are to a degree. It just takes the right circumstances to make one know it. Just pondering.

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 08:06 am

You are absolutely right, Idris. There are people now who never witnessed what others and I have. Some things that happened in the past must be repeated over and over to keep memories green like the history of black oppression and stories about World War II, Korea and Vietnam, for example. I think especially of the Holocaust where millions of people were killed because they belonged to a minority religion.

An unfortunate fact about the evolution of human beings is that each generation seems to start from scratch. Two steps forward and one step back. I am thankful that my 25 year old granddaughter and my 15 year old grandson here in NC were taught some history in school and even more at home. Education is the key.

Mal

betty gregory

January 12, 2001 - 08:10 am

Oh, oh, oh.....I'm remembering something one of the managing editors of the NYTimes said, apropo the year long study. He's Black. He said, the feeling "out there" is, "What? You're still talking about racism?? We've already gotten rid of racism. We did the law thing and everybody got to know someone Black. We don't have any more racism. What's wrong with you?"

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 08:11 am

Canada does not have the sort of history of slavery and racism, especially directed toward blacks, that the United States does or the prejudice against Afro Americans handed down from one generation to another that has existed here. Perhaps there are different kinds of prejudice in Canada. I truly don't know.

Edit. Of course there's racism in this country today, but offhand I think the problem to address is prejudice against Latinos and Spanish speaking people right now more than it is prejudice against blacks. Prejudicial attitudes change their color and the scapegoat minority to be feared and blamed and have through history. Look at the prejudice against the Irish in the 1800's.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 08:16 am

I think it is more polite in its forms. It is all mixed up with all sorts of groups believing themselves to be better or different or special. It isn't just a black and white thing here. It is nation of origin, religion, culture, language, wealth or lack of it, sexual orientation and a whole host of other things.

For the most part we get along and yet there are still tensions. Then again this isn't heaven.

)

betty gregory

January 12, 2001 - 08:18 am

But, of course things have changed. My mother would never have had intimate conversations with a black girlfriend about such serious, private things, but I have. My mother told me once that my new little friend that I was walking home with in 3rd grade was "not our kind," and I wasn't to walk with him. He was Hispanic.

Alki

January 12, 2001 - 08:28 am

Idris, that's what a gang of young men yelled as they jumped up and down on the hood our our car when my husband and I were in Montreal to attend my stepson's graduation form McGill University. They rocked the car back and forth and jumped up and down on the hood shouting the "Yankees go home" bit. Only they said "Yoonkees". My husband shouted back that he was from Pennsyvania, not Iowa-regardless of what the license plate said. And the Canadians have had problems in their relations with Canadian Indians too. I saw that in British Columbia- break the culture with even the law if you have to. Perhaps there is no paradise after all, just plain old living with all of its problems.

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 08:35 am

Ellen, you will find jerks everywhere. Including here.

(

We are working to give self-government to all aboriginals or First Nations Peoples in Canada. It is not an easy thing to do. I would also like to point out that our First Nations People are laying claim to 120% of British Columbia. This due to overlapping historical hunting grounds.

The fishers on the East Coast are being bought out. The boats are paid for by the government. These boats are turned over to the First Nations People and the original fishers are teaching them how to run the boats safely and how to use the equipment. No, we are not perfect but we are trying.

You must also rememeber that there were no "Indian Wars" here. We can't say we "won" the land in a war. We are stuck with treaties in the East and no treaties in the West. It is one big mess and we know it.

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 08:51 am

Here is a timline for one small group of First Nations People we have finally a Self-government deal with. More has happened since this time line was concluded. Remember we must make a deal with each and every small band within Canada. We must also make sure that Charter Rights are affirmed by each group before they take on self-governement. We can't just leave the women to fight for their rights within the First Nations structure. This is a problem.

Timeline Tseshaht Peoples

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 09:00 am

You might also wonder just how many different bands we must get agreements with. I truthfully have no idea but there are hundreds. Here is a link to a few of them as seen in their totems.

Totems and First Nations Peoples - British Columbia

Hats

January 12, 2001 - 09:21 am

I think the 2000 election showed the difference in the majority and minority of Americans. Really, I think the blacks were on one side and the whites were on the other side. Each side straining to win because they realized the value of being in the majority. In this case, whichever party wins is the majority for four years.

I feel that the blacks felt disenfranchised. In some areas, their voting machines were older. In other neighborhoods, white ones, I guess, the machines were of a better quality, newer. This caused a fight between the majority and the minority. The fight, as we all know, went straight to the Supreme Court.

I think when Clinton held office for the last eight years, the Black Americans felt that they were the majority. Now, with Bush taking office, I think there is a feeling of discomfort, a feeling that they might become the minority again. There is the uncomfortable feeling that whoever is in the minority gets lost in the crowd. Their needs will go unheard or if heard ignored.

I do think that majority and minority status is like a living organism. This status changes and sways. I agree with Idris, "It depends where you are and what circumstances you find yourself at the time."

HATS

Dolphindli

January 12, 2001 - 09:24 am

I grew up in a small village - Austrian dominated, as I have said before and I also grew up in a household that was not bigoted but I couldn't tell an Irishman from an Italian from a German from a Dutchman. To me, everyone was Austrian. In fact, I never saw Afro-American's in the Village where I lived and it was not until I went to work at 17 in a law office that I encountered "black people." My experience was meeting some of the most polite, courteous and honest people.

The only thing I was bigoted about as a kid was that the Catholic church, purveyors of hypocrisy (my opinion) told me from age 5 years old, that "the Jews killed Christ." So naturally, in my child's mind, I had to hate the Jews.

When I was seventeen I went to work for an attorney named "Harold Manheim" and when I went home and told my Mother who I was working for, she innocently said: was: "Hmm! Manheim - Manheim? Is he Jewish? Well, that sent my 17 year old brainwashed Catholic mind into a spin. I went to work the very next day and said to him: "Mr. Manheim" what is your NATIONALITY? (What did I know religion from nationality?) His response: "German, why?? I said as innocently as a new born babe: "Oh, thank God, my Mother thought you were Jewish!!!"

Thank goodness he was a gentle, kind and understanding man who laughed his head off. We then got to discussing religion and he told me not to worry cause he was "related to the Big Boss."

I spent 13 of my best working years every with him and we became the best of friends.

Dolphindli

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 09:34 am

Did you ever think that fear and hatred of the minority might be economic fear? People see a large number of people who come from a different country, speak a different language, have a different skin color or religion and think, "Whoa, there goes my job." Keep 'em down and backward and the jobs are intact for the majority which may, indeed, be smaller in population size than the "minority".

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 11:08 am

At 9:30 a.m. I left the house and just came back at 1:30 p.m. There were 22 additional postings in this forum!! I have said before and I repeat that it is a distinct pleasure to be the Discussion "Leader" of this group. You all have such well-thought-out views and they are so well-expressed. And you all interact with each other not needing a DL to make comments. And I believe that is the way it should be.

Now my reactions to your previous postings. Please note one of the sentences used in the poll. "Blacks and whites seemed to be living on different planets. Blacks were roughly four times more likely than whites to say THEY THOUGHT Blacks were treated less fairly..." In other words, as Idris called to our attention in her Post 1051 - this is how the minority perceives it. What we believe to be so is not only often very different from what is so but, in our minds, is more important than what is so. Mal may be very correct (Post 1044) concerning the great changes that have taken place but the Blacks (at least those in the poll - and it was a scientifically conducted poll) did not see it that way. So I tend to believe this poll. It told us not what has taken place but what the Blacks perceive as having taken place. There may be, to use Betty's term (Post 1049), "less observable inequities."

HATS uses the word "feel" over and over again in her Post 1063. Remember the differences in the Black-White perceptions concerning Rodney King? I don't know what the "truth" is but I know that a significant number of Whites across the land perceive the jury's decision one way and a significant number of Blacks across the land perceive the jury's decision the other way.

Dolphin (Post 1064) in her humorous, yet serious, narration calls our attention to the power of indoctrination during childhood. This is when many of our "views of the world" come into existence and, as Dolphin, points out the "view" that had been presented to her did not turn out to be the "truth" as she came to see it.

Robby

Mary W

January 12, 2001 - 11:46 am

Hello everyone.This is a fascinating subject for discussion and a helluva problem to solve. I agree with Malryn (I usually do) that many changes have come about since they were initiated in the 60s. Some changes are: 1) African-Americans have total enfranchment if they wish it. There is no longer the struggle they had with impossible-to-pass examinations given by hostile registrars; 2) no longer the discriminatory PollTax; 3) The end of segration in all public p0laces; 4) The demise of the overt Jim Crow Laws; 5) An end to most lynchings; And the inclusion in government on local, state and federal levels..

There are many more reforms still needed. Among the most glarig are 1) More employment with decent wages; 2) MUCH BETTER EDUCATION to enable them to get decent jobs and to live better lives; 3) An end to ghettoes and districts of sub-standard, sub-human housing, much of constitute flourishing drug emporiums; 4) Some kind of accomodation to each others cultures.

I cannot see how these needs will be met--but they must! The distrust and lack of knowledge and understanding between African-Americans and white Americans is palpable.

Iv'e probably omitted lots of other ills which need to be treated but these are the first ones thatcame to mind.

How do you think we can attack them?

Take care, all, Mary

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 12:00 pm

I am sorry but i truly have a problem with this "since the sixties" stuff. Everyone who is a citizen has been allowed to vote in this country since the twenties. The group that couldn't vote were women.

The sixties are not that long ago and it seems to me there would still be a fair bit of distrust in a system that so recently gave one group of folks a vote. Especially given linchings and all manner or horrors. It is now in the culture, in the blood, in the brain. You can't just say things are better now.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 12:01 pm

I want to correct myself. When I mentioned earlier about the different Black-White perception of the Rodney King event, I meant to say the Simpson event.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 12:07 pm

One of the few areas in the poll where Blacks and Whites were most in agreement was in their perceptions of racial hostility. Similar percentages -- 39 percent of Whites and 45 percent of Blacks -- said they thought that many or almost all white people disliked blacks. And 45 percent of whites and the same percentage of blacks said they thought that many or almost all black people disliked whites.

This may or not be true but, as the poll indicated, this is the general perception.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 12:12 pm

I was thinking only a dummy would think anything was right about the Rodney King thing.

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 12:23 pm

Not everyone in the United States has had the right to vote since the twenties. There were burdensome poll taxes, for example, and literacy laws that prevented many blacks and other minorities from voting in elections.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 12:25 pm

Were the literacy laws an example of the Tyranny of the Majority that deTocqueville mentions against the Minority?

Robby

EloElose De Pelteau

January 12, 2001 - 12:38 pm

Betty - I want to apologize for the incident you suffered while you were in Montreal. That act is unpardonable and has less political or racial implication, in my opinion, but hoodlums lurk in every country. I too would have been very scared. I was in New York city often and nothing happened to me there, but I had my wallet picked 5 times in my life in different countries. Twice I recovered it, but I had just been too confident on the honesty of people around me. Now I know better, I think.

Idris - To send a get well card to Lucien Bouchard just showed how sensitive a woman you are. You set aside your disagreement even your fear about his politics, yet you felt bad enough about his suffering through such a horrendous disease that you wanted to sympathize with him. Thank you.

My grand'son is 21 and he is in his second year studying computer 'something' at University of Montreal. He will work for an International company when he graduates and his knowledge of English will be expected to be near perfect. The same goes for every University graduate in this province. I have every reason to believe that his world view will be a tolerent one in every respect.

Robby how can a minority not melt into the background with the Internet and the technology of today? Right here on Seniornet, we don't "see" each other, is it because of that that we are more tolerent? I don't know. Or is it because we are more wise? I still have a long way to go before I become the wisewoman of my clan.

I only read De T.'s book in French because I love his rhetoric and his prose and also it is my mother tongue. Do you know if he wrote anything else?

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 12:43 pm

Of course literacy tests were what de Tocqueville describes.

I want to talk about something else that just came to me. What about these perceptions you and others mention, Robby? Are they valid? I say at least some of them are based on what happens when one is a minority, either by color or other difference.

I went to and graduated from a small New England women's college. There were two women out of two thousand students there at the time who were handicapped. The other was from a rich family. She was far worse handicapped than I, on crutches and with full-time help to drive her to class and help her to a classroom. She did not live on campus and was unable to take a full schedule of courses. Therefore, I was the only student out of 2000 who was visibly handicapped at that college. I was a minority of one.

What happened to me was that I became terribly self-conscious about the brace on my leg and the fact that I fell down on ice in the winter when others didn't and was often late to class because I could not walk as fast as others did and could not run.

It is not an easy feeling to be so different, and it can sensitize one into dwelling too much on what you begin to think others have which you do not. As the only black in a workplace, or one of say twenty out out two hundred, don't you think these people feel much the same way? I know I exaggerated the attitudes of others about my handicap in my college situation and other job situations later in life. Is it possible that people of color do this, too?

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 12:49 pm

Eloise:--I don't know of any other books by deTocqueville. That is not to say they don't exist.

Regarding being tolerant because we don't "see" each other. I had the pleasure of being with 30 other members of the Books and Literature group in Senior Net in November, 1999 in Chicago, seeing them all face to face for the first time, being with them for three days -- and found exactly the same courtesy and consideration I find here.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 12:57 pm

Mal asks if a perception is "valid?" Here I am a Clinical Psychologist who is supposed to be familiar with concepts like that but I find it most difficult to conjure up an answer. It leads to the next question which is "what does the term valid mean?" And so on past that. What is truth? This is not a group discussing philosophy and we can get in over our head. Perhaps we can oversimplify and say that the world is what we say it is. If it is my perception that you are being unfair with me, it will take a considerable amount of observable behavior on your part to convince me otherwise.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 01:04 pm

Eloise, i can't remember tests to vote here in Canada, do you? You are in Quebec so things may have been different there.

What is truth? Not being a complicated lady i would say it is for most folks simply what they believe the truth to be. It doesn't have to be truth in the world or academic sense...it is a thing of the gut. Oops being rather rude there. Pardon.

)

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 01:06 pm

Or, Robby, you become an over-achiever as I did to prove I was as capable as everyone else despite my minority status because I was afraid if I didn't I'd just plain go under and drown.

It's an interesting concept that, in my opinion, has nothing to do with philosophy. Rather, it has more to do with survival in an unaccepting world.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 01:24 pm

So, take that feeling of being unaccepted and put some group in there. I think the feeling of not being accepted stays with the person and group for generations if the group exclusion was bad enough.

The world can change about them and yet they "feel unaccepted." Is this a truth? People on the outside looking in say no. The individual or group says yes. It is all a matter of perception. So, truth is perception, i think.

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 01:29 pm

Idris, the good day comes when one feels that it doesn't matter whether he or she is accepted or not.

Discrimination is different, though. I've known that, too, as a sort of minority. Because of it, I will fight against unfair discrimination against minorities the rest of my life, regardless what outside perception is.

Mal

Ginny

January 12, 2001 - 01:53 pm

Hey, Everybody, Robby said I should come in here, he's so proud of you all, says you're a real family here and we'd like to invite you all to something you will not be sorry you came to: Our THIRD Annual Books Gathering in Washington DC in November of 2001.

This will be centered around books and authors and lots of neat stuff but the highlight is always our face to face meetings and talks, and how we enjoyed those last time. Robby will be there and so will so many of those you've been talking to in the Books and on SeniorNet. Heck, if we get enough of you we can have a DiA Caucus.

MANY are coming by train, an entire contingent is coming from the Midwest by Amtrak, do, please join us, you will NOT regret it!

ginny

Texas Songbird

January 12, 2001 - 03:07 pm

An interesting discussion on perceptions, and it so happens that it fits with an interesting editorial I read this morning by Leonard Pitts, my favorite columnist (except for Molly Ivins). I have found him to be a perceptive person and an exceptionally good writer. And by the way, he is Black. Here is the column:

The logical approach to race and white privilege
By Leonard Pitts
Friday, January 12, 2001

Here's what I said: Black people are a constituency to which Republican candidates trolling for votes ought to pay attention and direct their appeals, just as they would any other group -- the military, the elderly or parents of school-age children, for instance.

Now, let me sum up for you the thousand-plus ("Did he say thousand-plus? Yes, he did.") e-mails, snail mails and letters to editors that took issue with that point:

Black people serve in the military, are among the elderly and are parents of school-age children, aren't they? So when a politician makes campaign promises to those groups, he's talking to black people too, isn't he? Black people are not a separate constituency. Republicans don't divide people by race and culture.

As my sainted mother would say, Lord have mercy. Lord, give me strength.

Actually, if I had a lick of sense, I wouldn't even be writing this column, wouldn't contribute yet another chapter to an argument that's already gone on for too long. Had I the sense God gave a goose, I'd stop pummeling this horse's corpse and move on.

Problem is, I have this character flaw. I can walk away from any objection but a dumb one. If the logic has holes you could drive a truck through, I cannot rest until I've driven that truck.

And this logic? Man, I could lead a convoy.

To begin with, a constituency is a group of voters with common backgrounds and/or concerns. Obviously, there is overlap. An 86-year-old Jewish man might have questions about a candidate's record on issues affecting the elderly. He might also want to know where the candidate stands on the security of Israel. The one does not invalidate the other. And none of us would be stupid enough to suggest that a candidate who rolled out a prescription drug program had somehow, in the process, also answered questions about the partitioning of Jerusalem.

Similarly, a black soldier, senior, or parent surely has concerns relative to those aspects of her identity. But she also wants to know what the candidate proposes to do about police profiling, housing discrimination, job discrimination, loan discrimination, inferior medical care . . . things that particularly affect her as an African-American and that cry out for moral and legislative leadership from government.

And please, spare me that fairy tale about Republicans not dividing the electorate by race and culture. "Every" politician, Republican or Democrat, spins his pitch to appeal to the constituency he's chasing. That's why you don't seriously compete for votes from South Florida Cubans without discussing Castro and Cuba. You waste your time asking California Hispanics to vote for you unless you address immigration and bilingual education. And if you seek to appeal to conservative whites in South Carolina you must, as the president-elect did, signal your tolerance of the Confederate flag.

Yet African American people are wrong to see themselves as a constituency, united around issues important to them? This is -- to use a word favored by many readers -- "divisive"?

It'd be funny if it weren't so hypocritical. Laughable if it were not so pathetic.

Generally speaking, I don't get upset when good people disagree with me about race -- or anything else, for that matter. But reasoning rent by such large and obvious gaps always disheartens me because it suggests a certain fear, a desperation to avoid by any means necessary a conclusion that scrapes too close to bone. It's a soul inventory they'd rather not make, a long look in the mirror they'd rather not take.

If you acknowledge that black people are a constituency with legitimate issues, you have to acknowledge the ongoing reality of racism and white privilege. And I suspect it can be painful to acknowledge those things if you've been the beneficiary of them your entire life.

Unfortunately, if you DON'T acknowledge them, your only alternative is the tortured "logic" of the thousand-plus, twisting and contorting to escape obvious truths.

Such folks are like a man who hops on the interstate when the destination is across the street. He swears he's trying to get there, but even someone without a lick of sense can see: He's just running away.

(Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald. You may contact him at leonardpitts@mindspring.com.)

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 03:16 pm

Here is a link to CBC's frontpage. If you click on discussion you will see Canadians discussing Bouchard. I know this sort of board often attracts wingnuts but all in all i would say most Canadians regarded this Premier very highly.

click here

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 03:21 pm

I'm not black, but as a particular minority, I can relate to each one of these except one. Never had trouble with police profiling.

These, yes, they've been a problem for this relatively poor, handicapped person for a long, long time:
"housing discrimination, job discrimination, loan discrimination, inferior medical care."

Mal

kiwi lady

January 12, 2001 - 03:54 pm

Like Martin Luther King I too have a dream for my country.

My dream is that we too will not be divided as a nation. Sure it all looks good on the surface we have laws to protect our indigenous people from prejudice but prejudice here is like a boil which is festering under the surface but has not yet broken the skin.

My heart is very sorrowful as even people in my own family do not understand my defence of reparation to our indigenous people. People in my family have intermarried but they justify that as saying these people are different from the average, they are special. My own son in law has never admitted to his native blood until his first child was born and I said to him when he was filling out the registration form. Are you going to deny your daughter her birthright? He looked at me astounded and then wrote European/Maori on the form. His sister had told me all about the family but he would have nothing to do with his culture this is because of the still underlying shame because of the prejudice that still exists. People still do make blatantly racist remarks. This makes me very very sad. My dream is that one day we will be one, a unique and special culture which will embrace the best of both heritages and never again will there be them and us!

Carolyn

FaithP

January 12, 2001 - 04:14 pm

Carolyn this story you posted is exactly the same as my Grandmother on paternal side. She had a Cherokee/Choctaw mother and her father was English and we think either Mexican or Cherokee and they were in Texas when she was born. About 1880/ When Victoria moved to Oaklahoma and married she told no one her ethnic background and then she and her husband Charles moved to Louisianna then Los Angelos.

She never registered herself or her sons as she hated the stigma of Native American or Indian or more usual Half Breed. So until late in the 1940's we had my Dad telling us this and my Mom saying well she didnt believe it and it was silly. I was visiting my Grandmother in the 60's and I ask her once and for all I said I want to know is we is or is we aint Indian. She went and got her picture, the only one her Mother ever allowed to be taken, and showed it to me. There was my great grandmother who used the white name of Mary Smith(like thousands of others) and she had on a mans flannel plaid shirt with a bolo under the coller, a turban, a very full 3 tiered ruffled skirt of flowered gingham. The picture was taken when she was in her 40's and the funny thing was that I looked just like her except she was darker.

So I finally got the truth. My syblings don't believe it since they didnt see the picture. It is so stupid. We are who we are no matter what name you put to us. Well, at least we wish that that were so. Maybe someday it will be. Faith

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 04:18 pm

Here is a link for the Martin Luther King Jr. speech. Is it any wonder so many people think it one of the greatest speeches ever given?

The Martin Luther King Jr. speech

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 04:19 pm

The only people we can change are ourselves.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 04:50 pm

Some of the terms used in previous postings:--housing discrimination, job discrimination, loan discrimination, inferior medical care, divided as a nation, racist remarks, stigma.

Any one here see any relationship to deTocqueville's quote above beginning "The Majority represses...?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 04:57 pm

The Majority represses not only all contest, but all controversy." (P116, Power exercised by the Majority.)

I ask again what is the majority? It all depends on where you are and who you are.

I would say that power represses not only all contest, but all controversy.

Who then has the power. Do we fall into the trap of saying "white males?" There are lots of white males i wouldn't change places with for love nor money. I still think it is those who hold and wield power and that today are faceless digits on a tote board at the TSE, NYSE, NASDAC, etc.

Who controls all of these? We do if we have shares in anything.

So, who is it that makes our socities what they are....we do.

I can only change myself.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 05:06 pm

The poll detected a surprising degree of social interaction between blacks and whites. 76 percent of whites and 84 percent of blacks said they had close friends of another race. 69 percent of whites and 84 percent of blacks said they had SOCIALIZED with someone of another race outside their homes in the preceding month.

YET - the poll made it clear tht most Americans do not LIVE, WORK, or WORSHIP with those of other races. Ninety percent of whites who attended religious services at least once a month said that none or only a few of their fellow congregants were black, while 73 percent of blacks said that almost all their fellow congregants were black.

Subtract your home life, your work life, and your spiritual life and what is left?

Robby

EloElose De Pelteau

January 12, 2001 - 05:06 pm

Idris - I saw the link you put on about Lucien Bouchard. When a prominent politician dies or resignes before his time is up, the other leaders don't want to be critical for fear of reprisal. Is it hypocracy? Or politeness. The person who wrote the letter about Bouchard is full of hate about everything that concerns Quebec. Personally I could do with a little less tension and a little more peace in this country.

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 05:30 pm

Me too Eloise. There are haters everywhere. Right now that is what we are discussing...hate. We can't hide from it or pretend it isn't there. That is part of the problem.

Robby maybe each group thinks God is their colour.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 05:33 pm

Is hate sometimes a cover-up of fear?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 05:35 pm

Of course it is. Fear is at the centre of much we feel. It comes in all forms and shapes. In my tales i call it The Dark Thing From Real. Okay, maybe that doesn't make much sense to most grown-ups but it makes sense to me.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 05:37 pm

Why would a Majority be afraid?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 05:39 pm

If you can define the given majority it is because they think they will lose something. The something can be anything.

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 05:43 pm

Idris:--An interesting concept. The majority (shall we call it Whites for the sake of discussion) may be afraid they will lose something.

If they are already in the majority and, for all intents and purposes have "everything," I wonder what they would lose.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 05:47 pm

I don't live in the US so it is difficult for me to think in your sociatal terms. I can tell you that here it can be...losing face, losing position, embarassment, confusion because of customs, loss of job, loss of feeling superior.

Malryn (Mal)

January 12, 2001 - 06:02 pm

Have I been talking to myself today? I mentioned fear, hate, blame, scapegoats this morning in relation to prejudice. What does the majority fear? Check out my post about the economic relation to prejudice. Fear of loss of job, loss of position, loss of money, loss of prestige, loss of security, loss of status, that's what the "majority" fears. "Keep 'em down and keep 'em backward." That's what I said. The same applies to women. After all, we women outnumber the men in this country. What if this minority of women got our backs up and said, "Out! I'm running things for a change."

I also mentioned the fact that the so-called "minority" can outnumber the majority in the population of a country. No wonder the majority gets scared.

Mal

rambler

January 12, 2001 - 06:05 pm

Momentarily disregarding race and the foreign-born, etc., I would repeat Robby's quotes of de T: "The majority represses not only all contest, but all controversy. ...The majority has absolute power both to make the law and watch over its execution."

That probably was true prior to the 1920s. But then the ACLU and others began calling attention to, and demanding enforcement of, the Constitution's First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Robby asks: "Why would a majority be afraid?" Because Congress can make NO LAW, whatever majority it may represent, that undermines the basic rights of minorities. At least that's been doctrine, not always obeyed, since the 1920s and 1930s, depending (as always) on the makeup of the Supreme Court.

jacee

January 12, 2001 - 06:23 pm

Hello everyone, I have briefly read your interesting comments. I find your comments to be honest and reflective of our human experience. We can all transcribe our experiences in a more positive understanding directive in such an an open reflective discussion. My experience of both the minority and majority experience is recognitions of the fear bases of many human experiences. That fear base, either from nature or nuturer, is often relected in human behavior. I should like to read more from this author.

mikecantor

January 12, 2001 - 06:32 pm

Sorry, Idris..but I must disagree! There is no questioning the fact that people CAN change themselves. That is a blessing that is given to us by the gift of free will. But to say that the ONLY people we can change are ourselves is to deny that people can be changed by the example of others. I believe that is a basic tenet of most of the religions of the world and is a significant aspect of the concepts associated with saints of all religions. In my own faith, we know that part of our responsibility as humanistic beings is to change others, hopefully for the better, by setting an example for them to follow.

Atheists and agnostics will undoubtedly disagree with that. What many of them do not realize is that their act of disagreement itself is, in fact, confirmation of the principle of changing others by their example as is their right to do! At least in a democracy!

There is an alternative to your statement and, if I may, I would suggest the following:

There has never been a soul in all of creation that could not be changed. Whether it is for the better or worse, can only be determined by: 1) Their receptivity for change, 2) the environment in which the change takes place, 3) and the influence of the example set by others either before, during, or after their own existence.

To recognize that, mandates taking a big step backward to enhance one’s perspective of, what I call, “the fabric of life”. That fabric has always been woven in the loom of “change” itself. And that change will always be promulgated by those who choose, in either success or failure, in changing others!

Idris O'Neill

January 12, 2001 - 06:39 pm

The point i am making Mike is that the only person i can change is myself. If in changing myself others believe that what they see is worth being like i have not changed them...they have changed themselves. One can make no law that changes people. One can make law that draws attention to wrongs that need righting. If the folks don't want to go there, the law will be seen a fool.

I have no doubt that in changing ourselves we change the world but it is one long slow process. Only evil seems to grow quickly. The Dark Thing From Real is indeed real. It does not take a church, a minister or a belief in God to change us. It takes our own understanding that a person is a person.

mikecantor

January 12, 2001 - 07:14 pm

Idris, I do believe that you are underestimating the influence you, and each of us, actually has on the lives of others. If others change because of what they see in you, then you have set an example which they may or may not choose to follow. However, the first action taken was yours, so while you may deny it, my perception is that they changed themselves because of you.

I entirely agree with your statement that “It does not take a church, a minister or a belief in God to change us.” However, I believe that what it takes is the ability and desire to intuitively look within ourselves to examine who and what we are or hope to be. I feel that equates with “our own understanding that a person is a person.” I guess we are really saying the same thing!

Mike

robert b. iadeluca

January 12, 2001 - 08:07 pm

Jacee:--Welcome to our Discussion Group! As you can see we are composed of a group of deep thinking individuals who care about Democracy and what transpires within a Democracy. Because we are deep thinkers, we often disagree, but the philosophy we all follow is "disagreement is OK so long as it is done in an agreeable manner." We are looking forward to your active participation.

Robby

FaithP

January 12, 2001 - 11:13 pm

The "in" power group always lives in fear of rebellion from the "out" group. Then I am also thinking about the old caste system in India which was based on Heridity, Color, and Language . If you were born into one caste that is where you stayed.

I have never read an account of the presumed way this came into existance but I know it was abolished and yet still functions as a barrier to full acceptance of one cast by another. This must have started prehistory or just about when the more advanced (in that they were writing at that time and keeping records.)peoples of the Caucasions came down into the Hindus valley. I have read that these Caucasions became the Brahmens,the top caste. That is about all I have read and now I am going to look it up more since it is the only truly formalized Caste system I know of. fp

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 01:53 am

In the poll whites expressed a certain fatigue with racial issues. More than half -- 54 percent -- said the news media devoted too much time to race. But 44 percent of blacks, by contrast, said that the media talked too little about race.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 13, 2001 - 05:01 am

I would like to see the politics of division end and start seeing positive views of minorities. How many children of a minority know that there are many like grow-ups who have "made it" to the middle class, have good paying jobs, live in good housing, have proper medicare and live so called normal lives?

We do not see the positive in our media. We see only the druggies, shooters, homeless. They are there and we must pay attention to each but what good does this do the child who may never know that there are people just like him/her who do not live this sort of life. We present to them the horrors of life and not the good of life.

It is the ching, ching of the cash register that defines what they/we see. Sex and violence sells, even on what passes for news these days. It sells hopelessness, fear and violence, because it is entertainment news.

Okay, i'm probably off on one of my off topic thingys again.

Ann Alden

January 13, 2001 - 05:14 am

Idris, you should leave a clickable to your Sonato story for MikeCantor! I like what he says about the "fabric of life" and it seems to fit in with your story.

Idris O'Neill

January 13, 2001 - 05:45 am

Mike, as Ann suggested i'm giving you a link to a tale i have written. I explain myself much better in fae/folktales than i do in here. In any event if you are interested please have a look at Pelgrath's Loom

Malryn (Mal)

January 13, 2001 - 06:04 am

And, as editor and publisher, I hope you'll look at the rest of Sonata. There are 27 authors represented in the current issue, including Dr. Robert Bancker Iadeluca. Please click the link below.
Sonata magazine for the arts

Malryn (Mal)

January 13, 2001 - 06:08 am

If Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General is confirmed, I guarantee that you'll see more about racism and other issues like Roe versus Wade in the media. His record shows that he is against desegregation and the right of women to choose, just to name two of his activist policies. Check the article about this in the New York Times, January 12.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 06:34 am

"You may set the negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European."

What is your reaction to this comment made by deTocqueville 170 years ago?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 13, 2001 - 06:46 am

Is it colour or is it culture? Why should they give up their culture to be like the European? Surely freedom means the freedom to be yourself. I truly get sick of people wanting everyone to be white bread.

tigerliley

January 13, 2001 - 06:59 am

Idris as you so often do I think you have hit on a BIG part of the race problem...Culture and behavior I think is what is so off setting to some.......not color...

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 07:02 am

Just what are we talking about when we speak of the "black culture?" Exactly what is it?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 13, 2001 - 07:05 am

Well go to a black church and you will hear what it is. It is joy, singing that makes you happy. It is food, attitude and a lot more. It isn't uptight prissy singing, that's for sure.

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 07:11 am

I know you didn't mean this but we could then say that European-Americans are prissy, uptight, joyless people who don't sing. Some time ago one of the Supreme Court Justices said of obscenity: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." Are we able to define "black culture?"

Robby

Phyll

January 13, 2001 - 07:13 am

The N.Y. Times (online) has a review of the new translation of Toqueville's Democracy in America. The reviewer, Caleb Crain, calls Toqueville the Nostradamus of democracy. He (Toqueville) predicted everything, including the Civil War: "If America ever experiences great revolutions, they will brought about by the presence of blacks on the soil of the United States."

And many other surprising insights by Toq. This is, IMO, an excellent review. If you are interested in reading the complete text, click on: http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/14/reviews/010114.14craint.html

Idris O'Neill

January 13, 2001 - 07:19 am

Robby, i was recalling a conversation with my brother-in-law who lives in the Carribean. His first experience going to a mass for locals was what i was trying to explain. He had attended many masses in Canada but never had he heard this type of music before. He called it joyful, wonderful and many more positive things. I believe he attendes like services where he now lives in the Carribean whenever he can. I should shut up because i'm not trying to be annoying but i may be without trying.

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 07:22 am

Phyll:--Thank you so much for that Link. I recommend strongly that we all read it. Once again it illustrates to us that deTocqeville was indeed a sort of "Nostradamus of Democracy."

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 13, 2001 - 08:18 am

How can one ask what "black culture" is when it's so many different things made up of so many different heritages? It's like asking what "white culture" is. Black culture for the man who tended my yard in Durham, NC was not the same as it was for the lawyer who lived across Crooked Creek from my house in Indianapolis or the symphony violinist who played chamber music in my house in the country in Westchester County north of New York. What's black culture for the two teachers and their kids who live down the street here six miles south of Chapel Hill, North Carolina? What I'm reading are stereotypes. I wonder what "black culture" is for EdieNY, who lives in New York City? She's the only Afro American person I've seen in SeniorNet. Too bad we can't get her in here to give her comments and insight.

Mal

Jere Pennell

January 13, 2001 - 10:13 am

I generally don't think of myself as anthing other than me. I received a census form, a few years ago that asked me to check a box regarding my ethnicity. That is when I had to decide what am I. I wonder if the attempts to put ourselves in "boxes" helps or hinders?

I wonder if Culture like language is continually changing? If it is changing, then the culture of today is not the same as it was 5-10 years ago and then it would not be the same as 170 years ago.

Mal hit it on the head. How do you define something that not only is changing but is different for everyone. Isn't everyone unigue? If so how do we put that uniqueness in a box and be accurate? Assuming I am unique, then everytime I read a post here and someone like Idris or Mal makes a statement that alters my thinking changes my uniqueness. Then I am different slightly from what I was before I read the post. Am I making myself clear or only muddying the water? Are we trying to do something like trying to change the tire of a car while it is speeding down the freeway?

Jere the lurker

kiwi lady

January 13, 2001 - 10:56 am

When my son was in LA in 1995 he bought a car and wanted to alarm it. He went into a black neighbourhood to an auto electrical workshop. He walked into the shop held out his hand and said "Hi I am Matt Stirling I come from NZ and I need my car alarmed" He said he got excellent service and a good price.

When he told the motel owner where he was staying where he got the alarm fitted the guy went pale and told him he should not have gone there.

Is how we are treated by other races governed by a mutual trust? Is trust the key? Matthew had no preconceived ideas about the area. He went in with the confidence he would get a job done and done well.

I think there has got to be respect too. My daughter travelled extensively in South Africa and Kenya she stayed with Families there and she was horrified at the attitude taken by whites to their servants. She wanted to help with the dishes at one home and was taken to task. We of course are not used to having servants in NZ the most we would have would be either a cleaner a couple of hours a week or some families have Nannies to mind preschoolers. Vanessa said she was most uncomfortable in Africa with the attitude towards domestic staff she said there was no respect of them as human beings.

I had a Kenyan woman working with me some years ago she spoke of her houseboys one day. She said "Oh we used to feed our houseboys gravy beef!" The way she said it sounded like they were household dogs!

If we want harmony in our society we must respect others and give them the same consideration as we would want for ourselves.

I guess despite my previous post about racial prejudice we do have a better society in NZ than in many other countries and have a very high rate of intermarriage. The Australian Aborigines think our country is paradise compared to Australia so I guess it is all relative but I still think there is much room for improvement!

It would be interesting if a black American or a Black African would post to this discussion and tell us how they as human beings feel in their society.

Carolyn

tigerliley

January 13, 2001 - 11:00 am

When I am speaking of culture I am thinking of art,customs, institutions,food, celebrations, etc......as may be practiced by certain groups....that's all....You are right Idris about the singing in black churches....I have a CD entitled "Soul Sisters" and whenever I am feeling down or blue , (or am forced to clean house),I turn it on and up!!!! I should also say that bad behavior in any race is unacceptable to me.....NOW....what constitutes bad behavior????? And we are off and running.......

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 11:15 am

So much to think about here as we examine race relations in Democracies. Carolyn tells us about attitudes in South Africa and Kenya which are Democracies but the more we interact in this forum the more we realize that Democracies differ, often in major ways.

I like Jere's analogy -- examining a culture even as it is changing is like changing the tire on a car while it is speeding down the freeway. A most vivid image!!

Jere, could we (or you) encourage your lovely Japanese wife to post her ideas here or to do so through you?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 11:17 am

Tigerliley:--What if "bad" behavior among caucasians is considered acceptable among certain black societies?

Robby

tigerliley

January 13, 2001 - 01:02 pm

Of course Mal...I understand that..Robby are you asking me what I thingk bad behavior is?

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 01:05 pm

Tigerliley:--I am asking if it is possible that what is considered "bad" by one group might be considered entirely proper in a group which has a different culture.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 13, 2001 - 02:29 pm

"The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color."

- - Alexis de Tocqueville

tigerliley

January 13, 2001 - 03:23 pm

I expect that is possible....However the kind of behaviors I am thinking of would not be welcome in any culture.......

betty gregory

January 13, 2001 - 04:33 pm

African and African-American Culture is a range of things, as Russian culture might be, or Italian culture. It includes history, holidays, art, often language (check out Toni Morrison's Beloved), certain values in families, shared hurts, shared turning points, shared perception not understood fully by others, and other things I can't find a label for, such as the lopsided percentages of Black men in prison. But Mal's warning is well placed. There are Blacks in this country who have never seen a ghetto, who don't believe in affirmative action, who don't vote Democratic, who, for whatever reason, have had far different experiences than our well meaning averages that could border on stereotypes.

We're not the only ones who struggle with this topic. So do African-Americans. I'm thinking of my friend Alyce and her brother who very carefully avoid each other close to national election time because they have very different views.

I know for a fact that some Blacks would have a hard time hearing of our "white" group discussing this, whereas others would welcome the energy spent and would be pleased. I think I know one in the first group whom I admire very much. It is a difficult subject, but I can't think of a better way to spend our thoughts. Tackling subjects like this stretch our minds and, in this neck of the woods, probably advance our world an inch or two.

Jere Pennell

January 13, 2001 - 06:53 pm

I hear you re: getting my wife to post but what makes you think that her thoughts are not being posted?

In your post which quoted, ""The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color."

Do not overlook the prejudice of the "slave" (minority). Much of what has been posted has to do with this. The Afro-American, or whatever is the politically correct term nowadays, who does not see the advances that have been made since... I must apologise to the group labeled Afro- American but it applies equally to the Hispanic-American, the Asian- American, the Native American, etc. even women even though they do not get the press coverage.

Oh yes! I hope De T did not mean the slave/minority when he wrote the words "the moderns"...

Jere the lurker

mikecantor

January 13, 2001 - 07:05 pm

Ann,Idris,Malryn:

My heartfelt thanks to you all. I am happily startled to discover that a new, little world has opened for me in viewing Sonata.

Idris, I must confess that I was quite moved by "Pelgrath's Loom." I also recognize the source of your very special eloquence. Please do not try and tell me that you are really not from another fae time and place. I know better!

Mike

betty gregory

January 13, 2001 - 09:06 pm

Uh, Jere, do you mean your wife is already a known poster here or that her thoughts are mixed with yours? I confess I wanted to answer your question to Robby with a smart-alecky, "'cause we usually see a name or separate identity that we can respond to," but I won't. {{8>)

robert b. iadeluca

January 14, 2001 - 01:32 am

To aid the thought of newcomers here as to exactly what we are doing in this forum, the following very first posting here in July 28th will help you understand the voyage on which we are embarked.

"Welcome to an exciting adventure! We are about to launch into mainstream America and as we flow along day by day observing the sights and sounds of this vital nation with all its strengths and weaknesses, we will at the same time be making comparisons between what we see and hear and deTocqueville's comments concerning the democracy he saw.

We are slipping into this mainstream at a moment when a truly American "invention" is getting underway -- the political convention. As the days and weeks go by, America will unfold before our eyes -- another convention, further campaigning, opening of schools across the land, a pause to observe the working person's holiday, more campaigning, celebration of Columbus Day, a unique American holiday, then the election itself, followed by Thanksgiving, also unique -- and so America moves on. Very little happened in the United States of America of the early 19th Century that deTocqueville didn't see and comment upon. And so much of what he wrote is apparently relevant to the America of today.

As you observe America and form your thoughts, may I suggest that you refer constantly to the quotes of deTocqueville above. They will be regularly updated so as to stay in line with what America is currently showing us. Is he relevant? Are his observations pertinent to our America? Come aboard and share your thoughts with us."

And what do we see now on this voyage? Coming up tomorrow is an American holiday, Martin Luther King Day. What memories does his name evoke? What are your thoughts of him as a person? Do you believe his presence made a change in America?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 14, 2001 - 02:31 am

"I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers."

- - Martin Luther King, Jr.

tigerliley

January 14, 2001 - 06:11 am

Martin Luther King is one of my heroes.....I will never forget my feelings as I listend to his "I have a Dream" speech...I wonder what he would think of today's racial climate.....I do not think he would be happy.....Do any of you think we have a leader of his stature in the black community today?

camron

January 14, 2001 - 06:16 am

Idris, your link to "France". Great. The fact that Jefferson had a hand in it I see as his second thoughts to improve our Constitution after operating under same. Maybe I am all wrong on the time lines?

betty gregory

January 14, 2001 - 08:00 am

Jere, I hope you'll repeat here what you wrote in your kind email about your wife's (cultural) views of our format. After my quip, I didn't deserve such a thoughtful explanation. What you wrote was so interesting and well written, I'm certain others would enjoy learning more about your Japanese wife's views on discussion. (So many of our fiction book discussions, lately, have included settings and characters from other countries---we seem to be traveling the world.)

If I've crossed the line again by suggesting this, which is possible, please forgive me.

Idris O'Neill

January 14, 2001 - 09:10 am

The I Have a Dream Speech

jeanlock

January 14, 2001 - 12:34 pm

Robby--

Back a bit, you asked Why would a majority be afraid?

My first college term paper was about 'negro' education in America. And I guess it was my first exposure to literature on the subject of blacks and whites in the US. But I did pick up one fact that, I think, answers your question if by 'majority' you mean 'whites'. There are many types of 'whites' as there are many types of other hues. In the south, after the Civil War, the poor southern farmers feared that the newly freed slaves would take jobs that would have otherwise gone to them. And you can see that same specter of 'losing position' or 'face' all through our society. In poor economic times, whites fear that blacks, and--indeed--other immigrant minorities--will compete for jobs, and be willing to work cheaper. You certainly don't have to look far to see how that works today. In the Washington area, there are specific places where Hispannic immigrants gather to wait for someone from some construction job or other to come by and sign them up for a day's work. And I think you can be sure that the work doesn't pay union wages.

That fear of competition for work isn't too obvious right now, but if we do head into a downturn, you will see more of it. The way it is right now, these immigrant workers do work that Americans just don't want to do because they can get more desirable work.

betty gregory

January 14, 2001 - 02:39 pm

Power is more than economic power, though, and I think loss of power or fear of its loss has a lot to do with how we see ourselves in the world. In gender issues, for example, loss of the position "head of the house" is more than just loss of economic superiority.

However, with a few more moments thought, I can see that how we view our position in the world is often tied to economic success, for men especially (or what has been forced on men), so maybe economics can't be separated so easily from the issue of power.

Pardon me while I argue with myself.

robert b. iadeluca

January 14, 2001 - 05:19 pm

Comments by Julian Bond about Martin Luther King:--

"We honor him because of what his memory summons: the stoic who faced injury and death before howling mobs, and the single figure of his period and ours able to articulate to whites what blacks wanted and to blacks what would be expected if freedom's prize was won. That King is half a man, a blurred image of the King that was.

"These reappraisals are not peculiar to King; they shape the memory of all our heroes. He quickly separated himself from black America's recognized spokesmen. Almost alone among them, he argued for and organized militant, non-violent mass action as a substitute for the slow and plodding legal strategies embraced by most."

"A year after his 'I have a dream' speech, King attached the war in Vietnam. He also said: 'I'm much more than a civil rights leader. There must be a better distribution of wealth. We can't have a system where some of the people live in superfluous, inordinate wealth while others live in abject, deadening poverty.' Untl his life's end he fought for economic justice."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 14, 2001 - 05:34 pm

A Just Society.

tigerliley

January 14, 2001 - 05:42 pm

Yes....I think if Dr. King were alive today he would not be so concerned with civil rights, as those battles have been fought and in the main won, but he would be very concerned and fighting I think for economic justice FOR EVERY AMERICAN.

kiwi lady

January 14, 2001 - 06:41 pm

As you all know I am not an American but Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela are my heroes. Mainly because they fought so hard and endured so much with Martin Luther King giving up his life for his brothers. No threat could silence him. He knew there was a good chance he would be assassinated but he continued on in his search for justice and freedom.

Nelson Mandela is also my hero as he endured all those years of imprisonment and came out determined to make a new South Africa not being vengeful but in a spirit of reconciliation.

I think these two men are two of the greatest men in our time.

Carolyn

Jere Pennell

January 14, 2001 - 09:08 pm

As you requested -

"Jere, I hope you'll repeat here what you wrote in your kind email about your wife's (cultural) views of our format. After my quip, I didn't deserve such a thoughtful explanation. What you wrote was so interesting and well written, I'm certain others would enjoy learning more about your Japanese wife's views on discussion."

Her thoughts are mixed with mine. She does not like to communicate in English but her thinking has a strong influence on mine. We do not always agree on some things but that is the result of the Japanese culture.

I would say for example, "I do not agree or do you think..." and she would say, "You may be right."

She feels much stronger about foreigners than I but is much more polite about things.

She would not post because the major purpose of posting is to exchange differences of opinion or differing experiences and she and most Japanese in general do not believe in disagreement except within the family. Do you know that all Cabinet decisions and policies in Japan are reached by consensus, meaning they are unanimous for example.

If I said something, and she did not agree, she would not express her opinion in public. Likewise she expects me not to disagree with her in public. Therefore you would not get two differing opinions from us.

She is not on the SN as she is still working a 55 hour week as a school teacher, not counting the hours spent at home correcting papers nor the activities like committee work and chaperoning fieldtrips, dances etc. where her language skills are in demand.

I am the "houseperson" and Internet communicator in the family for the English language and she handles the Japanese language communication.

Is houseperson the politically correct term now or is it house husband? I have been away too long.

Persian

January 14, 2001 - 10:03 pm

JERE - your description of how you and your wife communicate (and what she expects to be kept in the family) is very much like our customs. My husband is Egyptian and I am from a French/Irish/Persian background. Public dignity is VERY important; disagreement is low-key unless there is something really startling going on. Every once in a while, my Irish flares up and it really throws my husband off balance. But then I have to laugh, since I've heard him shouting furiously at his brother on the phone. I think traditional cultures have a lot in common and change slowly.

betty gregory

January 15, 2001 - 12:27 am

Thinking of Jere's and Persian's posts, my family---parents, brothers, son, etc.---would be aghast at my level of personal disclosure here---private things I tell about family and self. It's not the same thing as disagreement in public, but, maybe, 2nd cousin to it.

My mother and her mother would never have disagreed with anyone in public.

Idris O'Neill

January 15, 2001 - 04:19 am

"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Idris O'Neill

January 15, 2001 - 05:03 am

I wanted to make a point about the music in the black churches in the time of slavery. Many of the directions for getting to Canada through the Underground Railway were given in song. A recent cd called "Harlem" by a choral group, includes many of these joyous songs.

One such song is The Heavenly Way and another is A Place Called Heaven. Canada was always referred to as "heaven." It wasn't but that doesn't matter here. All of the instructions for how to get to the Underground Railway was contained in these songs if you knew the code. In this way the instructions could be given safely and moved from one congregation to another across the country.

EloElose De Pelteau

January 15, 2001 - 05:47 am

Robby - Regarding the quote from "Democracy in America" above, I can only deplore the difficulty in translating de T.'s magnificent book. The English version is diluted and awkward.

"What then is a majority taken collectively if it is not an individual who has opinions and more often has opposite interests of another individual named a minority?"

Of course no translation is perfect because one has to completely absorb another culture's thinking process and that is hard to do.

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 06:35 am

Eloise:--Speaking for myself, I am pleased you are reading the French version and anywhere along the line where you believe the English version does not express exactly what deTocqueville meant, please share that with us.

Do you have any thoughts regarding Martin Luther King?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 07:12 am

"One hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

- - Martin Luther King (August 28, 1963)

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 09:14 am

The poll discussed earlier reported that 93 percent of Whites and 95 percent of Blacks would vote for a qualified Black presidential candidate. Yet most of those surveyed -- 55 percent of Whites and 62 percent of Blacks -- agreed that the nation was not ready to elect a Black president.

Robby

tigerliley

January 15, 2001 - 09:38 am

Well Robby I am in the half that thinks we are ready to elect a black president...I for one was very disappointed that Colin Powell did not run.....I think he may have won...........

FaithP

January 15, 2001 - 10:25 am

I too think Colin Powell would have won and I wondered why he did not run. Maybe Secretary of State suits him better, personally I mean because of his military background. My husband was totally against military men in active government such as President or secretary of State or even Attorney General. I however did not see the dangers he did. We all honor Martin Luther King today. Faithp

Texas Songbird

January 15, 2001 - 11:19 am

I have read that Colin Powell didn't run because he said he didn't want to subject his family to the kind of scrutiny and press coverage that a race for the Presidency would have meant (which one could take to mean that there is something there he didn't want uncovered or take him at face value that it was just something he didn't want to put his family through. My guess is that although 90-plus% of the people SAY they would vote for a Black candidate, not all of them really would. It could have gotten really ugly. So maybe he was concerned about the safety of his family.). There may be more (it wasn't something he wanted, it was something he didn't feel he was personally suited to, whatever), but that's what he said at the time, as I recall.

I agree that he would make a good President. He seems to be a man of integrity. But I have heard concerns in the past about military people being in charge, and I think that is a valid concern.

williewoody

January 15, 2001 - 11:25 am

Not only would I have voted for Colin Powell, but I would have loved to have the opportunity to vote for Elizabeth Dole, who in my opinion was even more qualified than her husband to be president. Wouldn't it be great to see her running against Hillary in 2004? I have read many times that the majority of the women in our country would not vote for a woman for president.I don't understand this at all. After all Margaret Thatcher did a great job running Grt Britain for many years. I can think of several women in this country who would be good candidates for president.

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 11:41 am

Martin Luther King is the only American besides George Washington to have a national holiday designated for his birthday. Those of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and others have been celebrated in some states but not nationwide.

Robby

Texas Songbird

January 15, 2001 - 11:42 am

Is that so, Robby? I thought there were still some states that refused to make MLK's birthday a state holiday.

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 11:48 am

President Reagan, after some persistent lobbying for 15 years, signed legislation creating the holiday in November 1983. If there are some states that are refusing to celebrate it, I don't know the details, but it is a national holiday.

Robby

Texas Songbird

January 15, 2001 - 12:21 pm

I knew it was a federal holiday, with the post office, etc. being off, and it's a bank holiday. I just read an article that said this year is the first year it has been celebrated as a state holiday in South Carolina.

I found another Web site that says the last state to enact it as a holiday was New Hampshire, when Governor Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire signed the King Holiday legislation into law June 7, 1999. So, yes, you are right, Robby -- as always! Forgive me for doubting you!

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 12:23 pm

Songbird:--Of course you realize that all this massive bank of information that I impart in this forum is all from my gigantic head and that I never use research of any sort!

Robby

Texas Songbird

January 15, 2001 - 12:28 pm

Gigantic head, huh! I'll say!

Just kidding, Robby. You know that. No, actually I DID think it all came from your gigantic brain and vast storehouse of knowledge (as opposed to me, who hardly ever can remember anything and has to look everything up -- fortunately for me, there is now the Internet, which makes looking up information easy and fun).

EloElose De Pelteau

January 15, 2001 - 12:35 pm

Martin Luther King is far up in my admiration ladder. Ghandi also for having the courage to break enormous barriers in order to achieve freedom their countrymen deserved. Ghandi obtained it relatively fast, but I an afraid MLK only broke the first barrier to make black Americans equal. Racism has a tough shell but in centuries to come you will never know who has black ancestors because Americans skins will be blended fairly uniformly.

In Quebec, every French Canadian has Indian blood, a Jesuit historian told me because when the first settlers arrived from France only men came to settle the land and they took Indian wives giving them their French name. My father was born next to an Indian reservation and we have proof that we have Indian blood, but I am fair skin and my children are all fair and have blue eyes.

You can't stop the tide of intermarriages, thank God.

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 12:41 pm

Eloise:--Regarding the blending of skins, deTocqueville said: "Those who hope that the Europeans will ever mix with the Negroes appear to me to delude themselves."

Robby

Cathy Foss

January 15, 2001 - 02:08 pm

It is so depressing to be - to this day - discussing civil rights and our shamful prejudices.

One of the first things I learned in my social science course was that every tribe thought of itself as the best and better than all others. With our so called advanced knowledge in science and education we are still plagued by the necessity to have a group to hate in order for us to feel superior.

It makes me embarrased to hear statements being made by our politicians, and others, that WE (USA) are the greatest country and most BLESSED in World History. How do we know this? What is our measuring rod?

Texas Songbird

January 15, 2001 - 03:19 pm

Cathy -- I agree. Unfortunately I've been in the middle of a couple of discussions (some here and some in some private e-mail) that take great issue with your statement.

"My country -- right or wrong" still lives. I love my country, and I'm proud of my country, but I don't think it's always right and I'm going to stand up and say so when I think it's wrong. This private e-mail discussion I was in began when a young man from another country responded to an e-mail about the US military and how great it was. I'm paraphrasing here, but he basically said he thought that Americans were too apt to think their country was ALWAYS right and could not see good things about other countries or negative things about their own. Other people in the discussion tore this young man to pieces. It was vicious. I really felt sorry for him -- and for them.

betty gregory

January 15, 2001 - 03:50 pm

I think Colin Powell was concerned for the safety of his family. It's a measurement of where we (still) are that I don't have to explain that sentence.

tigerliley

January 15, 2001 - 04:32 pm

I think Mr. Powell was concerned for his wife's well being....She had some health difficulty's and I think he deferred to her.....Maybe after this administration or next?????/ I can be hopeful....He is another hero of mine...... I don't have the reservations that some have regarding a military man being president.....Nothing in our history has given me any reason to feel differently.......

Texas Songbird

January 15, 2001 - 04:45 pm

Tigerlily -- You said, "I don't have the reservations that some have regarding a military man being president.....Nothing in our history has given me any reason to feel differently......."

I don't disagree, but... I think we've been lucky with the military people who have made it to the Presidency. I'm thinking primarily of Eisenhower, although of course there were generals from earlier wars who rose to the Presidency, as well. But I also think of other countries where military people and juntas take over governments. I don't THINK that could happen here, but I believe that is what people who express concern are thinking about.

And if you've got some guy who likes to play soldier, who knows? Maybe he'd get us into more wars than a civilian would. Or maybe he knows too much about war and would do his utmost to keep us out. I don't know. I'm just thinking outloud here.

robert b. iadeluca

January 15, 2001 - 05:36 pm

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., having skipped both the ninth and twelfth grades, entered Morehouse Collge at the age of 15, and received his Ph.D. degree at age 26. At the completion of his studies at Boston University, he received his Doctor of Divinity.

He received honorary doctoral degrees from Howard University, Chicago Theological Seminary, Morgan State College, Central State College, Lincoln University, University of Bridgeport, Bard College, Keuka College, Wesleyan College, Jewish Theological Seminary, Yale University, Springfield College, Hofstra University, Oberlin College, Amsterdam Free University, St. Peter's College, Grinnel College, and University of New Castle Upon Tyne.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 15, 2001 - 05:42 pm

Robby here is a very good site with links to many of his words and works. Martin Luther King Jr.

EloElose De Pelteau

January 15, 2001 - 06:36 pm

Robby - De T. spoke like the aristocrat that he was but had he lived in this day and age, he would have had to bow to the evidence that all races are created equal. Would he have had as many PhD's as MLK had? I think not. He himself doubted that his book would ever be read in America, he was wrong here too.

I would have liked to see Colin Power as President, but as de T. said: men of extremely high value don't seek that position or if they do, they are brushed aside by the majority of the people who prefer an ordinary man.

Ann Alden

January 16, 2001 - 04:34 am

IMHO, Colin Powell comes across as a humble but strong man. Ordinary? Yes, it would seem so. I think that is what makes him so appealing. :<). I hope he runs for president next time. Of course, he would probably be running against Hilary.

Did anyone see Bill O'Reilly last night on Fox? About Clinton being the worst president that we have ever had? A quote from an article that he had read regarding his morals, his dishonesty. Especially mentioned was the Riady affair which goes much further than reported.

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 05:16 am

Alexis deTocqueville had much to say about slavery and Afro-Americans and there are many items under this subtopic yet to cover. America moves along however and as we flow down the mainstream of America with Martin Luther King Day behind us, we look forward and see a most amazing event about to happen. May I suggest that we temporarily examine this amazing event before returning to the racial situation which deTocqueville considered so crucial.

In just five short days -- to be specific on Saturday, January 20th, at exactly noon Eastern Time -- the most powerful nation of the world will pass the reins of its leader quickly and peaceably over to another leader. In just a few short words taking perhaps 15 seconds, a new leader will take over.

There will be no tanks in the streets. In fact there will be joyous parades. The former leader will shake hands with the new leader. Hundreds of millions of Americans will be glued to their TV sets. Around the world eyes will be glued to the image of one man who will suddenly be called "the leader of the free world."

How can it be that such awesome power can be transferred so quickly and quietly? Just what does the term inauguration mean? Why is it that, despite political differences, Americans accept, perhaps unwillingly on the part of some, but accept nevertheless, this action about to take place? Why is there no civil war?

As we discuss this extraordinary event, a brief reminder that this is not a political Discussion Group. The Heading above reminds us that there are numerous forums in Senior Net where we can name names and talk about political parties. Let us talk about Democracy -- not only Democracy in America but Democracies around the world where peaceable transitions take place.

What are your thoughts?

Robby

tigerliley

January 16, 2001 - 05:58 am

Well Robby....this joyous event may well be marred this inagural by some serious demonstrations and the "racial situation" you spoke of will be at the root of it.......

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 06:01 am

Tigerliley:--Do you see any demonstrations we may have (which are protected by our Constitution's First Amendment) similar to demonstrations which take place in other nations around the world? I believe there were protestations when Jefferson became President.

Robby

Ann Alden

January 16, 2001 - 06:01 am

Sorry, Robby, and everyone else. I forgot where I was posting.

You know, I haven't watched each inaugaration but will always remember JFK's speech at his. Wonderful thoughts!

I heard a repeat of MLK's speech and a comment by his brother about what he meant. According to the brother, MLK was aiming that speech at all of us in this country or this world. He did have a dream! Another Paradise that could be accomplished with some patience and understanding of our fellow travelors on this space ship. Perhaps in another millenium, it will happen. In the meantime, we have our DinA site.

Idris O'Neill

January 16, 2001 - 06:34 am

Robby, Canada passes the reigns of power over to another leader just as peaceably and we do it quicker. Democracy does not exist just in the USA.

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 06:36 am

Idris:--I agree with you completely. I was referring to the difference between Democracies and nations with other forms of government.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 07:10 am

INAUGURATION DAY EVENTS

10:30 AM -- Pre-Inaugural Music Begins
11:30 AM -- Official Swearing-In Ceremony Begins
11:50 AM -- Vice President Cheney is sworn in
12:00 -- President Buth is sworn in, and delivers his Inaugural Address
2:00 PM -- Inaugural Parade begins

Jere Pennell

January 16, 2001 - 08:43 am

"Idris:--I agree with you completely. I was referring to the difference between Democracies and nations with other forms of government."

I wonder in which category you put Japan? There is an inaugural day which does not occur as regularly as in America because the leading party may dissolve the goverment and call for elections or they may fail a vote of confidence and have to call for elections at any time.

Jere

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 08:47 am

Jere:--I would leave it up to you and your wife to designate what category it is in. In earlier discussions we have emphasized that there are many kind of Democracies. The United States, for example, is a Republic. What kind of a Democracy is Japan?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 09:58 am

THIRTY SIX WORDS TO POWER:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

Malryn (Mal)

January 16, 2001 - 10:58 am

This inauguration is no joy to me, and I'd rather see the money spent on pomp and circumstance go to the poor and homeless who barely can exist in this country. What a sham and a waste it all is.

Mal

Ann Alden

January 16, 2001 - 01:06 pm

We are creatures of traditions. I agree with Mal about a better way to spend the money involved. Its a shame that with the things that are available to us electronically that we can't do less and accomplish the same outcome. But, again I say, we are creatures of traditions.

Idris O'Neill

January 16, 2001 - 01:08 pm

Canada does not have anything that resembles an inaguration day and i am pleased. It always reminds me of the crowning of a monarch.

It would appear that there will be many tv shows about the outgoing President. Is this normal? I don't ever remember it being thus before. He will also appear for at least a week after the inaguration of the new President to comment on the new one. Is this normal?

I don't remember Jimmy Carter, Nixon, Regan or Bush Sr. doing this round of the tv shows or having tribute shows. Please advise as i'm confused.

Texas Songbird

January 16, 2001 - 01:11 pm

Idris -- There WEREN'T those kinds of shows -- not like today, with several all-news channels -- when those guys left office, although I guess CNN was around when Bush Sr. left. That would be one factor. And those channels and those shows have to fill the time up with SOMETHING!

Idris O'Neill

January 16, 2001 - 01:16 pm

Texas Songbird i don't get them so i shall be saved from it. I do get Public Tv out of Buffalo though and that's were i heard about all of these tribute shows.

I don't think i would like that to happen in Canada. A new leader has enough trouble as it is.

Texas Songbird

January 16, 2001 - 02:16 pm

There are three strictly news channels -- let me see if I can name them: CNN, Fox, and MSNBC (I think). Then there are a couple that focus on just business (except during the election hoo-haw, when they focused on election hoo-haw, too); these are CNNfn and CNBC.

Jere Pennell

January 16, 2001 - 02:43 pm

We get CNN, CNBC (which is Canadian NBC) and the BBC only. What is MSNBC. Did Bill Gates of Microsoft buy out NBC? Fox is only a movie channel here in Japan. It is amazing how much TV has changed in the last four years. Sorry Robby for getting off the subject.

I agree with the general tone of the posts that there are better things to do with the inauguration celebration money.

The Japanese would consider it bad manners to celebrate the winning of the election like that as it would be like crowing over the loser.

It is considered good manners to be humble and considerate of the loser and offer him or them help up. The Cabinet always has members of the losing party/parties in it, for example. The winner of a Sumo bout or tournament only says something like, "I was lucky to win" or something like that. When asked about a future bout or tournament prospect the answer is invariably, "I will do my best." Humility

Jere the lurker

Texas Songbird

January 16, 2001 - 03:31 pm

MSNBC is a joint venture with NBC and Microsoft. CNBC is a joint venture with Dow Jones.

I don't think it's off-topic at all, or at least not very far off. Wasn't it Jefferson who linked democracy and access to the news? We have the opportunity to be much-better informed these days. Of course, like the Internet, there's a lot of great stuff on there and a lot of junk. One must be discerning.

And not everyone is a news junkie like me. Where I work, we have probably 15 pairs of TVs scattered over three floors. They are usually tuned to the financial networks (CNBC and CNNfn), but as I said, even the financial networks interrupt their shows for breaking news -- be it political or things like earthquakes in El Salvador, etc. I watch a lot of news at home, too.

But I still prefer to get my news from the print media. Local news broadcasts and even national news broadcasts on the major channels almost never go in depth on subjects that are very deep and hard to understand. Even the news channels don't always do a good job, but they do better than the others. At least they TRY to explain things (of course, sometimes they explain, and then they explain again, and then they explain the explanation, but....)

So news is out there -- even objective (or fairly objective) news -- for the careful observer. And that makes us better citizens.

EDIT: I found that quote: "[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Cathy Foss

January 16, 2001 - 03:55 pm

I have always declared that we need, and thank God have, a newshound on the trail of democracy. I still believe this. There has been much debasement of our news gathering agencies, but I think that is only proof that threadening doctrine has a harder time becoming mainspring than ever before. For that - I am thankful!

Let us NEVER insist that our news hounds be put to rest. because that will be when we will have "Public thought" control.

Idris O'Neill

January 16, 2001 - 04:31 pm

It would appear with the last huge merger of Turner and AOL most of the newshounds will sniff with the same nose.

tigerliley

January 16, 2001 - 04:48 pm

Idris..our former presidents have all left with dignity and allowed the new president his time in the lime lite.....at least for a few days.....

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 06:17 pm

And yet! -- there will be crowds! Isn't this what the people want? There is an air of expectancy as January 20th approaches. Might you say that, Democracy notwithstanding, the masses love pageantry? It may be gaudy and it may be expensive but does it perhaps provide the nation with a sense of continuity as a people? Some nations have a changeover of power with a coup. America does it with inaugural pageants.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 16, 2001 - 06:37 pm

You could put the money towards health care and just have a dignified ceremony in the Legislature. If they wanna party let em pay for it themselves.

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 06:39 pm

Anyone have a reaction to deTocqueville's remark above beginning: "It is impossible...??

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 16, 2001 - 06:53 pm

Across the ocean another "transfer of power" is taking place:

KINSHASA, Congo -- President Laurent Kabila, the onetime rebel who seized power and then fought to rule over this vast and troubled nation, died Tuesday after being shot at his Kinshasa residence, Kabila's U.S. spokesman said.

The shooting occurred during an attempted coup to topple Kabila's government, which has been battling a number of rebel movements for more than two years, officials in Kinshasa said.

Malryn (Mal)

January 16, 2001 - 06:54 pm

Yes, it is impossible to think of anywhere else where this show-off display would take place in the name of patriotism. I heard tonight about a band in Texas that is going to play at the inauguration, not march, just play on the side of the street somewhere. People raised over $30,000.00 to send those kids on a 24 hour bus ride to and home from Washington. Do you have any idea how many kids that $30,000.00 would have sent to the state university in Texas? None of it makes much sense to me.

Mal

Texas Songbird

January 16, 2001 - 06:57 pm

Not that many, Mal.

I may be mistaken, but I think the band you're talking about is the one from Crawford (where George W. has his "ranch"). I'm not defending the decision, or the people raising the money, but I can sorta understand it.

Malryn (Mal)

January 16, 2001 - 07:20 pm

Undergraduate tuition plus fees for state residents for a year at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is $2364.82. $30,000.00 would go quite a long way for educating kids at this university near where I live. I don't think Texas would be much different from that.

Mal

betty gregory

January 16, 2001 - 08:31 pm

In general, I'm ok with this dramatic and celebration-like transition of power. It's an expensive ritual, but as a ritual, we mark a new beginning in a symbolic and more or less meaningful way.

That's in general. This year I feel a growing bitterness, a sour feeling that this now meaningless ritual doesn't erase what happened---that, according to the Washington Post, scores of democratic votes from Black people were never counted in many large cities----that, had they been counted, Gore would have been easily elected. The investigation by the Justice Dept. is turning up incredibly similar stories of attempts to stop Black voters, directly, or indirectly from old, outdated voting machines in the poorest districts.

Watching the Ashcroft Senate hearings, I keep thinking....it's worse than I thought it was going to be. How could Bush or any President-Elect have nominated this out of touch, far right of the far right anti-person. He's anti everything. He makes a moderate Republican look like Barbara Boxer. The worst part of my feeling is that our new President to be did this by accident. He didn't do his homework. Who are his trusted sources? Doesn't he have any yet? Or, worse, maybe this is purposeful; maybe this is who he wants in this most powerful position.

The subject of transition of power isn't neutral for me this year. I cannot comment on it in theoretical terms only.

Malryn (Mal)

January 16, 2001 - 08:50 pm

Nor can I, Betty, for the reasons you gave and others.

Mal

Persian

January 16, 2001 - 08:53 pm

Mal - yup, $30,000 is a big chunk of change for an education at a State university. If the kids raised the money themselves for their trip to DC, that's fine. But I think also of how many homeless people that amount of money would feed and shelter; or how far it would stretch toward care for abused women and children; the elderly; or the disabled.

FaithP

January 16, 2001 - 08:54 pm

"It may be asked what we have adopted in the place of those institutions of our forefathers which we have abandoned. The spell of royalty is broken but it has not been succeeded by the majesty of the laws. The people have learned to despise all authority but they still fear it." (P33, Author's Introduction.)

I do not think the people have learned to despise all authority at all. I think the American Republic of Democratic States is a fine way to govern such a large and diverse population. My opinion is we obey laws and respect them. When we think the laws were misused then we can be very vocal about it and work to change them. Fp

Dolphindli

January 16, 2001 - 10:57 pm

Living in NYS where the lottery is promoted at least every six minutes on tv, I called NY State to find the cost of advertising and expenses for the lottery and was told it was (in NYS alone) THIRTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS! Needless to say, I sent quite a scathing letter to our local newspaper asking Gov. Pataki if he was "nuts". And did he realize what kind of education our school systems could have with thirty six million dollars?

As far as the band collecting the money to play at the Inaugeration, I can't even go there. As a grandmother of 4 teenage girls, I have spent more time raising money for cheerleading championships to send the girls to the Eastern Div. Finals (always in another state); raised funds for girlscouts; bought and sold more cookies that I could ever eat in a lifetime.

But the hardest money I had to raise was for the Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis Foundation! Can you imagine that? My granddaughter Jackie, now 17 developed the crippling disease at age 13 and I became involved with the arthritis foundation - a young boy, age 16 was running in a Marathan Race for JRA and chose Jackie to run for but we had to raise money. Trust me, it was easier to raise the money for the cheerleaders. It was the ordinary every day citizen that donated. The larger corporations have their money earmarked for the likes of the Jerry Lewis foundation where they can all receive acclaim in front of the viewing audience and then most likely write off the trip to boot.

Also keep in mind that you are talking about $30,000 for one band for one day. What about the school bands througout the country that play at the Rose Bowl, Superbowl, etc. Did anyone ever stop to think the money that is spent on sports events each year (the price of tickets alone)would probably feed three states of homeless people?

Further research showed me that U.S. lotteries spend about $400 million a year on total advertising, including TV, radio, print, POP, etc. The average expenditure is 1.1 percent of sales for advertising," La Fleur observes. "According to our research, lotteries spent over $28 million last year on POS.

The lottery was alleged started for education purposes but I think it is the biggest racket going and certainly the schools do not benefit. If they did, our school taxes would not continually rise.

I will leave you with a funny - to show I haven't lost my sense of humor over statistics. When NYS was interviewing for a Commissioner of the Lottery, we had quite a known gambler incarcertated for his "misgivings" and sent a letter applying for the job. He felt that even if there was a "rackoff", at least the schools would get their share = not so with politicians.

Dolphindli

mikecantor

January 16, 2001 - 11:28 pm

“How can it be that such awesome power can be transferred so quickly and quietly? Just what does the term inauguration mean? Why is it that, despite political differences, Americans accept, perhaps unwillingly on the part of some, but accept nevertheless, this action about to take place? Why is there no civil war?”

Civil wars and revolutions come about because enough people of a nation are either without hope, sustenance for themselves and their families, in a desperation of fear and anger at the loss of their freedom and rights as independent individuals, and, more often than not, simply hungry, homeless, and with no perceptive view of any hope for the future. They do not have to be a majority. A tangible minority can always be the seed of incipient power of effort and purpose which can reach monumental proportions under the impetus of sustained and determined effort.

Those conditions simply do not exist in this country today because there are not enough citizens that fall into the categories described, or if there are, they are not united in purpose. History, that ever meticulous scribe, has recorded those conditions in every civil war and revolution that has ever taken place on this earth since its’ creation including the French and Russian revolutions, the American colonial struggle for independence and a democratic nation, as well as the American Civil War. Without the impetus of willingness of sacrifice, and devoted dedication to a cause as evidenced by the principles in those events, civil wars and revolutions do not take place.

That is not to say that that they will never take place or that those conditions are not currently brewing in a giant cauldron of change which could eventually boil over in a cataclysmic movement in this country’s future which will effect the future of every people and nation on this earth.

I have no interest in being a doomsday prophet but anyone who really believes that the economy of our great democracy will continue on its’ happy path with little fear of a recession followed by a depression of unimaginable consequences is really living in a fools’ paradise. No man is an island nor is any other nation on the face of this earth! There is no corner of this globe currently experiencing economic, societal, famine, or disease problems that will not eventually reach our shores or have a significant effect on all of our lives, economic or otherwise.

Is all this inevitable? No! Is it preventable? Yes! But not until the American people decide to take a stand against the special moneyed interests that have taken over their government as well as their lives and in every aspect thereof.

In the 1980’s the money invested in the elections in both parties amounted to approximately eighty million dollars! The money invested in this last election came to over four hundred and fifty million dollars. Would someone like to explain to me where this money went and why?

kiwi lady

January 17, 2001 - 12:57 am

I believe that in the future a few corporations will hold the entire world resources in their hands. This will be very dangerous. At this time we could see Revolution. I think the New World Order and the term Global economy as a threat not as a benefit to emerging nations! Time will tell.

Carolyn

Ann Alden

January 17, 2001 - 04:48 am

From reading the above named pages on our national vanity, we sound so very brash. But, we were an infant republic at the time Toqueville was here in the 1830's. From his book, we certainly were a proud and confident people. Confident that we were the greatest! Wanting to hear from other cultures on how great we were. Proud of being residents of this new country. So different from European countries, we bowed to no man.

Hairy, I have watched the tape that Jean made and am mailing it to you today. I enjoyed the coverage and would have been willing to see and hear more about Toqueville's visit.

camron

January 17, 2001 - 05:25 am

We may have a Demoracy but TV is King.

betty gregory

January 17, 2001 - 05:54 am

I don't share your worry over the $30,000 raised and spent on a trip to Washington. Working hard to prepare music and raise traveling expenses seems like a worthwhile, all-consuming activity for high school age students. I'm convinced that a dedicated membership in a school group is one of the best ways for a kid to spend those temptation-heavy years. I hope the kids raised most of the money. I hope they all experienced the obvious lessons of working toward musical excellence, representing their community well, suffering long hours working toward a goal. Then, there are all the serendipitous effects---for some, experiencing a different environment for the first time, maybe experiencing some difficulties raising the money but not giving up.

Of course there are more worthy needs to satisfy---they could have raised money to shore up a failing homeless shelter. But, of all the choices available to teens these days, this group goal of making it to Washington sounds like an acceptible way to spend their time.

Band trips away from home were my first taste of the world "out there." Our goal was always to earn a rating of 1 (one), the highest rating by judges. Music was my first taste of reaching for something outside of myself, working toward the impossible and achieving it. My band director, Mr. Thomas, was one the first people to suggest there was something more in life than small town Texas thinking.

Phyll

January 17, 2001 - 07:59 am

Sorry, Mal, but I have to go the other road on the $30,000 for the band kids. They weren't given that money out of public funds. It didn't come out of the savings account of any charitable group. And who knows what idea for the future may be implanted somewhere in that group? Some one of those kids, after seeing Washington, the Capitol, the White House, etc. may decide in the future that he/she wants to be President and may become one of the greatest our country will ever know. We will always have the needy of the world to care about but those kids will have a memory that may blossom into something great.

rambler

January 17, 2001 - 12:21 pm

Bush nominated Ashcroft as a sop to the extreme right. I think his thought process was something like this: If Ashcroft gets confirmed, fine! If not, okay, I'll nominate a slightly less objectionable right-winger. Sooner or later, the Democrats who repeatedly object to the nominations are going to look like obstructionists and I'll look like a fellow who's trying to compromise. Either way, I win.

Idris O'Neill

January 17, 2001 - 12:35 pm

"Ceremony is the seam that binds the cebrum with the cerebellum." Carol Shields

robert b. iadeluca

January 17, 2001 - 03:54 pm

Inauguration Day is approaching rapidly and as feelings arise, some of us may forget that all our political views (including naming names) fit more properly in the various excellent political forums we have here on the Senior Net. Our goal here is to examine America in general, Democracies in general, and compare what we see with what deTocqueville saw 170 years ago.

Mike says that: "Civil wars and revolutions come about because enough people of a nation are either without hope, sustenance for themselves and their families, in a desperation of fear and anger at the loss of their freedom and rights as independent individuals, and, more often than not, simply hungry, homeless, and with no perceptive view of any hope for the future." He adds: "Those conditions simply do not exist in this country today."

As we prepare to tranfer the power to a new leader, what are your reactions to Mike's comments?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 17, 2001 - 04:35 pm

When we talk about Inauguration Pageantry, aren't we really talking about continuity? A gift from our English forebears? Sort of a "the king is dead, long live the king." No sideways comments here please! I realize that the percentage of Americans with British forebears is becoming less and less but they were the founders of America. It's a sense that America moves on with no gap in between to worry about as there is in some of the nations of the world right now. Our current president is our leader until one second before noon Saturday.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 17, 2001 - 05:14 pm

I think it is as i posted earlier, about ceremony. Every large occassion is marked with ceremony. It makes a statement and becomes real to us. From the time we are born until after we die there are ceremonies. It is the way we mark our paths in life or history.

robert b. iadeluca

January 17, 2001 - 06:42 pm

At the very moment that a new President comes into existence, so does a First Lady. The involvement of first ladies, and the controversy that inevitably follows, can be traced nearly to the dawn of the Republic.

Abigail Adams, the second woman to occupy the position, was consulted on virtually every presidential action and was derisively dubbed "Mrs. President" as a result. Nellie Taft crafted William Howard Taft's speeches, vetoed his personnel choices and attended his Cabinet meetings. Even her husband called her "the real president." Edith Wilson essentially ran what was called a "petticoat government" for months while Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke.

Robby

mikecantor

January 17, 2001 - 08:19 pm

“It's a sense that America moves on with no gap in between to worry about as there is in some of the nations of the world right now.”

In reality Robby, there is, in fact, a gap. It is not as obvious a gap as a military coup with one group taking over a nations’ government. Nor is it a gap as would occur in war with the total defeat of one side by a victor in battle proclaiming the start of a new era in history.

But it is a gap, in the meaning and reality of the continuity of leadership, in the context of an emerging realization by millions of freedom loving citizens of this nation that they really have little to say in the selection of candidates for the nations’ highest office unless they are financially, and thereby politically, affluent.

It is a gap in the realization that the United States Supreme Court can, in effect, select the next President of The United States, by ignoring the will of the majority of the voting public.

And, in the worst case, it is a gap in the awakening awareness of many, that in spite of all of the good things that came out of a terribly bloody and calamitous Civil War, people of color can still be denied their right to participate in a national election by so many subterfuges of effort designed to prevent them from practicing their voting rights. It makes one wonder: “Where have we come from?” And more importantly: “Where are we going?”

Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans of color did not, and will not support the president-elect! They know, more than any of the rest of us, the price that was paid by the Rev. Martin Luther King for his dream. They also know, better than any of the rest of us, the sight and the sound of lynched and tortured bodies softly swaying in the winds of intolerance and despair.

“Hundreds of millions of Americans will be glued to their TV sets. Around the world eyes will be glued to the image of one man who will suddenly be called "the leader of the free world."

“Our current president is our leader until one second before noon Saturday.”

Robby, please believe me. It is not my intent, in any way, to disparage your remarks. But I must state, unequivocally, that “leadership”, particularly in a democracy, is something that is earned over time, as I am sure that you are really aware. It is only in aristocracies and dictatorships that “leadership” is instantaneously bestowed as if in a coronation of position by birth or in the bloody footsteps of enemies of freedom.

There is always the possibility that the president-elect may, one day, actually become the “leader of the free world.” I pray, with all my heart, that he will be able to accomplish that!

The alternative, should he fail, is truly something terrible to contemplate.

Mike

Malryn (Mal)

January 17, 2001 - 08:40 pm

A fine post, Mike. You expressed everything I feel. Thank you.

Mal

betty gregory

January 18, 2001 - 02:02 am

Well said, Mike.

Robby, I agree with and respect the format here, but the specifics of this particular transition of power do fit with our overall looking at what is happening in America today and is particularly relevant to our most recent focus on racial issues.

What is holding my attention specifically is the (reported) escalating fury surrounding the competing interests of tight security and the right to protest during Saturday's activities. Those who want to peacefully protest are being systematically thwarted at every turn. Legitimate security standards are being distorted to silence protest voices. Very disturbing.

camron

January 18, 2001 - 04:35 am

A lot of peoples attention is obtained and hopefully at least some fleeting thought will be given to its meaning. I know my Grandson is interested in knowing just what it is all about.

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 04:46 am

Some powerful postings here which cannot but cause the rest of us to think and to react. Mike reminds us of the some of the events in our Democracy's past of which we are less than proud. And he asks us: "Where have we come from? Where are we going?" Betty calls our attention to current events such as an apparent attempt to restrict protests during the Inauguration and, thus, a thwarting of our rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In effect she is asking us: "Why aren't we allowed to peaceably protest?"

Your reactions?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 05:45 am

As a part answer to Mike's questions: "Where have we come from. Where are we going? -- how about the poem delivered by Robert Frost at Kennedy's inauguration? ---

THE GIFT OUTRIGHT

The land was ours before we were the land's.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England's, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she would become.

- - Robert Frost
Delivered at the Kennedy Inauguration

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 06:14 am

When the ample-bellied and handlebar-mustachioed William Howard Taft was "crowned" by the people in 1909, hotel rooms at the New willard were going for $5, an unheared-of sum. The New Willard warned that five dollars would gain a lodger "nothing but a bed, possibly in the same room with several guests." That didn't matter, the rooms were all taken .

Over at the White House, the pageant makers had printed a program of fireworks. The second planned sunburst of the March 4th evening would feature "Illuminations with 250 prismatic fires, changing color five times." Nature had another idea. The weather descended in gales. The next day's headline was "Capital Cut Off From World by Snow and Wind." But the people, refusing to be deprived of their own history, still turned out.

Robby

kiwi lady

January 18, 2001 - 11:09 am

Mike that was beautifully put. I am not an American but what happens in your country does affect many others. The Worlds Greatest Democracy must be seen to be Just that!

Carolyn

betty gregory

January 18, 2001 - 11:36 am

Several groups of protesters are in Federal Court at this moment, seeking to change their assigned protest area---a parking lot behind a large wall of bleachers, a place where they will not be seen by anyone in the procession down Pennsylvania Ave or by the bleachers of watchers.

Another concern (to the protesters) is the new security measure---16 check points, where a security person can arbitrarily detain anyone. Also, protesters may not carry signs on sticks---no sticks.

I'm all for tight security, but when will law enforcement authorities learn that over managing lawful protesters inspires the kind of trouble they're trying to avoid!!

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 12:07 pm

It seems unbelievable how much inaugurations have changed in the short 225 year history of this Republic.

It was in New York City, our nation's frst capital, that George Washington became the first President of the United States. Congress had planned for the new government to begin its responsibilities on March 4, 1789, but a harsh winter made travel difficult, and it wasn't until April 6 that enough congressmen arrived in New York to count the electors' votes and announce the winner.

It took several days for the exciting news to reach Mount Vernon, General Washington's home in Virginia. He set off for the capital and traveled by coach and on horseback through Baltimore, Wilmington, and Philadelphia, finally arriving in New York City aboard a grand barge that had been rowed from New Jersey across Newark Bay. Meanwhile John Adams, his vice president-elect, and the Congress were deciding what the new Chief Executive's official title should be. Adams preferred "His Most Benign Highness" but a congressional committee settled on the title we still use today: "President of the United States."

Robby

EloElose De Pelteau

January 18, 2001 - 01:26 pm

Mike - Many times bravo for your insightful post. I feel the same way.

Peaceful protests and demonstration are fine, but at the inauguration it distracts attention to an event that, for sure, will be watched worldwide. Lets see how much Americans will tolerate such disturbances. I personally feel that there should be a ceremony, not as lavish as a coronation, but still memorable enough for people to continue to feel proud of being Americans. In Canada we don't have that and we should.

FaithP

January 18, 2001 - 02:22 pm

Betty I am agreeing with you that when the powers of the police get out of hand thats when we have out right rebellion. I can stay peaceful and with in the limits of rational law while marching in a protest which I have don bace when everyone was under 30 years old. but when police get unreasonable then I get really angry too. I can understand the explosions of peaceful demonstrations into outright uprisings. I for one see no reason the protestors can not demonstrate out on Pennsylvania Ave as long as they do not interfer with the Parades and Bands etc. But FEAR is why the inauguration committee is being so hard headed about keeping demonstrations on the back lots and out of sight. FEAR always causes more problems. Faith

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 03:52 pm

Faith talks about "fear" on the part of the Inauguration Committee. Consider the following First Inauguration:--

On April 30, it began with the sounds of ceremonial artillery and church bells ringing across New York City where the ceremony was being held. At noon, General Washington made his way through large crowds to Federal Hall, where both houses of Congress were assembled for swearing-in. New York Chancellor Robert Livingston read the oath and Washington, his right hand on a Bible, repeatd the words inscribed in the Constitution.

And that was the ceremony.

Robby

mikecantor

January 18, 2001 - 04:24 pm

One of the tests of a true democracy is its’ inherent ability for self-examination with attendant dissemination to its’ citizens of the findings, both pro’s and cons of the results. To that end, an amazing document has just been released by a government agency heretofore known for its’ clandestine secrecy. That document is: “The Year 2015: The CIA Report”.

I call to your attention that this document is being reviewed in detail on ABC’s “Nightline” program with Ted Koppel. It is in several parts, the first of which I viewed last night. What makes this report so unique is that it is reviewing CIA predictions for the year 2015, which constitute in detail, hitherto undisclosed and confidential data never before revealed by this government, or for that matter, any other that I can think of.

It is not for the faint hearted and ABC has already received complaints from viewers that the broadcast scared them so much that they couldn’t watch the whole thing.

It could be justifiably argued that my insertion of this information has no place in the format of this discussion. I vehemently disagree!

Reviewing our democracies past through deToqueville’s idealized concept of democracy is informative and helpful in expanding our knowledge of where we came from and how that information relates to the present.

Your viewing of this program however will inform you of the very real threats our beloved democracy faces in the very near future. The very possession of that information may help us all to face those threats, not uninformed, but possibly, just possibly, with the ability to effect some manner of change to what the future may bring. To be forewarned is to be forearmed!

Mike

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 04:50 pm

"Your viewing of this program however will inform you of the very real threats our beloved democracy faces in the very near future. The very possession of that information may help us all to face those threats, not uninformed, but possibly, just possibly, with the ability to effect some manner of change to what the future may bring. To be forewarned is to be forearmed!"

Mike, I agree that if we are to examine Democracy in America from every aspect,we must be prepared to see the dangers as well as enjoy the benefits.

I may have the wordage wrong but wasn't it Jefferson who said: "Vigilance is the eternal price of liberty?" Let us, however, for just a brief moment in history spend the coming 48 hours in reminding ourselves how we came into existence in the first place, savoring, if we may, the taste of freedom which is denied so many citizens of this world, and then after the Inauguration returning to look at our "home" with a more jaundiced eye. We may then observe the dangers which lurk within (as deT said: "the evils which Democracy brings") as well as the dangers without which are apparently increasing daily.

Robby

Hairy

January 18, 2001 - 05:40 pm

Mike -

Your post looked intriguing so I looked up ABC and Nightline. Don't know if I can stay awake to watch it, but here is some information that I found:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/Nightline/nl010118_email_feature.html

robert b. iadeluca

January 18, 2001 - 06:40 pm

So far the excellent videotape about deTocqueville that Jeanlock recorded has been traveling to me (I found it to be excellent!), then to Ann, Ella, and now Hairy. Who would like it next?

Robby

kiwi lady

January 18, 2001 - 08:07 pm

We have had BBC documentaries about CIA actions. Maybe you never got to see them in the USA. It was very very very scary! They must be watched however! Be brave and watch!

Carolyn

Persian

January 18, 2001 - 09:02 pm

MIKE - For those posters who may not access Hairy's link, it is worth noting that the CIA report you mentioned was released by the National Intelligence Council, an organization well known in this area.

Dolphindli

January 19, 2001 - 01:24 am

Sometimes, I feel inadequate to post in these sessions because of the obvious "high intelligence" of all of you, but because I feel as strongly as you, I shall continue and my effort on this occasion will be in relation to the Ted Koppel CIA report that obviously worried many viewers. Are those viewers living with their head in the sand?

If we examine the first aspect of the program: "Emergence of new and more virulent diseases" I would ask: 'At what point in our history have we not had "new and more virulent diseases' -- the black plague era; the polio era; mad cow disease; dysentery; and now AIDS. MY GOD! I can still remember the quarantine sign on our house when I had -- I think -- chicken pox. With the now smallness of the world; the coming together of groups so totally unrelated in socioeconomic structure and, last but not least, germ warfare is it a wonder that disease is now prevalent from country to country? But, the primary cause of widely spread disease is by no means limited to foreign countries.

The Koppel report for the first segment imparts "The danger here is seen as so great that some argue that the U.S. military should not be deployed to certain parts of the world so that they will not be exposed. "

In response to that statement I question our government as to whether or not they themselves are instrumental in creating/causing severe diseases. Agent Orange, (An estimated 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were used in South Vietnam during the war), for example sprayed by our government to destroy rice fields and instead resulted in symptoms to a universal population serving our country as well as other countries, including but not limited to: chloracne liver dysfunction, severe personality disorders cancers, and birth defects. Can we blame a foreign population for that disease? I think not. I, for one, acknowledge government abuse of it's own people, to wit: Gulf War Syndrome; the Love Canal; Chernobyl Virus; Nuclear Disaster. These events occurred long before Kipper's report.

The next issue addressed:

"Secondly, we'll look at how the population of the world is changing. First, the numbers are exploding, mostly in those parts of the world where the infrastructure to support larger populations does not exist. Huge numbers of people are moving from the countryside to the cities, bringing a whole new set of problems."

Once again, I direct your attention to the American Farmer who was a backbone of this nation producing sufficient (CHEMICAL FREE) food to take care of not only the farm family, but of the nation. And who destroyed the American Farmer? My answer: The government! Where else in the world is a farmer paid 'NOT TO GROW FOOD'? I will go no further with that-it speaks for itself. But, with the deterioration of the farm, where else could the farmer migrate? Another farm? Of course not.

The last portion of the report states: "And lastly, water is looming as a scarce and valuable resource over the next few years. With larger populations comes greater demand for water for irrigation and just personal use. Some countries are beginning to dam off the rivers passing through their territories, cutting off needed supplies for the countries further downstream. If oil was a reason to go to war before, water certainly will be. It's sobering stuff. "

This again, is not a new matter -- governments allowed water supplies and natural lakes and rivers to be used as land fills for chemical companies without a view to the future dispensing toxic wastes into our lakes, streams and rivers -- all for the sake "Industry." The government sided with cattlemen eons ago and allowed natural streams and rivers to become part of their livelihood, actually diverting the source away from man.

I really don't want to conclude, but must -- and therefore, in conclusion I say:

DON'T BE AFRAID OF KOPPEL'S REPORT. BE AFRAID OF THE GOVERNMENT!"

Dolphindli

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 03:56 am

Dolphin:--

Item one:--For someone who feels so "inadequate" in comparison to participants here with "high intelligence," your various postings indicate that you certainly have no need to feel you have a back seat.
Item two:--I would categorize our "family" here as a group which is more similar in that they all feel passionately about America and/or Democracy. All the postings here are powerful, not becase they come from someone with a high degree, but because they have a deep love and concern for the type of government we have. I use the term "type" because the actual government that may be in power is not always the one that the people want. Consider deTocqueville's warning above beginning: "The very men..."

Life was simpler right after the creation of our government. Consider Jefferson's two inaugurations -- He was the first to take the oath in Washington, D.C. He showed his taste for simplicity by going on foot to the Capitol for the oath-taking and returning to his boardinghouse afterwards for dinner. After his second Inauguration, he rode on horseback from the Capitol to the President's House (the name then used for the White House) amid music and a spontaneous gathering of mechanics from the nearby Navy Yard -- a procession that grew into today's Inaugural Parade.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 05:45 am

In 1817, James Monroe, our fifth President, became the first to give an Inaugural Address to an assembled public crowd. Since that time, the traditional Inaugural Address has been an opportunity for the President to speak directly to the American people. George Washington said just 135 words after his second inauguration in 1793. William Henry Harrison gave the longest Inaugural Address ever, taking almost two hours to deliver 8,445 words.

Robby

Ann Alden

January 19, 2001 - 05:46 am

Pertaining to the inaugaration, bread and circuses have been many governments' answer for centuries. Keeps the rabble off center, so say they!

Thanks, Dolphindi for the coverage on Koppel's program. I will try to look in on it tonight. I read part of the program online and now want to see just what they have to tell us that we didn't already know and worry about!

Malryn (Mal)

January 19, 2001 - 05:56 am

There's a prediction for freezing rain and rain mixed with snow for Washington, DC tomorrow. G. W. Bush had better keep his speech short. I feel sorry for the kids in the bands, especially those from the South. It's going to rain on their parade.

Mal

EloElose De Pelteau

January 19, 2001 - 06:10 am

Robby - I will send you my address and yes, I would like the video about de Tocqueville please. I will return it as soon as I have seen it. Thanks in advance.

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 09:48 am

Eloise:

I have contacted Hairy (Linda) who is now viewing the tape and have asked her to obtain your postal address so she can mail it to you after she has viewed it.

Anyone else here who wants to be on the round robin list to see the tape about Alexis deTocqueville?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 10:40 am

People have celebrated in many ways since George Washington danced the minuet after his Inauguration in 1789. James Madison, America's fourth President, and his wife, Dolley, were the guests of honor at the first official Inaugural Ball, held at Long's Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Martin Van Buren's Inauguration featured two balls, and President William Henry Harrison held three to meet the ever growing demand for tickets. Later Inaugurations have featured specially built pavillions for dancing, balls held at several sites throughout the capital, and even Inaugural parties in other cities.

Modern Inaugural festivities reflect not only the President they honor, but also the desire to include the many Americans who want to take part in celebrating our nation's rich history and the transfer of presidential power.

Robby

mikecantor

January 19, 2001 - 11:52 am

To: Dolphindli, Re: Your post #1244

Each of the points you have made are well taken and certainly valid in my view. However, I must make the following observations, which, with all due respect, I submit for your consideration.

All of your comments address events, which have transpired in the past. As you point out, our government, (and others as well), have made many mistakes which have subsequently proven to be either not in the interest of our people or of the future of the nation. Much of what we know now, and could not know at the time those mistakes were made, was considered to be valid at the time.

The use of Agent Orange was one of these. The intent of its use was not to broadcast sickness and disease, but to promote the conclusion of a terribly useless war and to assist in the prevention of the death of tens of thousands of American fighting men, most of whom died never really knowing what they were fighting for. Unfortunately, that is the nature of war. Too many wartime decisions are almost always based on expediency not a firm and well thought out logic. Its’ use was a mistake, but it was a mistake that could not have been foreseen based on the information that was available at that time.

You ask if the viewers of the Koppel report, in expressing their fears and concerns about the program content, are “living with their head in the sand”. My response to that is definitely negative; they did not know any more than you did at the time of each of the past occurrences that you describe. In expressing their current anxiety and fears they are, in effect, voicing their concerns at being made aware of a need for remembering the past and this time, doing something to prevent the past from repeating itself. It is a facet of “hindsight” which is not often repeated in these times.

The title of the CIA report is: “The Year 2015- The CIA Report.” It is the most comprehensive report I believe that has yet been submitted for public scrutiny of what our FUTURE may be that is dependent upon factual evidence. The past cannot be changed. What we do with this information, will enable us to change our future if we have the stamina and courage to do so. It is an opportunity not to be dismissed lightly.

If I appear to be too critical of your comments, I sincerely apologize. That is not my intent. I am as respectful of your opinions as I am sure you are of mine. That is the nature of this wonderful democracy that we are all blessed to be able to share. I can only add that many of us also share your concerns for the nature of government. In that, we are of one opinion!

Mike

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 12:10 pm

Mike:--You say: "Too many wartime decisions are almost always based on expediency, not a firm and well thought out logic." You then add: "It was a mistake that could not have been foreseen."

Would you please reconcile those two remarks?

Robby

mikecantor

January 19, 2001 - 01:40 pm

Robby:

Wartime decisions such as the invasion of Normandy, the battle of Iwo Jima, are based on months and sometimes years of planning particularly with respect to the logistics of such operations. But even within and as a part of those planned operations, situations present themselves which involve actions that are not totally planned and often require that decisions with respect to their implementation be made without sufficient foresight. As sometimes happens, those decisions often result in great subsequent loss of human lives and suffering because of an unknown end result. Professional military staff would argue that such is the natural consequence of any military combat activity.

How many of us would be willing to use that as either an argument or an excuse for explaining to a Mother why her son died in a foreign land or will, for the rest of his life, suffer with a horrible debilitating disease, or should he be fortunate enough to live to have children, have those children born malformed because of birth defects? Defending what? That soldier’s loved ones couldn’t care less! There is no excuse that can explain away their grief and loss!

I can think of many examples to illustrate such situations. One of these is the Agent Orange fiasco. If sufficient research had been done on the consequences of spraying that chemical, not only on rice fields, but directly on our troops as well, the thousands of servicemen currently suffering from liver dysfunction, severe personality disorders, cancers and birth defects would not be enduring the hell they are living with. Not to mention the same suffering that is being endured by the subsequent generations of the native population as well as servicemen serving from other countries.

Did we learn something from that experience? It does not seem so when you consider that during the subsequent war in the Persian Gulf our troops were exposed to the residue of re-constituted plutonium shells employed in our combat ammunition which exposed them to excessive radio activity, lung diseases and many other illnesses which are still being investigated to this date. Which was of paramount importance in these two instances, expediency or well thought out logic?

I believe that the responsibility for choosing expediency or logic weighs heavily on the souls of those responsible for making those decisions. I don’t think any one of us would ever want to be in that position.

You ask that I reconcile: “Too many wartime decisions are almost always based on expediency, not a firm and well thought out logic” with “It was a mistake that could not have been foreseen.” Unfortunately Robby, there is no period after “foreseen” in my original statement. What you left off was “based on the information that was available at that time.” I’m sure this was an oversight on your part but the reconciliation you request is not possible without the inclusion of the balance of my statement. The point to be stressed here is that the information COULD have been available if the powers in charge had taken the time to conduct proper preliminary investigations. But once again, expediency won and “well thought out logic” fell by the wayside.

Mike

Cathy Foss

January 19, 2001 - 02:35 pm

It puzzles me how many people brush aside the cost of an elaborate inaugeration for the sake of symbolism. Isn't that what the British do? They spent billions(?) in taxes to keep their royalty going and seem not to worry their pounds could have been better spent. Are we becoming imperial and establishing our version of royalty?

I don't think a democracy is better served by such lavish display of ceremony.

betty gregory

January 19, 2001 - 05:38 pm

Even when you know something....

My head isn't in the sand, but there were some details of that 2015 prediction report that sharpened the focus on some details for me. The out of control population growth, for example. It was reported that one of the larger cities in India (Calcutta?, I think) is increasing by one million people every eight months. I thought on that a long time and finally came around to the thought that the last several USA cities I've lived in, except one, are increasingly focused on the ills of population growth---traffic problems, cost of living, air quality, city infrastructure. Density breeds every kind of problem there is. All very troubling.

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 05:48 pm

What the world seems chiefly to remember about Carter's inauguration was his walk from Capitol Hill down Constitution and Pennsylvania to the White House. This was emblematic of the simple peanut producer from Plains come to take over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "He's walking, he's walking, Jimmy is walking!" the citizenry screamed along the route, as husband, wife, daughter, sons and a grandson -- the family Carter -- strolled in the frigid air of January 20, 1977. To some people there was almost something religious about it.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 19, 2001 - 06:29 pm

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A day before what they hope will be the biggest display of inaugural dissent in almost 30 years, seven activist groups declared Saturday a nonviolent ``Day of Resistance''.

The demonstrators said Friday that despite their diverse agendas, they are uniting to demand an overhaul of the electoral system. This came only hours after protesters failed to persuade a federal judge to relax inauguration security arrangements.

Protest organizers say up to 20,000 people may demonstrate Saturday. They insist the demonstrations will be peaceful, and any violence will be the fault of police.

Authorities have planned tough security, including checkpoints along the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue. Parade-goers will have bags searched and might be frisked if police suspect a weapon.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said Friday the checkpoints don't target protesters or violate their rights but said the arrangement ``sounds like a logistical nightmare.''

Government attorneys have said up to 750,000 people may attend Saturday's inaugural events and have to pass through the 10 parade checkpoints.

Kessler noted that checkpoints weren't used for the 1997 inauguration two years after the Oklahoma City bombing, an incident cited by government lawyers to explaining their concerns. ``We've come through some pretty tumultuous times in this country, but at no time have the citizens of the United States had to go through checkpoints to attend an inaugural parade,'' Kessler said. ``It is a presence totally inconsistent with the fundamental principle of our way of life.''

The judge also denied a demonstrator request for more space at a permitted demonstration area along the parade route. She said the New York-based International Action Center has permits for three sites near the parade and will have ``ample opportunity to present their message to the public.''

FaithP

January 19, 2001 - 08:28 pm

When you have been overloaded by tv pictures of an exploding tractor and trailor wedged right up the steps of your state capitol and burning there you begin to think that perhaps the inauguration belongs indoors with high security and no parades or other outdoor activities at all.Yet I love parades and I love celebrating important events. I believe in ritual.

The White House does have all those bumpers around so a crazy driver wouldnt get as far as he did in Sacramento. It isnt 2015 I worry about. It is now. And I get sore as heck sometimes at the fanatics that make us want to stop all peacable demonstrations. Or the AlmostPorno Movies who almost make you want to stop free speech. These fanatics ruin things for everyone. Fp

kiwi lady

January 19, 2001 - 11:48 pm

How true your last posting was. My husband died of cancer of the colon he crawled for years through ceilings laden with asbestos at the same time he died six or seven men in the same profession died of colon cancer too all from the same depot all had been telecom technicians in the inner city . Our government knew many years before it did anything about the danger of asbestos. My stepfather has asbestosis in his lungs he worked for a building supplier who had asbestos sheeting as one of the products he sold. People are put behind profit and the populace is kept ignorant until many times it is too late.

This morning in our Newspaper there is an article reporting that the Australia and New Zealand Drug Federation are warning pregnant women not to eat about five varieties of fish because of mercury levels also not to give these fish to children.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 03:17 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When you have been overloaded by tv pictures of an exploding tractor and trailor wedged right up the steps of your state capitol and burning there you begin to think that perhaps the inauguration belongs indoors with high security and no parades or other outdoor activities at all.Yet I love parades and I love celebrating important events. I believe in ritual."

Are we, as Faith implies, at the point in our society where we must sacrifice outdoor ritual for indoor security?

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 20, 2001 - 03:37 am

Mike

You expressed most eloquntly and lucidly the concept of "Hindsight is better than foresight." Many times I have made the best decision possible at that time only to find out later that I would have been better off had I done...

I have learned to avoid guilt by continuing the same policy and by not looking back with regret at the decision made. I may have to live with a poor decision and maybe make changes because of the poor decision but it can not be helped. This of course does not apply to those decisions that were not the best decision I could have made at that time.

Keep up the good posting. I enjoy your writing.

Jere

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 03:51 am

Lincoln's Second Inaugural, 1865

"Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented.

"With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. . . . With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Is the above applicable to now?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 04:03 am

Excerpts from the news reminding us of previous inaugurations and the weather.

WAHINGTON, Jan. 19 — Although many buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue were decorated in red, white and blue bunting, the dominant color for Inauguration Day is apt to be gray.

A chill drizzle fell on the capital today. Occasional rain was predicted for early in the day, with cooler and wetter weather in the form of sleet and a few snow flurries in the afternoon.

The last time weather forced an inauguration indoors was in 1985, when the temperature at noon — the moment Ronald Reagan's second term began — was 7 degrees. With a stiff breeze, the wind-chill factor was minus-20, so cold that Mr. Reagan took the oath in the White House and the parade was canceled.

Americans of a certain age vividly recall the inauguration of Jan. 20, 1961, when John F. Kennedy stood hatless on a sunny day. But the temperature was only 22, and eight inches of snow covered the ground.

William Howard Taft's inauguration in 1909 was not as cold (the temperature was 32), but 10 inches of snow, the most ever for an inauguration, and high winds spoiled the celebration. That was March 4, the official Inauguration Day until Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1937, became the first president to start a term on Jan. 20.

Taft's successor, Woodrow Wilson, took office on March 4, 1913, when it was 55 degrees. That is tied with 1981 for the warmest Inauguration Day — officially, at least. Some historians have surmised that it was over 60 degrees when George Washington took the oath for the second time, on March 4, 1793, in Philadelphia.

Ulysses S. Grant's second inauguration, in 1873, was the coldest March 4 event. The temperature at noon was 16 degrees, and the sunshine could not counter winds that made it feel a lot colder. The gusts were so powerful, in fact, that many in the audience could not hear Grant's speech. Some West Point cadets and Naval Academy midshipmen who had been standing on the mall for more than an hour without overcoats passed out from the cold.

It rained on Franklin D. Roosevelt's second inauguration, on Jan. 20, 1937. Then it rained some more. A total of 1.77 inches fell that day, almost seven-tenths of an inch between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. The temperature was a chilly 33.

William Henry Harrison's inauguration day in 1841 was cold and blustery. He gave a long speech, was not dressed warmly enough, soon developed pneumonia and died within the month.

Franklin Pierce was sworn in while the temperature was in the mid-30's and there was a stiff wind. Pierce fared all right, but Abigail Fillmore, wife of departing President Millard Fillmore, did not. She caught a cold, which turned to pneumonia and killed her within a few weeks.

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 05:03 am

A sentence written on the program of Franklin D. Roosevelt's third Inauguration:--

"Inaugurals take their drama from the temper of the times."

Robby

betty gregory

January 20, 2001 - 06:07 am

Thanks for quoting from Lincoln's second inaugural, Robby. I had been contemplating asking what others did to combat petty thoughts and, uh, "malice," that's just about the right word for it. The petty has to do with my longstanding gag reflex for anything country-western. Hats, boots, whiny voice music.

The malice is reserved for those righteous toned (unenlightened) speeches about replacing sex education in schools with "abstinence education," and about that blank-faced innocence when others suggest that maybe a person who has fought against civil rights his whole political life could be a poor choice to defend those rights and enforce them. Consider this---when the justice department is finished with its investigation into alledged voting inequities in Florida---does the Black vote count equally---guess who will decide whether to prosecute? Malice is a good word.

But Lincoln said "with malice toward none and with charity for all," and he was speaking to those engaged in a civil war, the ultimate of political differences on human rights...and states' rights. I have such a difficult time, though, when people knowingly, or with ignorance, deny others a life of dignity.

tigerliley

January 20, 2001 - 06:14 am

Betty have you any idea how many good people you may have just insulted and offended with your post #1266? Do you even care ? I can't believe it is you saying such things about a group of Americans which probably amounts to thousands...... If I have misinterpreted your comments my apologies.........

camron

January 20, 2001 - 06:32 am

In defference to our leader, I will hold off on responding to Mike and others until tomorrow. It is a Great Day, seriously.

Dolphindli

January 20, 2001 - 07:43 am

Mike - in response to Post 1252

I do not find you "too critical" of my comments. But, I disagree with you and to me, that is what discussion is about. So I shall continue with my opinion.

You stated: "The point to be stressed here is that the information COULD have been available if the powers in charge had taken the time to conduct proper preliminary investigations."

My retort: I believe the government had/has knowledge of repercussions in all of it's warfare strategies, right down to counting the number of youths that will loose their lives.

You say: "The past cannot be changed. What we do with this information, will enable us to change our future if we have the stamina and courage to do so. It is an opportunity not to be dismissed lightly."

I say the government did have afterthought knowledge (I believe) when using Agent Orange. It had the devastating results of the A-bomb available them. The use of agent orange and it's resultant effects - KNOWN AT THE TIME TO THE GOVERNMENT - did not deter it from using chemical warfare at Dessert Storm and, just as it tried to sweep under the rug, the devastating results of agent orange, so be it with Gulf War Syndrome. "Me thinks they doth protest too much."

So, instead of changing events based on learned knowledge, it is repeating mistakes for those in the future who will call us the past.

Additionally, isn't the use of a chemical whose alleged sole purpose is to destroy the rice fields tantamount to annihilation when that food is the primary existence of a country? Is hunger and starvation a greater way to die for victory? How can we ever even begin to propose peaceful solutions or does it reman tit-for-tat?

And I am not just talking about our government - but count my blessings each night --

Nice talking at you Mike

Dolphin

betty gregory

January 20, 2001 - 07:50 am

Tigerlily, if I offended anyone who was personally involved in denying Black folks access to equal voting rights or anyone who thought we shouldn't give up the institution of slavery, then I'm ok with that.

If I offended anyone with my comments on the recent suggestions on how to reduce the number of abortions---by doing away with sex education and replacing it with abstinence education---well, that just doesn't make any sense. However, good people can disagree on that topic, so I'm sorry if that came across as insensitive to others' serious thoughts on the issue.

If my comments about country-western hats, boots, music offended, well, I did say it was petty. I always end up feeling embarrassed for Texas, but it is petty.

I meant to imply that I was grateful to read Lincoln's wise words---because malice is ultimately as destructive to who feels it as to those it is directed to.

Persian

January 20, 2001 - 08:05 am

Dolphin - another example - right in front of our face as we approach today's Inauguration - was the Navy's unwillingness to put a team on the ground to determine whether a pilot whose plane was shot down in the Gulf War actually survived and, if so, what happened to him. Several members of the Iraqi military (who have since pleaded for asylum in the USA and been granted that status) have indicated in their debriefings that there was an American pilot recovered from the crash site. To date, information from only one of the Iraqi men has been publicized and was mentioned in the recent 60 Minutes TV special on this topic. (The interview of the Navy's Commanding Officer at the time was conducted by Bob Simon, himself a former hostage in the Middle East.)

tigerliley

January 20, 2001 - 08:21 am

Yes.....I think the "gagging" in reference to country-western hats, boots, and music is an example of the "elitism" practiced by some in this great country....Yes....I found it offensive.....I thought I read it right the first time around.

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 08:36 am

We are about to change the Executive of our government and emotions are running high. Apparently we are not immune to that emotion here in our usually courteous and considerate forum. I feel confident, however that, as we continue to give our views about America and Democracies that we will follow our practice of choosing our words carefully.

You are all invited after you have heard the Inauguration speech to give your opinions about the speech as compared to previous Inauguration speeches or perhaps compared to what you would like to have heard or what you, yourself, might have given. Please keep in mind that this is not the forum for comments about specific political personages or policies. Please make those comments in the many wonderful political Discussion Groups in Senior Net where you are encouraged to give vent to your partisan views. What fits in with the theme of Democracy in America is your opinion of such factors as: was the address short enough to keep your attention? did you find it easy to understand what the President was trying to communicate? did it give us all an idea of what direction we are now headed? did it appear to be an address to all Americans? was there a message for the entire world?

Your reactions?

Robby

tigerliley

January 20, 2001 - 09:49 am

I liked the inaugural speech very much...I particularly liked the emphasis on civility and citizen involvement.....I thought it was very fresh and inclusive....I am proud of our new president and wish him only the best.........God speed President and Senator Clinton....

kiwi lady

January 20, 2001 - 10:03 am

I have always thought it is ironic how America emphasises it is a Republic yet the Presidency with all the pomp and ceremony reminds me of a monarchy. Its not much different than being the Queen of England. Your President is treated with the same deference! We are a monarchy and our Prime Minister is not treated in the same way as an American President it seems to me an outsider that a President is just a different name for a King!

Try and think about this comment looking from an outsiders perspective!

Carolyn

Dolphindli

January 20, 2001 - 10:19 am

OK ROBBY - I will stay on course.

But, before I address your questions, I must say, I am still overwhelmed by the music that symbolizes our nation and the heartfelt pride it instills in its people.

Having said that, yes, the speech was short enough to hold my attention. I was very impressed with President Bush's speech. I particularly liked that he addressed the situation as far as battering and neglect were concerned. He seemed to hone in on domestic problems, recognition of which, our nation so sorely needs to address. I particularly liked the fact that he did not make "promises" but put forth his intent as to what direction he anticipates for this country under his leadership. I hope it holds true.

Did it appear to be an address to ALL Americans? Yes, However, it did not appear to me to be a message for the entire world. I believe the speech generated a feeling of his desire for domestic and world tranquility and his repeated inference to the Angel leading us was profound for me.

I interpreted his speech as non-political and implying that his tenure will not be one of separation of Church and State; in fact, it gave me the hope that maybe, just maybe we can return to being "One Nation under God..."

PS - now that I think of it, did I miss the Pledge of Allegiance?

Dolphin

FaithP

January 20, 2001 - 10:56 am

I get a little bewildered sometimes on what freedom of speech means. If you think anyone has at any time hollered Fire in the Theater here in this formum then I think you do not know the meaning of freedom of speech. Robby is now telling us what we can and cant say here Not that I want to say anything offensive but I want the right to if I so desire. Faith

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 11:00 am

I watched the entire proceedings -- the entrance of the various governmental officials onto the podium, the invocation, the choir singing "America, the Beautiful" (that song always gets me), the introduction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the oath of allegiance taken by the incoming Vice-President, the beautiful solo rendering by a Marine of "America" and "God Bless America", the oath taken by the incoming President, the introductory notes of "Hail to the Chief," a 21 cannon salute, the Inauguration Address, the shaking of hands between those going out and those coming in --

You know what? I cried. Am I alone? I love this country so much!!! I know I have said that here before. And you know what, Carolyn? You are right. Our pomp and ceremony does remind one of a monarchy. Rituals like this are meant to call our attention to power. But here is where the difference occurs. Those of us who live in and love Democracies realize that the power belongs to the people and that we are, in effect, saluting ourselves. And, in my opinion, we need ceremonies like that to call our attention to who and what we are.

So may I suggest, with your permission, that we wait until tomorrow to get back to Alexis deTocqueville and what makes Democracy tick but, for today, can we spend a little time examining what Democracy is and why we love it? Why we have inaugurations?

Me? I'm drained.

Robby

tigerliley

January 20, 2001 - 11:11 am

Robby...I hesitated to say that I cried but of course I did....I had the kleenex ready ...The music of course all ways touches me deeply..I also think of all those who have died and have gone before us....I think of my mother and father who were so proud of this country and how proud they would have been of our new young president....I think of how proud I am that all of our politicians and their families can come togather in such a special way and with what dignity......I for one do not feel a dime was squanderd in this most important of all ceremomy's which in one moment brings all Americans togather.......At this special time I am just an American and am not to concerned with how anyone else views us.........

Malryn (Mal)

January 20, 2001 - 11:53 am

How easy it is to forget how this inauguration came about. A relatively short time ago, people were extremely concerned about voting machines, judgments made in courts and an election which to some seemed very undemocratic and unfair. This is my country, and I love it sometimes, too, but I will not be swayed by emotion or words in speeches. It's what happens after those speeches are long forgotten that is important to me.

There's something going around which goes like this. "They did not play Hail to the Chief at the inauguration. They played Hail to the Thief". There's a reason for this, and I hate to think Americans have already forgotten what it was.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 12:10 pm

Mal:--And that's exactly what we are going to do. As you know, what we have been doing since this forum began in July was to observe what America shows us day by day and compare it with what deTocqueville has to say about that subject.

Just a few short days ago we were covering the topic of race relations in this nation today and comparing it to deT's thoughts on this subject. Race relations is an important topic and we hadn't yet completed discussing it. America then showed us a new temporary face -- Inauguration -- and we are about to return to what we were discussing. Race relations has a direct bearing on the items you mentioned: voting machines, court judgments, and elections.

I have a sneaking impression that the deep-thinking participants in this Discussion Group are not forgetting the answer to our title question "What is a Democracy" and are just allowing themselves the privilege of pausing to observe that wonderful event called "peaceful transfer of power."

jeanlock

January 20, 2001 - 01:04 pm

Betty Gregory--

I write this while watching the innauguration parade (couldn't bring myself to watch the swearing in), and as I read the messages preceding yours, my thought was that the innauguration bit is a ritual, and--as a minister said in a sermon once at church--"rituals bind us together". Of course, from the amount of booing along the parade route this year, I tend to wonder.

But I do not begrudge the money spend. My grandson marched in the last parade four years ago and it was high point for him. As the song they used to play when I was a kid said, "I love a parade", and I'm watching it on C-SPAN without any announcer commentary. Just the parade announcer identifying the various groups.

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 02:41 pm

As we continue for the sixth month (hard to believe this!) to float down the mainstream of America observing the faces presented to us, the sights and sounds of the Inauguration parade gradually recede into the distance. We look out at other faces and see that although the Democracy now has a new leader, problems nevertheless still exist. We cannot help but remember the cries of Afro-Americans during the recent election who protested and continue to protest that they were prevented from exercising their voting franchise.

We think back to deTocqueville's observations of 170 years ago and hear him saying: "There is a natural prejudice which prompts men to despise whomsoever has been their inferior long after he is become their equal. And the real inequoality which is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality which is implanted in the manners of the people."

deT tells us that laws requiring equality may have come into existence but the people's manners -- attitudes if you wish -- have not changed. Why is this so? What is so difficult after the passage of almost two centuries and a civil war for one human being to look at another and be able to look past the skin color? Is this an impossible divide that will always be present?

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 20, 2001 - 03:24 pm

In a series on minorities published by the New York Times, the results of research suggest that, as if pulled by magnets, black and white children begin to separate at sixth grade. These are children who walked to school together, learned to read together, slept over at each other's houses.

But despite all the personal history, all the community good will, race divides them as they grow up. As racial consciousness develops -- and the practice of grouping students by perceived ability sends them on diverging academic paths -- race becomes as much a fault line in their world as in the one their parents hoped to move beyond.

Have you seen experiences like this? Any suggestions as to how this can be avoided?

Robby

LouiseJEvans

January 20, 2001 - 03:26 pm

Some seem to be a little critical of us having so much for our inaugeration. However, we seem to like parties and ceremonies. We like our personal celebrations like weddings so I guess we like our big national parties. Personally, I like country music. When I first came south I didn't. I was from Boston and grew up listening to classical music. I still like classical music but I have learned to like country music too. My father always took us to see the old western movies. I have friends and even know doctors that wear the boots and other Texas style outfits. I think they look nice.

The community that I am most closely associated with is very mixed. There are married couples where one is black and the other white. Many of my friends are Hispanic. We all worship together, have picnics. We attend assemblies Together. When we are at these assemblies we are at peace and enjoy the company of one another. We hate for them to end.

kiwi lady

January 20, 2001 - 08:09 pm

I think intermarriage would be the only way to improve the great divide. We are gradually intermarrying more and more and things have greatly improved since I was a child but of course it could be much better. You have to really get to know another person intimately then you dont notice the color of their skin. I was five before I saw the difference and so were my sisters then we asked if our playmates needed a wash cause they had dirt on them. We had never noticed prior to about 5 years old. Our mother had to then sit us down and explain.

Carolyn

mikecantor

January 20, 2001 - 09:38 pm

“But despite all the personal history, all the community good will, race divides them as they grow up. As racial consciousness develops -- and the practice of grouping students by perceived ability sends them on diverging academic paths -- race becomes as much a fault line in their world as in the one their parents hoped to move beyond.”

I raise my voice in protest against a popular misconception! I believe that there are entirely too many polls, surveys, studies and commentaries by those who should know better, denigrating the perceptive ability of our children to recognize the true reality of racial consciousness.

Do not sell the children short, either in this democracy or any other, with regard to their ability to recognize the true meaning of “liberty, equality and fraternity”. Do not patronize their intelligence by not recognizing their inherent ability to perceive that “all men are created equal.”

Of course, not all of them are equally endowed with the ability to perceive the insanity of bigotry, discrimination, racial intolerance and the vituperation spewed forth by blind fanaticism in a world in which the majority will soon become the minority. That is changing however, and more rapidly than many believed possible. I state with some egotism, a great deal of optimism, and no little pride, that if there is a shred of hope within me of what the future holds for this great nation of ours, I have invested my share of that hope in the children of America.

What passes for leadership today, as particularly exemplified in recent administrations and this last election, from the uppermost rungs of government to its’ least common denominator, is pitiful, to put it as simply as possible. To which direction shall we direct our vision to view the Lincoln’s of this day and age? Unfortunately, they are not yet within our view. But I do not now, nor have I ever doubted that they will come, and that they will come from our children and perhaps even from those as yet unborn.

A recent popular expression states: “If you build it, they will come!”

Let us continue to build our monumental citadels and bastions of democracy and freedom to the best of our ability never forgetting that it is from the children of today and tomorrow from which the greatest leaders the world has ever known will come to inhabit them. It is only really a question of time and our continuing faith in the integrity, abilities and courage of our children, the children of the world!

Mike

robert b. iadeluca

January 21, 2001 - 04:27 am

Mike is extremely optimistic concerning an understanding and interaction between the races. He believes in an "inherent ability" among children to "perceive that all men are created equal." However, according to the series by the New York Times based on careful scientifically conducted research, there is a "pressure" that divides by race.

In one of the reports of the series, entitled "Growing Up, Growing Apart," in which the children themselves were questioned, some of the young people spoke of a "yearning for identity", the most important thing in life being "choosing a group and fitting in." They spoke of black children and white children "coming apart" and former friendships "ebbing and ending."

It did not appear that the former close friends of different races wanted this to be so. They did not begin to "hate" each other. They just began to be more aware of "blackness" and "whiteness." Most young people seemed to accept the racial split as inevitable. As one adolescent said: "It just happens. It's just easier to be with your own kind."

Louise tells us of mixed color married couples in her area and Carolyn suggests "intermarriage" as being the only way to eliminate the "great divide." Other thoughts here on that subject?

Robby

Denizen

January 21, 2001 - 07:33 am

The answer that most people will give to that question will consist of a list of groups of which they are a member. This list may contain geographical data, i.e. American, Texan etc., occupation, marital status (family connections), ethnicity, gender, race and so on. Like many animals we are territorial but, for humans, territory is a complex thing. I want to make two points about that relating to the current discussion.

1. I suspect that for most black Americans, or any racial minority, race would come pretty high on their list of who they are. Those of European ancestry might not even think to put their race on the list. The reasons for that seems obvious to me. I think if we caucasians could put ourselves in black skins for a while we would understand that race is more important than we think it ought to be.

2. I believe that our who-am-I list grows more detailed and complex as we grow older and we differentiate mankind into many more subgroups. Race awareness is probably just one part of that process. I also think that process of differentiation plays a role in our political behavior too. Perhaps as the definition of *us* vs. *them* becomes narrower, we naturally tend to become more conservative. Some of us anyway.

I agree with Mike's optimism about the future. Look how far we have come in racial attitudes in our brief lifetimes. And if we look back to the turmoil of the 50's and 60's, it was the young who forced us to question our old paradigms and begin to see things through new lenses. It is an awfully slow business, paradigm shifting. It takes generations.

betty gregory

January 21, 2001 - 08:12 am

Thanks, Jeanlock, for understanding that I was asking for help, re: feeling petty and full of malice. A thing I'll admit is that I still link country western anything with sights, sounds, frightening experiences of childhood, father, etc. Later in life, I got it tangled up in political beliefs I thought were dangerous. These are biases of mine, things difficult to shake, things I don't brag about.

Denizen, Mike, Robby, you three write with such care and insight on our most complex issue of race. The proof of social pressures to divide into "like" groups (emphasis on social pressures) is certainly found in the easy, natural, boundary-free relationships of the small children.

One measure of true progress, I believe, is the proliferation of ideas, questions, concerns, arguments, yes, even political divisions, on the subject of race. We genuinely struggle with it; it doesn't fade away. All this gives me hope.

Dolphindli

January 21, 2001 - 08:19 am

kiwi lady said at post 1286 :"I think intermarriage would be the only way to improve the great divide."

One can only imagine the consequences of our great grandparents when it was equivalent to a "sin" to marry out of their own nationality, let alone own race! God forbid an Irishman should marry an Italian; A Catholic should marry a Protestant; a Jew should marry a gentile. And here we are living at a time in history when there are inter-racial marriages. Somebody check the cemetery cause there sure must be a lot of dirt kicking' goin' on there on both sides of the fence.

I say this, because it was instilled with them to "stick with your own kind." How, therefore can we sustain inter-racially marriage when we are not only burdened with the guilt of what our forefathers did (slavery) but likewise blamed by that race for it? Does love really conquer all? In fact, I say "our" forefathers when my family did not even come to America until 1907. And, from listening to the history of my Austrian grandparents, they too suffered abuse, embarrassment, KKK confrontations in Kansas right down to cross burning on their front yards. In fact, my Mother once told me that my Grandmother sent a male friend of her's home (and they were only sitting on the front porch) because he was Italian.

I had a girlfriend, who was so Irish Catholic that she asked everyone his or her religion and if they responded anything but Catholic, she felt deeply sorry for them and told them so. We laugh about it today.

At post #1287, Mike said, in part: "Do not patronize their intelligence by not recognizing their inherent ability to perceive that 'all men are created equal' .

Perception is inherent only when not confused by deception. That deception is instilled by many today; white supremacists, etc. If you are raised in a hateful bigoted household and not been made to understand the truth -- well, the bad fruit doesn't fall far from the tree! But if you took the child out of the bigoted environment, then truly enlightenment should prevail.

It is only when we can take a pure mind and fill it with purity that children will perceive, without deception, that all men are truly created equal. And that too might be too liberal a statement considering that the Afro-America was not even considered under our Constitution?

Dolphin

robert b. iadeluca

January 21, 2001 - 09:34 am

Dolphin says: "if you took the child out of the bigoted environment, then truly enlightenment should prevail."

Do you folks agree that if a black child grew up in a non-bigoted environment, he would not be susceptible to that "divide?"

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 21, 2001 - 10:54 am

Beverly Tatum, author of "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria," notes that, "racial grouping is a developmental process in response to an environmental stressor, racism. Joining with one's peers for support in the face of stress is a positive coping strategy."

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 21, 2001 - 05:37 pm

In the series, one black eighth grade student said she had friends of all races. But she has moved away from the whites and closer to the blacks. She referred to the shift, sometimes as "my drift," as in "After my drift, I began to notice more how the black kids talk differently from the white kids."

She said her drift began after a sixth-grade argument. "They said, 'You don't even act like you're black.' I hadn't thought much about it until then, because I was too young. And I guess it was mean what they said, but it helped me. I found I wanted to behave differently after that."

This appears to an example of the "pressure" referred to by young people.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 21, 2001 - 05:50 pm

Pier pressure happens to all children of a certain age and there is precious little anyone can do about it. If the children feel better grouping together to find their identity then we must accept that. One hopes as they grow older this will wain a bit and "otherness" will be more acceptable.

Once one is comfortable in one's own skin, one can accept "otherness" better. Just my thoughts.

As i am not an American i can't really say i understand your social conditions. I'm speaking from an overview perspective.

Alki

January 21, 2001 - 08:55 pm

The world that I grew up in was a dangerous world for racially mixed relationships. But times change. My oldest daughter marrried a fellow black high school classmate. My son-in-law is not only black, he was from the wrong side of the tracks as well. Getto Black. When they were young, they went through some terrible experiences for two American citizens to have to survive, such as being picked up by Oregon police on white slavery charges and jailed while they were in college, etc. My daughter's father committed suicide after meeting my son-in-law. But he had severe problems with the memories of WWII and alcoholism as well, so the mixed racial relationship of his daughter was not the only reason for his self-destruction.

There has been turmoil in both families over their relationship, but after twenty-five years and two grandchildren now grown, well, I think that time irons out everything, even with Oregon police . I have discovered that change is the one driving force of life. And after all, racially mixed children are the fastest growing segment of our democracy. Where did my grandsons sit in the cafeteria? Where all of the prettiest girls were.

Persian

January 21, 2001 - 09:24 pm

Ellen - I'd say you've got smart grandsons!

Denizen

January 21, 2001 - 09:39 pm

I think it stands to reason that the differentiation of our species into races developed over tens of thousands of years of isolation. We are no longer isolated like that and if there is no asteroid collision or equivalent man made catastrophe it should not take many generations for the races to blend. It may come to pass that our descendents will be able to play golf as well as Tiger Woods.

Jere Pennell

January 21, 2001 - 10:34 pm

I truly believe with Mike that the children are the hope of the world. If so why do we not put them at the receiving end of our best resources. The schools of the world are not.

My Japanese wife is more comfortable being with Japanese than any other race. Why? She grew up to adulthood in Japan before she left Japan and so was not subject to discrimination. My wife is just an example. Are we missing something?

I do not know what it is but I do not think it can all be attributed to racial consciousness or maybe it can in a different way.

betty gregory

January 22, 2001 - 01:22 am

Jere asks if we're missing something. Maybe the most obvious...what is familiar is comfortable...what is known is easier than what is unknown. In many more ways than race, we gravitate to what we're familiar with. What always comes to mind is the all white "good old boys" management staff of the 1960s, hiring one person after another just like themselves---familiar, known. And how jarring and unsettling it must have been to be forced to see value in people who were not like them---women, etc.

I would guess that the most powerful social pressures have to do with race and gender. These stereotypes and roles are deeply embedded and won't go away easily. Laws that force changes give us opportunities, though, for experiences with and closer proximity to people we think of as "not like us."

I've always thought that parents who are more comfortable with a wide range of people will go out of their way to introduce the same to their children.

During my two years in Berkeley, California, a few years ago, I met parents who moved to Berkeley specifically for the very international mix of neighbors and school children. People from all over the world live comfortably together in Berkeley and Oakland. It's a very different world there---one that is exciting, unsettling, enlarging, stimulating, maddening. In the same day, I would be frustrated with difficult communication in one setting and thrilled with a new way of seeing something in another. In a restaurant once, I realized that the language spoken behind me, beside me and across from me were all different. I knew that one was French but I could not identify the other two---one possibly Russian. It was in a Japanese restaurant.

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 04:33 am

Ellen:--We do appreciate your sharing those most personal and simultaneously tragic experiences in your family. And also sharing with us that "time", as the expression goes, heals all wounds. The sharing of your memories helps us in this forum to examine a most difficult and sensitive subject.

Denizen sees "time" in the picture in the form of a rapid blending of the races.

Jere lets us know that his Japanese wife is more comfortable "being with Japanese than any other race" because she "grew up to adulthood" in Japan. Does the secret then to breaking down the divide lie in what happens when we are children?

Betty reminds us that "what is familiar is comfortable." Yet consider the case of the school-age girls in the research discussed in earlier postings. Here were black and white girls who knew each other from pre-school days, went to kindergarten together, played together, learned to read together, walked to school together, slept over at each other's houses -- yet -- there came a time when, familiarity notwithstanding, the separation began. They separated, to use the term in the research "as if pulled by internal magnets." And they began to separate at about the sixth grade -- approximately the age of 12. As one girl said: "It's easier to be with your own kind." (This is what Jere told us.)

Another girl in the eighth grade had a birthday party and invited all her friends, both black and white. They all came but, as she says, "The black kids stayed down in the basement and danced and the white kids went outside on the stoop and talked." She added: "It was just split up, like two parties."

These kids were familiar with each other, from almost infancy as a matter of fact, yet race caused a divide. Why?

Robby

betty gregory

January 22, 2001 - 04:59 am

Because their awareness is broadening and FAMILIARITY with white family, white friends, white consequences for breaking social codes of white friends grows beyond familiarity with one or two Black friends. Their world gets bigger and approval from the group is needed. Racism gets them.

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 05:14 am

Betty:--Are you saying (if not, please tell me) that what is needed is not so much familiarity as approval? That their friends in childhood approved of them as well as knew them and that what we need now is for the "white race" per se to approve of the "black race?" Sounds condescending as I say this but I want to understand.

Robby

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 06:03 am

Did deTocqueville see all this in his remark above beginning: "The majority represses...?"

Robby

betty gregory

January 22, 2001 - 06:21 am

Well, I guess I'm thinking of two things...first, locus of feedback. Until a certain age, the parents are the center of one's world, then as the world grows larger (literally, through experiences, exposure, development) the locus begins to include social group. Parents aren't replaced but it gets crowded in there.

Second, I'm thinking of the content of social group feedback (approval or absence of it). Every behavior gets constant feedback from the environment. A three year old boy reaching for doll dressed in pink can produce a distinctive noise from the environment. Fitting in with a social pre-teen group by imitating others or distinguishing oneself by not imitating---these behaviors have responses that tell us where we are...socially...in the eyes of others. In the same vein, at about puberty, girls begin to get the message that acting bookish or "too" intelligent is not as rewarded as spending time capturing a boyfriend. Even adults' conversations with girls that age change...focusing on hair style, clothes, appearances, personality. Even parents that swear they don't are taped saying these new things to girls. At school, the pressure to focus on "boy-catching" can be intense. There is less emphasis on the importance of learning and "making something" of oneself.

I don't have more than a general awareness of how race (actually, racism) explodes into the world of a young person....just a picture in my mind of the change from smaller locus of parents to the larger locus of social group. And I did love that statement of Black children seeking their race group as a method of coping with racism. Safety.

Malryn (Mal)

January 22, 2001 - 07:29 am

My first conscious awareness of Blacks was when I was very, very small, perhaps four years old in Massachusetts. My uncle and aunt took me over to the good-sized frozen pond across the street on a sled. I was sitting there and saw a black man skating. I remember very vividly saying to my uncle in a most innocent way, "Bobby, I didn't know niggers could skate." My aunt and uncle reacted strongly, flushed in the face, by pulling me off the ice and taking me back to their house.

Now, I had to learn that word somewhere. I couldn't read, so I must have heard it in my family. As I grew older, I heard much prejudice stated with words in my aunt and uncle's house and none in the home of my mother, so obviously I learned the word there. This leads me to believe that prejudice and bigotry are handed down from a generation of adults to the children of another generation.

My reaction to what I heard my aunt and uncle say was to rebel against them in a very strong way before I was a teenager. After all, one of my mother's best friends was a black woman, and in the Universalist-Unitarian Church where I went to Sunday School and church services, I was taught to believe that God is Love and that He preached "the brotherhood of man".

Mal

Cathy Foss

January 22, 2001 - 07:37 am

If it is progress that boys (all races) prefer to sit in areas of the cafeteria where the pretty girls are; do - we call that progress? That seems to say pretty girls are better than not so pretty girls. Is that progress, or only shifting the scales?

Idris O'Neill

January 22, 2001 - 08:10 am

It would seem to me that there are so many prejudices that we harbour as you pointed out Mal and Cathy. If you think about it, it spins out larger and larger like ripples in a pond It accepts and rejects all manner of small differences and perceived differences. None of this is very pleasant to behold. What is it in the human animal that does this?

Cathy Foss

January 22, 2001 - 08:37 am

I like to imagine a society that can function and meet all of human needs that must be to perpetuate that society. It seems our times feel that competition is a necessity to survive. Is it? I wonder if our sense of competition were with our last performance would not be a better way to go.

Idris - I see you as a first rate human being. I admire your posts very much and very seldom disagree with any of your conclusions.

Dolphindli

January 22, 2001 - 08:43 am

Mike asked: Do you folks agree that if a black child grew up in a non-bigoted environment, he would not be susceptible to that "divide?" -

Yes. Ellen's response (#1296) from her grandsons when asked whey they sit in the cafeteria "where the pretties girls are" supports my statement that being raised in a non-bigoted environment is just as applicable to mixed-race children as to White Children. It seems like Ellen is the expert here. Nothing beats firsthand knowledge. Thank you for sharing that Ellen -- it was marvelous.

Betty gregory -- addresses the changes in children as they grow older, especially girls. The girls that were my "world" when I was up to age approximately age 12 were my "best friends." Hitting age 12, they learned toward archery and athletics. I leaned toward dancing and, of course boys. There was a divide in our relationship. And, although my fondest childhood (5-12) are always with them in mind, the friends I made in high school were longer standing.

I happen to be reading "Bagger Vance (Steven Pressfield) and, in keeping with the discussion of children and bigotry, and change, I would like to quote from that book which takes place in 1930 after the great depression in Savannah, Georgia. The narator, now an old man, talks about h is meeting of Bagger Vance, a Black man when he was but 10 years old, raised in a Southern State in a Southern environment, to wit:

"Here was another shock to my untutored sight: a colored man sitting at the same table with a white. I must have gawked, or even stared at the raw, unholy cheek of it, because the man tipped h is battered hat. I could feel my face flushing. The nerve of this fellow...."

As the story goes on, he comes to look at Bagger with awe and admiration. Awareness and enlightenment have entered into his world dispelling the adage that "familiarity breeds contempt."

I also remember an occasion when a teenage Black girl, friend of all the kids, died suddenly. She got Bronchitis; her Mother found her not breathing, rushed to the hospital and died.

I attended that wake and do you know what I found? Grieving children; teenagers -- there was no black and white in that room; Black boys were holding young crying White girls; White girls were giving comfort to Black young men. Parents of all races of children likewise attended that funeral. It was the most poignant coming together one could experience. I sent a letter to our local newspaper because I was so inspired by what I saw and felt that day as opposed what is printed in the paper- [gang wars, violence, etc.] -- but the paper had no use for a story of children coming together. However, it will always remain with me -- because it was the most beautiful sign of hope, peace, harmony, understanding and respect for one another and the children were totally oblivious - they were just being children.

Dolphin

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 12:00 pm

Dolphin said: "The paper had no use for a story of children coming together."

What part (if any) do you folks believe the media -- newspapers, radio, TV, Internet -- play in uniting or dividing the races?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 22, 2001 - 12:17 pm

The media, including papers and TV can't sell "good news" only "bad news" so that is what we get. The faces of ourselves we see in these mirrors is distorted and ugly.

Pluralism is acceptance of the other. Surely that is what we all strive to do and be. We (meaning me) may never truly make it, but we strive to do so, and measure our humanity by this internal measure.

Thanks Cathy, that was very kind of you.

)

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 12:19 pm

Are there any differences in the way Minorities are treated in democracies from non-democracies?

Robby

tigerliley

January 22, 2001 - 12:59 pm

I don't know why the human race does what it does to each other...Murder, rape, abuse, and on and on.....Probably at the root of it all is fear..........

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 01:03 pm

Tigerliley:--If we are speaking of the Majority vs the Minority, who is afraid of whom? And why?

tigerliley

January 22, 2001 - 01:18 pm

Oh Robby what a question...Probably the majority fearing loss of power, loss of identity, loss of control, loss of material things....I mean the list could go on and on...Why else would people treat each other in such horrific and dehumanizing ways? Being a nurse I know from experience that all people suffer, bleed, love, and grieve in exactly the same way......No matter their gender or race....

Persian

January 22, 2001 - 02:17 pm

ROBBY - you ask about the treatment of minorities in democracies vs non-democracies. I've witnessed this in China and several areas of the Middle East, which certainly are NOT democracies. The intolerance is more State generated than what we are familiar with in the USA (except perhaps in the South).

For example, in China, the Muslims are in the minority. They've experienced confiscation of their land and livestock, schools closed, jobs terminated, job sites closed completely, well water polluted, villages bulldozed to the ground (similar to the practice in Israel), goods removed from markets to hamper income, arrests on made-up charges, jailing of young men with no charges, and mysterious deaths.

I had two Muslim students in one of my classes at a university in China. After I met with them about their mid-term exams (as I did with each student), I was questioned by the department's chairman for more than one hour about what we had discussed. When I realized why he was talking to me, I pitched such an Irish temper tantrum and threatened to write articles about the conversation and his manner when I returned to the USA, that he asked the University President to talk with me. When we held that discussion, I was just as forthcoming. I complained loudly to the Weiban Office (foreign affairs) and to the Educational Office at the American embassy. BTW, Both of those students are working on their Ph.D.'s at American universities.

In the USA, we each have an individual opportunity to speak out about racism or any other form of bigotry. We can be very active and vocal in our communities, churches, professional organizations and through our media, either independently or collectively. Those opportunities to do NOT exist overseas.

As a native Californian, I think my experiences as a Caucasian with multiracial friends has been quite different than what I've read in these posts. I have friends of various races all through my childhood and we remained close as youth and adults. In my professional life, I've always worked in multirace environments. It was NOT until I came to Washingtonn DC that I experienced the "race card" mentality. I've been here 30+ years and it is just as ugly today as it was when I arrived in the mid-sixties. I have many multiracial friends here and we talk about this issue a lot. And the collective opinion is that "it's our kids who are going to HAVE to make a difference. But it's up to us to teach them how to make that difference and why. And it's up to all of us to "step out" in whatever way we can with whatever gifts (talents, skills, resources) we have to make that difference and teach those kids. It's not only Stella that needs to get her Groove back!

Persian

January 22, 2001 - 02:23 pm

Robby - another source of what race means in the USA: "Black, White and Jewish" by Rebecca Walker, recounts the life of a young girl growing up in the shadow of her Mother, prolific Black writer, Alice Walker, and her Jewish Father, who just didn't understand that she (the daughter) was black. An immensely touching book.

mikecantor

January 22, 2001 - 02:36 pm

“What part (if any) do you folks believe the media—newspapers, radio, TV, Internet—play in uniting or dividing the races?”

As I stated previously, I am not a believer in so called “careful scientifically conducted research” such as the one you previously quoted from the New York Times: “Growing Up, Growing Apart.” Statistical analysis, especially when it is based on interviews with children, can be made to indicate a variety of results, which are really dependent on too many variable factors. One of these is the viewpoint of the interviewer, which cannot be discounted, in spite of remonstrances of impartiality.

But it is the other factors having to do with the children themselves and the information they offer to the survey, that is far more important. What must be recognized is that the children of this day and age, particularly due to the influences of media and what passes for their perception of the reality of the current life style, are vastly different from what we were at their age. These children are more “street smart”, more knowledgeable and much more aware of what it takes to “get by” with respect to the norms of society today, than any of us ever were. In no way is this altogether bad. Having learned more of the reality of what life is all about, they will be infinitely better equipped to deal with some of the issues which we, in our generation, did not handle as well as we might have.

Having said that, I would also suggest to you that many of the responses they made to the questions asked and the situations described were given on the basis of what they believed the interviewer wanted to hear. While this may sound as a harsh criticism of the children, it is not intended as such. However, they were well aware of what the interviewer or survey was looking for and also knew what type of response would result in their responses and identity being included in the published results. I would, in no way, totally denigrate the sincerity of all of their responses, but when speaking of “scientifically conducted research”, the situation described must be taken into consideration. I sincerely doubt that it was.

I can only add that I am in agreement with the statement that Dolphin made: “The paper had no use for a story of children coming together.” As it very rarely does!

Mike

jeanlock

January 22, 2001 - 02:38 pm

Sometime in the past week, I saw an interview with Jimmy Carter on TV. They were discussing his book, and he told the story (granted, I only got in after they had been on for a while) of his relationship with a little black boy when they were both very young. They played together every day, on a completely undifferentiated basis. Then, there came one incident (and I don't remember just what it was), but apparently the other boy's parents explained the 'facts of life' to their son, and Carter said that altho he and the other boy remained on a friendly basis, they never again enjoyed the same type of relationship they had had before.

I don't begin to tell it as well as he did, and he was most effective. The trouble with watching book discussions on TV is that I'm tempted to run out an buy every book.

In my high school in Ohio, we had a student body of about 700-800 students, of whom 40 were black. There was never (in my recollection at least) any overt discrimination, but both races did more or less keep to themselves. I was extremely proud of the fact that when we ran one of the black kids (my debate partner, in fact) for student council president, he won by more than 300 votes. It may be interesting to note that at the several high school reunions I've been to, it was only at the last two years ago that any of the black students showed up. And we were really glad to see them, and there wasn't any 'tension' at all. I suppose the ideal would be that such an event wouldn't be worthy of noting, just accepted as the norm.

EloElose De Pelteau

January 22, 2001 - 04:46 pm

De Tocqueville mentioned the unique tendency for America to unite which was unheard of in the Middle Ages.

"when each nation, each province each city, each family tended strongly to individualize. In the present days (1851) an opposite movement is being felt. People semm to march towards unity. Intellectual bonds unite the most remote part of the world and people cannot not remain one day separated from each other. So it is possible to see today less difference between Europeans and their descendants of the New World in spite of the Ocean that seperates them than between certain cities of the 18th century which were separated by only a river.

There will come a time when we will see in North America 150 million (today 350) men equal between themselves all belonging to the same family, who will have the same point of origin, the same civilization, the same TONGUE, the same religion, the same habits, the same way of life through which thoughts??? will circulate the same pattern and will paint itself the same colour. This is a fact that is entirely new in the world of which imagination itself cannot grasp the outcome."

This is a rough translation and de T. could so well visualize what will happen to us in our time.

You can read it on the chapter under "The three races in the US"

If he could foresee this great uniting force that we see here in certain areas, did he see also the great segregating force happening in other areas like racial discrimination.

As a Canadian I was awed and I admired the Inauguration Ceremony. Such an event can only strengten the pride of the people for their country.

Idris O'Neill

January 22, 2001 - 04:50 pm

I always ask myself what if the numbers were reversed. How would i feel. Frightened? It seems to me that when the majority sees a minority in attendance at something that is almost all one colour, race or religion they must feel in some way frightened.

In a pluralistic nation there are many "us" groups. When a small group of "others" appear somewhere certainly the fear must be less but i can't believe it isn't there.

Fear is always present isn't it? Fear of not fitting in. Fear of not being recognized as being there and part of things. Fear of being hurt either physically or emotionally. Fear, fear everywhere fear.

Jere Pennell

January 22, 2001 - 05:51 pm

Plus post # 1311, Mike's post and also Mal's post. (Sorry about this but when I go back to copy and paste the second post I lost the first post and anything else I have written in the post. I must be doing something wrong here.)

A strong cause of racism lies in the culture where the child grows up, I believe based on an incident that happened to me.

I was working at a college in the US where I became friends with a professor in Far Eastern History. He told me that he detected a bias against Koreans in my attitude. We investigated by a series of tests and interviews which discovered it was so. Where did it come from? The only Koreans that I knew were friends.

The professor said the only explanation was that I had gotten the bias by "osmosis" from the Japanese culture, which has it, during the time I was there as a child as my parents were not biased against them. It was inconceivable to him that based on my travels in the US that I would have received the bias in the US.

Interesting?

Idris O'Neill

January 22, 2001 - 05:58 pm

There are those who study Cultural Evolution around the world. I think they have many interesting things to say on the subject although most of it is way above my head.

Culture can be changed by many means. It can be education leading to a good job, virus's such as aids, studying the cultural heritage of others and many more.

Each group of folks have a culture but it can change when "others" enter the larger group. Sometimes war changes culture too.

I wonder where all of their studies will lead and will it help us at all?

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 06:01 pm

Jere:--Interesting and makes some of us wonder if we are biased while simultaneously thinking we are not.

Let's try another approach and not listen to what children are saying. How about the Army which has been integrated since 1948? It now has blacks, hispanics and other minority members of all ranks. It is one of the few institutions in America in which blacks routinely boss around whites, and to hear the Army brass tell it, no one gives it a second thought.

But the Pentagon itself discovered that this is an idealized image. It found that two-thirds of the men and women in the armed forces had experienced a racially offensive encounter in the previous 12 months. Racial tensions abounded, but seldom were they out in the open. Even less often did they rise to high drama. Race-related fights were rare. The angry spitting out of a slur ws uncommon.

But the divide exists. Why?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 22, 2001 - 06:03 pm

Jere, i have no idea either but something must have twigged. More often than not i don't think we are really aware of our biases. Remember that old experiment about the better looking kids getting better marks than the ones that weren't? There is also the "halo effect" or first impressions thingy happening.

Humans are very complicated. We do and think the strangest things without knowing we do sometimes.

Anyone ever been jealous of someone? I have and that is a very uncomfortable feeling once you recognize what you are doing. How very odd to punish someone for not being less than you are. Even at our very best we sometimes do things so people will think we are grand, forgiving or loving and yet it is rooted in feeling superior to someone else. What a mess of complicated thoughts and ideas we are.

mikecantor

January 22, 2001 - 06:11 pm

“What part (if any) do you folks believe the media—newspapers, radio, TV, Internet—play in uniting or dividing the races?”

I sometimes wonder if many of us take the time to consider the impact that Television has had in uniting rather than dividing the races. Of course there have always been TV broadcasts of classic motion pictures, as produced by that industry, which gave the theater going public an insight into what one might call “the blackness of America”. But Television itself has produced its’ own classics of that genre which have not only educated the American public of what it means to have a black skin, insofar as it was capable of doing so, but of vividly delineating what it takes to live in a white dominated society. We have never reached perfection in that area, and possibly we never will, but somewhere along the line we should acknowledge, if we have never done so, the great advances that have been made in the TV media in introducing the daily lives of the black and white race, one to the other.

Stories of high drama have always played an important role in that effort but, I am more in mind of those shows dealing with situation comedy portraying the daily interrelationships of blacks to whites which, while making us laugh, sometimes to the point of tears, also made us see and understand many things which we had no knowledge of before.

In searching my memory I can think of so many which, while enjoying them for their entertainment value, continued to educate us, even though sometimes without our even realizing it.

“I Spy” with Bill Cosby and Robert Culp. “Sanford and Son”, “The Jeffersons”, “All In The Family” with Carol Oconner as the unforgettable Archie Bunker, “The Bill Cosby Show”, and so many others that this old memory of mine cannot recall at the moment.

I, for one, will never forget the episode with Archie Bunker, when Sammy Davis Jr., who was guesting on the show, in a display of caring and friendship, kissed Archie on the cheek. The expression on the face of a radical racist attempting to comprehend why he was being subjected to such a distasteful, (to him at least) display of affection, sent waves of hilarious laughter rolling across America that night. I would not be surprised if many of us asked ourselves afterwards, exactly what was it that was making us laugh so hard?

A most interesting point is the fact that black oriented shows, with almost totally black casting, never lasted as long, for the most part, as those which I have named, in which the role of whites were in close juxtaposition and involvement with the intimate lives of the black families. Their duration on our TV screens was, of course, based on their ratings confirming their higher percentage of the viewing audience. Was this because a preponderance of whites viewed these programs as relating to their own lives and a commonality of purpose and experience in family life independent of skin color?

Hard to say! I prefer to think of it as an exchange of common life experiences, both in the laughter and the tears, which could only contribute, in its’ own special way, to a greater unification of the races. That is, indeed, a magnificent accomplishment in these times and in my view, something to be applauded.

Mike Cantor

robert b. iadeluca

January 22, 2001 - 06:31 pm

Comment by Idris that makes one pause and ponder:--"How very odd to punish someone for not being less than you are... it is rooted in feeling superior to someone else."

Robby

kiwi lady

January 23, 2001 - 12:09 am

So far in this discussion about the racial divide we have only I think discussed the White - African American divide. What about the Indigenous people.

When my son went to Canada he met a lot of Indigenous people as he was living in a very tiny place where there were mines and wood camps. A lot of Indians were miners and he said there was a lot of prejudice there. He believed the people were not given as much respect and opportunity as our indigenous people.

What do the Americans and Canadians have to say regarding their indigenous people. Do you believe there is a divide between the whites and the Indians?

Carolyn

kiwi lady

January 23, 2001 - 12:16 am

The Cosby Show has almost exclusively Black Americans in the cast. The show here is very popular and we have lots of reruns. The success of this show is that everyone can relate to the parenting experiences of Dr Huxtable and his long suffering wife. There are also other black sit coms which are very popular here and appeal mainly to young audiences they seem to keep running and keep their ratings at least in New Zealand.

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 04:06 am

Whether we are talking about Afro-Americans or the indigenous peoples that Carolyn mentions, has deTocqueville hit the nail on the head? He said: "We scarcely acknowledge the common features of mankind in this child of debasement...his physiognomy is to our eye hideous, his undersanding weak, his tastes low, and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes."

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 05:38 am

Canadians do not on the whole meet many First Nations People. For the most part they are northern people and live in places where amenities are few and far between. This is a frozen land and that causes many problems. These folks for the most part live their lives doing what they have always done. They do not live well.

There are also pockets of First Nations People in other parts of Canada. The largest is in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Schooling is terrible in the northern communities. They are not prepared for the difficulties of finding a job doing anything but truly hard work. There are many who have grown up in Winnipeg and they have a better chance of surviving in a city.

We have interferred with grave results. Something must be done and self-government was supposed to be the answer. That too is not proving to be a great answer to the problems the First Nations People face. It is all well and good to give them free education from k to university and beyond but how many make it past grade school? Few.

It is all well and good to leave these folks free from paying taxes should they stay on reserve but reserves i don't think are the answer. However, that is where the ability to live as they wish, in the way they wish is easier.

All in all we continue to make progress on land claims with millions of dollars paid to help them built a more modern community. The horrors that i will not speak of here are still there.

Is isolation of a few families in a frozen land really the right way to go? That is where the fishing, trapping and hunting are. These tiny village are very isolated and food can only be dropped by helicopter if the weather is half decent. Sometimes only a ship in the spring or a plane filled with provisions can be dropped off in the spring. Winters are unbelievably harsh, hospitals nil, schools poorly attended and children taught.

It is a mess. The First Nations Peoples who live in the south are not much different than a normal subdivision. They have self-government and do what they think best with tribal monies and shops. Some who live in large cities such as Toronto or Winnipeg are either very successful or painfully poor. Being poor in a large city is terrible. There are First Nations People in Quebec but i know little of their experiences.

There are about one million First Nations People in Canada.

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 05:44 am

Thank you for this info, Idris. In this forum we are speaking not only about Minorities in America but Minorities in all Democracies. What does the term, democracy, mean to them?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 05:51 am

The First Nations Peoples that live in Canada do not think of themselves as Canadians. They are tribal and communal peoples. I don't think they think a democracy is such a great thing. It is probably a very good thing in terms of allowing modern First Nations to do as they will but they do not see themselves as being part of Canada.

I meant to mention the First Nations Peoples who live in British Columbia. They are farmers, artists, fishers and hunters for the most part.

Alki

January 23, 2001 - 08:15 am

The First Nations People of British Columbia were extremely war-like and slavery was part of the basis of their economy. They made slave capturing raids down into Puget Sound in their massive war canoes and even further south that terrified everyone in their path, whites and indians alike. In turn, the British Columbia government set out to break their culture by the most ruthless methods. Democracy was not ever in any concept of the original British Columbia First Nations.

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 08:26 am

Ellen, i think we forget that many First Nations were not peaceful folks. Some were, some weren't. I know on Salt Spring Island they are now farmers and raise sheep. My knowledge of the west coast tribes is very sketchy at best.

I was in a few shops on Salt Spring and saw a local come in with his artwork. It was beautiful as were the other works he had in the gallery.

I also spoke to a fellow in (what the heck is the name of that place where the murals are on Vancouver Island...starts with a c) Chamino??? He was carving a huge bald eagle on his front lawn. I wonder where he sold these treasures?

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 08:34 am

This is a link to a First Nations page on CBC. It is quite good.

aboriginals

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 08:41 am

An interesting concept is being brought up here. First Nations (indigenous) peoples who are Minorities were themselves taking slaves.

Who is the Minority?

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 08:44 am

This is a link of pages done by the First Nations peoples themselves.

Aboriginal.com

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 08:47 am

Robby, it is still going on today in different parts of this world.

This is a personal webpage of a woman who is a poet. It is a very good page that shows you how pained she feels.

poetry

Dolphindli

January 23, 2001 - 09:02 am

kiwi lady -brought up the subject of North American Indian. So, I am going to tell you all a story beginning with the fact that, as well as not being prejudiced, I felt a great injustice was suffered by the American Indian and did my final school writing on that theme. I have always admired and respected the original American Indian, their respect for the land and family. But, most of all, I was always taught to respect my elders regardless of gender or race.

On a cold and chilling winter day in upstate New York, while working in a law office, an elderly Native American Indian woman, dressed in Indian regalia, appeared at the office. I was so very impressed and proceeded to ask if I could assist her. She advised, in perfect English, that she was appearing in response to an Information Subpoena from one of the attorneys. She appeared chilled and cold. I looked at the paper she presented and discovered that the attorney who issued the subpoena was no longer with our firm and, because it was a long distance to walk to his office, I called the attorney, explained that she appeared at our office because he had not changed his address and could I re-schedule the hearing for her. I was given a positive response and set a new time and date for the woman to appear.

I then smiled at the woman, proud of my accomplisment on her behalf and knowing that she would not have to brave the cold, explained she did not have to appear there at this time but that I had rescheduled the meeting.

AND, without a thank you, an "Aye", "Yes", No or "kiss my butt" she looked me in the eyes and said in broken English: "You, white girl, put words in writing - your people have lied to our people to much for me to believe you". I was flabbergasted! I was so angry - respect or no respect, I wanted to smash her. That was almost fifty years ago, but that story stayed with me.

End of story.

Continuing with your thoughts on the news media and and the entertainment industry featuring Afro-American Artist, all one has to do is watch the NAACP awards for excellence in the field and you will see a multitude of excelence.

And, let us not forget that even when tv shows first began, (and radio before that), woman were portrayed as secretaries; nurses; homemakers - never - the doctor, the lawyer, the judge. Did that mean that woman were less intelligent. No, it was just how the media perseved women. Why? I don't know. After all, did we have Madam Curie, etc. as forerunners of our intelligence. Or, was it that the industry was run by men? Hmmm - look at the difference in high paid news reporters, Barbara Walters, etc.

So it was not only Afro-Americans that were not treated fairly in the media. And, yes, it took shows like Archie Bunker, Roots, Bill Cosby, to introduce us (me) to a lifestyle of the Afro-American family that we were not theretofore privvy to.

I just lost my trend of thought. Oh, well.

Chow for now Dolphindli

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 09:14 am

Consider the following:--

Mohammed Ali
Maya Angelou
Louis Armstrong
George Washington Carver
Sammy Davis, Jr.
Ella Fitzgerald
Aretha Franklin
Alex Haley
Barbara Jordan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Spike Lee
Thurgood Marshall
Toni Morrison
Jesse Owens
Colin Powell
Jackie Robinson
Alice Walker
Booker T. Washington
Denzel Washington

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 09:22 am

When all is said and done "we" are all here now. "We" can't go back to some land we have no connection to or living memory of. So "we" must all share the same land mass. I feel no personal guilt about what happened before i was born and maybe that is wrong but i just can't.

Whatever problems are now on our plate as a nation i want something done to make things better. Perfect they will never be. I have thought on this matter of First Nations Peoples for many an hour and have no solution. No matter who you are if you live in the frozen north in tiny communities life is going to be rotten. You can't dig in pipes to carry heat or water. You can't move people out from tradition ways of life if that is where they are happy. You can't demand they be like "us."

My only solution is internet connections for schools and community centres to bring the outside world in. Maybe this is wrong too. Something must be done, but i have no idea what it should be.

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 09:23 am

Robby, if you can list the names it just shows how little movement there has been.

Persian

January 23, 2001 - 09:44 am

I've had some very positive experiences with the Native American community in the USA. For starters, I learned to ride bareback from two Sioux men when I volunteered in a reading program on the Rosebud Reservation; from the women I learned to play a fast ballgame - similar to soccer - and managed to hold my own; from the elders I learned patience and how to track both humans and animals through the woods, across fields, along the riverbank and in snow (where they don't leave footprints, but walk on branches from a tree). From the children, I learned to make mischief and find wild berries in the woods. From the grandmothers, I learned how to trick the old men (but in a humorous way). I've hunted deer and elk throughout Montana and Idaho with Sioux friends and learned to fish in the Little Big Horn River with my hands. I've learned to take small portions of food so that everyone can eat and to take only one swallow of water and hold it in my mouth for a long time before I swallow. Mostly, I've learned to look at the world through different eyes.

Although my Mother's father was from Houston, he was 50% Native American, so there has always been a strong interest in Native American culture in my family. During four years of govt. service, I worked closely with the tribal colleges in the Southwest and have lectured on various aspects of Native American culture to audiences throughout the USA. Two of my heroes are Norma Mankiller and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

tigerliley

January 23, 2001 - 10:33 am

Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, JC Watts, the lovely black man who ran for president and his name excapes me, Ward Connerly, Just to add a few more and I know there are many , many more......Justice Thomas who sits on the Supreme Court

kiwi lady

January 23, 2001 - 12:07 pm

No I do not feel they are part of a democratic society as the values of the European were forced on them. All indigenous peoples have a an indefinable afinity with the earth. I could not understand it until I realised it is something deep and spiritual within themselves.

My last tenant was a devout Christian and a registered nurse and she was part Maori altho she had blue eyes. She said one day to me very shyly that when her first baby was born she had an overwhelming urge to bury the placenta and plant a tree. This is a custom of our indigenous people. She could not explain it this urge but it came from deep within her and she was a highly educated lady having a first class degree in her profession. Because she was only renting she bought a huge pot and put the placenta in it with a tree on top. They now have their own home and I guess one of the first things they will have done is replant the contents of the pot.

There are some things which are unexplainable but we must respect our indigenous peoples culture. Yes they are angry! Wouldnt you be in their place. I have a real heart for them even tho I too have been rejected by some after all its only just over 100 years here when the British were fighting the Maori for their land and boy they got cheated. We are trying to make up for it now with the treaty of Waitangi settlements but many whites dont want to make reparation. The white man has been very arrogant in his dealing with indigenous people. Who says our way is best!

Carolyn

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 12:12 pm

Because the Army is integrated, white soldiers can find themselves in platoons that are primarily black. Some drill sergeants are black and some are white. In the military awards are important. As indicated earlier, the Pentagon found that two-thirds of the men and women in the armed forces had experienced a racially offensive encounter in the previous 12 months. And, in more than one case, white drill sergeants who believed that they should have won certain awards felt that this had been denied them because of a clique of black sergeans who "ran the show." The Minority then, in this case, was not comprised of black but of white.

Robby

rambler

January 23, 2001 - 12:15 pm

Tigerliley: Except for (maybe) Louis Armstrong and Williams (whoever he/she is), I think nearly all of today's blacks would consider your list a bunch of Uncle Toms. The "lovely" black man who ran for President was named Keyes.

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 12:17 pm

NPR this morning had a program on Africa. A few of the leaders are asking that instead of looking at racism in Europe they should look at racism that is black on black. The tribal wars, he suggested were indeed racism and one could not say it did not exist because the warring factions are both black.

It seems to me that people want to be better or have something someone else has so they label them "whatever" and kill or maime. This is a world wide problem and it is going to take a greater head than the one on my shoulders to find answers.

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 12:26 pm

Kiwi Lady, what land has not been stolen, people killed, maimed, enslaved, brutilized and otherwise been treated in an unholy manner? That is the problem We live in a world where every one wants back what they can trace ancestorally but how do you do that in a world that is populated by people who have just or have been there for a long time? We have an impossible set of circumstances here and i have no idea how to settle it other than through land claims as in Canada.

I certainly do not wish to move people off of land they feel is there territory but how do you bring 20th century services to fewer than 100 people living in the middle of nowhere? How do you help the children to have choices and opportunity in places like that? Where is hope?

It beats me.

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 12:44 pm

The process of Aboriginal Self-government has been going on in Canada for a very long time. What is it? Here is a government link but the same info shows up word for word on First Nations web sites so it must be the agreed policy. I think.

First Nations Self-government what is it?

tigerliley

January 23, 2001 - 12:49 pm

Somehow I expected a response such as "The Ramblers" concerning my list of conservative blacks....Not Lewis Armstrong but Armstrong Williams , Rambler.....He is a conservative commentator....Yes, it was Allen Keyes an eloquent speaker..... I doubt JC Watts considers himself an Uncle Tom ....I of course consider them all bright and articulate blacks who happen to see things from a conservative viewpoint...Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe....Did you read it ?

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 12:51 pm

91,000 pages of state documents have been released about racial profiling by the New Jersey State Police. On New Jersey roadways, black and hispanic drivers were subjected to such frequent, unjustified traffic stops and searches that they complained of a new, unwritten violation in the state's traffic code: "driving while black." In state police barracks, some black and hispanic troopers bitterly acknowledged that even though the state officially prohibited racial profiling, senior troopers trained them to single out drivers on the basis of their ethnicity or race.

Is there any relationship between this and what deTocqueville stated in his remark above beginning "In the United States...?"

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 12:54 pm

I don't know if racial profiling exists in Canada but given it is abhorent, it probably does. Given that Toronto has so many people of colour the police must be very busy.

In the United States the majority governs in the name of the people." P87,(Political Parties.)

Who are the people?

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 05:09 pm

The process of Aboriginal Self-government has been going on in Canada for a very long time. What is it? Here is a government link but the same info shows up word for word on First Nations web sites so it must be the agreed policy. I think.

First Nations Self-government what is it?

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 05:22 pm

I'll tell you what i am thinking. Now this should be good ...the inner mind of Idris.

I believe with all my heart in education. It is the thing that gives children wings. Possibly i believe in it more than i should as i never graduated from high school. I returned to school as a mature student and after a horrible seven hour test managed to get a seat at a local university. I was like a kid with a new toy.

The very first time i found out that what a writer writes is far more than is on the surface it was like opening a magical world. I couldn't get enough and read until i was bleary eyed. I grew up in a neighbourhood where education past grade eight was seen as less than worthless to females and i had parents who totally agreed.

Nonetheless i married a man who graduated law school and helped me to see i was not stupid as i had so often been told. I made sure my children were interested in school and somehow they loved it. Both children are professionals and to my mind brilliant.

My point in telling you this is not to air my own lack of schooling and hence make an idiot of myself in here but to say how very much i believe that every child is capable of learning. Not all will be brillant but there is nothing that comes as close to child abuse by a society than to hold education away from their young. Who knows what wings they will sprout? Who know what they will become? Who knows what great books they will write or what ideas they will dream?

Education is the key to the future of our nations. Parents, schools and the community owe this to children. What nation can become truly great if its young are divided into haves and have nots? Can a democracy truly be a democracy with the best efforts on all of our parts to give children the gift of learning?

No, i still can't punctuate worth a darn and sometimes i mix up my sentences but i'm still trying. How many children give up and in the giving up we lose as a society. What dreams are ruined for the lack of a good education?

robert b. iadeluca

January 23, 2001 - 06:19 pm

The New Jersey state documents showed that a few state law enforcement officials were troubled by evidence that minority drivers were being stopped and searched disprortionately. These concerns grew in 1996 when a state judge in Gloucester County ruled that troopers had engaged in "de factor racial profiling." But high-level officials of the state police and the attorney general's office defended their drug-interdiction strategy, even as they concealed their own statistical analyses showing that minority drivers were being singled out.

Privately, state police officials argued that it was only fitting that black and hispanic drivers should face more scrutiny than whites because New Jersey's drug trade problem was primarily a minority issue.

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 23, 2001 - 06:37 pm

That was a wonderful post, Idris.

Idris O'Neill

January 23, 2001 - 06:46 pm

Thanks Mal. I think maybe i haven't made myself clear. I am not off topic here. A lot of the problems in minority communities is the hopelessness. Their schools are lousy, no one expects them to be scholars, bankers, lawyers, Phd's or hairdressers. They are expected to stay put in their "areas" and do what? Sell drugs? Steal cars? Beat up anyone weaker than themselves? Education is the key out of that area and if we don't educate the minorities and indeed spend more time and more money there than in the suburbs the society will crumble and the democracy die.

Racial profiling is a self-fulling prophecy.

Cathy Foss

January 23, 2001 - 07:10 pm

Idris - Your complete honesty is so refreshing. I agree that education is the solvent for so many of our problems, but recognise that education must touch the soul or it becomes a tool for power grabbing or manipulation.

Education should broaden our sensitivities and harden our resolve to change the "status Quo". One of the hardest tasks in human endeavors.

Alki

January 23, 2001 - 08:49 pm

Washington State has the same problem with "driving black" and racial profiling. A Seattle TV station even sent out black station members to drive around the Magnolia Bluff area (Seattle's oldest center of wealthy homes) and found that blacks were far more likely to be stopped by the police and questioned than young white males. At that time Seattle had a black mayor. I suspect that its a problem all over America.

But on the other side, our state governor is very popular with his fellow Washingtonians. Governor Locke is first-generation Chinese American, and is in the process of promoting education as the single most important issue for the state's well being and future. It is his total commitment, his obsession, to raise education standards to the maximimum for the state of Washington.

Governor Locke was r-elected against some powerful lobbying by various interest groups, but the voters of this state put him back into office for a 2nd term. Now watching HIS inaugural speech with his family at his side brought true tears of pride to my eyes!!! Pride for the voters of this state to have the integrity to put him back into office for the second term so that he can carry out his slate of activities. That was democracy in action!

The one major factor about the presidentual election that bothers me deeply is the disillusionment over voting that so many people that I know are expressing. I think that the very last vestige of trust was lost to the American public by the outcome. Several people that I have talked to express total cynicism over any national election and have vowed not to vote in any future national election. A sad day for America

Jere Pennell

January 23, 2001 - 10:18 pm

I support education wholeheartedly but I wonder.

If some children are living in a poor place, with a poor housing, poor food, poor education, etc. the urge is to take them away and improve their lot. If their parents are a minority, be it Black, Chinese, indigenous or whatever, what happens to their culture when you do that?

robert b. iadeluca

January 24, 2001 - 03:59 am

In a meat plant in North Carolina the whites, blacks, American Indians and Mexicans all have their separate stations. The few whites on the payroll tend to be mechanics or supervisors. As for the Indians, a handful are supervsors. Others tend to get clean menial jobs lke warehouse work. With few exceptions, that leaves the blacks and Mexicans with the dirty jobs at the factory. A lot of Americans here have quit and a lot of Mexicans have been hired to take their place.

The interesting fact is that the workers see, not the management, but each other as the problem. They see the competition in skin tones. The locker rooms are self-segregated and so is the cafeteria. The enmity spills out into the towns. The races generally keep to themselvees. Along Interstate 95 there are four tumbledown bars, one for each color -- white, black, red and brown.

Robby

Phyll

January 24, 2001 - 06:45 am

We ( meaning white people) apparently think that the "minorities'" only goal is integration. When we are faced with self-segregation we are baffled, aren't we? We can't seem to accept the concept that it isn't so much integration that they want but----equality, perhaps? In my opinion, there is a decided difference.

Idris O'Neill

January 24, 2001 - 07:01 am

Phyll i totally agree with you. In Toronto many folks are living in close communities to each other that shouldn't be. They could move anywhere but they move close to each other and don't get along.

Tamils can't stand Somalis and yet there they are in the same neighbourhood going to the same schools. There are many other examples too.

camron

January 24, 2001 - 07:24 am

Idris, your ability to express yourself overshadows any lack of formal education. The school of hard knocks still is one of the best educators we have. As long as we OBSERVE, RELATE and THINK a lifetime of same gives us all a superior education.

Robby your last post, each by nationanality/race to a seperate station and "self segregated" is so fundamental to our problems. Seperate stations, is this due to capabilities or self segregation? Probably a combination, depending on the tasks. Basic to management is the utilization of the employee to the best (note: not maximum)of his capabilities. However if this means having the assembly line explode because of integrating nat'ls/race then you have zilch and big problems. In any of the self segregated groups the individual having capability is going to be held back. Now we have discrimination. Ever stood in line for a job in a warehouse? All Mexicans, and as you moved up the pressure to get out of "their" line become greater. When they bandished the knife my nephew got out. This was his response to my question, "why didn't he get a job" Having worked canneries and can companies as summer jobs I had no argument. Prior to retirement, on occasion I have gone to the all black, excuse, afroamerican, table in the cafeteria and tried to "integrate" with all honest intent. What a cold shoulder and from those I had very interesting chats with individually. Only time will cure, but then look at Israel and the Palistinians.

Alki

January 24, 2001 - 09:37 am

Wow, are we getting into topics that I have had so much experience with and have so much to say about.

I truly believe, as college faculty, (especially teaching for 17 years in a community college in vocational instruction) and having worked in canneries in Alaska to earn the money for education, and having had Native American, Chinese American, and Afro Americans as bosses that education is the key. It was for all of those bosses.

You don't have to destroy anyone's culture, but in today's society you must be educated. You need to be able to read, write, be computer literate, and able to communicate clearly. This was my business for so many years. Educating people of all backgrounds to find employment. And that meant the hearing impaired as well as those with other very serious physical restrictions.

Governor Locke couldn't speak English when he was enrolled in the first grade in Seattle but is today the governor of the state. His family came to America in search of a better life and that meant working very hard for all of his family. It is democracy in action. And it can be done here in America if we put our mind to it.

Now its off to work and will connect back in tonight. We proceed on!!!

robert b. iadeluca

January 24, 2001 - 10:06 am

According to Ellen:--"You don't have to destroy anyone's culture, but in today's society you must be educated. You need to be able to read, write, be computer literate, and able to communicate clearly"

Does that mean that if there are two groups, one black and one white, and each group equally able to read, write, be computer literature, and able to community clearly -- that discrimination will not exist?

Robby

Mary W

January 24, 2001 - 10:28 am

First of all---Idris Your post #1357 was exceptional, Intelligent, incisive and sensitive. You are dead right. Education is the ONLY key to most of the problems of racial division. This is absolutely indisputable. How to effect it is our greatest problem. We have not put a great enough priority on education for all. Until we do we shall contnue to sow the seeds of potential anarchy. I'd like you to know that I read your reccomended links "Aboriginals" "Aboriginal Communities" and the very poignant "Poetry". They were all eye-openers for me. I know very little about Natives of Canada and learned a lot. Thanks.

Self segration is an abomination. It is extremely hard wirk to maintain a relationship of any kind--a mate-- a clild--a parent--and sometimes even a friend Untol all races care enough to work at establishing some kind of accomaation and are willing to work at nurturing it, there is no hope at all. True all over this troubled world.

Camron: Segregation and lack of capability are a double-edged sword in the hearts of those in the workplace. They are equally responsible for this problem Education is the ONLY way out of this morass.

and, finally, Ellen, I believe that it is entirely possible to keep important parts of a culture desoite being educated. There are many pockets in our country of diverse settlements that that have managed to retain their cultural heritage and achieve an education as well. In Texas there are many communities of such different cultural backgrounds. They are charming and instructive.

More later, take care, Mary

robert b. iadeluca

January 24, 2001 - 10:40 am

Everything in the factory mentioned earlier cuts people off from one another. If it's not the language barrier, it's the noise -- the hammering of compressors, the screeching of pulleys, the grindig of the lines. You can hardly make your voice heard. To get another's attention on the cut line, you bang the butt of your knife on the steel railings, or you lob a chunk of meat. People sometimes throw a piece of shoulder at a friend across the conveyor and wave good morning.

The kill floor sets the pace of the work, and for those jobs they pick strong men. It is mostly the blacks who work the kill floor, the stone-hearted jobs that pay more and appear out of bounds for all but a few Mexicans. Plant workers say that the Mexicans are too small, they don't like blood and they don't like heavy lifting. The Mexicans never push back. They cannot. Some have legitimate work papers but more do not.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 24, 2001 - 11:34 am

Education is the key to a good job. Education is also the key to acceptance or at least toleration of "others." I prefer the idea of acceptance.

Robby, you have a point as the "divisions of race" were created by the types of work and the circumstances of that work. Higher pay was given to the most loathsome job.

The question i have is this. Is it necessary for individuals to have fast friends who are of different cultures, races etc. or is it only necessary that they learn to get along while they are in public situations such as work? This it appears to me is the start point, given that they are all equally educated for the positions they hold.

Dolphindli

January 24, 2001 - 03:21 pm

I liked what Mary W said: "You don't have to destroy anyone's culture, but in today's society you must be educated".

It would be wonderful if we could all be educated to different cultures and understand their significance. In our home town, we have an event called "Festival of Nations" that is held at our War Memorial (a large auditorium) where dances, foods, customs, costumes and beliefs are displayed openly and shared by all. It is a wonderful event and a marvelous experience

I positively agree that education is mandatory and although people revert to slang when with their respective cultural groups - it is not the same language one uses to seek employment, etc. and we should all be in tune to that.

Dolphindli

robert b. iadeluca

January 24, 2001 - 03:40 pm

Marcus Jacoby was the first white to play quarterback for Southern University in the 76-year history of the black Southwestern Athletic Conference. Until he began he had spent his life surrounded by whites. Pete Richardson, a black man, was the coach. Richardson assured Jacoby's parents that he would have the backing of the administration as well as the coaching staff. But Marcus had to do what all good players do -- suck it up.

Southern's decision to sign a white quarterack made headlines, first locally, then nationally. When he spoke to his girlfriend on the phone, she said: "Marcus, I don't want you to call me again." The Southern coaches were impressed with his arm and had never seen a quarterack learn complex offense so fast. Within days of arriving, he was first string. That sparked anger among many of his new black teammates. He was isolated. In the locker room he would walk around the corner and people would stop talking. Even in the huddles they all felt that "I'm not going to let a white person talk to me like that." His entire time at Southern he was "sucking it up."

There was an editorial in Southern's student paper saying that a white quarterback did not belong. The competing team hit Jacoby harder because he was white. He was hit so hard during the first game that he was hospitalized with a concussion. An angry fan threatened the white quarterback. For the rest of his career, he had a police escort at games. At one disturbance outside the stadium gunshots were fired. Throughout this time Coach Richardson stood by him.

Things improved dramatically when Southern won six of its next seven games and some teammates began warming to him. He felt he was develong real friendships until the day at the Heritage Bowl when, under pressure, he floated a pass into the end zone. He heard comments like: "You screwed up real bad this time, whitey." After the game, one of the coaches received an anonymous call; "If Jacoby ever plays for Southern again, we'll kill him -- and you."

Jacoby later said: "If you have a choice, you choose black first." He quit football and Southern. Reporters hounded Jacoby to find why he had left, but he never spoke openly about it. He never mentioned race. Some time later, he went to a Southern game for the first time since quitting. After the game, one of his former black friends spotted him, extended his hand and said: "Hi, Marcus, how ya doin'?" "OK, Virgil, how you doin'?" Then they went their separate ways.

Robby

Idris O'Neill

January 24, 2001 - 04:10 pm

The place my daughter works is multicultural. None of them come from the same colour base, culture or religious background. They do get along very well and are supportive of each other. I can't believe that this group of humans are exceptional in the work force.

Malryn (Mal)

January 24, 2001 - 07:30 pm

Prejudice works both ways.

Long ago I suffered anesthesia shock after surgery. I woke in a recovery room and saw a black man standing by the gurney I was on. I began to cry and told this man I'd never seen before over and over again how sorry I was about the way my people and I had treated him and his ancestors. I have no idea what he thought when this happened, but it's an incident I will never forget.

Mal

kiwi lady

January 24, 2001 - 11:58 pm

I think many ethnic groups stick together because they feel comfortable with each other. We the white people have made them uncomfortable in the past. What do we do? Each one of us can make a difference even if its just a smile and hello at the supermarket check out queue. I have never yet been rebuffed. Dont be patronising however!

Carolyn

Idris O'Neill

January 25, 2001 - 05:37 am

Mr. Landry is taking over as Prime Minister of Quebec from Mr. Bouchard. Already there is trouble as Mr. Landry makes statements that are sure to stir up trouble. I wish my fellow Canadians would just be quiet and not let his goading get to them. Mr. Landry is a hardline Quebec Separatist. Somehow it is best to just keep quiet and take his verbal abuse. If not, he will find a way to turn it against the people of Canada. There will be another referendum for separation in the next for years for sure.

The CBC has covered the statements but in order to keep the peace did not report the whole thing. It is a cleaned up version but for what it is worth here is a link to the story.

Landry

robert b. iadeluca

January 25, 2001 - 05:37 am

Seven years ago the Akron Beacon Journal in Ohio, in a spirit of healing, decided to run a series of articles on race. This they did and later received journalism's big award, the Pulitzer Prize. The editors stated that this project made them more attuned to potentially offensive articles, photographs and headlines. Said one white editor: "I was made more aware of some of the stresses and strains that affect black people."

Now some of the staff, including those who worked on the project, wonder whether confronting racially sensitive issues has hurt their careers. Many on the news staff say that although the city's racial climate may have improved because of the series, seven years later the newspaper itself has shown less progress. Though black and white staff members may act polite toward one another, they are still divided by mistrust and misunderstanding. Even in a place where men and women make a living seeking answwers to questions and using words well, communication can break down. Race still seeps back in.

Reporters and editors, keeping score, immediately notice the color of a new employee's skin. It is a place where a midlevel black editor perceives her demotion as racially motivated. It is there where a white reporter wonders whether political correctness instead of news judgment elevated one obituary, that of a local black civil rights leader, to the front page and relegated another, that of an internatinally known white inventor, to the cover of the local news section.

Staff members say that the newsroom culture simply reflects the fragility of racial harmony in all segments of society. Said one editor: "You've got to really make an effort to go out and reach across." One appraisal was that they could have educated people with educated egos that see things differently because they were raised very differently.

The publisher of the Beacon Journal has a black publisher who was completely behind the project. His comment to the reactions? "That's America. What am I supposed to do about that?"

Robby

Phyll

January 25, 2001 - 07:10 am

I most certainly agree that education is probably the most important factor for people of ALL races and ethnic backgrounds-----including new immigrants of any color or creed and also, including those people of any color or creed who have lived in a particular country (not just the U.S.) for several generations. Education is the key for all of us. But, I still believe that self-segregation, as I interpret it, will always exist. And I believe, that it is not necessarily a bad thing. In the public places such as work, schools, etc. where all people come together for a common pursuit we hopefully can achieve equality, in time. But after hours, in the personal, private time, what is wrong that each of us seeks someone who is like us?...who has our same skin color?...who enjoys our same kind of music?...who worships as we do?...who speaks our same language? And when like comes together with like it most likely results in self-segregation.

It is "imposed segregation", for whatever reason, by one group upon another group or groups of people that is wrong, in my opinion.

robert b. iadeluca

January 25, 2001 - 07:12 am

"If it be so difficult to root out an inequality which solely originates in the law, how are those distinctions to be destroyed which seem to be based upon the immutable law of Nature herself?"

- - Alexis deTocqueville

Cathy Foss

January 25, 2001 - 07:51 am

I have never, as yet, read deTocqueville's assesstment of America. Perhaps because of that I should not make any comment on Robby's quoate above.

Would someone enlighten me as to those laws of nature that justify separation of the races? I was and am ignorant of them. I don't wish to learn to have a basis for prejudice, but am certainly curious how natural law seems to favor it.

camron

January 25, 2001 - 07:54 am

I am wondering what we mean when we use the word Education? Most of our politicians in Congress are lawyers. Are they educated? Biased, hyprocrites, malice. selfcentered, values, you name it. And only as an example of an educated group, please.

Cathy Foss

January 25, 2001 - 08:24 am

I consider myself and those around me as educated, but some better educated than others. The means (instiutions) responsible for their education doesn't mean much to me; it is how they use it. Unless their education reached their soul and made a better, more open human being with a sense of compassion for all, their education was for making a living - not how to live.

robert b. iadeluca

January 25, 2001 - 09:16 am

"The electoral franchise has been conferred upon the negroes in almost all the States in which slavery has been abolished, but if they come forward to vote, their lives are in danger. If oppressed, they may bring an action at law, but they will find none but whites amongst their judges, and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudice repulses them from that office. The same schools do not receive the child of the black and of the European. In the theatres, gold cannot procure a seat for the servile race beside their former masters. In the hospitals they lie apart. And although they are allowed to invoke the same Divinity as the whites, it must be at a different altar and in their own churches with their own clergy."

- - Alexis deTocqueville

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 1830?

Robby

Persian

January 25, 2001 - 12:14 pm

CATHY - very good point in your latest post. As I've been following this discussion, but not participating very much, I've been waiting for someone to point out that it is not education per se that is the key to the racial issues under discussion, but HOW education is utilized in the larger community. Those of us who have worked in govt. agencies are all too familiar with the issue of race, especially in Washington DC. How one interacts in the basically Black/White population (with more representation from other races in recent years) in the vast arena of govt. service is most definitely on case-by-case basis. And also without doubt there are different rules according to gender, age, regional background, job title (rank), and whether one is perceived to be a threat. As a full-time govt. employee and, more recently, as a govt. contractor, I've seen it from both sides. I have several good Black friends - people I socialize with, as well as work with, and many Black acquaintances. Often the issue of race in America is part of our conversations. We handle it with a lot of HUMOR and respct for each other, but that's us. No doubt about it, racism is alive and well in the USA.

robert b. iadeluca

January 25, 2001 - 12:22 pm

Comment by Persian:--"No doubt about it, racism is alive and well in the USA."

A very sad comment 170 years after deTocqueville made a similar comment. Please also note deT's comment above beginning: "In America, I saw more than America..."

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 25, 2001 - 04:24 pm

I am blessed with being a Caucasian living in Japan reading your posts.

I do not look at a person's skin color to make decisions about anything but that is probably because usually everyone has a different skin color than mine. In many aspects it is a blessing. I teach English to Japanese occasionally and am able to concentrate on how different their abilities are without wondering whether their race has anything to do with it.

The only "blacks" and "whites" that I meet regularly do not speak English very well and we communicate in the Japanese language.

I do not mean to imply that I am not biased but the biases are based differently. For example, I used to think that all Caucasians spoke English. I was wrong because here in Japan, they are most likely to speak German, French, Russian (White Russians), and the Scandinavian languages. The Blacks speak Swahili, and other African or European languages which I can not spell.

This has caused me to rethink things.

When I want to join friends, they tend to be friends of my Japanese wifeÕs friends, family, or colleagues, which are Japanese and occasionally have foreign husbands. Mrs. Hatayama's husband, for example, is Russian and they speak either Russian together or we speak Japanese together. Therefore, I do not tend to associate with people of the same skin tone as mine whether I want to or not and I have noticed that skin tone does not affect the decision.

Interesting enough, the Japanese have the same cultural practice of separating the women (for women's talk) from the men for men's talk after dinner. Because the men in our circle of friends are of different nationalities our lingua franca is Japanese. You can see easily how this would affect biases. In fact, trying to use a different language causes biases to appear differently because sometimes it is difficult to express a personal bias in a language that does not have the terms. SOB does not translate very well in Japanese and the strongest Japanese epithet, "baka" translates as stupid or fool, which culturally is not much of an insult in American.

PS "women's talk" is a direct translation from "onna hanashii" which is how the Japanese call the conversation and not any politically incorrect designation on my part.

Maybe as many have suggested earlier that what we need to do is "walk in the otherÕs moccasins" or live in a foreign country.

Jere the lurker

mikecantor

January 25, 2001 - 08:32 pm

“I await a day when ....we will all be accepted and educated enough to know that we are all equal!”

From: Mellissa, Grade ll : as quoted from the New York Times article: “Growing Up, Growing Apart”.

The formulated envelope detailing the perspective and configuration of racial misunderstanding, prejudice, visible biases with respect to those who we choose to associate with, is not in our genes. Not a single one of them is a facet of consciousness of mind that we are born with. They are all an instinctive phenomena of infant to adult growth through acquisition of information based on observation, reaction of others, and sometimes, great pain or joy.

The youngest of children of all races, skin colors, religions, or nations of origin can never possibly comprehend the norms of society they are raised in until they have been exposed to the misunderstanding, prejudice, and the visible biases of those of their own kind who are responsible for their upbringing. We may be born black but we are not born anti-white. We may be born white but not with a hatred of blacks. We may be born German, but not with a hatred of Jews. All such misunderstandings, prejudice and biases are acquired through “education”.

“..educated enough to know that we are all equal”

Mellissa, in her very tender eleven years, has reached a level of comprehension which millions of people much more mature in years, but not in wisdom, sometimes fail and sometimes never fully grasp. Education, in its’ current generalized format, is not, and to my knowledge, has never been designed to provide solutions to the intolerance, prejudice and racial biases of the world. What it is designed for is to provide an envelope to enable us to relate, conform, acquire the acceptable configuration of law-abiding citizens so as to provide us with the means to become an acceptable part of the particular system and societal environment we were born into. That envelope needs to be changed! To do otherwise is to support the status quo which in turn, supports the continuation of all of the racial ills and biases from which we presently and will continue to suffer.

What will it take to do this?

We must establish a new order of priorities in education which will provide a much greater emphasis on learning and fully understanding the beliefs, customs, life styles, religious and political practices, the experiences of everyday living, historical as well as cultural significance, not to exclude the trials, tribulations, fears, hopes and dreams of all peoples of all nations of the world.

To some who might say that this is a monumental adjustment to what we perceive education to be today, I would respond that if we are ever to achieve the dream of a brotherhood of nations and people in this world, than we have no choice but to expend the monumental effort necessary to accomplish the task. To do otherwise is to ignore the potential that humanity can achieve. The Mellissa’s of the world are up to the task. The question is: are we?

Mike

Alki

January 25, 2001 - 08:37 pm

So there are politicians and lawyers who are corrupt. I'm talking about a better education for all children and young people. Employment is the most important factor in our lives, and the only way that jobs can be brought to our area is if we have an educated workforce, period. Everything comes after that.

I know, because I was a vocational instructor and cooperative education coordinator (I worked with industry in job training and placement) for many years in the community college system. You can't believe the students who came to me who could not read or write, black, white, red, young, middle-aged. I saw it all. Our prisons are running over with young men who can't read or write, our employment offices full to the brim with people who can't balance a check book, let alone know how to figure anything without a calculator. Who can fill out an employment application today with no mispelled words? Democracy and education, you can't have one without the other in today's society.

I don't give a hoot where the kids are sitting in the cafeteria as long as they're all studying together. Now that's the real challenge, to make education that exciting.

Jere Pennell

January 25, 2001 - 11:55 pm

You said it. Wow! I did not express it as well as you did but that is what I felt. Thank you.

What do you think Mahlia?

Jere the lurker

robert b. iadeluca

January 26, 2001 - 03:41 am

According to Mike: "We must establish a new order of priorities in education which will provide a much greater emphasis on learning and fully understanding the beliefs, customs, life styles, religious and political practices, the experiences of everyday living, historical as well as cultural significance, not to exclude the trials, tribulations, fears, hopes and dreams of all peoples of all nations of the world."

According to Ellen: "I don't give a hoot where the kids are sitting in the cafeteria as long as they're all studying together. Now that's the real challenge, to make education that exciting."

A greater emphasis in primary grades and above on understanding others and doing this in an exciting manner. Is this the major method in which we can combat racism and hatred and fear? How can this be done? What are your thoughts, folks?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 26, 2001 - 05:51 am

What I want to know is WHY? Why haven't these people learned to read? Did they drop out of school? What happened to them?

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 26, 2001 - 06:05 am

Is there a correlation between being able to read and understanding and accepting the cultures of others?

Robby

camron

January 26, 2001 - 06:14 am

Environment., Health,(mental). As Ben stated over in the Education discussion, people learn when they want to DO something. (not an exact quote but it was a good one).

Persian

January 26, 2001 - 07:52 am

JERE - Yes, I second your enthusiasm for both Mike's and Ellen's posts.

ROBBY - Of course there is a correlation between being able to read and understanding other cultures!!!!!!!!

If CHILDREN cannot read, how will they be able to learn about other cultures, which are explained and illustrated in books, magazines, journals and other periodicals? Photos are certainly important in the learning process, but accompanying information places the photos in the proper perspective.

If ADULTS cannot read, how will they understand the cultural nuances that surround them everyday? Workers on construction sites will not be able to heed WARNING signs; understand medical instructions on prescriptions; or comprehend their children's homework assignments.

If YOUTH cannot read, how will they undertand the warnings about unprotected sex and drugs, often provided in written form? How will girls learn how to avoid abusive behavior from boyfriends or potential predators if they cannot follow printed materials on these subjects. If boys cannot read, how will they learn about employment opportunities, rather than gangs, and where to apply for jobs. For both girls and boys, if they cannot read, their FUTURES STOP - or really never get started.

And if the SENIORS in the adult population cannot read, how will they protect themselves from ill health, scams or other abusive intrusions on their lives?

Equally important, if any/all of these groups cannot read, how will they enjoy the immense pleasure that comes from learning about diverse cultures through the written word?

I used to teach a bibliotheraphy program in an area prison. It took two years to get it off the ground because FIRST, I had to teach the participants to read.

robert b. iadeluca

January 26, 2001 - 08:18 am

Mahlia:--What about those people who are well-read and who are still bigoted?

Robby

losalbern

January 26, 2001 - 12:55 pm

Education is supposed to beget knowledge and in turn, wisdom. Even though knowledge is a much desired commodity, what is even more important is how it is utilized. That is where morality comes in. Who was it that said that common sense was not common at all?

Persian

January 26, 2001 - 01:33 pm

LOSALBERN - I don't think that education and knowledge will necessarily guarantee wisdom. That's something quite different. A person can have obtained the highest degree in formal education with a breadth of knowledge, and still be "uneducated" when it comes to societal issues and/or morals.

ROBBY - in the case of someone who is well read, but still remains bigoted, I would guess that it stems from family tradition or regional acceptances or the absolute lack of interaction with people of other backgrounds or, even worse, never having lived, worked or traveled outside of one's own home environment. Or, equally, never having been able to put into practice what one has read about.

I believe that the latter is one of the worst restrictions on the actual education/understanding of American youth. Not only do they not appreciate what they have at home until they are away from it, but they have absolutely no true understanding of how people in other cultures live, think, react to governments (or not), practice their faith (or not) and maintain their own lifestyles. And I think that applies to adults as well.

You're the mental health professional, but I would also speculate that individuals who are well educated, but remain bigoted, have personalities which are NOT receptive to new ideas, people or practices in a personal, hands-on manner. It is one thing to read (or listen to a TV special) about the extreme poverty in the interior or China or female genital mutilation in Africa and actually travel to these countries and interact with the people who are most affected. I'm all for literacy (and have spent a good portion of my life working hard on this issue), but equally so for personal experience as a means of education.

mikecantor

January 26, 2001 - 01:54 pm

Ellen: “I don’t give a hoot where the kids are sitting in the cafeteria as long as they’re all studying together. Now that’s the real challenge, to make education that exciting.”

Your point is well taken Ellen, but the problem is: If you can’t get kids to voluntarily want to sit together in a relaxed, friendly and comfortable environment, how would you ever expect to get them to study together? By direction? I think we both know better than that! The answer is to cultivate a desire on their part in sharing each others company first, as a desirable way for them to spend their time. Not an easy task but one which must be accomplished as a precursor to getting them to enjoy sharing their learning time as an exciting experience. As I emphasized in my previous post, it can be done but only with a considerable change in educations’ emphasis in learning more about each others personae. Incidentally, I sincerely believe that there are definitive ways to make education exciting! As you state, “that’s the real challenge”. How many of us are prepared to invest in that challenge is quite another matter entirely!

Malryn: “What I want to know is WHY? Why haven’t these people learned to read? Did they drop out of school? What happened to them?”

Many things happened to them, Malryn! One of those is their growing up in an environment which places a greater emphasis on surviving in extreme poverty rather than learning to read. If you have to listen to your siblings crying themselves to sleep because they’re hungry or ashamed to go to school because of their shabby clothing, or watch your mother or sisters go out to walk the streets at night to raise money for food, or attempt to survive some of the other horrors children experience in extremely dysfunctional poverty stricken families, learning to read is of no consequence. Learning to steal and push drugs as part of a youth gang devoted to violence and turf wars, at an incredibly early age, is of much more importance. That is what it takes for a significant part of our urban culture, irrespective of race or color, just to stay alive. The value of being able to read, to those kids, is meaningless. To some of them, the best they can look forward to is prison, believe it or not! At least they can finally learn to read there!

I hope I have not offended anyone with these comments, and if I have, I apologize, but in living in an environment which daily brags about the multi-trillion dollar surpluses soon to be converted into tax refunds for the wealthy, some one has to take the time to see what is growing under the rocks.

Mahlia: “ I used to teach a bibliotheraphy program in an area prison. It took two years to get it off the ground because FIRST, I had to teach the participants to read.”

As a 20 year administrative retiree from a State Correctional System, I know that you can identify with many of the statements that I have made here. We do share a common ground and I take no exception to the comments you have so eloquently stated.

Mike

Malryn (Mal)

January 26, 2001 - 02:00 pm

My brother, two sister and I spent part of our early lives in poverty. We learned to read and write, went to school. My brother and I had help going through college, the ROTC for him and a scholarship for me. My two sisters have spent their lives studying, taking courses and working at good jobs. Poverty is no excuse. Would you consider the attitude of the parents as a factor in why these people don't learn to read? Ask Idris. I think she mentioned something about that in here before.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 26, 2001 - 05:00 pm

I truly think a lot of it depends on the family and whether they value education. I didn't have books at home and sad to say i swiped one from the school library. I got caught and to make a long story short the teacher suggested i get a library card. I was seven.

If your folks don't value education or do not really care whether you receive it or not, then it really doesn't seem to be part of what you do to be accepted in the family. Other things are more important to their mind. Children try to fit into their parents' expectations.

My son read in his third year and my daughter in her fourth. I read to my children all the time and praised them to the hilt when they accomplished the smallest new learning step. Parents or caregiver must want the child to learn and excel. If no one cares, they probably won't learn much.

Persian

January 26, 2001 - 07:43 pm

IDRIS - you are so right about the parents caring what will happen to their children. Your children were so lucky to have you; you were so lucky that you were encouraged to get a library card - and live in an area that had a library!

MAL - you, too, are right that poverty is no excuse for not learning to read/write and about the world one lives in. But the poverty of which Mike speaks - and what I learned about in the program for inmates - is almost like a deep, dark, ugly cancer of the soul. Not only poverty but the loss of hope, the despair of not having food (and not knowing how to obtain it), the abuse of women within the confines of poverty, and compromise of men who have mothers and sisters, aunts and cousins who are often held up to them as possibly beingin danger. Any and all of these things, along with the poverty in which one exists, is almost unbearable.

I've always thought that the term "hardened criminal" does not just refer to the crime(s) one committed, but also to the "hardened" life that individual has come from. I'm not in any way excusing criminals, but only mentioning that "life on the streets" Hollywood style is rarely, if ever, what the REAL life on the streets is all about.

Years ago, when I participated in the reading program in a prison, I was initially wary that I would be very uncomfortable with the inmates. However, after a couple of weeks, I found myself more uncomfortable with the guards than any of the prisoners. The latter were eager to learn; the former ridiculed them for wanting to do so. I kept my mouth shut for a while and then went storming into the Warden's office and complained at the top of my lungs about "those idiotic guards who ridicule my students." Being unaware of personnel practices within a prison, I did not realize that there were prisoners working in the office. When I next met my class, every student had a big smile on his face and applauded when I walked to the front of the class. The two guards in the room were bright red in the face with their mouths clamped shut. They did not speak one word to me or my students from that point on. I was absolutely mortified - it was a good lesson for me to learn to control my temper - but the most important things was that the students learned to read and then to enjoy reading and, eventually, to take pride in being able to write about their literature experiences.

Everyone has different experiences in life and the support of parents (or other relatives) is crucial for a child to find his/her niche in life. For individuals who do not have that early support system, many struggle enormously, while the lucky few may surge ahead.

MIKE - you are to be commended for the dedication you made to a 20 year career in Corrections. My son and daughter-in-law have volunteered many years in reading programs as part of a prison ministry (he's a former Army MP and then Deputy Sheriff and Police Officer). And one of my uncles (retired now) retired from a long career in the Air Force and went into State Corrections for another 10 years. After a couple of years, my aunt also began a reading program (she used her maiden name and no one knew she was related to my uncle), since my uncle used to come home and just shake his head. She was helping the inmates, certainly, but also my uncle so that he could do his job and not fret about the lack of educational opportunities.

As part of a long university career, I designed and implemented a joint literature program between my home department and inmates at a local prison who wanted to continue their education. They did their work and mailed it to the dept; it was reviewed, graded and returned by a series of my colleagues and final exams were mailed to the facility. Twice a semester I administered those exams and knew nothing about them until I opened the envelope and handed them around. Worked well for several years.

Malryn (Mal)

January 26, 2001 - 08:02 pm

My mother, who had a very fine singing voice, washed floors, when she could find work, to keep the roof over her and her children's heads. My father disappeared.

We four children and she lived in two rooms in an unheated tenement in northern Massachusetts. There was a tiny kitchen with a cold water sink and a kerosene stove, which provided the only heat the place had and fuel for cooking when my mother could afford to buy the kerosene.

All four of us kids slept in a double bed in the second room. Our mother slept on an old couch in the kitchen. All of our food came from a free food city commissary, and there was never enough of the canned milk, carrots, onions, portatoes and bread we were given. We were all very thin.

I was 7 when I contracted polio, and she had to give me away because she had no money to pay for my illness.

She died when I was 12 years old of appendicitis which advanced to deadly peritonitis because she had no money for a doctor.

Not one of her children became hardened or criminals, and there is not one of us who doesn't miss our mother today. Our mother had no hope for herself, but she could laugh and sing, and she wanted us all to have more than she did and told us so. Despite the little I have at this time of my life, all four of us do have many more material things than our mother ever did. Hopefully, some of her spirit is in us, too.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

January 26, 2001 - 08:11 pm

You deleted your post, Mike, why? I understand where you're going, and I do not say there were not and are not people in far worse shape than my family was. However, I suggest to you that before you consider what we lived in as a kind of relative luxury, you spend some time living that way, too, and see if you don't think it's poverty.

Mal

robert b. iadeluca

January 26, 2001 - 08:14 pm

None of us here knows any details about the type of living that anyone else here has now or ever had in the past. Each of us have our own experiences and memories. It is not for any of us to judge.

Robby

Persian

January 26, 2001 - 09:15 pm

MAL - from the little I've gotten to know you in these posts, you seem to be truly full of your Mother's wonderful spirit, bless her. It is this example that one can read repeatedly to know and understand the true love, caring and grace of spirit that a parent can pass along to children, regardless of the financial situation. In many ways, you and your sibblings were truly blessed to have such a lady in your life.

betty gregory

January 26, 2001 - 11:14 pm

Playing catch up here reading the posts. What an important discussion and, as usual, I'm awed by the depth of the insights and thoughts.

The riddle of motivation has inspired much serious investigation. The impact of poor vs. rich home environment---and here, I don't mean money or neighborhood---naturally enhances or restricts the development of children.

What seems so hopeful to me is that someone with Mal's or my background of deprivation is not forever precluded from developing intellectually. I assume that one factor we have in common is our mothers' rich hopes for their children.

On the other hand, I would guess the poverty of today is a wholly different animal from the poverty of my childhood in the 50s or Mal's a few years before. Today's suffocating press of poverty involves pressures I know I didn't face. Race also must be considered. White mothers in the 30s, 50s or today may have had and have an easier time seeing the sky as the limit for children.

Bottom line, though, given environmental constraints and personality/vision differences of parents, what a parent thinks is possible for a child is probably related to but not restricted to financial status. Also, the influences of a special teacher or a grandmother (in my case) or a mentor (close or from a distance) impact children.

What's more interesting to me are adults who change their lives by learning to read or complete high school or go to college or go back to college. Robby and I both went to graduate school at unusual times. I was almost 40 and Robby was even older (uh, 60ish?, can't remember, but you've written about it). That's almost unrelated to the topic of early learning, though. Breaking free from poverty through education is the larger leap.

I keep thinking of the word vision. What a mother can see. What a person can see herself doing in the future. Anything we can do to help a child with vision, imagining the future, will cut across other restricting influences.

mikecantor

January 26, 2001 - 11:43 pm

Mal:

I respect you too much not to be totally honest with you. The reason I deleted my post was that just after it was posted I read the details of your early years that you must have posted after I decided to write a rebuttal to your statement that “Poverty is no excuse”. I have not changed my mind about poverty as an excuse for many things. But the real reason I deleted my post was because the final paragraph that I had written betrayed a degree of insensitivity about your early years, which shamed me, to tell you the truth! I had no right to make the statement that I did not knowing the true facts of your background. It was a real learning experience for me and it was a lesson I will not soon forget particularly because of my own background and the sacrifices my Mother made for me.

You state: “....before you consider what we lived in as a kind of relative luxury, you spend some time living that way too, and see if you don’t think it’s poverty.”

Dear Mal, I truly know whereof you speak. Much of my early years was spent with my Mother and Brother, riding the subway trains in New York City each and every night because we had no place to live. The little food that we had was either gleaned from trash receptacles or given to us by a church that was willing and able to feed us periodically. To earn that food and enable a member of the church to care for her children required that my Mother scrub floors in shelters for homeless families like ourselves. :My Mother was repeatedly told by the authorities to surrender her children to an orphanage because she was unable to care for them properly but she fiercely refused to do so. She would die before she would give up her children. And on several occasions, she almost did.

On the few occasions when she could find some kind of a job, the first money she earned was to try and rent the cheapest apartment she could find so we would have a roof over our heads. Invariably the money would run out and we would be “dispossessed” which meant being thrown out into the street with what little possessions we had. As a little boy, I always wondered why the neighborhood children stood around laughing at us when that happened.

As a man, I know how far I have come and what it took to get me here. I also know that my life experiences far exceed any pain, grief or poverty that you have ever known but you will have to accept my word for that. Suffice it to say that I was born of a woman of great courage, just as you were. We share that common gift from God. In my case, it prepared me for the death and destruction of life I was witness to in WWII and all of the subsequent conflicts that I managed to survive. I am a product of every life experience that I have been exposed to but in recognizing that I must sometimes be reminded that others have experienced some of the same trials and tribulations that I have gone through and I must never ignore the sensitivity of others and that which they have encountered on their path of the road of life. In truth, to do so is a betrayal of my faith, which I love more dearly than life itself.

I ask your forgiveness for my insensitivity. It will not happen again!

Mike

robert b. iadeluca

January 27, 2001 - 03:51 am

One of the prime reasons which enables this discussion group to continue on with the success it has, is the "baring of souls" that regularly occurs on the part of many participants here. Some of us may never meet face to face but we are indeed meeting "soul to soul." I could say "thank you" but that hardly expresses the proper response. You do not do it for me. Each of us says what we say, in the final analysis, for ourself and for the human need to reach out and be understood. There can be no doubt that our "family", which is what this forum has become, is comprised of truly empathetic understanding people -- the type of people that make Democracies work. I imagine that Alexis deTocqueville would be very proud of us.

Betty:--To answer your question I entered grad school at the age of 52 and received my doctorate at the age of 59. You can see my profile by clicking onto my name in red above. I returned to the world of work at age 60.

Robby

Jere Pennell

January 27, 2001 - 04:26 am

After going through graduate school, then teaching in the public schools for 34 years I moved to Japan and now I am trying to learn to read and write in Japanese. I am discovering at first hand why literacy and education is so important.

To those of you who went to school late in life and learned, I can empathize the difficulties you went through. I never realized how little like a sponge my mind is at age 67.

This proves again to me the adage that we should not judge until we have walked that mile in those moccasins.

Jere the lurker in Japan

Idris O'Neill

January 27, 2001 - 05:12 am

If education is not valued by the community or the family then the whole business of reading is not seen as having value. The child takes this as a truth and often does not learn to read. Without the ability to read all sorts of things are denied the individual.

There were many ethnic groups within the community i grew up in that truly valued education and they did well dispite the roughness of the area. They also had a rich cultural background of music, art, etc. These folks were from certain religious and certain european countries. Without these children about there was much i would not have learned a healthy respect for during my younger years.

tigerliley

January 27, 2001 - 05:28 am

Mike....as I read your post I had a deep ache in my chest....what a lovely and sensitive post.....All those long ago hurts turned you into a wonderful human being...............

Malryn (Mal)

January 27, 2001 - 06:18 am

Mike, I read the post you deleted, and there is no reason to ask forgiveness. Everything is relative, and what seems to be truth to one person does not necessarily seem that way to another. That's why this and other discussions are so interesting. They make us think.

The deprivation of my childhood and the physical and emotional pain a terrible childhood illness has brought to me for most of my life, abuse by those who raised me after having a loving, caring mother; those things cannot be compared to what you or anyone else has experienced in this life, especially the horrendous experience of serving in World War II. It is, as they say, like comparing apples and oranges.

I will say this, though. There are those in abject poverty who know that education is important and do all they can to find ways to get it. My greatest disappointment with my country is that there can be such terrible poverty and homelessness and lack of hope in this rich and powerful nation. How can that be, and why is it so? What does de Tocqueville say about that?

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 27, 2001 - 06:32 am

Mal, i sometimes wonder if it is not a matter of how school taxes are raised. In Canada there is money from the Feds, Province and local community. In many cases in Toronto the boards receive more money because the community has special needs such as poverty of the local community. As many poorer communities have other real problems to overcome such as ESL, more money is available to that community. The adults can also receive ESL classes at no cost to them. They must however find the time and have the family allow them the time to go.

In some ethnic communities this is not allowed.

camron

January 27, 2001 - 06:35 am

Great postings, lots of food for thought. How do we turn it around?

robert b. iadeluca

January 27, 2001 - 06:41 am

South Africa is a democracy and also has its own racial problems. Says a white comedian there who made his name lampooning the all-white government, "Democracy has opened all these little windows and closets and we've all come falling out. It's mainly last year and this year that this young generation has come out of South Africa."

Today's young South Africa performers grew up admiring black American comedians and treasuring bootleg copies of Eddie Murphy movies because there were so few local artists to revere. A black comedian says that young black comedians are taking to the stage out of sheer frustration. He adds: "People are yearing for their stories to be told in an unapologetic way. The work is almost therapeutic for black people. I hope to make you laugh, but I also hope to shatter the ideas you have. You're forced to question your own prejudices."

Is comedy the answer?

Robby

Malryn (Mal)

January 27, 2001 - 06:48 am

Comedy such as you describe, Robby, certainly can help open some eyes.

Mal

Idris O'Neill

January 27, 2001 - 07:07 am

We have folk festivals here. It is an outward expression of all of the folks within the community. Schools have heritage days where the foods and culture of communities within a school take charge. Great food i've heard and a lot is learned.

There is also a lot of work done around multi-culturalism. We have a lot of festivals in Niagara and invite bands from here there and everywhere. We are twinned with Trinidad and Tabago so we see a lot of these folks.

Toronto has a lot of festivals as well but the one that most folks go to see is Carribanna. Over one million folks come to see this extravaganza.

Hairy

January 27, 2001 - 07:30 am

In watching a few episodes of Jazz, the earlier ones seemed to show that music helped to bring the races together. Did you see the one of all the couples dancing at the Savoy? Music and humor can both help and help ease the pain. But they are obviously not the total answer or they would have worked by now.

Teaching may help, but that hasn't done it either. We need to live it and pass it on that way.

What poignant and marvelous posts, ladies and gentlemen!

Linda

Idris O'Neill

January 27, 2001 - 08:08 am

The truth is, i don't think there is one solution for any of this. There must be many routes taken and together they may work. The programs in the schools that the children put together certainly help to explain cultural beliefs and traditions so they don't seem so strange to others. Dispelling myths about "others" is a very good idea and it is gently taught by the children themselves.

Idris O'Neill

January 27, 2001 - 08:16 am

Mal, i sometimes wonder if it is not a matter of how school taxes are raised. In Canada there is money from the Feds, Province and local community. In many cases in Toronto the boards receive more money because the community has special needs such as poverty of the local community. As many poorer communities have other real problems to overcome such as ESL, more money is available to that community. The adults can also receive ESL classes at no cost to them. They must however find the time and have the family allow them the time to go.

In some ethnic communities this is not allowed.

Idris O'Neill

January 27, 2001 - 08:18 am

This is a link to a Canadian School Web project about multiculturalism. I particularly like Cory's comments.

Canadian School Net

Malryn (Mal)

January 27, 2001 - 09:08 am

There is a very important essay by Dr. Robert Bancker Iadeluca in the February issue of The WREX Pages, which just went on the World Wide Web, called "What is a Minority?" This essay is something each person who comes into this discussion should read. You will also find work by Idris O'Neill and Marilyn Freeman (Malryn) and other SeniorNet participants you might know in this issue. "What is a Minority" will also appear in the March-April issue of Sonata.

Click the link below to access the index cover. Scroll down, please.

The WREX Pages

Cathy Foss

January 27, 2001 - 10:23 am

I love humor, but I hate it when it degrades a group of people holding common beliefs and voicing them publicly.

The humor as practiced by the late night shows as Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, etc., was I feel cruel and mean spirited.

One of the many reasons I watch C-Span more that any other channed is because its airing of viewpoints given are presented in a non-analytic way.

Mal thanks for the easy access to Robby's scholarly essay on minorities. He speaketh the truth! Very good work, Robby. How long did it take you to write that essay? I hope you don't mind my asking!

I like this quote by Frank Libuse: "Television has a lot of first-grade comedy in it. Trouble is, most of the audience has gone beyond the first grade".

Humor as a way to ease tension or show how some of our thinking is rediculous I think a good tool of enlightenment.

robert b. iadeluca

January 27, 2001 - 10:34 am

I just emailed Idris telling her that her story, "Jeremy and the Firebird," was so beautiful it made me cry. Don't waste a moment! Click onto Mal's WREX pages (Post 1424) right now and read it.

Robby

kiwi lady

January 27, 2001 - 10:47 am

Education begins in the home. You can educate a child until knowledge is coming out their ears but the way they look at the world when young will be modelled on the perceptions of their parents!

It is in the home where racial bigotry begins!

Carolyn

Cathy Foss

January 27, 2001 - 11:08 am

After reading your lovely story about Jeremy and the wee one, I must admit my eyes smarted. Many truths of life can only be conveyed in storytelling. I think you have a mastery of that medium. Thanks for your special talent of wisdom and storytelling, and especially, sharing it with us on Senior Net.

robert b. iadeluca

January 27, 2001 - 11:23 am

Mal's story in the WREX forum is absolutely manigula! And if you don't know what that means, her link in Post 1424 will help you understand.

Robby

tigerliley

January 27, 2001 - 03:13 pm

Eddie Murphey's smile and laugh just lights up my life.......He touches my "funny bone" before I know it has been touched and I all most can anticipate his next move before he makes it...... If there is such a thing as "kindred spirits" I think I would like to be his... He is so delightful.......

Persian

January 27, 2001 - 08:51 pm

ROBBY - there was an interesting program on TV tonight - George Stoessel Goes to Washington (he's the fellow on Barbara Walter's 20/20 Program) - which illustrates what individual parents can do without the interference of govt. to help their children. Another feature was about a woman who tried to volunter in community outreach by feeding the hungry, but govt. restrictions held her back. She finally gave up on the govt funding and turned to friends and family to support her efforts. When her outreach became so extensive, she was forced to turn back to the govt. for funds and once again had to adhere to zillions of rules. The gist of the whole program was that PEOPLE can make a huge difference in their communities in many different ways, but that govt. often gets in the way of their efforts, obstructing their direct contact with folks who need help the most.

robert b. iadeluca

January 28, 2001 - 02:08 am

This discussion continues at

"Non-Fiction: Democracy in America~ by Alexis de Tocqueville: Part IV"

	Share your thoughts with us!
	"No better study of a nation's institutions and culture than de Tocqueville's Democracy in America has ever been written by a foreign observer; none perhaps so good." (New York Times)