The American way

[Randy Johnson]

People try to tell me how to talk and it's damn irritating.
They cram political correctness down my throat and it's aggravating.
Even preachers are getting politically correct when they preach.
I guess people have forgot that we have freedom of speech.
I'll talk the way I want because that's supposed to be the American way.
I know for a fact that the world has seen better days.
I don't say Native American or African American; I say Indian and black.
I will have freedom of speech so people better cut me some slack.
Talk any way you want and don't worry what people have to say.
You have the freedom of speech because it's the American way.

[jon1jt]

Yeah I hear ya, just don't lose your head like the political man. ;)

[JBI]

Yeah, this is America, and we play hardball the American way!

[andave_ya]

Nice :D

[firefangled]

People try to tell me how to talk and it's damn irritating.
They cram political correctness down my throat and it's aggravating.
Even preachers are getting politically correct when they preach.
I guess people have forgot that we have freedom of speech.
I'll talk the way I want because that's supposed to be the American way.
I know for a fact that the world has seen better days.
I don't say Native American or African American; I say Indian and black.
I will have freedom of speech so people better cut me some slack.
Talk any way you want and don't worry what people have to say.
You have the freedom of speech because it's the American way.

Don't do drive-bys with your words,
cut some slack across the track jack
disillusioned words like bullets bark...saith the lord

[Delta40]

Cultural Perspective (with due respect)


Tick tock tick tock
blue steel cool trigger glock
jamming your free speech
blocking our ears as you preach
about all that youse eva fought
to be in a land of nought
tick tock tick tock
Bang goes another glock
say whatever you like
bout freedom as you hold your knife
violent way
American way
Giving it for free

Your concept of Freedom? - Man it ain't for me

[Silas Thorne]

I like the rhythm, Randy. Here in NZ we get PC'd to hell too, though I think some of it makes sense. We also get state sponsored propaganda here too, telling us smoking is bad and uncool, that the world is dying but we should support the timber industry, that we shouldn't get drunk and fry up chips because we'll burn down our houses. I get annoyed too because the state treats us all like irresponsible children, but find some of it quite funny ;)

Little bit shocked too, Delta. 'With due respect' is a code word for 'get stuffed'. But hell, not every word from the hip is from the heart, though. And whose heart? Who reads the poems and who speaks them? I don't know, and who 'I' am 'I' sure as hell don't know either.

[qimissung]

I seem to be in the minority (ahem), but I like Delta's poem. I don't see it as an insult, but a comment on the violence that is pervasive in our society. I liked it artistically. In fact I don't really see (but I suppose someone will tell me) how it pertains to the first poem.

As to Randy's poem, it's O.K. Sometimes I get tired of political correctness, too. I have to admit that when I first started reading it, I was worried that he was going to go off on a rant, but it was fairly restrained and polite. I work in an inner city school and my students are largely hispanic and black, so in the long run I think it's better to be careful-and respectful. The racial divide is larger than we would like to think.

[NickAdams]

Though there is something to be said about Delta's poem, this thread was created for the benefit of Randy Johnson and I think we should return it to him. It seems to be very unflattering for a poet to be out shined in a thread they posted.

Poetry of this variety wants its content to be addressed rather than its form.
My only criticism would be that for a poem the celebrates the freedom of speech, I don't think that the freedom was exercised. I know that poetry is quite different from essays, but I think using the structure of an essay (introduction, three examples and conclusion) would better get your point across. I'm interested in the preacher; how are they politically correct?

I do find that being politically correct prevents accuracy and in Harold Blooms case, forces relevance. I find Native American to be as inaccurate as Indian and African American implies immigration to me. Black seems the closet description, because it suggest the identity developed in the US. Blacks lost their traditional African identity after generations of slavery. Their identity begins in the US. I'm still amazed that native born citizens of the US aren't referred to as Americans. There is a difference in description and enforcement of an identity.

[Virgil]

Though there is something to be said about Delta's poem, this thread was created for the benefit of Randy Johnson and I think we should return it to him.

Exactly. As a response to Randy the Delta's poem was an insult.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Exactly. As a response to Randy the Delta's poem was an insult.

Come on! Give her a break. Notice that she is new on here, hasn't had the chance to learn the protocol.

[Virgil]

Come on! Give her a break. Notice that she is new on here, hasn't had the chance to learn the protocol.

:lol: Ok, I'll give her a break. I made my point. I guess she doesn't go back and check her comments.

[Silas Thorne]

Yes, exactly. :)

Two Buddhist Monks were on a journey, one was a senior monk, the other a junior monk. During their journey they approached a raging river and on the river bank stood a young lady. She was clearly concerned about how she would get to the other side of the river without drowning.

The junior monk walked straight past her without giving it a thought and he crossed the river. The senior monk picked up the woman and carried her across the river. He placed her down, they parted ways with woman and on they went with the journey.

As the journey went on, the senior monk could see some concern on the junior monk's mind, he asked what was wrong. The junior monk replied, "how could you carry her like that? You know we can't touch women, it's against our way of life". The senior monk answered, "I left the woman at the rivers edge a long way back, why are you still carrying her?"

from http://www.endlesshumanpotential.com/buddhist-monk-story.html

[NickAdams]

Exactly. As a response to Randy the Delta's poem was an insult.

:lol:

[Delta40]

I have read the insulting responses to my reaction and I wish to apologise to the author only. His poem incited my response, an ironic compliment, if you will, especially in this political climate in which we live. If the author requires further explanation, they can pm me.

I was struck by the passionate belief in one's own culture. I will remember that poetry is after all just an expression its content is not open for discussion

[Virgil]

I have read the insulting responses to my reaction and I wish to apologise to the author only. His poem incited my response, an ironic compliment, if you will, especially in this political climate in which we live. If the author requires further explanation, they can pm me.

I was struck by the passionate belief in one's own culture. I will remember that poetry is after all just an expression its content is not open for discussion

Thank you Delta. I completely respect your strength to say that and have admiration for it. I retract everything I said, and if you were annoyed with me, I apologise to you.

[Delta40]

Given the right circumstance, each of us are capable of reacting in the heat of the moment.

[Virgil]

Given the right circumstance, each of us are capable of reacting in the heat of the moment.

Yes, I know I have said things I've regretted. You're ok Delta. I like you. :)

[blp]

I thought Delta's response was good and valid, as was firefangled's, which no one attacked, for similar reasons. As Nick pointed out, the poem was primarily concerned with its content. These responses addressed the content, but did so poetically and, in doing so, showed up the poetic failings in Randy's poem, demonstrating by example that it was possible to take a rhetorical position and still produce decent poetry, especially in Delta's case. I certainly didn't see any failure of 'protocol'. I've been here ages and I'm not aware of any protocol against responding to a poem with another. It happens fairly frequently.

[Delta40]

I read the thread An Innoncent Life where I believe the same issue has arisen. I have to admit blp, I am not sure of protocol. I considered it more appropriate to respond in poetic kind rather than let loose in a tirade of disjointed opinions and feelings. This thread enabled me to locate a creative expression. I'm thankful, at least for that.

[Virgil]

Don't do drive-bys with your words,
cut some slack across the track jack
disillusioned words like bullets bark...saith the lord


Cultural Perspective (with due respect)


Tick tock tick tock
blue steel cool trigger glock
jamming your free speech
blocking our ears as you preach
about all that youse eva fought
to be in a land of nought
tick tock tick tock
Bang goes another glock
say whatever you like
bout freedom as you hold your knife
violent way
American way
Giving it for free

Your concept of Freedom? - Man it ain't for me

Oh please. What that is saying is that the American way is a violent way, that American freedom is built on violence, living a life of knife attacks and gun shots. If that is not an attack on America than people who disagree don't know how to read poems. That is a political attack disguised as doggeral. This doesn't even afddress the content of the original poem, which was politically correct speech. Firefangle's comment indirectly addressed political correctness but more so the writing of poetry. I agree with Firefangle; I do not consider the original poem to be finely written, but did that deserve the attack?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh please. What that is saying is that the American way is a violent way, that American freedom is built on violence, living a life of knife attacks and gun shots. If that is not an attack on America than people who disagree don't know how to read poems.

I think you might want to reconsider that last statement. The way I read the original poem is as a caricature of some gross distortion of the so-called "American way," so-called because the speaker's persona (NOT that of the author) is a jingoistic self-appointed 'patriot'. As I read Delta's response it was to that persona, not to Randy Johnson... but perhaps RJ would care to speak up and clarify that?

[Virgil]

People try to tell me how to talk and it's damn irritating.
They cram political correctness down my throat and it's aggravating.
Even preachers are getting politically correct when they preach.
I guess people have forgot that we have freedom of speech.
I'll talk the way I want because that's supposed to be the American way.
I know for a fact that the world has seen better days.
I don't say Native American or African American; I say Indian and black.
I will have freedom of speech so people better cut me some slack.
Talk any way you want and don't worry what people have to say.
You have the freedom of speech because it's the American way.

Where is the jingoism? "People try to tell me how to talk and it's damn irritating." Every line after that reflects that central thesis. Every single one. Perhaps as non-Americans you don't understand the term The American Way. The fellow is speaking to Americans. I don't even think he conceptualized people from other countries here on lit net. Every line is a nuanced American notion that Americans know what he is referring to. This is why I shutter when people think they understand another country having never lived in it.

Show me which line is jingoistic. I don't see it.

[jon1jt]

I have read the insulting responses to my reaction and I wish to apologise to the author only. His poem incited my response, an ironic compliment, if you will, especially in this political climate in which we live. If the author requires further explanation, they can pm me.

I was struck by the passionate belief in one's own culture. I will remember that poetry is after all just an expression its content is not open for discussion

Delta, I actually enjoyed reading your poem. You have nothing to apologize about, that's what poetry's supposed to do, incite the good, the bad, the ugly---and anybody who is going to insult you for it isn't a poet.

[JBI]

There's a great irony - the American way about not shutting up, contrasted with your deep response against Delta saying what she wants. Notice the irony?

In truth, the freedom of speech because it is America is a fallacy. You may have freedom of speech in The States, but you hardly are the only country that does, I think that is a blind sense of nationalism - I mean, it's even funnier given the response to a speech against, or somewhat criticizing the country. Come on, does no one else see the irony!

The silly thing though, is the fact that there is such a thing as politically correct. Why don't people just not use racial slurs. In Canada, the sense of, I guess "African Canadian" doesn't really work, so I guess it is different (60% of black Canadians are of Caribbean decent, 30% of which are Jamaican) but still, I see no problem with the political correctness, as long as people just stick to it.

The irony though, is that the poet inadvertently says that throwing racial slurs and somewhat offensive "say what I want"s is the American way - calling all black people black, regardless of decent, or culture, and all Aboriginals Indians. Why not just call them Native American, or Aboriginal?

[jon1jt]

Where is the jingoism? "People try to tell me how to talk and it's damn irritating." Every line after that reflects that central thesis. Every single one. Perhaps as non-Americans you don't understand the term The American Way. The fellow is speaking to Americans. I don't even think he conceptualized people from other countries here on lit net. Every line is a nuanced American notion that Americans know what he is referring to. This is why I shutter when people think they understand another country having never lived in it.

People don't have to live in America to understand the "American way,"---c'mon, stop mystifying here, we're not complex as you and the rest of America would have the outside world believe. I'm up to listen to how you figure though. Just please don't lay it on that "melting pot" notion, please no. :p

The way I see it, thanks to the Internet, non-Americans need only watch clips of Seinfeld to figure us out. :p

[Delta40]

I think this is about respect. There is positive and negative freedom. Freedom from and Freedom to. I encroached upon Randys sphere and for that I am sorry. As a matter of perspective, I don't have to understand a culture to be on its receiving end. American culture is not contained within its own borders. It spews out across the world, to be freely interpreted by non-Americans whose voices are equally legitimate. So I wrote from my own platform. I write what I know and feel because I am authentic. That isn't pretense.

Come, see the view from here.

[jon1jt]

I think this is about respect. There is positive and negative freedom. Freedom from and Freedom to.


Aw c'mon you're being beaten into submission, that's thuggery. You can agree to disagree, that's respect enough.

And if anyone wants to know what American free speech is about, just take a gander at the recent suspension of Michael Phelps by the US swim team. His offense: a photo showing him smoking marijuana. :rolleyes: Consider in the same context the president of the United States, who wrote in his autobiography of using "a little cocaine" in his high school days. Oh, but it was an unhappy moment that inspired him to take the drug. :rolleyes:

And what about our beloved AMERICAN ex-president George W. Bush, who said in response to a question about doing cocaine in his 30s,

"When I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible."

:lol: :lol:


And Bill Clinton:

"I smoked marijuana, but I didn't inhale."


This is my America, folks. Free speech, free thinking America. :lol:

[Delta40]

Sure. I'm still coughing from the dust after being hit with heavy tomes from shocked Lit-netters. The point is, does free speech equate to free action?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Where is the jingoism? "People try to tell me how to talk and it's damn irritating." Every line after that reflects that central thesis. Every single one. Perhaps as non-Americans you don't understand the term The American Way. The fellow is speaking to Americans. I don't even think he conceptualized people from other countries here on lit net. Every line is a nuanced American notion that Americans know what he is referring to. This is why I shutter when people think they understand another country having never lived in it.

Show me which line is jingoistic. I don't see it.

OK, I'll modify the accusation of jingoism except that whenever I hear anyone refer to the American, Canadian, Polish &c way of life I assume a sub-text of the best way of life... As for what I see as the intended parody in this, one of the few examples of free speech he offers is the 'freedom' to refer to Native Americans as "Indians," African-Americans as "blacks" and I assume that extends to calling Jews "kikes;" Italians "wops," Latin Amricans "spicks," &c. He's offering (or his persona is) the American Way as the freedom to be boorish or bigotted.

No fair-minded person would accept Randy's satiric persona as a typical American - or an explary one. Nor, I think, does Randy intend his poem to be read that way. Remember Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

[Virgil]

one of the few examples of free speech he offers is the 'freedom' to refer to Native Americans as "Indians," African-Americans as "blacks" and I assume that extends to calling Jews "kikes;" Italians "wops," Latin Amricans "spicks," &c. He's offering (or his persona is) the American Way as the freedom to be boorish or bigotted.


No, again, there are nuances that one acquires of living in a country. Indian and black are not per se derogatory terms. They have been used in the language for many years. In fact African Americans pushed the term black in the 1960s when they didn't like the term negro. Neither negro or black are derogatory terms, though negro is very outdated and I would have suspicions if someone decided to use it. As to Indian, that has been the accepted term probably for centuries until someone wanted to create a politically correct version. And to be fair to those that created the political correctness, it probably has to do with the tone and context of how you use the word Indian that made some seek a separate term. As to kikes, wops, and spics, those have always been derogatory slang.

Let me re-iterate, the author of that original poem said nothing derogatory or jingoistic. The subject matter is political correctness which is entangled with the first amendment to the US constitution. That is why he refers to it as the American Way. [Now I understand why non-Americans are thinking this as jingoistic. You don't make the connection to our constituion.] Here:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The subject matter that Randy takes up is something that is discussed in high schools across the US. His implied audience is other Americans.

[blp]

Sure. I'm still coughing from the dust after being hit with heavy tomes from shocked Lit-netters. The point is, does free speech equate to free action?

No. Unequivocally, no. And it shouldn't. That's the whole point: the separation between 'I feel like killing you' and actually killing someone is crucial.

I'll further re-emphasise that you shouldn't feel sorry for 'encroaching on Randy's sphere'. That's what debate is. Randy came here with a point of view, one which, as JBI pointed out, was a defense of freedom of speech. All you did was exercise the right he himself was defending. You didn't hit him or literally tread on his toes, just argued and argued better.

My advice, and I hope it doesn't sound patronising, is, if people hit out at you for what you say, never ever just assume they're right because they're angry or because they outnumber you. Those things are not arguments. What matters is the sense - your reason for speaking in the first place, so go back to that. Freedom of speech matters because it gives us our best hope of making sense of things. Being bullied into not speaking or recanting is to risk loss of sense. You have the right to speak, to try to make sense, even if what you say is wrong. The proper response, if you are, is cogent argument, not an outraged suggestion that you were wrong to speak at all.

Anyway, if you can learn to see it this way, and as long as you really believed in what you wrote in the first place, creating outrage with what you write is kind of fun. :D

[Virgil]

Anyway, if you can learn to see it this way, and as long as you really believed in what you wrote in the first place, creating outrage with what you write is kind of fun. :D

Well, one has to be right about what one is saying. And I just proved that she either didn't understand the poem or was gratuitiously insulting. I believe that Delta did not understand Randy's poem entirely and made an incorrect judgement.

[blp]

There's a great irony - the American way about not shutting up, contrasted with your deep response against Delta saying what she wants. Notice the irony?

In truth, the freedom of speech because it is America is a fallacy. You may have freedom of speech in The States, but you hardly are the only country that does, I think that is a blind sense of nationalism - I mean, it's even funnier given the response to a speech against, or somewhat criticizing the country. Come on, does no one else see the irony!

The silly thing though, is the fact that there is such a thing as politically correct. Why don't people just not use racial slurs. In Canada, the sense of, I guess "African Canadian" doesn't really work, so I guess it is different (60% of black Canadians are of Caribbean decent, 30% of which are Jamaican) but still, I see no problem with the political correctness, as long as people just stick to it.

The irony though, is that the poet inadvertently says that throwing racial slurs and somewhat offensive "say what I want"s is the American way - calling all black people black, regardless of decent, or culture, and all Aboriginals Indians. Why not just call them Native American, or Aboriginal?

Yeah. At its worst, it boils down to, 'We're the most democratic, most free-speech respecting country in the world, so don't you dare ever suggest we're ever wrong about anything at all.' viz Joe McCarthy, Nixon's House UnAmerican Activities Committee etc. Free speech becomes a propaganda instrument for shutting down debate, not opening it up.

This contradictory belligerence is there in the poem too. The poet demands freedom of speech, but avers stoutly that he doesn't care what anyone else says. He wants freedom of speech, but denies it, utterly, its power to convince rationally. All he apparently wants it for is the freedom to say whatever pops into his head and not have it challenged. D'oh!

By the way, I say 'black people'. I live in England where black people say it too.

[JBI]

Meh, it's bigoted. Just use the politically correct term - besides which, black and "Indian" are generally unplausible words to refer to cultural background.

Black can mean many things, whereas African American means one specific thing - those descendant from Africans brought over as slaves. The term has bastardized itself, making it refer to all black people living in the States, but in truth, you don't call all white Americans Caucasian Americans, or European Americans. Likewise, it would seem strange to use the term African-American, as it is perceived, to refer to a Jamaican American, or to some extent, an African who moved to the States.

Generally though, it's better not to use terms that may seem offensive. The meaning of the word is what's important, and if African-American is deemed a more politically correct way of wording something, then just use that. It's not free speech to deliberately try and create shock or insult.

[PoeticPassions]

I just want to point out one thing-- I do think that the term "Indian" is somewhat derogatory, or well just not precise in any shape, way or form. It comes from Columbus' idiocy in thinking he was in India and thus calling the natives "Indians." plus you are generalizing a vast group of people into one... one category.. Indian... when there were hundreds, even thousands of tribes and different languages...

In any case, shouldn't everyone just be American? Why make the distinctions? if you want to call yourself German-American, go ahead (if you want to recognize your heritage or ethnicity), but I think generally everyone should just be American. And African-American is silly... grouping ALL of AFRICA into one. Or ASIAN American... yet if you are Iranian or Indian, you are Iranian-American, Indian-American, etc. these categories are just irrational at best.

[blp]

Well, one has to be right about what one is saying. And I just proved that she either didn't understand the poem or was gratuitiously insulting. I believe that Delta did not understand Randy's poem entirely and made an incorrect judgement.

Why does one have to be right about what one is saying? How can one even be sure that one is? If one really had to be right about everything, would anyone say anything at all? Isn't the point about debate that there is usually another side to the argument and your opponent provides it?

I do, however, believe, that there's an onus on each party to back up what they say and show their workings - provide reasons for their opposition, not just flatly declare the other wrong without explanation. That didn't initially happen here. You simply said you thought Delta's poem was an 'insult', then made a sort of peace with her when she apologised.

Now you say you've 'proved' the point, but so what? Why didn't you prove it initially and without using a loaded, moralistic, fight-picking word like 'insult'?

I disagree with your 'proof', for the following reasons: I think Randy's poem, with its declaration that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks and his heavy-handed invocation of The American Way as justificatory principle, is shot through with aggression and arrogance and, as I've tried to argue in my previous post, contempt for rational debate. Delta's response brought out the aggression in that and suggested, to me, that there is another powerful strain to 'The American Way' and it is one that is antithetical to freedom of speech, even when it uses it as justification: violence. This is certainly up for debate, but, I'd respectfully suggest that if you want to do so without walking into a logical trap, you strenuously avoid being bellicosity, righteous indignation or intimidation.

[blp]

Meh, it's bigoted.

I can't agree. It's in absolutely mainstream, common use here and no one ever ever says 'African-Britons'. In other words, it's no good saying,



Just use the politically correct term

because we don't have one. Or 'black' is, judging by all the people who use it to describe themselves here. Are you sure you're not just being influenced by the norms of your locale? I know you could throw the same thing back at me, but what's inherently denigrating about it?

I do say 'native American', because the fallacy of 'Indian' is absurdly obvious.



In any case, shouldn't everyone just be American? Why make the distinctions? if you want to call yourself German-American, go ahead (if you want to recognize your heritage or ethnicity), but I think generally everyone should just be American. And African-American is silly... grouping ALL of AFRICA into one. Or ASIAN American... yet if you are Iranian or Indian, you are Iranian-American, Indian-American, etc. these categories are just irrational at best.

There are numerous instances where people need these terms for purely practical identificatory purposes. One of them, unfortunately, is the continuing need to stand up to racial discrimination. The discrimination doesn't need the words in order to happen (though it may use racial epithets), but you do need them in order to identify it: 'He always picks on the African-Americans' or 'She's never seems to hire the Muslims.'

[PrinceMyshkin]

No, again, there are nuances that one acquires of living in a country. Indian and black are not per se derogatory terms. They have been used in the language for many years. In fact African Americans pushed the term black in the 1960s when they didn't like the term negro. Neither negro or black are derogatory terms, though negro is very outdated and I would have suspicions if someone decided to use it. As to Indian, that has been the accepted term probably for centuries until someone wanted to create a politically correct version. And to be fair to those that created the political correctness, it probably has to do with the tone and context of how you use the word Indian that made some seek a separate term. As to kikes, wops, and spics, those have always been derogatory slang.

Let me re-iterate, the author of that original poem said nothing derogatory or jingoistic. The subject matter is political correctness which is entangled with the first amendment to the US constitution. That is why he refers to it as the American Way. [Now I understand why non-Americans are thinking this as jingoistic. You don't make the connection to our constituion.] Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The subject matter that Randy takes up is something that is discussed in high schools across the US. His implied audience is other Americans.

I agree. I grossly overstated the case in leaping from "Indians" and "blacks" - neither of which are necessarily pejorative - to kikes, wops, spicks, which are always pejorative. My apologies.

I'd like only to reassert my belief that the original post was meant tongue in cheek, a parody of a certain kind of American but not necessarily all of them, and probably not the author himself.

[Virgil]

Why does one have to be right about what one is saying? How can one even be sure that one is? If one really had to be right about everything, would anyone say anything at all? Isn't the point about debate that there is usually another side to the argument and your opponent provides it?

Sure. But this is a poetry forum and lit net does not allow current politics to be debated. This was Randy's thread on his poem. Delta didn't start her own thread on her poem. She didn't even discuss the poetry of Randy's poem. She attacked what she thought was a supercilious attitude from an American. And her attack wasn't even leveled at Randy personally, but at American culture directly.


I do, however, believe, that there's an onus on each party to back up what they say and show their workings - provide reasons for their opposition, not just flatly declare the other wrong without explanation. That didn't initially happen here. You simply said you thought Delta's poem was an 'insult', then made a sort of peace with her when she apologised.
By not discussing the poem and by attacking American culture without, I'm pretty sure to assume, Delta never having lived in the US, then by all fair accounts it was an insult. A person who has never lived in another country and disparages its culture is gratuitiously insulting it. It's like me never having been to Kazakhstan and putting down its reliance on eating horsemeat. The very thing that upset Delta, her perception of superciliousness, is exactly what she in turn did.


Now you say you've 'proved' the point, but so what? Why didn't you prove it initially and without using a loaded, moralistic, fight-picking word like 'insult'?
Because Delta's response was fight-picking. Go back and read it. And it didn't initially dawn on me that non Americans did not pick up the nuances.


I disagree with your 'proof', for the following reasons: I think Randy's poem, with its declaration that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks and his heavy-handed invocation of The American Way as justificatory principle, is shot through with aggression and arrogance and, as I've tried to argue in my previous post, contempt for rational debate. Delta's response brought out the aggression in that and suggested, to me, that there is another powerful strain to 'The American Way' and it is one that is antithetical to freedom of speech, even when it uses it as justification: violence. This is certainly up for debate, but, I'd respectfully suggest that if you want to do so without walking into a logical trap, you strenuously avoid being bellicosity, righteous indignation or intimidation.
Well, that's wrong. I explained how Randy's post is within the context of American culture and language. There is no line in his poem that even slightly reflects outside American culture. The term "the American way" is a long held americanism. Everything that Randy spoke was internally contextual.

Edit: I am reminded that the tag that went along superman comic books (which were pre WWII I believe) was that he fights for "truth, justice and the American way." And if one really researched it, I bet it goes back way further than pre-WWII.

[TheFifthElement]

There is no line in his poem that even slightly reflects outside American culture.

Surely this statement is self defeating when taken in the context of this statement


This is why I shutter when people think they understand another country having never lived in it.

as it implies that you have sufficient knowledge, understanding or awareness of non-American culture to make a judgement on how this poem may or may not be perceived or be relevant to a non-American and yet which, by definition of all your own arguments, is an understanding you can't have.

[NickAdams]

Meh, it's bigoted. Just use the politically correct term - besides which, black and "Indian" are generally unplausible words to refer to cultural background.

Black can mean many things, whereas African American means one specific thing - those descendant from Africans brought over as slaves. The term has bastardized itself, making it refer to all black people living in the States, but in truth, you don't call all white Americans Caucasian Americans, or European Americans. Likewise, it would seem strange to use the term African-American, as it is perceived, to refer to a Jamaican American, or to some extent, an African who moved to the States.




I just want to point out one thing-- I do think that the term "Indian" is somewhat derogatory, or well just not precise in any shape, way or form. It comes from Columbus' idiocy in thinking he was in India and thus calling the natives "Indians." plus you are generalizing a vast group of people into one... one category.. Indian... when there were hundreds, even thousands of tribes and different languages...

In any case, shouldn't everyone just be American? Why make the distinctions? if you want to call yourself German-American, go ahead (if you want to recognize your heritage or ethnicity), but I think generally everyone should just be American. And African-American is silly... grouping ALL of AFRICA into one. Or ASIAN American... yet if you are Iranian or Indian, you are Iranian-American, Indian-American, etc. these categories are just irrational at best.

This was exactly my point. The same goes for Africans when they were brought to what is now the US. I think "African Americans" have the only legitimate claim to being classified as American. Their history begins here. There is a small chance that they can trace their genealogy back to their original African tribe.

I do get offended when someone asks me my background and after telling them they reply, "you're Black then," or "you're Native American," after I have named three different tribes.

I was raised by my mother, conceived by a Gentry and a Mckinney, who is Dutch, French, Scottish, Irish, Cherokee, Apache and Blackfoot and it's offensive to only be identified as "African-American". It's a slap to the face of my upbringing.

There is not reason to connect race and nationality.

[Logos]

Closed for a number of reasons, the main one being that this thread is proving to be not a discussion about "poetry"; and there's too much personal bickering going on.