Re: Reassurance

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:55:55 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Eva Ekeblad <eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:05 AM
Subject: Reassurance

Dear USAmericans

Yes, I can very well understand that war leaves its veterans as
well as its
victims with a trauma. And I can see that it can be a political
eye-opener
to some. In fact, I could see this even before being provided
with this
information over the xmca the past few days.

I can also very well make a pacifist, mourning-the-dead reading
of Memorial
Day. I suppose that living in the US and still being me this is
what I
would prefer to do.

I can also see that it was not out of intentions to insult
anyone
personally that John invoked Memorial day. However, the fact
remains that
he did so twice (98-05-22: Re: Unidentified subject!; 98-05-24:
Re:
Vygotsky and disability), and both times in messages starting
with a quote
from a message by Naoki Ueno and responding to this message
(albeit in
public and addressing the general xmca audience).

The issue of apology reminds me of conflicts that happen with my
children. We, including myself attribute an opology or saying
I'm sorry with intention. Throughout the whole process I never
saw John's intentions as inflamatory. I , like many others did
not see the offense until it was pointed out by Naoki Ueno. If
my kids or any kids for that matter are playing and someone gets
hurt there is the assumption an apology is only warrented if
there was a malice intention. The point I attempt to get accross
to my kids is intention is secondary, the fact remains feeling
were hurt or offense was taken. I believe that one can be sorry
for offense taken without assuming blame. This is not a
critique on John, but rather how apology is so often correlated
with intention at least in the American context.

Eugene gave us an analysis of how this might look from
Elsewhere: as a
peculiar didactic command indeed. I could also not help but
seeing (then)
what this command might mean from places that have been on an
opposite side
to the US in wars past, but thought initially that this would be
very
obvious to all, especially when, as the case was, someone there
DID take
offense.

However, in his response on 98-05-26 (Re: Thank you) John
explicitly states
that he does not understand what affront he has committed, and
that he
does not intend to make excuses.

A couple of days later Katherine and Judy notice John's
"absence" (among
all the other silences). This is when I cannot help but give a
hint as to
how being a US war veteran might well serve as a satisfactory
explanation
for the signoff greetings in a US context, BUT might on the
other hand
serve as an aggravating condition, from the perspective across
the Pacific,
AND when offered as explanatory background in the context where
somebody
HAS taken offense.

I certainly do not want to presume anything here about Naoki
Ueno's
motivations: this is merely MY attempt to understand another
perspective in
its context.

I also do not see how my pointing out of this potential
difference in
perspectives means that I condemning John as forever endorsing
the actions
he participated in 30 years ago -- does ANY questioning of a
US-centered
perspective automatically instantiate that kind of imputation??
(I have
heard no US voices expressing any puzzlement after John's
posting.)

There are, of course, many possible reasons for the absence of
any apology
to Naoki Ueno. What I needed to be reassured about was NOT
John's
non-endorsement of the war but the possibility for voices not
just to speak
from out-of-US perspectives on the xmca but also being heard.

Eva

****************************************************************
****
At 10.09 -0500 98-05-22, (The Left Rev.) John Konopak wrote:
>Enjoy Memorial Day--but DO remember, please!

At 10.33 -0500 98-05-24, (The Left Rev.) John Konopak wrote:
>Have a reflective Memorial Day (it's still May 31, btw).

At 16.07 -0500 98-05-29, John Konopak wrote:
>I offer this, of course,
>to dispute the imputation that I was enjoining anyone to
>"enjoy" anything.