SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (44566)5/15/2004 11:29:12 AM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793914
 
INteresting article on apologizing and how it may be interpreted differently by other cultures.

'Sorry' can get lost in translation
Call it the law of diminishing regrets
2:33 AM CDT on Saturday, May 15, 2004

By JEFFREY WEISS / The Dallas Morning News

dallasnews.com

"Sorry" no longer seems to be the hardest word.

Days after President Bush apologized for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, many Americans were demanding that the Muslim world apologize for the terrorists who beheaded an American civilian.

That the president personally abused no Iraqi and that few Muslims consider the murderer of Nick Berg to be a religious leader seemed not to affect expectations – even demands – for public apologies.

We live in unusually sorry-soaked times, say experts who study apologies. Public expressions of regret may be at an all-time high, recent research shows.

But the current contrition may illustrate how even sincere apologies can be misunderstood. If an apology is the key to unlock forgiveness, not all keys fit all locks, experts say. An apology that meets American standards may not mean the same thing in Iraq – or Japan or China. And vice versa.

That's an important message for politicians, diplomats and anybody else who wants to get along in the modern global village, said L. Gregory Jones, dean of the Duke Divinity School. Don't assume that what we do is universal.
Full article at:

dallasnews.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (44566)5/15/2004 2:39:47 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793914
 
The key might be the number of editorials (and counting the number of words in them) versus 267 words in this one.

The third editorial from the bottom in Friday's paper, it's a relatively brief 267 words. Compare that to the half-dozen or so editorials filed on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.