Asturian-American Migration Forum

I'm responding to this post:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtop ... =6042#6042

Bob wrote:In my view, one of the most unfortunate aspects of recent American politics is the extreme polarization that has occurred.

I remembered Bob's thought when I read an article, "The Boomer Files: An Aging Generation's Changing Politics" by Howard Fineman in Newsweek (January 23, 2006, p. 61). [It has a variety of titles, depending on where you look.]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10855757/site/newsweek/

The article talks about boomer politics and relates this to the scene at Yale University in the 1960s and 70s. During this time G.W. Bush, both Hillary and Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Garry Trudeau, John Bolton, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito were all students at Yale.

But here's what most interested me:

Fineman wrote:The two sides of the Yale Campus knew each other, but barely, and assumed that the other was not only wrong but dangerously so. And that is consistent with what polls have shown about the boomers: they are far more driven by ideology than were other generations, and far less willing to believe in traditional political institutions, such as political parties.

[For our Asturian friends, "Boomers" refers to the from the generation born in a huge surge in the birthrate after WWII from 1946-64.]

Yes, it's clear that we assume that the other side is dangerously wrong.

Are we ideologues? That word has several meanings:

• an impractical idealist
• an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

I'm sure that in my earlier years I was a knee-jerk liberal in my being anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-rascism and anti-sexism. Several people helped me see the blind idealism in my thinking and so I became more critical in my own thinking and more careful in the causes I supported.

But I still try to base my beliefs on values, the values I learned as a kid in Sunday School (Sunday morning classes at church).

I'd guess that most boomers would say, "But I'm not and ideologue!"

What do you think? Are boomers ideologues but just blind to their own shortcomings?

-------------
Respondo a este mensaje:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtop ... =6042#6042

Bob wrote:En mi opinión, uno de los aspectos más desafortunados de la política americana reciente es la polarización extrema que ha ocurrido.

Recordé este pensamiento de Bob cuando leí un artículo, "los Archivos Boomista: El cambio Político de una generación envejecida" por Howard Fineman en Newsweek (el 23 de enero de 2006, p. 61). [Esto tiene una variedad de títulos, según donde se mira.]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10855757/site/newsweek/

El artículo habla de la política boomista y lo relaciona a la escena en la Universidad Yale en los años 1960 y años 70. Durante este epoca G.W. Bush, tanto Hillary como Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Garry Trudeau, John Bolton, Clarence Thomas, y Samuel Alito eran todos estudiantes en Yale.

Pero aquí está lo que más me interesó:

Fineman wrote:Los dos lados del campus Yale conocían el uno al otro, pero apenas, y asumieron que el otro era no sólo incorrecto, pero peligrosamente incorrecto. Y es compatible con lo que los sondeos han mostrado sobre los boomistas: es la ideología que los empuja mucho más que otras generaciones, y son mucho menos dispuesto de creer en los instituciones tradicionales políticas, como los partidos políticos.

[Para nuestros amigos asturianos, "Boomers" [lo que llamo "boomistas"] se refiere al de la generación nacida en una enorme oleada en el índice de natalidad después WWII de los años 1946-64.]
Sí, es claro que asumimos que otro lado es peligrosamente incorrecto.

¿Son nosotros ideólogos? Aquella palabra tiene varios significados:

• un idealista poco práctico
• un defensor o adherente - a menudo un partidario a ciegas - de una ideología particular

Estoy seguro que en mis años más tempranos yo era un liberal de "reflejo rotular" en ser pacifista, antipobreza, antirascismo y antisexismo. Varias personas me ayudaron ver el idealismo ciego en mi pensamiento y entonces me hice más crítico en mi propio pensamiento y más cuidadoso en las causas que apoyo.

Pero todavía intento de basar mi creencia en valores, los valores que aprendí como un niño en la "escuela del domingo" (las clases en la iglesia que tiene lugar los domingos por la mañana).

¡Adivinaría que la mayor parte de boomistas diría, "Pero no soy un ideólogo!"

¿Qué piensas? ¿Somos los Boomistas ideólogos? Somos ciegos a nuestros propios defectos?

What's wrong with being an ideologue (or ideologist) ? Don Quixote was one, he strongly believed in the goodness of man and was ready to fight for the rights of others to the bitter end, regardless how vile or sneaky they turned out to be. He refused to see it. Wasn't he much more loveble than Hamlet, who was so wise to everything and suspicious of everyone? Give me old Don Quijote anytime!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Qué hay de malo en ser un ideólogo (o idealista)? Don Quijote lo era, creía ciegamente en la bondad del hombre y estaba dispuesto a luchar por los derechos de los demás hasta el final, por muy maliciosos y falsos que estos resultaran ser. Se negaba a verlo. ¿No os parece mucho más entrañable que Hamlet, que se las sabía todas y sospechaba de todo el mundo? A mí que me den Don Quijote mil veces!

I’m certain there is all kinds of people among the boomers, generally speaking however I don’t believe they are ideologues, the vast majority are ignorant of politics and don’t care enough to change that. Although that is not a bad thing, it is the result of having a stable democracy. If tomorrow Bush was to stage a coup-de tat and take over the remaining rights of the country you can bet your bottom dollar everybody would learn a thing or two about politics. But since that is not likely to happen apathy towards politics prevails. Don’t get me wrong, most do have very strong political feelings one way or another, but if you were to ask them why they think this is so, over 90% would find him/herself unable to explain it. They know they are for this or against that, they don’t know why. When confronted with arguments to the contrary they don’t take the time to find out for themselves, they simply get upset and leave labeling the other person this that or the other, therefor not worth talking to.

I think that the worse problem this nation has in that regard is apathy not ideologists, and I agree with Terechu that being an ideologist is a good thing. We should stand by our principals and be open to new ideas.


Elí

My first response to Terechu's comment was to celebrate its thoughtfulness and the interesting literary examples.

But now that I've finished celebrating, I'm back to about the same place I was before. Wink! (I don't like emoticons; I'd rather spell it out. I guess that makes me old-fashioned, huh?)

Back to the definition of "ideologue"... Isn't ideologue is usually used derisively? Neither the idealist type of ideologue nor the blindly partisan type are thinking for themselves. The partisan who supports the agenda of a group without thinking through for themselves might as well be a hand puppet. The idealist isn't grounded in reality and so can't effectively participate in the political process.

One of my core values is to encourage myself and others to talk with people who aren't like us. We can't grow or change for the better by talking to people just like us. (My beliefs include an assumption that we can change for the positive.)

There's nothing wrong with having strongly held beliefs, as long as we think about them critically and are open to the possibility that we might change our minds at some point. In contrast, someone who blindly supports a particular ideology isn't going to be able to participate in this conversation and isn't going to be helpful in moving the political process forward.

In the short term, politicians can force decisions, but for political decision to last for the long term, I believe they require consensus-building. If we don't arrive at consensus, we're doomed to teeter Right and Left ideologically. We haven't seen consensus-building in the US in recent years, probably because it takes more skill and effort.

To some degree, I agree with Elí said when he said that most of us don't really seem to be engaged, at least in part because we haven't informed ourselves. I wonder, though, if we're not very close to a defacto coup d'etat. Certainly, the current administrative branch has been taking more and more power for itself at the expense of the other two branches.

I sometimes think that the way we do education and news in the US has the effect of encouraging us to think less and feel and believe more. The high school class I had to take on the threat of communism was propaganda--exactly like the propaganda they were accused the communists of doing!

But maybe this lack of curiosity, introspection, and critical thinking is simply the way we're built as people. It takes a lot of energy to think for yourself and just having a job and kids could slow anyone's thinking down.

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

Mi primera respuesta al comentario de Terechu era celebrar que es bien pensado y que tiene ejemplos literarios interesantes.

Pero ahora que he terminado de celebrar, vuelvo casi al mismo lugar que era antes. ¡Guiño! (No me gusta "emoticons"; yo preferiría explicarlo detalladamente. Adivino que esto significa que estoy chapado, ¿eh?)

Volviendo a la definición "de ideólogo"... El ideólogo es por lo general usado burlonamente, ¿no? Ni el tipo de ideólogo idealista ni el tipo que es partidista a ciegas piensan para ellos mismos. El partidario que apoya la agenda de un grupo sin pensar por su mismo también puede ser una marioneta de mano. El idealista no vive en la realidad y entonces no puede participar en el proceso político con eficacia.

Uno de mis valores principales es animar a mí y a otros que hablamos con gente con quien no somos parecidos. No podemos crecer o cambiar beneficiosamente por dirigiéndonos a gente exactamente como nosotros. (Mis creencias incluyen una asunción que podemos cambiarnos para el positivo.)

No hay nada mal en tener creencias fuertes, con tal de que pensemos en estos creencias críticamente y somos abiertos la posibilidad que podríamos cambiar nuestras mentes en algún punto. Al contrario alguien que apoya a ciegas una ideología particular no va a ser capaz de participar en esta conversación y no puede ayudar en avanzar el proceso político.

A corto plazo, los políticos pueden forzan decisiones, pero para que una decisión política dura a largo plazo, creo que se requiere ponerse de acuerdo general. Si no llegamos al acuerdo general, somos condenados vacilar de la Derecha a la Izquierda ideológicamente. No hemos visto el construcción de una acuerdo general en los EE.UU. en años recientes, probablemente porque precisa más habilidad y esfuerzo.

Hasta cierto grado, estoy de acuerdo con Elí cuando dijo que la mayor parte de nosotros realmente no parecen ser captivados [o dedicados], al menos en parte porque no nos hemos informado. Me pregunto, sin embargo, si no somos muy cerca a un golpe de estado defacto. Seguramente, la rama administrativa corriente ha estado tomando cada vez más poder para sí mismo a costa de los otras dos ramas [judicial y legislativo].

A veces pienso que el modo en que hacemos la educación y las noticias en los EE.UU. tiene el efecto de alentador que pensemos menos y sentamos y creamos más. ¡La clase de instituto que tuve que hacer sobre la amenaza de comunismo era propaganda - exactamente como la propaganda que nuestro libro les acusó a los comunistas de hacer!

Pero tal vez esta carencia de curiosidad, introspección, y el pensamiento crítico sea simplemente como somos construidos como humanos. Precisa mucha energía pensar para nosotros mismos y nada más de tener un trabajo y niños podría hacer más lento el pensamiento de cualquier persona.

“But maybe this lack of curiosity, introspection, and critical thinking is simply the way we're built as people. It takes a lot of energy to think for yourself and just having a job and kids could slow anyone's thinking down.”

I would disagree with that, think it is influence more by nurture than by nature. For instance growing up in my family we would all (except for one) read the paper, magazines and listen to ‘radio relog’ that was a news radio that would give you the time every minute on the dot “In Germany Chancellor so and so said xyz, it is now 7:14 AM The president of...” and engage in lively political, historical, philosophical and all kinds of intellectual discussions around the breakfast, lunch and supper table. We would always sit at the table to eat and converse, a typical lunch would last about an hour, when I got to the states and found out that I had to eat my food in 15 minutes because my half of the time allotted for my half hour ‘lunch hour’ was spent traveling most of my food went uneaten. Anyways, the idea is that if parents teach their children to converse, to think and expose their ideas then debate them intelligently, that will go a long way into ‘forming’ the mind of the man to be.

I don’t see that behavior in the US, most folks eat out when they do spend time together is simply because they are on their way to bed, or on their way out. As a result when they get together as adults most Unitedstadians find out that they have nothing in common with their siblings because they never really spent any time together, and since the few moments that were spent together were likely not in a manner conducive to further dialogue they never really learned to think for themselves. That being the case anything that requires any thought process becomes an unsurmountable obstacle. In my opinion it is a vicious circle that feeds on itself.

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

Yo estoy en desacuerdo con esa opinion. Me parece que es mas bien el resultado de una crianza pobre que un problema biologico. Por ejemplo yo creci en una familia en la que todos leiamos las noticias, revistas y estabamos al dia de todo lo que sucedia. No habia una reunion a la hora de comer ya sea para el desayuno, almuerzo o la cena en la que no entablabamos una conversacion de politica, historia, filosofia o lo que sea. Generalmente las comidas duraban por lo menos una hora y con frecuencia mas. Si los padres les enseñan a sus hijos a pensar, conversar y exponer sus ideas y ellos las debaten inteligentemente los niños van a aprender siguiendo el ejemplo de sus padres, de esta manera es como se forma la mente de un hombre.

Yo no veo que los padres de familia en los EE.UU. hagan eso, la mayoria de las familias comen afuera, y nunca comparten tiempo entre familia. A pesar de que al crecer nunca escuche la expression ‘quality time’ o pasar ‘tiempo de calidad’ con la familia en retrospectiva puedo ver que eso era todo lo que mis padres nos dieron. En los EE.UU. cuando hermanos pasan un momento juntos es simplemente porque comparten el mismo espacio, no comparten sus ideas o pensamientos. Las conversaciones que suceden de sobremesa no conducen a un dialogo en el que les enseñe a los hijos a pensar por si mismos. Ya que crecen de esta manera cualquier cosa que requiera un proceso mental se convierte en un obstaculo impasable. En mi opinion esto es un circulo vicioso.

This conversation is a good example of how a discussion doesn't have to be a simple "A says X", "B says Y", with no movement or development. I find what Elí reports about his family very interesting and it may change my position. Maybe you're right, Elí, that it's nurture (not nature).

You may be the wrong person to ask, but do you think your family was typical of Peru? Was the average family that involved in intellectual discussion?

If you're right, then I'd wonder whether different cultures encourage or hamper opportunities for discussion? I wonder, too, if US culture discourages intellectual discussion because it makes us very uncomfortable to disagree with each other?

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

Esta conversación hace un buen ejemplo bueno de que una discusión no tenga que ser una simple "A opina X", y "B opina Y ", sin ningún movimiento o desarrollo. Encuentro lo que Elí relata sobre su familia muy interesante y esto puede cambiar mi posición. Tal vez tengas razón, Elí, que es la crianza (no la natura).

Es posible que seas la persona incorrecta preguntar, pero me pregunto si tu familia era típica de Perú? ¿Era la familia media implicada que en la discusión intelectual?

¿Si tienes razón, entonces yo me preguntaría si culturas diferentes animan u obstaculizan oportunidades para la discusión? ¿Me pregunto, también, si la cultura estadounidense desalienta la discusión intelectual porque nos hace muy incómodos discrepar el uno con el otro?

This is a very complex issue, because lack of communication is common among all city dwellers all over the world - almost everybody now lives in a city or suburb. We are flooded with trivial information from thousands of sources, but the truth is often censored. Instead we get the OPINION of the media (not the facts), tailormade to suit the interests of their bosses. For instance, anyone who watched the coverage of the Iraq War on the Fox News Channel ended up convinced that Sadam and Bin Laden were bussom buddies and that attacking a sovereign country was "preventive" and absolutely OK. There was such brainwashing when Hitler invaded Poland but not to that extent; nobody thought it was OK, even though information sources were scarce, people could still tell right from wrong.

Those of us who grew up with less trash TV and other media (there were no baby-boomers in Spain after the War, too many men had died), do have a more defined ideology, I'm sure. Those under 30 have never known any other media than those owned and operated by big business. No wonder young kids are confused about whether it's worth to apply themselves in school, work hard and be disciplined, when all they see is that what really counts to be successful in life, is being a crook and getting rich quick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Este es un tema muy complejo, porque la falta de comunicación es común a todos los habitantes de las grandes ciudades de todo el mundo - casi todos vivimos en ciudades o suburbios. Nos inundan con información trivial desde miles de fuentes, pero la verdad a menudo se censura. Lo que nos dan es la OPINION de los medios de comunicación (no los hechos), a la medida de los intereses de sus jefes. Por ejemplo, cualquiera que haya visto la cobertura de la Guerra de Irak por el canal de noticias de Fox acabó convencido de que Sadam y Bin Laden eran colegas y que atacar a un país soberano era "preventivo" y completamente normal. Ese tipo de lavado de cerebro ya existía cuando Hitler invadió Polonia pero nunca hasta este extremo; nadie se creyó que estuviera bien, aunque las fuentes de información eran más escasas, la gente aún distinguía entre el bien y el mal.

Los que nos hemos críado con menos basura en la tele y la prensa (En España no hubo "boomers" - murieron demasiados hombres en la guerra) tenemos una idiología más definida seguramente. Los que tienen menos de 30 años nunca conocieron otros medios que los que son propiedad de grandes consorcios. No me extraña que la juventud esté en duda sobre si merece la pena aplicarse en los estudios, trabajar y ser disciplinado, cuando lo único que ven continuamente es que lo que de verdad importa para tener éxito social es ser un delincuente y hacerte rico rápido.

In response to Art’s question “do you think your family was typical of Peru?” Mmm yes and no. Yes it was typical of Peru but within it’s socioeconomic status, it is typical for the upper classes not so for the country as a whole. By in large most Peruvians are even less informed in political issues than Unitedstadians are, no doubt about it. However the upper classes are usually very well informed not only of local politics but of the politics of just about every major country in the world, they will just as soon tell you what is happening in Germany, Israel or Argentina. Often they are very opinionated, Peruvians you see, fall in two categories some are obstinate, stubborn and pig headed, others like myself have determination, perseverance, and the courage of our convictions.

“wonder whether different cultures encourage or hamper opportunities for discussion?” hmm... I don’t think this is so much a ‘cultural’ thing as it is a social status within a culture. For instance although among Unitedstadians the vast majority in my view fall within the realm of apathetic towards politics, the upper classes are almost always well in tune with current developments. I find that the same thing is true among Germans, French and British that I’ve known. One thing that is unique to Unitedstadians is their tunnel vision and thought process; generally speaking regardless of status the idea that the world ends at their borders is prevalent. Although this is not a good example it is very graphic, by watching the weather you can see that outside of the US border there is no weather, unless it is a Hurricane or a Cyclone that may hit the US. A better example of this I saw during the Olympics in Canada, a reporter was interviewing a Unitedstadian reporter about the Olympics and what had impressed him most about Canada was that the Canadian press was treating the US as if the US ‘was just another nation’, in his mind the US needed to be covered 80% of the time and the rest of the world should share the other 20%, since they were allocating more or less the same amount to all nations in all sports ‘even those in which the US does not participate!’ he couldn’t get over it, but I digress.

“I wonder, too, if US culture discourages intellectual discussion because it makes us very uncomfortable to disagree with each other?” This is an interesting question, think it is a matter of the chicken or the egg type thing. There are a lot of things that don’t make sense in US culture, they are very passionate about their convictions but they don’t know why they have them (for the most part), they want you to agree with them but they are unwilling to discuss the issues. I believe that people are generally speaking not so much uncomfortable in disagreeing with each other but that they are for the most part aware of their ignorance on the issues and their own position that they often use this ‘excuse’ to not broach the subject, most importantly not because they may make somebody uncomfortable but because they will become uncomfortable when they find themselves unable to defend or explain their position.

I completely agree with Terechu there, only one comment on “anyone who watched the coverage of the Iraq War on the Fox News Channel ended up convinced that Sadam and Bin Laden were bussom buddies and that attacking a sovereign country was "preventive" and absolutely OK. ” this is not a new position in fact it has been used by the US for centuries, some of the speeches given in this regard were almost identical to the ones used during the 1800's in order to validate the attacks on the Indian nations, unfortunately, I no longer have the emails to quote the speeches. The problem with the US having used this approach is that now everybody sees ‘preventive attack’ as a valid option, and if you follow the news you’ll know that in what has been the quietest area in the world over the last century (South America) Venezuela is convinced that the US intends to destabilize the government there and thinking that a ‘preventive attack’ is possible has begun to arm itself, not replace weapons that was the norm one plane dies we buy a new one, but acquire extra capabilities. Of course Colombia already said if Venezuela gets more weapons so will we, and they have placed orders in China to meet that although the Congress still needs to approve it. If Colombia gets those weapons Peru is sure to follow, if Peru gets weapons Chile will undoubtedly triple whatever buy Peru makes, clearly Argentina is not gonna sit idle while his bellicose neighbor arms himself. Since Brazil has a comfortable lead over Argentina that may wait a tad there but if Argentina goes on too far Brazil wont sit still. The trouble is that if a continent is barely armed as it was last century chances are that nations wont get into a war, but if they have weapons coming out of every corner somebody will be itching to use them, and we all know that it only took one shot from a madman to spark WWI.



Mr. Bush’s policies may have a very long lasting impact.

Last night I was thinking about what Art said “ a discussion doesn't have to be a simple "A says X", "B says Y", with no movement or development.” and yes, you are absolutely right. I see these threads as a conversation so one says what we see fit to say at the time without having to be 100 % right all the time there is room for error and leeway to move about to and fro. The subject may take me to the most recondite areas of my brain that may have little to do with what we are talking about. If it was a debate on the other hand one would have to ensure the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted. That everything we say is verifiable, add links to support our claims and stay within the topic at hand.

I guess that is the difference between a conversation and a debate.

Just for kicks I’ll let you know what’s on my mind right now, did you know that T. Rex was discovered a century ago? Yup he’s a centenary already... imagine that.