Tonight I attended one of my courses in the Faculty of Humanities. The class was about Ethics of Reasearch . So, eventually we came to tackle the question: how do we evaluate facts. The process of evaluation, and the traditional different models. But, first and foremost, how do we place ourselves in the evaluation process?

How should we make a critic?

It can be a good critic or bad depending the way we voice it. For it we must provide information and not just impressions. We should bring precise reasons, not just qualifying (random) thoughts. Our affirmations mean ourselves in a special context (or surrounding) but not us through all our lives. We cannot generalize. We cannot take the individual in a generic but in a very particular time and place.

We need to provide reasons for the sake of argument and verify them (to prove them right).

Critics do not destroy us but help us see (comprehend), when accepting them, our reasons or someone else's. Critics should make us stronger.

There are four traditional ways to comprehend facts.

The Anglo-Saxon tend to value the best out of the every situation even when there could be many bad aspects they tend to outline the good side. The exception of this may be Alanis or Daria, huh huh, just for the sake of being who they are!! ( i love them)

The French point out what things lack or what could be missing anywhere. Is that a negative attitude if we are to consider that critics make us stronger in an ultimate scenario?

The Germanic have the tendency to be very structured and value things if they are systematic or not. The good relies on how systematic things could be.

Oriental tradition cares by whom is voicing that thing or another. The power to state real things remains on the "teacher" or guide. Things can be inconsistent but still valid.

Uruguayan tradition? What's the way Uruguayan proceed in life?

I think we have a tendency to see what we lack of, and not value what we do have in our lives and in our country. It is part of our freak of nature? Argentines can act stronger if we are to compare the amount of negativity in their way of thinking. Yet, Brazilians rank very well in terms of being optimist. That's why Uruguayans like Brazilians better than Argentines, but we actually relate better with Argentines for speaking the language? or because because together we make a good match of whiny bitches? Huh huh, a bit of irony to stain my political correctness for the first time I have ever shown some in this site.

Being serious now, I believe the way Uruguayans mentality is that of being very cautious individuals when it comes to take action. The uncertainty of life stops them from taking action. Uruguayans value security a lot.

Is that due to low self-esteem? Others call describe the fact of not taking instant action (especially for the bad, like taking revenge) an act of humbleness and being peaceful people or just laziness. It can be both.

Uruguayans are strange people, if they get a bad service hardly ever do they complain to the person that provided the service but inwards feel the self-impotence of their incapability not to speak out. Then, they spread the word to other of their peers saying the service they got was crap. But they hadrly ever complain to the right place. Uruguayans show dissatisfaction by whining.

They feel robbed for what they got but do not speak out or take revenge. A good example of this was the financial crisis of 2002. When bank deposits were "frozen" in Argentina sort of a social revolution took place the government fell down, in Uruguay when almost the same happened people stayed standstill, Uruguayans waited 2 more years, and voted for a new (opponent) government. In both countries politics renovated but in very different ways. There may be other million examples, I just bring one big fact well known internationally. In Uruguay things take place à la Uruguaya. Recovery of Economy is on the way but slower than in Argentina. So, all it is a matter of time and attitude.

I may classify us somewhere in between the German and French tradition. It is very hard for americans to understand us, and I understand them knowing they see a lot of potential in this land and tell us off for not taking action to make this land a paradise to live in. I'd say "gringos let time tell". Things are moving at the Uruguayan pace. We can't fast forward things as we come from a culture in no rush or hurry. We do not believe in "preventive" wars to secure our democracy and freedom. Or when such actions were taken in this land, many people suffered, our country was utterly changed. I am glad most Uruguayans no longer believe in that theory for things to be done. We do not share the culture of the abuse (of power, physical aggression, psychological oppression). We believe in democracy institutions and freedom to be kept by ourselves, not by someone else's "in our name". The secular democracy we live in makes an absurd to justify actions in the name of God.

Hence, there can be a great shock between the Uruguayan culture and other cultures but I believe an understanding is liable to be reached on time if we move forward into a holistic (or, that one from the old pragmatist school) approach of consider reality in a way that allows us to see things adjusting them to our surrounding. New surroundings are evolving here, at the Uruguayan pace of course.

Maybe the most convenient is to reach a long-term global understanding of the cultures reuniting a bit of all (the four traditional) models mentioned to build an integral mentality braking with that cycle of dark thought.

We need to open to the world, but the world should be willing to learn from us too. We have values very important, built over years of suffering, and they should be considered by other cultures (that also have their own good values) to be a real exchange. Are you willing to share?