We are NEVER wrong............................!

[BlueStreak]

For sometime now there have been people upset because they see our President as being an "apologist". The same ilk were the ones who were whining when Clinton "apologized" for slavery.

Now, to be honest, I am not familiar with every incident in which the Prez alledgedly apologized for this that or the other thing. I'm just curious about the mentality of people who think our leaders should "never apologize for anything", and then get offended when foriegners accuse us of being arrogant. After all, isn't refusing to acknowledge responsibility for a given tragedy the very essence of arrogance?

I know it's hard. In my personal life, I've had to face people and admit I've done them wrong. It really sucks, but I was raised that; "It takes more of a man to admit he was wrong." And I have found that it's true. People will respect you more if you acknowledge your mistakes.

Here's what I think;

A). Pride. Admitting fault is admitting to being imperfect.
Telling the world that some idea or ideology that you, or your predessors
may have been wrong, puts a dent in your self-esteem and is therefore to
avoided at all costs.

B). "If God is with us, then who dare be against us?"
Admitting that slavery, the forced relocation of Native Americans,
"Jim Crow", sweatshops, child labor, lynchings, etc, etc, really happened
after shouting all day that your society "was built on Christian
Principles" makes you look like the ass that even you, deep down
inside , know you really are. So, you try to hide behind the
cross.Then you commence to white-washing the past in a
pathetic attempt to exonerate yourself and your ancestors.

(Clue-----Everyone knows, including Jesus, so just stop it already.)

C). "It weakens America"
How so? I'll just sit back and let you explain that one. 'Cuz this
assertion makes no sense at all to me.


Dave

[Grumpy]

Admitting your wrong and doing something about it is two different things.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Admitting your wrong and doing something about it is two different things.

True, if you admit to being wrong about something and then continue to do it anyways, you go from being an ass to being a colossal ass.......

Dave

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Admitting your wrong and doing something about it is two different things.

Throughout his childhood, a man who used to work for me was taught by his father "absolutely never apologise, even if you know you were wrong. Only weak people apologise". This was back in the good old 1950's and despite knowing what he'd been taught was wrong, he was never entirely able to put it behind him. I never saw him hit his children, but he could terrify them with his voice.

He was just plain wrong but having said that, maybe we've swung too far the other way. "never stop a child doing anything in case it effects their emotional development and God help you if you if you ever raise a hand to my child", then these same people complain about poor discipline in schools and wonder why countries that take education seriously produce smarter, more hard working adults.

As you Americans would say, "go figure".

[noonereal]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Combwork

"never stop a child doing anything in case it effects their emotional development

I have never heard of this. Where is this practiced/advocated?
Seems ridiculous on the surface but I would like to read the theory as to how this is positive.

God would not be able to help you if you raised a hand to one to my kids. I am not a blow hard and I am dead serious.

[Combwork]

First sorry about the mixed up italics; I can't find how to switch part of them off. Suffice to say blue writing is from thee to me; black writing from me to thee...........

Originally Posted by noonereal

You're missing my point. It was never the case where you could smack someone else's child, but again in the 1950's/early 60's it was not unknown for the local 'Bobby' (Policeman) to clip a truant round the ear (not hard, just enough to emphasis that they shouldn't be playing in bombed out buildings, nicking apples off market stalls etc.). The alternative would have been to take them to the Police station, charge them with trespass or theft, drag their parents in to pick them up (believe me; that could earn them a lot more than a clip round the ear), take them to Court, fine them (which their parents would have had to pay) and give them a criminal record.

Quote again.

God would not be able to help you if you raised a hand to one to my kids. I am not a blow hard and I am dead serious.

What do you think of corporal punishment in schools? Now it's outlawed in the U.K. but up to the 1960's a lot of schools used it. Scottish schools were harder than English schools. Luckily I wasn't educated here but a friend of mine was. On his first day at secondary school he and all the other new boys were lined up, told to hold their hands out and given one hard swipe with the Tawse (split ended cane). Then they were told that if they misbehaved they'd get more. It's traditional for blowhards my age to say something like "I got the cane several times when I was at school and it never did me any harm". My reply to that is as they have no base for comparison, how could they possibly know?

Quote again again.

God would not be able to help you if you raised a hand to one to my kids. I am not a blow hard and I am dead serious.[/QUOTE]

What would you do if the local school bully persistently hurt your daughter, and his parents were unwilling (or unable) to control him? If you saw him hurting her again would you haul him off her and when he used foul language and promised to 'get her when your back was turned', maybe lose your temper and hit him?

I was in a position like this. After we moved house my daughter went to a new school with a useless head teacher. He refused to accept the playground was run by a group of bullies; one boy in particular. My daughter was the new kid on the block, the target. After the school did nothing, I managed to get her back to her old school. She was a lot happier until she went to a local dance. The bully was there and gave her a hard time. Evening ruined; no social life (she was 13), back to square one.

I'd had enough so I 'phoned the boys parents, spoke to his mother (his father was out) and told her if her son ever went near my daughter again, I'd bounce him up one side of the school playground and down the other. Half an hour later her husband 'phoned me back and said if I ever touched his son he'd put me in hospital (your attitude?) so I said OK, I'll be round your house in half an hour. My wife tried to stop me but like I said, I'd had enough.

Amazingly, when I got there no blows were exchanged; instead we started to talk. Turns out his son though physically strong, was weak willed and did what his sister told him to do (she was a seriously nasty piece of work). The father was badly beaten by HIS father when he was a child so would not even raise his voice to his son. The mother ruled the roost and thought both her children were 'little angels'. Since I talked to both parents, the boy never touched my daughter again so tell me. What would you have done in my situation?

[finnbow]

Back to the OP. I think the folks that (over)react to what they see as apologies by Obama have largely fallen victim to the "American exceptionalism" argument. Namely, they see America as inherently better than other nations, with loftier ideals, purer motivations, etc. (they relish the shining city on the hill metaphor). This nationalistic poppycock limits their ability to recognize where and when we screw up in international affairs. This myopia also results in the inability to learn valuable lessons from poorly executed international entanglements.

These "apologies" by Obama are nothing more than his acknowledgment of some of these screw-ups to people outside our borders who have long since been keenly aware of them. He's basically showing himself to be realist with some knowledge of history and diplomacy rather than an ideological and antagonistic dolt.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Combwork

I would do exactly what you did. I though I had made that clear.

I sure as hell would.

No. If my kid was the aggressor I would handle it and make amends for his actions.

I think you make an excellent case for not beating kids.

As to cops or teachers hitting kids, ridiculous and a recipe for abuse.

There is a thread here dealing with schools that still practice this archaic ritual. It seems the same folks who resit all change what to keep smacking 40pound kids. Go figure, not mine.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Throughout his childhood, a man who used to work for me was taught by his father "absolutely never apologise, even if you know you were wrong. Only weak people apologise". This was back in the good old 1950's and despite knowing what he'd been taught was wrong, he was never entirely able to put it behind him. I never saw him hit his children, but he could terrify them with his voice.

He was just plain wrong but having said that, maybe we've swung too far the other way. "never stop a child doing anything in case it effects their emotional development and God help you if you if you ever raise a hand to my child", then these same people complain about poor discipline in schools and wonder why countries that take education seriously produce smarter, more hard working adults.

As you Americans would say, "go figure".

A person can apologize too much. But when you do or say something that is wrong, and we all have, an apology is in order.

As far as corporal punishment, a little can go a long way. And every child is different. The rod has it's place, but I would recommend using it sparingly.

Chas

[merrylander]

It is just part of the national psyche, for example the schools teach us how noble a thing was the Boston Tea Party - hogwash. The colonists were intent on stealing the Indians lands and the Indians fought back. So Mother England was asked for troops to fight the Indians. Now King George had enough problems at home so he was not about to ask the people in England to foot the bill for all those troops and the East India Company was having financial problems so to solve both he put a tax on tea. The fact that General Cornwallis was an incompetent blunderer aside, who else should have picked up the tab?

It was sort of like a time in a bar in California years before I came down here. Got into conversation with a nice lady - her husband was busy chasing young chicks. When he stopped by to get another drink she said "George I want you to meet this gentleman from Canada". He looked at me and said "Humpf, you Canadians are screwing us with your oil prices". I looked back at him and said "We figured it should not be like the iron ore business, where you got the ore and we got the shaft."

We need to realize that other folks do not really hate us, but the practices of some of our companies sure did not win many friends.