Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » Re: Usenet (laaaank)
| Re: Usenet (laaaank) [boodskap #1349] |
Wed, 16 July 2003 19:06  |
Raj
Boodskappe: 590
Geregistreer: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Katryn" skryf in boodskap news:rntahvk61i8jdt3ls6bkp6sin476tth4du@4ax.com...
> Gepraat daarvan - verlede week was daar hierdie gesprek op een van die
> ander lyste waaraan ek behoort (maar nooit juis tyd het om deel te
> neem nie). Dit gaan juis oor die feit dat ons mense "oordeel" aan wat
> hulle sê - waaroor hulle gesels, en wat hulle tiekel, ens. :-)
> M.a.w ons is waaroor ons praat? :-)
>
Gaats as dit waar is is daai Speedy regtig 'n skaker!!:-) Of up to no good
van een of ander aard:-)
Lorinda
|
|
|
|
| Re: Usenet (laaaank) [boodskap #1350 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #1349] |
Wed, 16 July 2003 19:27  |
Raj
Boodskappe: 590
Geregistreer: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Katryn" skryf in boodskap news:rntahvk61i8jdt3ls6bkp6sin476tth4du@4ax.com...
> Dit is waar wat jy sê, maar een van die redes kan ook wees dat in die
> werklike lewe is ons sosiale omgewing hoofsaaklik gevorm deur jou
> werk, inkomste en/of akademiese agtergrond? Die meeste kennisse en
> vriende gaan sekerlik die mense wees wat jy ontmoet omdat julle in min
> of meer dieselfde sosiale kringe beweeg? Of is ek verkeerd?
> Terwyl hier op Usenet ontmoet mens mense van alle vlakke in die lewe,
> en dit is wat my nogal aangetrokke laat voel tot hierdie medium.
Dis waar. Maar dit is baie makliker op Usenet want daar is nie dieselfde
soort commitment as in die werklike lewe nie. Met vriende in die werklike
lewe wat gemaak is buite jou "gewone sosiale kring" speel allerhande dinge
steeds nog 'n baie groot rol (bv. oortuigings ens.) wat geignoreer kan word
op Usenet. Dit is baie waar dat mens mense hier ontmoet wat jy nie gewoonweg
sou nie, en dit is 'n groot plus.
Die artikel wat jy geplaas het is interessant. In Griekeland is een van die
eerste vrae (aan ander Grieke, nie buitelanders nie):" Van watter dorp is
jy?". Dit word selfs gevra aan stadsmense, omdat hulle daar die sisteem het
dat jy moet stem waar jy geregistreer is (om te stem is verpligtend), en jy
is geregistreer in die geboortedorp van jou voorouers. So bv in 'n stad soos
Thessaloniki met ongeveer 1 miljoen mense, kan omtrent net 'n kwart daar
stem, die ander moet teruggaan na die dorpe waar hulle geregistreer is. Die
naam van die dorp vertel vir die vraer baie dinge, een van die balangrikste
is aan watter kant jou ouers of voorouers was in die burgerloorlog waar hele
dorpe gewoonlik of rooi of blou was, en tot vandag toe nog tot 'n groot mate
politieke oortuigings bepaal.
Lorinda
> "PLEASED TO MEET YOU (deur steven morgan friedman)
>
>
> Merely talking about something confers importance on it. What I value
> isn't revealed by a declaration of values that I may make or recite
> but rather by what I do--how I spend my time and other resources. I
> may declare my hatred of materialism; but if I spend all of my time
> talking about that new Rolls-Royce, then maybe I'm deceiving myself.
> We are, in other words, what we talk about.
>
> What we talk about of course differs not only by individual, but by
> region, profession, ideology, and countless factors. Take the subset
> of what people talk about upon meeting each other for the first time.
> College students, for example, ask each other what they are majoring
> in--they all do--upon meeting. But there are some commonalities among
> other groups as well.
> What do such conversation beginnings say about each society?
>
> Mark Twain suggested one answer, observing in his autobiography, "In
> Boston they ask, 'How much does he know?' In New York, 'How much is he
> worth?' In Philadelphia, 'Who were his parents?'" Perhaps examining
> the question that Twain posed humorously might prove a bit
> illuminating as to the issues that every society places importance on.
>
> Some questions in the US have become part of the tacit national
> culture. Nearly all Americans I've met, across sociological groups of
> all sorts, begin conversations with strangers by asking the same set
> of questions, which are something like:
>
> What do you do? (meaning, "what is your occupation?")
> Where do you live?
> Where are you from? (especially in cities--ambiguously
> meaning,
> "where did you grow up?" and also, "what is your ethnic background?")
> Where did you go to school? (for the younger set)
>
> For me, the most interesting question in this group is the first one
> listed, "What do you do?" This question is so pervasive--everyone asks
> it to everyone else upon meeting--that when someone doesn't ask or
> answer that question, it is considered odd. I know this from personal
> experience: one girl I met years ago, upon meeting me again a few
> years after our first meeting, came up to me and said, "Steven Morgan
> Friedman, I remember you!
> When I met you, I asked you, 'what do you do?' and you responded, 'I
> read lots of books!' " In other words, the slight
> subverting--linguistically and culturally--of this social convention
> is so uncommon that it sticks out in people's memories.
>
> If we are what we talk about, it follows that we talk about first is
> what is most important to us. And since the first thing we ask people
> when we meet them is "what do you do?" we therefore define ourselves
> by our jobs.
> Asking "what do you do?" has several subtexts which reveal to a large
> degree our value system. The undercurrent to "what do you do?" is: How
> much money do you make? How much money will you make? How ambitious
> are you? How does your choice of careers conform to society's
> expectations? What social class do you come from? This is what we want
> to know when we first meet someone--and what does this say about
> society?
>
> Imagine what we don't ask when we meet people. What if it were the
> societal standard that our first question upon meeting someone for the
> first time was, "What have you read lately?". Imagine we expected
> people to ask and answer this question in social situation after
> social situation. This would certainly reveal a very different value
> system. It would suggest that society expects people to read a lot, to
> discuss what they read--in other words, to value reading.
>
> But is this emphasis on beginning conversations with strangers with
> "what do you do?" an American phenomenon or a more universal pattern?
> I set out to answer this question using a very unscientific
> methodology: asking friends from various countries how people in their
> respective countries begin conversations. Here are some of their
> responses.
>
> First, Japan. A friend who lived in Japan and speaks Japanese fluently
> reported that in Japan people don't ask, "What do you do?" but rather,
> "Whom do you work for?". This suggests that--true to
> stereotype--Japanese culture values the social network (what
> institution are you a member of) more than the job itself. They ask
> about the group, not the individual.
>
> It also turns out that a very common question upon meeting people in
> Japan is "how old are you?" This is a question rarely
> heard--especially towards women!--in the USA. This suggests a culture
> of greater deference, greater respect for the old, for in order to
> defer to your elder, you need to know if they are your elder, and by
> how much.
>
> Second, Spain. My Spanish (Asturian) roommates insist that
> conversations between strangers begin very differently in Spain than
> in the US: you almost never hear the "What do you do?" question. They
> say that most social conversations begin situationally, talking about
> the point at which both have in common and how they met. At a party,
> people just talk about the party, or at a beach they just talk about
> the beach. Spanish conversation, in other words, has turned small talk
> into an art.
>
> Could this be representative of the Spanish value system? In a very
> stereotypical sense, it is: the Spanish value system seems to
> emphasize the building and maintaining of close networks of
> relationships and friendships. (This could also account for the
> relative poverty: a strong emphasis on relationships inevitably leads
> to nepotism, which inevitably leads to economic inefficiency.) And the
> construction and growth of close relationships is dependent at its
> heart not upon compatible jobs but upon shared experiences.
>
> Third, Argentina. Having not paid attention to conversational openings
> in Argentina, I had to ask friends there about such gamuts. Although
> they too ask "what do you do?", the most notable difference is that at
> the beginning of conversations between men, it is very common for
> someone -especially guys--to ask someone else which soccer team he
> supports. "River or Boca?" the question goes.
>
> Supporting a soccer team is comparable to working in a job in that it
> has the effect, to some degree, of narrowing down someone's class to
> ensure both are of the same background. River Plate is the team of the
> Argentine upper-middle class (much as the Yankees are in New York,
> residents of the Bronx excepted), and Boca Juniors is the middle and
> working class team (as the Mets are in New York outside the Bronx).
> Therefore, asking someone if they are a fan of River is not that far
> from asking them if they are a doctor, lawyer, or factory-owner.
> ("Factory owner" because the upper middle class there has not been
> fully professionalized as it has been the New York.)
>
> Fourth, Bangladesh. In locales even poorer than Argentina, and with
> even greater inequality than Argentina, the conversational beginnings
> seem quite familial. Take Bangladesh. New conversations between
> Bengalis who just meet each other, according to my sources, seem to
> emphasize questions of the following sort: Do you know so and so? How
> do you know so and so? Where is your family from? Where did you go to
> college? What does your father do for a living? How many brothers and
> sisters do you have?
>
> These conversation openers reveal profound differences between the
> Bengali and North American cultures. Beginning conversations by asking
> about families reveal the greater role that families play there within
> each person's daily life. Beginning conversations by first asking whom
> they know reveals how small and tightly knit the communities are
> there, how small the social circles are. Asking not what your job is
> but what your father's is or the family business is a sign of
> inherited status and wealth--and a de facto aristocracy.
>
> Conversations between strangers thus seem to be strongly
> representative of some key cultural differences. All conversations
> between people who have just met are weeding processes, to help us
> determine whom we would like to spend more or less time with. But what
> differs is the criteria which we use to weed. In an aristocracy of
> money, we use the dollar sign. In an aristocracy of inheritance,
> familial connections and relations are used. In an aristocracy of
> industry, we use industrial group membership. But in a
> democracy, we don't use anything, or anything serious, instead leaving
> the weeding to time and chance.
>
> Despite these questions and their answers, starter conversations
> really aren't about conveying information verbally. When you first
> meet anyone, many words are exchanged but few meanings are. We go
> through the motions. For me, at least, deciding whether I want to
> spend time with someone has little to do with what they say and
> everything to do with the chemistry, the impressions, the feelings; I
> don't "decide," rather, I just "do" (although I often fool myself into
> thinking that I am "deciding.")
> I--unconsciously--like or don't like someone after the first 15
> seconds of conversation--and any first conversation beyond that is
> just for show.
>
> Most job interviews, similarly, are decided in the opening seconds of
> the interview, before it even has a chance to begin. Most
> relationships and their fates are decided in the opening moments, too.
> So opening conversations may truly be little more than symbols, and
> symbols that are without much significance for the individual at
> least--but lots of significance for the culture at large. The
> overwhelming majority of information conveyed in conversations seems
> to be in body language and other such non-verbal cues that most of us
> pay little attention to.
>
> Conversational openers, in other words, reveal lots about the society
> in which they take place but little about the particular interaction
> during which it is taking place. Let's at least admit the role that
> instinct--animal instinct--plays in our decision-making process.
>
> (Addendum: If you have lived in a country or culture that I haven't
> discussed here, please e-mail me and tell me how people typically
> begin conversations with strangers in your corner of the world.)"
>
> - even morgan friedman
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Usenet (laaaank) [boodskap #1351 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #1349] |
Wed, 16 July 2003 20:36 |
Speedy Gonzales
Boodskappe: 197
Geregistreer: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:06:23 +0100, "Lorinda" wrote:
>
> "Katryn" wrote in message
> news:rntahvk61i8jdt3ls6bkp6sin476tth4du@4ax.com...
>
>> Gepraat daarvan - verlede week was daar hierdie gesprek op een van die
>> ander lyste waaraan ek behoort (maar nooit juis tyd het om deel te
>> neem nie). Dit gaan juis oor die feit dat ons mense "oordeel" aan wat
>> hulle sê - waaroor hulle gesels, en wat hulle tiekel, ens. :-)
>> M.a.w ons is waaroor ons praat? :-)
>>
>
> Gaats as dit waar is is daai Speedy regtig 'n skaker!!:-) Of up to no good
> van een of ander aard:-)
>
> Lorinda
>
>
LOL... Lorinda, selfs wanneer jy die waarheid praat, het jy steeds
'n lekker manier om dinge te sê:-) Ek lees jou brief, en die trant is
misleidend genoeg om my te oortuig dat ek after all nie so bad is nie;
Dat daar erger mense as ek is:-)
Speedy
|
|
|
|
| Re: Usenet (laaaank) [boodskap #1354 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #1349] |
Thu, 17 July 2003 07:37 |
Raj
Boodskappe: 590
Geregistreer: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Katryn" skryf in boodskap news:hmtbhvgvkjhknjatqp94d0j891j2ckuqsq@4ax.com...
>
> Dit klink baie soos die Belgiese sisteem. Stem ook verpligtend , en as
> jy nie stem nie, word jy beboet.
In Griekeland word jy nie met geld beboet nie, maar jy het nogtans goort
moeilikheid. Om 'n paspoort, 'n telefoon aansluiting, ens ens te kry moet jy
die stamps in jou "stemboek" wys. As jy nie kan nie, doen hulle niks vir jou
nie; geen paspoort ens. Die verduideliking is dat om nie te stem nie jy
jouself buite die staat geplaas het, en die staat nou geen verpligtinge
teenoor jou het nie. So sal dit dan aangaan totdat jy in die volgende
verkiesing (plaaslik of nasionaal) stem.
> Nou wonder ek of daar nog ander lande behalwe Griekeland en België is
> wat so 'n sisteem het?
Ek dink dis ook verpligtend in Australie.
>
> Interessant dat jy na rooi of blou dorpe verwys. Dom vraag - maar wat
> bedoel jy presies hiermee?
Anti-royalist was rooi (insluitend die kommuniste natuurlik) en royalist was
blou. Bitter min mense daar is deesdae pro-royalist (hulle het van hulle
koning ontslae geraak in die sewentiger jare, hy bly nou hier as 'n gas van
die Britse koningshuis aan wie hy verwant is) maar die blou word nou
geintepreteer as konserwatief. Omdat die bloues deesdae nie meer pro-koning
is nie, is hulle geneig om die geskiedenis ietwat te vereenvoudig, en die
burgeroorlog te sien as iets wat pro- of anti-kommunisties was.
> Hier in Amerika praat ons mos ook van rooi en blou state. Die
> Demokrate het die blou state en Bush/Republikeine het die rooi state.
> Dit behoort eintlik anders om te gewees het, nê? :-)
!! Ek het nog nooit van 'n land gehoor waar rooi met konserwatiewes
gesasossieer word nie! Daar is nou vir jou 'n ding...
> Nou hoe werk die rooi en blou daar by julle? Ek onthou iets van die
> rooi wat geasossieer word met die werkersklas? 'n Liedjie of iets
> "The people's flag is deepest red ...en dan something or other van
> " our martyr'd dead,". Iets in daai lyn? :-)
> En waarom word rooi spesifiek geassosieer met Kommuniste ens.?
>
In Brittanje is rooi Labour en blou Conservative. Die lied is die Labour
Party anthem:
The Red Flag
The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their life-blood dyed its every fold
Chorus:
Then raise the scarlet standard high!
Beneath its folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here
ens. ens.
Rooi word met kommuniste geassosieer omdat hulle vanaf hulle vroee bestaan
al af die kleur aangeneem het; die rooi was volgens hulle die kleur van die
revolusie, en simboliseer die bloed wat gestort is in die klasse stryd.
Lorinda
|
|
|
|
| Re: Usenet (laaaank) [boodskap #1355 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #1351] |
Thu, 17 July 2003 07:41 |
Raj
Boodskappe: 590
Geregistreer: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Speedy Gonzales" skryf in boodskap news:dkdbhvkporr2dnel16ab3utk9oshsuqnjh@4ax.com...
>
> LOL... Lorinda, selfs wanneer jy die waarheid praat, het jy steeds
> 'n lekker manier om dinge te sê:-) Ek lees jou brief, en die trant is
> misleidend genoeg om my te oortuig dat ek after all nie so bad is nie;
> Dat daar erger mense as ek is:-)
>
> Speedy
>
Jy is heeltemaal reg, daar is baie erger mense as jy:-))
Lorinda
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Thu Dec 26 04:04:27 UTC 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
