|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I read everything you typed. You have obviously not read much of what I have posted. I have made a genuine attempt to understand what you were saying. You have misrepresented me at every turn and have made absolutely no effort at understanding anything at all that I say. All you and your friend are concerned with is refutation of anything vaguely critical of America.
You have been extremely condescedning and insulting on several occasions and have refused to answer any questions about your views. I have tired to rephrase your statements to make sense of them yet I am accused of using straw men. You accuse me of using straw men and yet like an excellent hypocrite your style of argumentation is based around unfair quotation which is a straw man fallacy. Quoting single sentences out of the context of an overall argument is a prime example of the straw man fallacy. So you obviously didn't know what you were talking about.
Your interest in refuting isolated statements by use of this fallacy was done to stifle discourse and not partcipate in a discussion which you quickly quashed. Why else would you make a statement with no explanation and then refuse to clarify this statement? This was not my problem as I am well used to argumentation and am very fond of Plato's dialogues and all reasonable forms of argumentation. In a debate it is the responsibilty of both parties to try to continue the debate by fair means. You were uncooperative and made no attempt to explain yourself. This is perhaps representative of some personal issue you have or the emotion you have invested in this issue.
If anyone else wishes to take up this argument, feel free to do so but I do not wish to discuss anything with those who are dishonest and censorious. Others have tried to contribute and have been ignored or browbeaten into silence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| corroonb wrote: |
| So the simple conclusion is that Hollywood stereotypes every nationality except Americans (white Americans that is). Why they do this is an extremely interesting topic. I will not draw any conclusions from this because I'll be labelled as "anti-American" and ignored but I invite Americans and anyone else to discuss the nature and motivation behind this pervasive stereotyping. |
Many valid points.
But one I've always noticed.. who is the MOST stereotyped of all.. is Americans themselves.. particularly from the south.
I don't think any group of people is more heavily shamed/ridiculed/stereotyped in a more unflattering way than those who live in the Deep South, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| I don't think any group of people is more heavily shamed/ridiculed/stereotyped in a more unflattering way than those who live in the Deep South. |
Indeed. Deliverance comes to mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| corroonb wrote: |
I read everything you typed. You have obviously not read much of what I have posted. I have made a genuine attempt to understand what you were saying. You have misrepresented me at every turn and have made absolutely no effort at understanding anything at all that I say. All you and your friend are concerned with is refutation of anything vaguely critical of America.
You have been extremely condescedning and insulting on several occasions and have refused to answer any questions about your views. I have tired to rephrase your statements to make sense of them yet I am accused of using straw men. You accuse me of using straw men and yet like an excellent hypocrite your style of argumentation is based around unfair quotation which is a straw man fallacy. Quoting single sentences out of the context of an overall argument is a prime example of the straw man fallacy. So you obviously didn't know what you were talking about.
Your interest in refuting isolated statements by use of this fallacy was done to stifle discourse and not partcipate in a discussion which you quickly quashed. Why else would you make a statement with no explanation and then refuse to clarify this statement? This was not my problem as I am well used to argumentation and am very fond of Plato's dialogues and all reasonable forms of argumentation. In a debate it is the responsibilty of both parties to try to continue the debate by fair means. You were uncooperative and made no attempt to explain yourself. This is perhaps representative of some personal issue you have or the emotion you have invested in this issue.
If anyone else wishes to take up this argument, feel free to do so but I do not wish to discuss anything with those who are dishonest and censorious. Others have tried to contribute and have been ignored or browbeaten into silence. |
I've quoted you out of context? I've misrepresented your opinion? Well, I'm sure you've got ample proof of that. Please, feel free to produce it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Tiger Beer wrote:
I don't think any group of people is more heavily shamed/ridiculed/stereotyped in a more unflattering way than those who live in the Deep South.
Indeed. Deliverance comes to mind... |
Yeah, but then so do The Dukes Of Hazzard and Sherriff Lobo. But as far as I know, southerners were the prime market for those sorts of shows. Granted, the hillbillies in Deliverance were fairly irredeemable, but I don't think they were the only southerners being portrayed. Weren't Burt Reynolds and Company supposed to be southerners as well? It could be argued that the movie stereotypes pre-industrial culture moreso than southerners per se. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Someone mentioned the stereotypes regarding people from the South. However, how negative are those portrayals? Don't some parts of the South make fun of those types as well? I mean you have people in the South who make fun of themselves and say they are "White trailer park trash". When it comes to politics, some in the North blame the South and the West minus the West Coast for reactionary politics and having most of the typical Bush voters and thus putting in America in its present predicament. Those are stereotypes that are not endearing, but the southerners have this idea of the Yankee liberal. Many of the stereotypes of some southerners are kind of endearing and funny. It is often light-hearted. It doesn't leave southerners upset and having members of their community complaining like the ethnic minorities we've mentioned. I loved that movie "Brother Where Art Thou?" That was a hit in the South. So, I am not sure it is received negatively anymore than the King of the Hill.
I will never forget the part in Brother Where Art Thou where this one character says "we thought you were a toad". One guy thought his friend was turned into a frog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| corroonb wrote: |
| I'm sorry I'm confused Thunndarr, clearly my intellect isn't a match for your impressive vocabulary or your excessive fondness for making general statements with no arguments or evidence. |
I couldn't agree more.
| corroonb wrote: |
| When you say that a lot of terrorists are Arabs, you mean that out of all the terrorists alive Arabs (of many different countries) consitute a large proportion of the overall number of terrorists. |
School is in session. Pay attention.
What is the difference between the terms "a lot" "plurality" and "majority?"
Well, let me give you an example. I'd like to have 1% of Bill Gate's money. That is a helluva lot of money. Now, if I were you, apparently 1% means "a large proportion" because that's what a lot means (in your world). Of course, in what I like to call "the real world" that 1% is not actually "a large proportion" as you claim.
| corroonb wrote: |
| You implied that a majority of terrorists are Arabs and are backtracking because that is an indefensible and obviously enophobic concept. |
I cannot help that you didn't understand the meaning of my sentence, but I most certainly did NOT imply that. Either you're an idiot, or you're attempting to set up a strawman.
| corroonb wrote: |
| Therefore when you say a helluva lot of Arabs are terrorists you imply that you agree with Hollywood and that such an extreme view is reasonable. |
I specifically did NOT say that. This, right here, shows me logic and reason are not your strong suit. Incidentally, these two sentences mean completely different things, though you apparently don't understand exactly what that difference is. A pity.
"A lot of Arabs are terrorists" which is a sentence you claim I said.
"A lot of terrorists are Arabs" which I did say. If you cannot discern the difference in these statements, well, that's embarrassing. For you.
| corroonb wrote: |
| However as you are Thunndarr evidence does not matter. You can make a statment like "a helluva lot of terrorists are Arabs" and not even try to provide a justification or evidence for such a view. |
Well, yes. I can also make statements like "Water is wet" and "the sun rises in the east" without trying to provide evidence either. You see, these statements need no proof,
being readily obvious to anyone. The phrase "a helluva lot" needs no proof, unless you literally think there are less than 5 of whatever is being discussed. (Or unless you are so obtuse to mistake "a helluva lot" for "a majority" or "a plurality" or even "a sizeable majority.")
| corroonb wrote: |
So Americans (*) are not bound by the dictates of reason and debate. While people like myself, no doubt a peace-loving, rational enemy of all things American, are asked to provide proof when we make a statement critical of America in a loose, cultural way.
Perhaps this double-standard is the answer to my question? Perhaps in avoiding answering the question you have provided the very answer I was looking for. Thank you for unwittingly enlightening me with your hitherto obscure logic and unilateral thoughts.
All generalizations are dangerous, even this one."
-Alexandre Dumas
* ie Thunndarr, I have no wish to tar other people with this same brush but clearly Thunndarr thinks of himself as certain sort of American who does not have to answer to anyone even in a discussion, so I have addressed him as such a hypothetical construct. |
Wrong. I just don't feel the need to post links to things which are obvious and inarguable.
| corroonb wrote: |
| Most= any amount. |
Really? That's quite interesting. Are you going to invent any more definitions for us today? In case you were wondering, however, I was using the much more common definition of most meaning "more than half."
| corroonb wrote: |
| No amount specifed therefore most= any number lager than zero. 4 is a statistical sample of current major network shows which have bad guys, I could give dozens more. |
I specifically said that most (as in, more than half) TV shows don't have bad guys. A)You either didn't understand this very simple sentence, or b) you are very stupid. Take your pick. |
Ahhh, to argue with Thundarr. Poor twatt. You should know better. You are mere practice for him.
Thundarr has an ability to destroy a persons position while at the same time leaving you the tiny thought that he has made a mistake, which of course, is entirely his plan as he is then able to slap the hell out of you again and again and again.
I learned long ago not to even attempt to challenge him. Many lessons learned at MillerTime in Junggye.
Nice to see you in the CE forum Thunndarr. Let me introduce you to my friend dd.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Someone mentioned the stereotypes regarding people from the South. However, how negative are those portrayals? Don't some parts of the South make fun of those types as well? |
The stereotypes are negative enough that people with a southern accent have to undergo voice lessons to remove their accents if they want to make it to the national scene in broadcasting. I believe, though I could be mistaken, that Oprah Winfrey was from the south. She doesn't show a trace of her original accent now, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
I know this is TV, but what about this guy?
I thought the character Jamie Farr played in MASH was meant to be seen in a positive light...then again, I'm not a muslim or christian fundamentalist. |
Jamie Farr is Lebanese Christian, so you may say he is an Arab, but he is not a Muslim. Hollywood has put Christian Lebanese in a positive light, but not the Muslims. I can only think if Muslims portrayed positively in two movies: there was the Kingdom of Heaven where a Kurdish Muslim leader, Saladdin, and those around him were portrayed positively, and you had the Robin Hood movie some years ago where Robin Hood's friend was a noble Muslim who exhibited the old Muslim chivalry that influenced the knights of Europe. I think, though, with movies like "Munich", "Syriana", and "The Kingdom of Heaven" that the trend has changed somewhat in Hollywood. There is more of a divergence there. Despite 9/11 there is, perhaps, a less negative portrayal in the media than before it. |
Of course he's an Arab. Don't you think I would have checked first to make sure he wasn't a member of the other Lebanese ethnic groups before posting? Reread the title of the thread, by the way. So, they may have been a bit more sympathetic to Lebanese christians...doesn't change the fact he's an Arab. |
Jamie Farr is not mentioned as an Arab. People do not that he or Tony Shalhoub are Arabs. Of course, I do not know if Jamie Farr considers himself an Arab. I would use the term "Arab" in parenthesis because some Christians of Lebanon call themselves Phoenicain or Aramaic. It does subject them to ridicule from their Muslim citizens in the country.
We can see, though, that Lebanese Christians get positive roles, but their Muslim counterparts don't. To say, Arabs are not treated negatively we would have to have the Arabs of all religious backgrounds included in positive roles. We don't really have that. Of course, I see that there have been some positive movies like "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Syriana".
You were not incorrect to say Jamie Farr is Arab, even if we don't know what he labels himself because they are labeled as Arabs though many of the Christians switched over to speaking Arabic in the 1700s. Also, the author that the original poster mentioned is Jackie Shaheen, and he has the same last name as a governor in a New England state. Most American Christians feel more comfortable with Christians or Jews, and there is work to be done in terms of reaching out to Arabs born Muslim. They are citizens, they are people, and many are worthy of respect and acclaim. And I would venture to say they are more moderate in the U.S. when compared with their counterparts in Europe who would be more likely to be less educated. |
Well, geeze. The internet is wasted on some people. Here...
http://arabcomedy.org/news/article_9.shtml
I doubt Jamie Farr worries about ridicule from the Muslims in Lebanon for obvious reasons...he's an American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Well, geeze. The internet is wasted on some people. Here...
http://arabcomedy.org/news/article_9.shtml
I doubt Jamie Farr worries about ridicule from the Muslims in Lebanon for obvious reasons...he's an American. |
You are getting overdefensive over the point and missing the point of
the person who posted this thread in the person. Obviously, Christians from the areas of Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land are not going to be treated as your typical "Arab" nor will they be viewed as your typical Arab by your average American. There needs to be inclusion, would you not agree, of Arab Muslims in the movies in positive roles. We can account for how some Christians from the Lebanon and Syria get roles and the Muslims do not get any positive roles. So, you demonstrated Christians do. Have you demonstrated that the Muslim Arabs do as well? You went literally by the title of the original poster who was going by a book written by Jackie Shaheen.
The OP obviously wants inclusion. I am sure you must as well, so why not go with this idea that it is obvious that Muslim Arabs are shut out from positive roles. Does your average American actually know those are Lebanese Americans? You might say it doesn't matter since they are Americans and don't seem to stand out from the majority of the population. Jamie Farr seems to get something with associating with the larger Arab community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This clip touches on the use of stereotypes in US movies ('specially from the middle onward). Quite a giggle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjC3R6jOtUo
| Izzard wrote: |
| We play bad guys in Hollywood movies because of the Revolutionary War... |
| Izzard wrote: |
| and the French who were on your side of the Revolutionary war - they play more esoteric characters....they play characters who turn up and go "My name is Pierre...I have come from Paris...I have come to have sex with your family..." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riley wrote: |
Why are the Brits portrayed as the villians? Why because they're from perfidious Albion, of course. (always wanted to say that) No, seriously, it's probably due to our culture differences, the British and the Americans during WW2 were frequently annoyed by the differences in how each thought. The British found the Americans to be simplistic and overeager, and the Americans found the British to be too rational and too clever. The last two adjectives also tend to be viewed as something that a villian would have.
Speaking of Arab stereotypes, it's sad, but when I first saw the president of Iran, I thought he looked just like the bad guy in some Stallone/Shwartzenegger picture. |
Irony:
| Quote: |
How Not to be Clever
"You foreigners are so clever," said a lady to me some years ago. First, thinking of the great amount of foreign idiots and half-wits I had had the honour of meeting, I considered this remark exaggerated but complimentary.
Since then I have learnt that it was far from it. These few words expressed the lady's contempt and slight disgust for foreigners.
If you look up the word clever in any English dictionary, you will find that the dictionaries are out of date and mislead you on this point. According to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, for instance, the word means quick and neat in movement ... skillful, talented, ingenious. Nuttall's Dictionary gives these meanings: dexterous, skillful, ingenious, quick or ready-witted, intelligent. All nice adjectives, expressing valuable and estimable characteristics. A modern Englishman, however, uses the word clever in the sense: shrewd, sly, furtive, surreptitious, treacherous, sneaking, crafty, un-English, un-Scottish, un-Welsh.
In England it is bad manners to be clever, to assert something confidently. |
No doubt 'cleverness' always becomes something contemptible when it is attributed to foreigners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Interested
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It's easy enough to read in the American press about Hama's commitment to destroying Israel, or about the endless threats Israelis suffer under the onslaught of Palestinian suicide attacks and Hezbollah's aggression. American progressives, and anyone else who honestly looks at American media and political commentary, have long known that racist caracitures of Arabs and Muslims are the order of the day in the United States. Whether it's racist stereotypes promulgated in films such as Disney's Aladdin or Arnold Schwarzenegger's True Lies, or vitriolic commentary and op-eds within elite newspapers and television, American media-political culture has long prided itself in demonizing Arabs and Muslims. Typically there is little effort to even make a distinguishment between the two. Popular images portray Arabs and Muslims as hell-bent on violence, religious fanatacism, and the destruction of the U.S. and its allies (Israel most specifically).
There is, of course, a lengthy record of academic studies committed to exposing such contempt and xenophobia in American culture. In his important work, Covering Islam: How the Media and Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, Edward Said chronicles the "highly exaggerated stereotyping and belligerent hostility" directed against Muslims within the American mainstream. In contrast, Said speaks of "Israel's avowedly religious characteristics [as] rarely mentioned in the Western press: Only recently have there been overt references to Israeli religious fanaticism." Following Said, other scholars have focused upon media misrepresentations of Arab and Muslim peoples. In Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, Karim Karim emphasizes how "Muslim terrorism" is often a focus of media commentary and analysis, while Israel is seen "as an island of Western values in a sea of Arab Muslim barbarism." |
http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio07202007.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
