Wei,
We can use your reply to my anecdote to show that, more often than not, your
method of reading and criticism is simply to INFER...INFER....INFER.
Sometimes you are a runaway train. I would call this mode of criticism the
INFERnal method.
Tim Romano

I had written:

> The prevailing sentiment among these delegates was
> that they did not want All Things American forced upon them but wanted to
> take from this culture, society, and government only what was good, or
what
> they perceived as good for them, and to say no-thank-you to the rest.  >>
>

You ask:
> What is wrong with this eclectic attitude toward things American, in
> culture, society, and government?  Do you think every foreigner, simply
> because he is present  in the US, should accept all things American, no
> matter how they conflict with that person's personal temprament, belief
> system, customs, and political opinions.
>
> Is it not sensible to want to take from any culture, only that which you
> believe is "good"?  You seem to think this is unreasonable.

NO, I DO NOT THINK THAT "EVERY FOREIGNER...SHOULD ACCEPT ALL THINGS
AMERICAN".  N either should every American accept all things american, for
that matter. What words in my original suggested to you that I do believe
this?  I was in perfect accord with the sentiment that there was much about
the USA that could serve as a paradigm for progress, and much that it would
be a mistake to emulate. That's putting it mildly.


I had written:
> At the plenary session,  the main thrust of my little here's-how-it-went
> speech was the desire expressed by the delegates for cultural autonomy and
> self-determination.  During the course of my remarks, I happened to refer
to
> these "third world" countries as "some of the poorest countries of the
> world" or something like that.  When I was finished speaking, a delegate
> from some foreign country--I think it was Pakistan--but certainly not one
of
> the delegates at the sessions I had moderated--demanded that Dr. Romano
take
> back the word "poorest" and that it be stricken from the official record
of
> the proceedings!>>

Wei asks:
> This is not entirely clear to me.  You refered to all the countries there
as
> among the "poorest in the world"?  And was the person from Pakistan?  I
> think you should be sure about that.  I have known many Pakistanis, and
> taught many Pakistani students.  I would say it is perfectly reasonable,
> given what I know about Pakistan, to say that it is NOT among the "poorest
> countries in the world", though it is poor (economically speaking) in
> relation to the US, Western Europe, and Japan.


No, I did not refer to ALL THE COUNTRIES THERE. The delegates AT THE SESSION
I MODERATED, were, some of them, from very poor or "underdeveloped"
countries. They saw varyingly high rates of infant mortality, generally
inadequate medical care, hunger and disease, low literacy rates, etc.  At
the _plenary_ session, where it was my role to convey, to everyone who was
attending the convention, the gist and pith of the one session I had
moderated, someone from the floor objected strongly to my use of the word
"poorest". The objection was to the word itself.  One might object to the
word "poor" because it is not analytical: these countries could have untold
potential wealth in diamond mines, mineral deposits, oil, medicinal plants,
whatever, and to call them "poor" would be misleading.  And yet I would
still call their people "poor" if they did not share in the benefits of
"their" country's natural resources, for whatever reasons.

Most major metropolitan newspapers in the USA no longer refer to the vast
stretches of dismal bug-infested housing with broken plumbing, leaky roofs,
fire hazards, dimly lit hallways,  crumbling sidewalks, broken windows, etc,
as "the ghetto" or "the tenements". Today, these stretches of
sub-sub-standard housing are called "the inner city." Not that "the ghetto"
or "the tenements" were ever analytical terms.   When a euphemism takes on
meaningful associations, another vaguer euphemism has to be found.

> Perhaps the delegate was heavy handed in making the point. But what is
wrong
> with correcting the record?  Or asking that the record be corrected?  Were
> you willing to discuss what on your part MIGHT have been an error?  Were
you
> willing to consider amending your statement?

This was 20 years ago. I was surprised at first by the vehemence of the
objection, since I had in mind the state of the majority of people living in
these particular countries, not the potential wealth of the
landmass-with-borders. The complex of associations which then comprised my
concept of "material poverty" seemed to fit the situation of these people.
So I was both willing and unwilling to change my term. My intention had been
not to offend but to speak frankly about the condition of the people, and
the wary attitude of the delegates with regard to the ramifications of their
countries' acceptance of U.S. assistance.  The whole affair was a lot more
politically tense than I had anticipated. As I said, I was a lowly grad
student (a medievalist, actually, with an interest in modern poetry)  who
went to the convention expecting to help out with the fruit cocktail, and
found myself in this more visible role.  I told the gentleman that I would
withdraw the word. Perhaps there is a lacuna in my sentence in the
record....if my report ever made it into the record. I never checked to see.

Now, let me ask you something. Do you associate poverty with a lack of
respectability?

"So what you might consider to be an attempt to enforce "political
correctness," on the part of a Pakistani delegate, may in fact be an
insistence on accuracy, and a demand that such words as "poor" not be
applied to a respectable culture and civilization." [WEI]

Tim Romano