How has your town changed since you've been there?

Upvotes7

I’ve lived where I live for 13 years. Vsetin, a small town in the Beskid Mountains of East Czech Republic. Pastel painted Hapsburg buildings next to the bare lines of communist architecture; huge family houses on the outskirts.

When I moved there there was an old dilapidated building in the centre of town, crammed up against the Polyklinika (where specialist doctors work). It was filled with very poor people. It was in horrible condition — it looked like something you’d see in a really depressing movie about Eastern Europe or World War Two.

Most of the inhabitants were Roma. At one point there was a fire and a hole was burned in the roof, which was covered with a big blue tarp for several months in the winter. I have heard it said that the inhabitants of this place made fires in the living rooms, just as a matter of course. I do not know if that is true. Probably just racist nonsense. Nevertheless, it was definitely an eyesore and probably not safe for human habitation.

This building was later demolished. Most of the inhabitants were moved to another set of buildings which had been built on the outskirts of town.

This was somewhat controversial. AS anybody can see the new buildings are far more habitable than the other one. On the other hand there is the fact that it was built on the edge of town, which some groups have decried as racist and likened to immigrant populations living in “suburbs” in Paris.

However, this is not a very large town, and being set in a valley there really is no other land available. In fact, I live no further from the centre than these buildings, though in another area…

But, having said that it’s also next to the water treatement plant, which must be unpleasant on some days and there is no doubt that the mayor of Vsetin, Jiri Cunek, was definitely playing for the populist racist vote — the action coincided right with his senatorial campaign and was heavily publicized.

Basically I agree with the action but the timing was despicable, as was the decision to move a few particularly ‘undesirable’ families to another town completely. They agreed to be moved, technically, but there is something unsavory and “Stalinist” about moving people like that.

The library has moved from this building:

to this one…(The green glass bit on the right is the library.) The old building has been converted into doctor’s office, a Kebab fast food joint and who knows what else.

In general little restaurants and cafes pop up and close down over the years. Not worth mentioning. At least we can get a kebab at 3 in the morning after drinking nowadays. Unfortunately I hardly ever drink any more.

Otherwise, it really hasn’t changed that much.There have been some new houses built on the outskirts of town and a new strip mall put in; the roads are in better repair and the cars are newer; and they worked on one crossroads to make it look nicer; but very little change to the city itself otherwise.

ASOIAF/GOT: Why was Ser Waymar Royce leading the band of Rangers?

Gared was brother of NW for 40 years and Will 4 years. Waymar was brother only for six months, yet he was leading veteran rangers. Why did they put the newbie in charge?

(Written Jan. 22)

 I think there are a few things to consider.

• First of all, Jeor Mormont’s Night’s Watch is not quite the egalitarian meritocracy it pretends to be. There are a lot of examples that point to a general culture of aristocracy that echoes the Westerosi culture to a large extent. (And why wouldn’t it, really? Bit unrealistic to expect otherwise.) Take for example Bowen Marsh’s strident opposition to Jon Snow using Satin as his pool-boy…eh, I mean secretary/squire. Marsh’s objections mainly all come down to the fact that Satin is a low-born male whore.
• Waymar Royce has been trained since birth to command. Trained in the arts of war. Educated. He’s effectively a killing machine with honed instincts. He is brave and has the custom of several thousands years of heroic acts in his own family to inspire him. Even in modern armies, an uneducated soldier can work for 20 years without ever attaining officership, while someone with a bachelor’s degree will be on the fast track to it.
• The fact is Gared and Will are almost certainly illiterate. Having literate officers has all sorts of benefits. An occasional Cotter Pyke will rise to power, sure, but for the most part the lack of education is a very real handicap for the NIght’s Watch. (I think Mormont really should have started a literacy program in the Watch, but he doesn’t really think far enough outside of the box for that.)

Now, that out of the way, I want to defend Waymar Royce. Let’s look at the whole ranging from Waymar Royce’s point of view instead of Gared’s.

He has an assignment to follow some wildlings. He has got two experienced men to guide him but the burden of command is on him. Suddenly, they find some dead wildlings and they want to go back.

What exactly are Gared and Will’s arguments? The Cold Winds are rising?

I mean what would you do? Return to the Wall because these superstitious peasants think some legendary ice monsters that have not been seen for 8000 years outside of fairytales you used to kind of listen to when you were a kid and which everone else told you are not real have come to get ya?

It’s absurd. And yes, I know they all, including Royce, had a creepy sense of foreboding, but frankly I have the same feeling whenever I go to my garage with the lights off. That doesn’t mean I seriously believe there are dead things waiting to eat me up down there.

You are a soldier. You are in charge. You weigh consequences. And you do your duty.

And that is what Royce did. Even to his last moment, when he had the balls to take out his sword and go head-to-head with a legendary ice monster from a horror story. He deserves more respect.

ASOIAF/GOT: What should the cast of Game of Thrones look like, according to the books?

t’s a large cast, so this is not going to be complete — not at all..

Bran Stark should be 7–9 years old for the duration of the series so far. He should have the auburn hair and blue eyes of the Tullys.

Jon Snow is fourteen at series’ start. Sixteen or perhaps 17 when he is assassinated. He has dark hair, grey eyes and a long ‘Stark’ face. It is mentioned in Clash of Kings that he has grown a beard. Long training and experience in the field would probably give him a muscular, lean physique. He seems to be shorter than some characters.

But before Clash of Kings and the Great Ranging, I imagine him beardless, as below.

Ned Stark: like Jon Snow: dark hair, grey eyes, long face, bearded. About 35 years old.

Catelyn Stark: about 30. Very beautiful. Milf city.

Sansa:

Agee ranges from about 11 to about 13. No older. auburn hair, blue eyes. Heart-breakingly beautiful. The kind of girl you want to protect.

Cersei: about 30. Pale blonde hair("gold and white strands of hair”) green eyes., according to Jon Snow. Ridiculously beautiful, ‘like the sun.’

Tyrion: But ugly and shorter than in the show. Beetle-browed, twisted legs, one green eye and one black eye. Hair pale blond/silver, sparse beard like blonde and black wires. After second book missing three quarters of his nose. So ugly that women recoil from him.

Theon Greyjoy:

Pre-Reek. Very good looking. Gets laid constantly. Dark hair. Always smiling. Big wide mouth.

Post-Reek. Like a senior citizen: emaciated, a few broken teeth, missing fingers, white hair.

Asha Greyjoy: Lean, with a sharp beak of a nose. Has a knife between her breasts. Badass. (Costume below is a little improbable but the other pictures looked too pretty.)

Jorah Mormont: Big, Bald, ugly guy with a beard and a really hairy back. IN A Dance with dragons acquires an ugly tattoo on his face and is pretty much permanently swollen and black and blue due to beatings.

Stannis Baratheon: Male pattern baldness. Bright blue eyes. Big guy. About 35 but looks older.

That is surely enough to start on! There are a lot of characters in this show!

ASOIAF/GOT: Is Robb's reason for breaking his vow to the Freys better in the book than in the show?

t is more interesting — incalculably so — in the books.

It’s the difference between tragedy and melodrama.

Books:

Ultimately Robb was trying to erase the stain of his father Ned’s dishonor by marrying Jeyne Westerling, which is all the more tragic when you consider that Ned actually did NOT in all actuality father a bastard. It was a choice between hurting WAlder Frey’s pride and ruining Jeyne Westerling’s life.

In the show it was a selfish move, pure and simple. A soap opera plot, something that modern readers can relate to.

In the books, Robb is put in the kind of position that GRRM likes to put characters: a bad one in which he has no choice but to choose between two courses of action which are evil. He is driven into Jeyne’s arms in a moment of weakness brought on by a wound and extreme grief over the death of his brothers, Brandon and Rickon.

But in the show there is no death of his brothers to motivate him(or Catelyn). IN fact, the show goes out of their way to emphasize that by having Theon have all the ravens killed so that news of the Stark princes’ “death” does not get out. Whereas in the books, he sends that news far and wide.

After having dishonored Jeyne, Robb feels he has to marry her, so as to keep the dishonor of her deflowering from staining her. He knows full well that he is also breaking his wedding vow but he considers that the right thing to do, the lesser of two evils: he does not want the same smirch on his honor that that his otherwise wholly honorable father had on his: he has seen the pain it causes, the way it has affected his half-brother Jon Snow.

Who does he really hurt by casting aside his vow? Only the Freys’ pride.

Compared to that, ruining Jeyne Westerling’s reputation and possibly fathering a bastard on her, destined to grow up outcast and alone, seems much worse to him.

Now you could argue he made the wrong decision. That’s especially clear with hindsight. But he did it for the right reasons.

Show Robb?

He wanted Talisa. He took her. He willfully broke his vows.

He wasn’t grief-stricken. His feelings for Walder Frey are decidedly more cavalier and arrogant. There is no logical reason for him wed Talisa: she is not a Westerosi noble and not bound by the strict rules of their society. Her society, indeed, seems much freer about sexual mores and so on. So not marrying her does her no damage. It’s a choice between hurting Frey’s pride and…well, not pleasing his own sexual urges. IN our society, that would be OK. But not in Westeros.

There is no wrestling with his conscience. No conflict of honor.

He just didn’t care. It was an idiotic, honorless move.

Now I’m not criticizing the show too much. They only have ten hours a season to tell an incredibly complex plot and I can imagine that the original storyline was something very hard to pull off in a few scenes and lines of dialogue: even in the book it all happens ‘off-page’, so to speak. So this was their work around.

For lovers of soap opera, the show’s version is fine. Hey, when I was 14 I liked All My Children. Watched it every day.

But it is the book version which has the logic, heft and complex beauty to it that makes me a fan of the series.

Written Jan. 16

Why are Americans more controlling of their children than Europeans?

Not all are. Only the good parents. 

I think there are a variety of different reasons.

• First of all, America is more dangerous than Europe. Full stop. Americans are fed a constant, non-stop diet of fear and distrust of strangers pretty much from the cradle; there are child abductions and murders galore, missing children on milk cartons, and so on.

• Furthermore, the sue-happy culture of the USA results in an over-the-top caution from nearly all points in society. Insurance won’t cover negligence so many institutions or companies do not want to take any risks. This filters into every day life.

• Psychological pressure on Americans is greater than on Europeans. Pressure to succeed, pressure to be seen. Wealth and success are more worshipped in America than in Europe (which is not to say they are not sought after in Europe, either, of course.) But in America the drive to succeed is a lot more serious and earnest. Do you want your child living here…?

• …or here?
• America, with it’s reduced safety net, lack of universal health care, and general social darwinist attitudes towards things breeds extremely competitive behaviour in its people. In a culture where success and failure are literally life and death matters, parents often push their children harder to achieve more and earlier than in Europe where children are, to a certain extent, still allowed to be children. Obviously no American wants his child to go without health insurance or have a life addcited to drugs — another ubiquitous pitfall of American life or parents to worry about.

All of these problems exist in Europe but not to the extent or at the intensity that they exist in the USA.

The bottom in America is pretty low. No sane parent wants that for their child. So its no wonder that Americans are a bit more controlling of their children.

Written Jan 14

What do people in the Czech Republic think of Trump?

Reactions to Trump are surprisingly mixed in the Czech Republic. There is a range of opinions.

First the polls, courtesy of Kristyna Zemanova, whose comment  I have cut and pasted here, followed by my own anecdotal stories.

 Kristyna writes:

There were actually opinion polls about the American elections, both before and after the results. In october 2016 43% favoured Hillary, 13% Trump and the rest didn’t know/didn’t care. After the elections 22% were very or rather satisfied with the result, 22% were very or rather unsatisfied and the largest group - 37% was neither satisfied nor disatisfied. In december, 30% said that they trusted Trump while 43% didn’t trust him which left him with a score of -13. This was a significantly worse result than Obama’s (+26), but waaaay better than Merkel’s (-58). Putin was at -41.

So there you have it. Not as popular as Obama, but way more popular than Putin or the hated Merkel.

My own anecdotal evidence goes like this:

While some people are certainly against Trump, including some prominent figures, a surprising amount of people in my encounters support his positions — although in many ways, like any European country, this is a social democracy with a European health care system and so on, i.e., far to the left in American terms, it is actually much more conservative than a lot of Western European countries.

An amazing amount of people I know are against Muslim refugees settling in Europe. The fear of Islamic terrorism is very high. One woman I teach told me at the news of Trump’s election that the world was heading for a new era. And she seemed pretty pleased pleased by that.

In a discussion with my in-laws last weekend, they all told me they supported Trump.

It seems that his stances on immigration and anti-Islamic stance is something that speaks to them. One of them said, “I don’t like Russia. But I am not afraid of Russia. I am afraid of Muslims coming to Europe.” This was a direct quote.

Every argument I made against Trump was dismissed using what was in my opinion, really inane arguments, considering the intelligence of those involved. (I do have great respect for my girlfriend’s family, despite the fact that I disagree with them on some political issues.)

My arguments ran thus:

• He is a puppet of Putin
• He is anti-democratic
• He is anti-Freedom of Speech/Expression/Press
• He has massive conflicts of interest
• He is only out for himself

The idea that he might be working for Putin — was considered ridiculous. They openly scoffed at the idea; and they furthermore scoffed at the idea that any of the other nationalist politicians active in current Europe were in any way tied to Russia.

The idea that Trump was anti-Democratic — was also dismissed due to, I believe, a deep seated cynicism involving Democracy itself. The attitude seemed to be that all politicians were were anti-Democratic so what did it matter?

The conflicts of issue/corruption argument — seemed to generate a basic “well, they are all corrupt anyway, so what can you do?”

Anti-Freedom of Speech/Expression/Press arguments — they seem to think that American institutions are too strong to prevent Trump really going too far. They actually have more faith in American institutions than I do, when it comes to protecting civil liberties.

So there was actually a lot of double-think going on: Their arguments boiled down come down to two incompatible notions:

• America is hopelessly corrupt anyway, so what does it matter?
• Yet has institutions that will stop Trump from becoming the American Putin. (or whatever: obviously Trump is Trump and Putin is Putin.)

Euro-scepticism runs pretty deep in the Czech Republic so a lot of Trump’s frankly anti-European/anti Merkel rhetoric resonates much more than I think Western Europeans realize. Or maybe they do realize it, but they don’t post here on Quora.

If that boggles your mind, remember that everything Trump says or tweets is translated into Czech, thus cleansing it of the usual malapropisms that partially fuel the anti-Trump resentment among those with better English skills. Also his tweet-tantrums are not as widely reported in Czech news as they are on English-speaking news. English is widely spoken here but not like it is in Scandinavia or Denmark: few people are actually gaining news from English sources.

It is also a fact that supporters of Czech centre-right (as I am, actually) don’t quite understand that the Republican/Trump agenda is quite a bit more radical than they would be comfortable with — you, the anti-science bit or the anti-abortion bit, or the anti-LGBT bit.

You know, most people are not students of American culture. Especially if they don’t speak English.

I hesitate to put a percentage of how many people support Trump, but I would say it is far greater than I personally, as a vociferous anti-Trump American, am comfortable with.

But I would guess it is a slight majority, especially when you consider that the ones in the Czech Republic that are most likely to support Trump-like ideas are the lower working class: I don’t have a lot of contact with those people: most of the Czechs I know are either middle class and educated — or teenage students.

I am also in a particularly Christian region of this mostly atheistic country and that may play into the attitudes I am seeing, too, I suppose.

As for politicians, the Czech President Zeman enthusiastically supports Trump (and Putin), and penned a fawning syncophantic letter to Trump in November that was published and widely reported in the press. (Badly translated into English, which, as a part-time translator, pissed me off, because I am probably cheaper than whoever he got to work on it, but never mind.)

Of course not everyone supports Trump. I have spoken people who distrust and dislike the Donald. There is a range of opnions, as I said. But the anti-Trump people in my vicinity (for example, my girlfriend) do not seem to be as openly vocal as those who support him.

Are Europeans really less friendly than Americans?

I am not really sure that this is true. I think it only seems that way.

Caveat: sterotypes are useless.

I remember when I first went to a grocery store in Europe I was nervous that someone was going to speak to me and my lack of local language skills was going to be horrifyingly, humiliatingly revealed. Everyone would look at me with xenophobic hate in their eyes. I would be cast out, spat upon, thrown down and kicked — told to get out of the country and go back to whatever hellhole I crawled from.

But that didn’t happen.

What happened was that the place was filled with bitter scowling people waiting in queues while bitter scowling shop assistants rang their purchases up with a snarl. No one spoke to each other. No one even looked at each other. No one bagged anybody's groceries but their own. 

 I was relieved.

But then I thought, How unhappy the people here are! How sad! What squalid, angry little lives they must live!

Eventually I learned better.

They are neither more nor less friendly in my opinion. It really is simply a matter of societal norms. And the differences in how the people in the cultures define ‘coldness’ or ‘friendliness.’

Conversely, one thing you hear from Europeans all the time is that American “friendliness” is “fake.” That ‘they smile but they don’t really mean it.”

As an American that assertion has always stung. It is dehumanizing, when you think about it. So, if I am friendly to a stranger, I am automatically not to be trusted? I am automatically a phony? That is not only offensive, it is…perverse.

At some point I heard an American expat say the same thing and I retorted that ‘In [Europe] can you stay here so long that a smile turns into a frown!”

And, that, in fact, really is the‘heart of the matter. It is polite and part of societal norms for Americans to smile, greet each other warmly, and chat while waiting in queues or whatever. (NOt that it always happens, but it happens more often there.)

You meet someone’s eyes, you give them a nod or a wave and a smile. You wink at the girl serving you. You French kiss the orderly at the hospital…OK, maybe that would be taking it too far..

Of course that does not mean the old American guy making jokes about your baby or the muscle-bound man who kindly and quickly helps you to carry your bags down the stairs at the subway stop is going to invite you home, cook dinner for you and give you a back rub while you watch your favorite TV show.

Why should it? That doesn’t mean he is fake. It’s just social lubricant. It makes waiting in the queue less of a hell. Because waiting in a queue is, frankly, hellish, isn’t it? It feels good to give someone a hand, doesn’t it?

Don’t you think that standing at a cash register taking people’s money all day long while they buy adult diapers, condoms and unhealthy food would suck? Doesn’t it make sense to start smiling and making jokes to the endless line of customers? Doesn’t it make things easier? I mean, the customers are in hell, standing in queue. And you, the cashier, are in your own hell, taking their money for a measley wage in a job where you are regarded as idiotic regardless of actual intelligence; where you don’t have health insurance; where you can be fired for practically nothing; where all you have to look forward to is fifteen glorious minutes of break-time with a chemical-filled microwave burrito with American “cheese” melted on top. (I have the recipe — message me for details.)

(pictured above: the American dream sans cheese.)

This is how Americans think. And that's why they are nice. It just feels better.

But a lot of Europeans* don’t see it that way. They see the whole process of chatting to strangers as ‘phony.’ Maybe even dangerous.

But that’s because societal norms dictate that they think that way: simply put, a European acting friendly might indeed have an ulterior motive than an American doesn’t have. Both are just ultimately running blindly to the whip of their culture. Like throughbreds in a race that ends up the same either way: in the cold dark grave.

Anyway, I know that I have had many a stranger glare and scowl at me in Europe; but when an mutual friend introduces me to them they are nearly always warm and friendly and kind and helpful. Once they know you are not insane, they are just as nice as Americans.

Mind you I think the American way is more pleasant. But then, on the other hand, at least in Europe, I don’t get some random old man jabbering on at me about the Broncos and last Sunday’s football game, which is a blessing because I don’t care about sports.

So when Americans say that Europeans are ‘unfriendly’, or Europeans say Americans are ‘phony’, I think they are simply making the mistake of projecting the norms of their own culture on the other.

*Europeans vary, of course. I expect some countries do not fit this stereotype at all.