Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Not so fast

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Not so fast
  • Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:11:15 EDT


> >The issue at hand is not at all blurry to me; it is crystal clear: if a
> man's word is no good, then he is no good.
>

I have to say that this trumps all other things said on this thread. It
really is just that simple. If a person were a left wing progressive
illegal immigrant going about saying, "What is one life compared to the glory
of
Allah!" but they kept their word, they would go up a good number of notches
in my estimation.

But I am always cautious to not thow out the baby witht the bathwater.
Political correctness never trumps reality. If you come around here and
deal
with the natives of several generations, the odds are 99 or more out of 100
that there are certain characteristics (for good or ill) that you are
going to reliably encounter. To deny they exist does not bespeak
intelligence.

There are cultural milieu in which signing a notarized contract constitutes
giving one's word and anything short of that is just conversation.
Insisting to those people that giving your spoken word on a matter is binding
is as
silly to them as the stereotype (and ficticious) 'code of the hills' where
holding a girls hand or seeing her without her sun bonnet was a binding
proposal of marriage.

I don't know if this has any basis in reality but there is the popular
story that someone visits an area where one or another of the Indian cultures
prevails and greets the new acquaintance with, "I like your jacket" and the
man immediately takes off the jacket and gives it to him. The proper
comment,
it is said, is "That jacket looks good on you." the former being a
request, almost a demand, to have the garment. I suspect some hyperbole is
at
play, but who knows?

Another example of this sort of thing is what is unconsiously and
automatically considered private space. In the Anglo/Celtic cultures it's
quite a
large distance. When we meet to talk, people stand a good 6' apart. Getting
any close is variously (and unconsiously) percieved as unwarranted intimacy
or else aggression and we react accordingly. But, for example, in the
Hispanic culture this distance is much smaller, seems to be only about two
feet.
In beginning a conversation with many Hispanics, they will come (what is
percieved in the prevailing culture) uncomfortably close. I've gotten use to
this, but I have to overcome an involuntary reaction every time and let my
knowlede of the situation dictate what is polite. It would be foolish to
just dismiss the difference and say, either a person is too close or not - it
is the individual and has nothing to do with the culture.

Another exmple that surprised me a bit when I first came across it is this:
Around here looking someone in the eye when talking with them is a gesture
of honesty and downcast eyes give a feeling of guilt or guile. But in some
variations of the American culture looking in the eye is aggressive and
downcast eyes is a sign of respect.

Well back around to giving one's word. It's one of the reasons that
Appalachian mode of speech is very (annoyingly to those not used to it)
indirect.
You don't say "Would you take $100 for that?" That's too direct and
constitutes a binding offer. Rather one says, "What would something like
that be
worth do you think? $100 maybe?" That way you are sure no binding offer
has been made.

So while I very much agee with Gene, for me you give your word and that's
that. Break it and you are an unreliamble person and I must act accordingly.
But I recognize that's a cultural phenomeon and not one of absolute
reality or logic. So I look for patterns and find that in many cases
generalizations are warranted, useful, and help avoid the very sort of
unpleasantness we
are talking about.
</HTML>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page