Re: [unrev-II] us or US?

From: Jack Park (
Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 06:59:35 PDT

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "[unrev-II] Eugene's "purple numbers" talk / XML editors"

    Good post, Bernard.

    A couple of things have bothered me lately. One is all the US flag
    waving. Terrorism isn't about the USA. It's about everybody on
    earth. The other is the juxtaposition of car adds following images of
    airplanes being used as guided missiles. Notice that car ads no longer
    extol features like automatic transmission, great mileage, leather seats,
    etc. Rather, they seem to be concerned with just how many women you can
    turn on by driving past them in your shiny new <fill in the car's brand name>.

    I'd say, we're doomed!

    At 11:40 AM 10/26/2001 +0200, you wrote:
    >Hello all
    >I have seen a bunch of messages on this list lately that I consider,
    >from a non-US viewpoint, as really more US-centered rather than
    >us-centered. And may I should remind you that when I say "us"
    >here, the default meaning is "our living planet and humanity as an
    >indivisible whole".
    >I thought that conception of "us" was what unrevII was about.
    >Now I wonder ... If I am on this forum, it's out of such global
    >concern. As recent events should have shown clearly to whoever
    >was not already aware of it, complex issues on our planet have
    >both complex local/global causes and complex local/global
    >Instead of more global thinking, there has been since September
    >11 a tremendous focus on America, vulnerability of America etc ...
    >various appeals to gather knowledge task force and engineers to
    >defend it etc ...
    >I would like to remind some points that are obvious to me, not an
    >US citizen, and not even an American.
    >1. As viewed from Europa, America is a continent, divided in two
    >parts, North and South. An American is someone living on this
    >continent, not an US citizen.
    >2. US citizens represent less than 5% of mankind.
    >3. A far greater proportion of mankind - let's say more than 50%,
    >not to presume of any higher and more accurate number - has
    >been living for centuries, and keeps on living no more no less since
    >September 11, and will keep on living for ever if we don't radically
    >change the way the world goes, under security conditions
    >(meaning by that: health, natural disasters, warfare, poverty ...)
    >compared to which US mean standards of life can be considered
    >extraordinarily *safe* and *comfortable*, even on "after September
    >11" standards.
    >My humble opinion is that relevant knowledge tools for "our"
    >problems should take into account first those "more than 50%"
    >than those "less than 5%", and that responsible and sustainable
    >efforts should focus the knowledge workers task force towards
    >those priorities.
    >If this opinion sounds shocking to this (mostly US ) community,
    >I'm afraid maybe I should tiptoe out with my 0.02 Euros.

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 26 2001 - 06:52:18 PDT