The criticism of the use of "we" is an interesting one. However, it seemed like there was something more interesting than that someone was speaking as "disinterested observer of the human barnyard." Clearly Joanna isn't ssince she is actively engaged in this struggle.
If you break down the use of "we" it was being deployed to speak to and about "the nation". In other words, "(As a nation,) we don't do enough to _______." or "(As a nation), we could do a better job training teachers."
also? A little constructive criticism dude: That tendency, to speak to everyone, when what sparked criticisms was a particular post, is irritating. One, you quoted Joanna. So talk to Joanna. Engage her. Don't talk to the list about Joanna, which you sometimes do when you say something like, "What Joanna says here is _______."
At 11:09 PM 5/19/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Dennis Claxton: "We" and "the People" are not the same thing?
> ------
>Not necessarily. I did choose not to quote any particular post, since the
>habit of using "we" for the disinterested observer of the human barnyard is
>widespread. (And see my 'footnote' post on "the people.") Occasionally one
>can see a "we" coming into existence though the word does not appear: "She
>rose from her warm bed, a gun in each hand / Crying come all you cowboys and
>fight for your land." Like a number of Guthrie's apparently simple songs, it
>grows on one over the years. His use of pronouns and possessive adjectives
>is endlessly fascinating.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)