This is something that has always purplexed me to the umpth degree. I can never understand why we Americans are always viewed as fat, self loving, arrogant jerks who think the rest of the world sucks. We aren't the only ones who love our nation and think it is great.
Here is my point. The rest of the world seems to think that we think they are bad. I am quite sure that any nation thinks theirs is the best. Be there any nation in the world that doesn't think theirs is the best? Doesn't every nation believe that they are 1 par above all of the other? We are represented as the ones who think we are the best.
My Answer: In all seriousness, I would actually have to say that many a nation are jelous of what we have achieved through history, and the freedoms that we have now.
Any thoughts? And please, please, please, do not say that the only reason I have given these explanations is becaise I am an arrogant American, who thinks that the rest of the world is inferior. I have feeling some will say that.
[ March 31, 2006, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Reticulum ]
Posted by Ender12 (Member # 8873) on :
i think we have this stereotype because we are, as a nation pretty arrogant, we expect that other nations are like us or should be like us. i hate the way our country feels the need to police other countries... and most countries obviously hate that as well.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Hey, if people in other countries don't like America, then they can get out.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
I wonder if it has anything to do with that fact that most of the world only sees the crap that Hollywood exports in juxtaposition with the actions of the US government and it’s foreign policies.
They are mutually exclusive yet they juxtaposed in the foreign media makes for an interesting point of view.
And since that is all they see it must be true.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I think a lot of the developed world thinks that because so many Americans do think that the other nations are jealous of them/us.
When I first moved to the US I recall a few people telling me how I'd be surprised with how much more freedom I'd experience here than when I lived in Canada. Yes, people honestly told me that!
I know my dad goes on rants about how Europeans hate America because they're jealous of America's freedoms.
Some of it may be that American foreign policy appears to push "The American Agenda" on the rest of the world quite strongly.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
I can't think of any freedoms that Americans have and Europeans don't. Especially the Skandinavian countries. AND I can still smoke in the public, HA!
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Hey, if people in other countries don't like America, then they can get out.
They are IN other countries and they get OUT of America? Huh?
By the way, there's no programm to colonize other worlds.. that's only a story. Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I was kidding. Mostly mocking crazy rednecks that like to reply to anyone they disagree with with that particular comment. As if criticizing the Government was un-American.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
dante, Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I think other countries look at our foreign policy issues and come to the conclusion that America has a will to empire. I don't agree with that outlook, but the U.S. has been very agressive, and the rest of the world doesn't appreciate it. America is seen as arrogant because, as Ender12 points out, we as a nation can't comprehend why other nations don't want to be exactly like us.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I was kidding. Mostly mocking crazy rednecks that like to reply to anyone they disagree with with that particular comment. As if criticizing the Government was un-American.
Don't those rednecks see that this phrase isn't logical? Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
America is a baby in comparison to most of the rest of the civilized world. Especially the East. Our assumption of the right to impose our will on others combined with our unwillingness to try and understand civilizations much older than us is, I think, a rather major factor in others resentment of us as a country. We are not alone in treating the rest of the world with calloused disregard, but we are the biggest bully on the block and therefore the most noticible target.
That and the fact that, unfortunately, the people most likely to travel are the wealthier class. These people are not known for their humility and self sacrificing spirit. They expect to be treated a certain way, no matter where they are, and can be quite obnoxious when their expectations arent met. I've traveled quite a bit, and seen this first hand many times. Makes me cringe and wish I could do a better Canadian accent.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Be there any nation in the world that doesn't think theirs is the best? Doesn't every nation believe that they are 1 par above all of the other?
I don't. I'm Australian. I love Australia. I think it's a wonderful country. But I don't think it's the best country - there are many wonderful countries in the world.
I actually think the attitude that "my country is the best" is pretty unique to the US.
**
The one time I have been seriously ticked off by an arrogant American attitude was on this board when someone told me that democracy and freedom were American concepts. Not that America strove for them, but they were, in themselves, uniquely American things.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa:
When I first moved to the US I recall a few people telling me how I'd be surprised with how much more freedom I'd experience here than when I lived in Canada. Yes, people honestly told me that!
Lol!
Yeah, a lot of times it seems that Americans simply assume that America is the best place in the world to live (incidentally, I believe the U.N. has awarded that honour to Canada a number of times, but I don't want to brag ). They also seem to have the most startling misconceptions about Canada and how "backwards" we are. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I know that it irritates some Canadians that we're saturated with all that is the U.S., but the average American doesn't even seem to know the most basic facts about Canada. I've seen people on Jeopardy fail to name the capital of Canada, but everyone is expected to know the capital of the U.S. It also extends to other things such as being able to name our Prime Minister. I find it funny, but some Canadians are a bit offended by some Americans nationalistic views.
Oh, and we all hate the fact that you spell certain words without the "u"... and it's "zed" not "zee"! Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, I can see why they wouldn't like Texas. Hicks with guns are pretty frightening. But back to the point. We may not have more freedoms then anyone else now, but where do you think most of the European nations got their ideas for such freedoms in the first place?
The U.S. government is one of the longest lasting in history to still be around. Why? Because it works, and it is fair to the people. Many nations of the world have copied our styles of government fairness and such, and is why we are indirectly, along with Britain, one of the most influential nations the world has ever seen.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a hot and cold essay, but it does have it's highlights. Here
quote:In the days, weeks, months, and now years following 9/11, Americans consoled themselves by waving flags and convincing themselves that they do undoubtedly live in the best country in the world. Self-criticism was swept under the rug in favor of a ruthless militarism and nationalism that effectively eliminated any discursive spaces in which it might have otherwise been possible to criticize the hegemonic worldview underlying the New World Order. One was irreducibly “with us or against us.” This childish reaction constituted a refusal to engage the terrorists on the terms of their own criticism; this is to say that we failed to recognize the ideological content of their radical politics, and instead, appealed to “universal” moral standards from which we could denounce them for their illegitimate use of force, morally degeneracy, and anti‑democratic ideology.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, when many of the European nations were restablished after WWII, they used the U.S. as an example for government for how "fair" we were to white men.
As for Canada,. You guys really don't stand out. Not to be an arrogant jerk, but you kind of don't do anything, eh? I don't know WHAT your talking aboot.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: AND I can still smoke in the public, HA!
While I have the right not to have to inhale other people's smoke in public places.
My decreased rate of allergic reactions is thankful.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Smoking in public... The fact that your country still allows that is nothing to brag about. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I ran up against this stereotype when I was traveling abroad. Most people thought I was Canadian, actually.
When I was living in Ireland, a country that likes us for the most part, the image of Americans came from television. You had Bill Clinton having affairs and eating Big Macs, the Simpsons, Married With Children, and Friends. Not exactly the best impression of our country.
When I was in Greece and Turkey, I was hostelling and doing everything I could to go with the flow and experience things in a different cultural way. People didn't believe I was American because I was trying to speak their language, I wasn't loud or showy, and I tried to do things their way instead of stubbornly trying to do things the way we do them at home.
I was told by the Turks and Greeks I spoke with that this was the way American tourists normally acted - and I started to realize a distinct difference between "tourists" and "backpackers".
The Americans that go abroad (other than backpackers) have the money for airfare and hotels, and I guess they're used to beeing brash and getting their way. The older Americans I met in foreign countries were often jerks that I tried to disassociate from.
But that's just my experience.
In contrast, everyone seemed to love the Irish, Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis.... while they had more of a problem with English, Americans and French.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: We may not have more freedoms then anyone else now, but where do you think most of the European nations got their ideas for such freedoms in the first place?
Can you honestly not see how arrogant this is?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: [W]here do you think most of the European nations got their ideas for such freedoms in the first place?
um, the magna carta?
-o-
I don't think anyone anywhere looks down on the US because they are "jealous of our freedom." I know there are oppressed people who are "jealous," or rather, who would like to be as free as we are. And I know that there are people who are at least as free as we are, and have nothing to be jealous of.
-o-
quote: I actually think the attitude that "my country is the best" is pretty unique to the US.
I have seen ample, ample evidence that this is not true. It may not describe you, but it is hardly unique to the US. In that regard, I think the premise of the first post in this thread is accurate.
-o-
I think people resent Americans because of a combination of our foreign policy and assumptions of what we are like based on our exported media. And then there are American tourists, as has been noted before.
Not all of this is the fault of the tourists. Living in the tourism capital of the US, I can tell you that all tourists are annoying as hell, regardless of where they come from. People turn off their brains when they travel. But American tourists stick out more than other tourists, when they are in places like Europe. Many, if not most, Europeans are polyglots, and it's not due to any moral superiority, but to the close proximity each European country has to other countries with other languages. Americans (i.e., from the US) stand out for not knowing the language, and generally being less familiar with a variety of European cultures, that Europeans are exposed to.
In South America, it works the other way around, I believe. South American tourists in other South American countries (than their own) mostly speak the same language, since most South (and Central) Americans speak Spanish, and again, US Citizens stand out as the most numerous tourists who do not speak the language. Also, US tourists will be more resented in South America because they have more money to burn. It is a very small percentage of South and Central Americans that can afford to travel around, and they generally have to save their money. When Americans travel in South and Central America, their relative wealth sticks out like a sore thumb, and this is exacerbated by an exchange rate that favors them, and makes what would be a huge sum to a local a pittance to an American. Americans will pay too much for stuff, and they will throw money away, and, paradoxically enough, they are resented for this. In Latin America, it is our wealth that is resented as much as anything else. (And resenting people wealthier than you is pretty universal. I grew up rather poor here, but in contact with a lot of rich kids due to a private school scholarship, and I know that I and my other scholarship friends resented the hell out of the rich kids.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
If that comes off as arrogant I am sorry. Many Europeans did indeed model some if their constitutions and governments after America. After all, look how wide spread the office of President is, and the fact that they are elected by the people.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
*realizing I said the wrong thing* I meant they modeled some of their governments after us ( ), which led to some of the freedoms we have, becoming theirs. After all, we got many of the things we do and have... from Britain.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I don't think there's one reason why Americans have a negative image abroad - I think it's a complicated mixture of reasons, some fair and some unfair. I think some Europeans hate the US because they can. Americans are the only group there that you can hate without any social stigma.
I think it's unfair and wrong to form an opinion of a country based on the tourists you have encountered. For example, I went to high school in South Florida, which is a popular vacation spot for people from Quebec. If I were to judge all of Canada by their behavior, I would have a very poor opinion of it indeed - they were, without exception, shockingly rude and unpleasant. I was also harassed by a group of German tourists on my honeymoon in Iceland. I was getting into the hot springs and they started catcalling and making lewd suggestions (and I was wearing a tankini and board shorts). They quieted down right quick when my 6'5'' husband arrived. Now, should I form opinions of Canada and Germany based on the tiny fraction of their populations I have had negative experiences with? Of course not.
BTW, I take exception to the terms "redneck" and "hick." I grew up, for the most part, in the rural South and I've been participating in the shooting sports since I was a little girl, so you're talking about me. I don't think I'm worthy of ill esteem and when I travel abroad, I study the customs and language beforehand and make sure to comport myself with the utmost decoroum.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
We're a relatively young country, in our current incarnation.
Because of our wealth, technological sophistication, and a large degree of control over communication, aspects of our culture are incredibly ubiquitous, sometimes in places where its presence is unwelcome.
Our covert operatives have not infrequently interfered in other countries' governments, including assassinations.
Our wealth and military power mean that every nation on earth has to one degree or another consider our reactions to their foreign, and sometimes domestic, policies.
We sometimes expect other countries to be like us even when it is manifestly impossible to do so, and make a show of expecting them to be like us even when we profit from the differences (say, in the expected wage.)
The United States is, in some ways, a teenager. (And I apologize in advance to anyone in or about the age group for the extremely broad analogy I'm about to make.) He's just starting to realize the extent of his own powers and that "the adults" don't necessarily have all the answers. But he confuses that with knowing more than he does, and has little regard for the potential long-term consequences of going after what he wants. He's a good kid and he's got some great ideas, and you can't wait to see what kind of adult he'll be, but in the mean time, you just want to scream at him sometimes.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I suspect when you take it upon yourselves to overthrow the governments of other countries and decide what form of government they should have, people will probably think you are arrogant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't think of any freedoms that Americans have and Europeans don't. Especially the Skandinavian countries.
Are there any European countries where the citizens have the right to own and bear arms like Americans have?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'm pretty sure there are. Isn't nearly everyone armed in Switzerland?
At the same time, the right to own and bear arms is not a very productive right to have (unless you think it's okay and useful to take it upon yourself to kill and/or shoot people.) If that's the right Americans have and Europe doesn't, I wouldn't call that a big plus for America.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I would.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, it all depends on your views. Were another WWII event to occur, what would the peoples of Europe do in the case that their armies fail and they are the last defense? They would be doomed. America however, would have millions of armed citizens willing to fight and die (As would other nations have those willing to fight and die) with guns to throw off the invaders.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:At the same time, the right to own and bear arms is not a very productive right to have (unless you think it's okay to take it upon yourself to kill people in whatever circumstances.)
I disagree. I think that it is extremely productive for me to be able to protect myself and my child and the only way I can do that is with a gun. Also, I think it is very important and productive that the populace be allowed to arm itself - I don't think the government should have all the weapons. Also, as a gun owner, I don't think it's "okay to take it upon myself to kill people in whatever circumstances," and neither do most other gun owners.
quote:If that's the right Americans have and Europe doesn't, I wouldn't call that a big plus for America.
I would. Violent crime has skyrocketed in London since 1996, when virtually all guns were banned and turned in to the government by their owners. This is just one example.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Xaposert is right in regards to Switzerland. The Swiss militia (made up of citizens) means gun ownership is the norm. Wiki link.
Mrs M, are you suggesting a casual link between people turning their guns in and the (allegedly - I say this just because of the lack of stats, at this stage) skyrocketing crime in London?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: Violent crime has skyrocketed in London since 1996, when virtually all guns were banned and turned in to the government by their owners. This is just one example.
Huh. I agree with you, but I was unaware of this. Do you happen to recall where you saw it?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm not going to get into the gun debate (which, I'm sure, has been discussed here previously) but I think there certainly is some notion that America is more "free" than any other country.
Again, when I first moved to the US, one of my friends said something that I thought was very odd. We were discusses some aspect of nationalism and she mentioned that the term "patriot" relates much more to America than any other country. Obviously I found this somewhat arrogant. I know my examples so far have been anecdotal, but I think they still show something.
I'd also argue that countries use the English Bill of Rights (1689) more than the American Constitution for a model.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Proof where? For I would argue that in this you maybe correct, but more nations use the American government as an example then the English one. (Or both)
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I don't want to hijack this thread, but here is some quick info:
This was the best I could do for now (yes, I'm playing the tired new mom card ). And I'm not saying that an armed populace will reduce crime, I am pointing out that rigid gun control that forces upstanding citizens to surrender their legally-owned firearms does not reduce crime whatsoever.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm sorry Reticulum, are you responding to me?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I am pointing out that rigid gun control that forces upstanding citizens to surrender their legally-owned firearms does not reduce crime whatsoever
Which, in turn is different from saying tighter gun control increases crime.
Enough! Go sleep! Or play with your adorable baby. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I disagree. I think that it is extremely productive for me to be able to protect myself and my child and the only way I can do that is with a gun.
This is false - the "only way I can do that is with a gun" part. There are many safe families in America who have no guns. They aren't absolutely and certainly safe from all possible things, but they wouldn't be with a gun either.
And whether they own a gun or not, I suspect they'd be even more safe if everyone else didn't.
quote:I would. Violent crime has skyrocketed in London since 1996, when virtually all guns were banned and turned in to the government by their owners. This is just one example.
Where did you get that statistic? According to this London government website violent crime has actually dropped 35% since 1995. It also points out that the U.K. has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe. When you consider that gun control will become more effective over time (as fewer previously owned guns are still around) it makes sense that the decline in violent crime will continue, and points to the conclusion that the gun control efforts were a pretty big success.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Be there any nation in the world that doesn't think theirs is the best? Doesn't every nation believe that they are 1 par above all of the other? We are represented as the ones who think we are the best.
Well for about three quarters of our colonial history, Australia didn't think it was the best. And some Aussies still don't. So I wouldn't be surprised if other countries currently feel the same about their own.
quote:Proof where? For I would argue that in this you maybe correct, but more nations use the American government as an example then the English one. (Or both)
It's true. Ever heard of the Westminster System?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, I'd say that much of the US Constitution is based on "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown."
Also, many of the ideas that the US Constitution discusses aren't unique to American thinkers (though I'd never argue that the Framers weren't great intellectuals). Just because some countries constitutions use the same terms as America's doesn't necessarily mean that they got the terms from America.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The British Crime Survey (BCS), the most reliable measure of overall violent crime, estimates that violent crime has fallen since 1995 and is now stable, but the underlying picture is that the nature of violent crime is changing. Domestic violence and acquaintance violence have fallen since 1995 while stranger violence and muggings have remained stable, therefore changing the composition of violent crime. The BCS shows an increase in the proportion of violent crimes that are reported to the police, from 35 per cent in 1999 to 41 per cent in 2002/03. In the same period the BCS estimates that the recording of reported crime increased from 36 per cent to 52 per cent. These increases in both reporting and recording of violent crime help explain the contrasting trends in BCS and recorded violent crime. The majority of violent crimes involve no significant injury to the victim and about a half involve no injury at all. In the 2002/03 BCS 11 per cent of incidents resulted in medical attention from a doctor and two per cent in a hospital stay. This is not to suggest that worry about violent crime is unjustified or that the ordeal is not traumatic if injury has not occurred.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, but look at how many nations use the Presidential system. And as for the best nation thing, what do you think is the best nation then?
And yes, people assume all Americans think that their nation is th best, and everyone sucks. Yet, when we do say it, people get pissed off...
I however DO think that America is the greatest nation on Earth.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: This is false - the "only way I can do that is with a gun" part. There are many safe families in America who have no guns. They aren't absolutely and certainly safe from all possible things, but they wouldn't be with a gun either.
And whether they own a gun or not, I suspect they'd be even more safe if everyone else didn't.
I don't have a gun, but I'm safe, in part, because other people do, and because I potentially could.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Funny how we have two completely independent discussions going on here.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote: Proof where? For I would argue that in this you maybe correct, but more nations use the American government as an example then the English one. (Or both)
Hmm. Reticulum, you might want to follow your own advice. I'd be interested to see where you are getting your assumptions from about the influence of American policy on the formation of other governments. Thats a new idea to me.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:This is false - the "only way I can do that is with a gun" part.
Really? I'm a 5'4'' woman. How do I defend myself if a 6'5'' man, such as my husband, decides to harm me? How about a 5'8'' man? I'm not being contentious, I honestly want to know how you think I can protect myself. And as to the danger - there are more than a dozen violent registered sex offenders (and who knows how many unregistered) living fairly close to me.
quote:There are many safe families in America who have no guns. They aren't absolutely and certainly safe from all possible things, but they wouldn't be with a gun either.
No, they wouldn't, but they'd be better able to protect themselves. And I never said that having a gun makes me safe or even safer - if someone is going to attack me, he's going to attack me. Having a gun just means that I can prevent him from seriously hurting or killing me and my family.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, many more democracies use a parliamentary system, but I'm not sure that's really important.
As for which is the best nation, I'm not really sure, I've only lived in two. Take a handful of nations and there will be a number of pros and cons for all of them.
Where I to hear an American (or anyone) say everyone else sucks I'm sure I'd get annoyed by it.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
And now I'm going to take imogen's excellent advice and go to sleep.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Foundling, not so much the bill of rights. I was wrong about that. As for our influence on forming governments, it is hard to believe you have never heard of it. Many, many nations got the idea of the Presidential system from the United States. Most nations use it, actually.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Y'know the other reason there's could be a perception?
Every country has it's nationalistic people. Every country has it's arrogant people. Every country has it's jerks.
But because Americans and American culture are so pervasive (not your fault. Just the way the world is at the moment) the jerky elements get magnified, and a whole country is unfairly maligned.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Reticulum, from Wikipedia:
A Prime Minister is a politician who serves as the head of the executive branch of government in a parliamentary system. A Prime Minister can be:
The chairperson (leading member) of the cabinet; or The official, in countries with a semi-presidential system of government, who is appointed to manage the civil service and execute the directives of the President.
It's a term unique to the British system. President just means someone who presides over others. Not much to do with the US if another country also has a President. It's just a word.
Same goes with the Westminster System, whilst Congress just means "A formal assembly of representatives, as of various nations, to discuss problems."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Many, many nations got the idea of the Presidential system from the United States. Most nations use it, actually
Do you have anything to back this up?
Most ex-Commonwealth countries have a Westminster system of Government, which is very *very* different from the American model (even if the head of state is called the President).
In fact I believe the American model of government is fairly unique in it's structure - could you refer me to other countries with directly elected Presidents who are not figureheads?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I've found something:
quote: Prime Ministers and Presidents Among a democracy's most important decisions is the method of electing its leaders and representatives. In general, there are two choices. In a parliamentary system, the majority party in the legislature, or a coalition of parties, forms a government headed by a prime minister. This system of parliamentary government, which first evolved in Great Britain, is today practiced in most of Europe, the Caribbean, Canada, India, and many countries in Africa and Asia (often former British colonies). The other major method is direct election of a president independently of the legislature. This presidential system is practiced today in much of Latin America, the Philippines, France, Poland, and the United States.
So - we have some countries with directly elected presidents. Is that system based on the American system? I'd assume the Phillipino system is. I don't know about France, Poland or the Latin American countries.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, actually I can back it up. Here is a map of nations with Presidential systems in blue, and parliamentary in red.
Yes, Imogen, but where do you think they got the and terms for a President?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Well, I can see why they wouldn't like Texas. Hicks with guns are pretty frightening.
I find this comment incredibly insulting. Just as all Americans aren't arrogant self loving jerks, not all Texans are hicks with guns.
As to the gun debate, I think people that do not like the right to bear arms have not spent much time in rural areas. My grandparents live in a place where the average police response time is 20- 30 minutes. My grandfather believes that he has stopped multiple break-ins by firing a gun into the air. I think it would be terrifying to live in such an isolated area without a gun.
And Reticulum- Our idea of American freedoms comes largely from English Locke and French Rousseau. It's ridiculous to claim them as uniquely our own.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'd question the form of democracy being practiced in many of those African countries. *grin
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote: As for our influence on forming governments, it is hard to believe you have never heard of it. Many, many nations got the idea of the Presidential system from the United States. Most nations use it, actually.
Huh. Wow. Thanks for the proof, Reticulum. You've given me alot to think about. You must have put alot of time and effort into that research. I appreciate it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Yes, Imogen, but where do you think they got the and terms for a President?
I don't even know what you are asking here.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Yes, Imogen, but where do you think they got the and terms for a President?
You're not listening. President is just a word. Not a system. How about this: where did America get the words "Yes... [I have no idea about the word imogen ] ... but where do you think they got the and terms for a President?"
I don't know for sure, but I'd put my money on England, even the word "President".
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually, I'm from America, and I thought that was a pretty funny comment. Our Presidential system is our own. Yes, many of our ideas and freedoms were heavily derived from England. In fact, LOTS were taken from England. We DID however, as many other nations did to England's and the U.S.'s, make them our own.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Imogen is English born and bred! (Shakespearean, actually )
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
In one of his plays? Do you know if its true that Shakespeare added something like 25% to the English language in his day? Obviously a big figure so I probably heard my English teacher wrong.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And just because another country uses the same word doesn't mean it has the exact same meaning.
Take "pants," for example.
At any rate, speaking as someone who's traveled all over Europe, arrogant "My country is better than all of you"-ism is DEFINITELY not a purely American trait.
Also, I am in love with Norway.
That is all.
-pH
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Thank you Foundling. And no, President is NOT just a word. It is an independent and seperate system that has its own ways. It is offensive to me that you say, "President is just a word", as it is a founding idea of my country, and many of the world.
Here is why the Presidnetial system is not "Just a word", and what the system actually is.
Reticulum, we could've ended up calling the President the Ultimate Supreme Emperor. It really is just a word.
Ultimate Supreme Emperor Bush.
...wait a minute...
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: In one of his plays? Do you know if its true that Shakespeare added something like 25% to the English language in his day? Obviously a big figure so I probably heard my English teacher wrong.
Oh, it's true, but he didn't actually add that many new words. Rather, he added letters left and right. In fact, those two words used to be spelled "lef" and "riht." "midsummer" used to be simply "summer," "night" used to be "nite," and "dream" used to be "drem."
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
But the system is NOT. That is what I am trying to convey. Because THEN, by your logic, Parliament is JUST a word. Could have called it Caughdrops, and you would have the Coughdrops System.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: It is offensive to me that you say, "Presidnet is just a word", as it is a founding of my country, and many of the world
Calm down.
Reticulm, I kind of hate to pull the "I know more about this than you card" but I'm going to. Trust the woman who has done comparative law and believe me when I say I think you should do a little more reading (and not from wikipedia) on the matter.
pH - I tried to reply to Icarus about the other people loving their countries the "best" but Hatrack crashed.
Anyway - I believe you both. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there. (And thinking about it, I do know a Swiss man who is arrogant in that way. So I have seen it. I take it all back. )
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: In one of his plays? Do you know if its true that Shakespeare added something like 25% to the English language in his day? Obviously a big figure so I probably heard my English teacher wrong.
Oh, it's true, but he didn't actually add that many new words. Rather, he added letters left and right. In fact, those two words used to be spelled "lef" and "riht.[/i] "midsummer" used to be simply "summer," "night" used to be "nite," and "dream" used to be "drem."
And Imogen is commonly thought to be a misspelling of "Innocen", which in turn came from "Innocenza", an Italian name meaning (duh!) innocent.
Nifty.
And Cheiros - yup, it's the name of the lady's maid in Cymbeline.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
You're honestly offended that many people think that "President is just a word" ?
Yike! I have an interview first thing tomorrow morning, what am I still doing awake?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It is offensive to me to hear people keep getting offended by stuff... Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Wait, what are you trying to say you know more about? Well, I know actually, but just make a summary.
There is the President, like the Parliament which IS just a word. But the SYSTEMS are NOT just words. They are the two most profoundly used form of the government in the world.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote:Thank you Foundling
Damn it. Stupid dry humor. Always getting in the way of me actually making a point.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I guess I shouldn't tell you that I refer to my toilet brush as "the president."
"Honey, the toilet is getting a bit skanky. Can you fetch me the president and the veepee?" (veepee = Toilet Duck)
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
WHat do you mean? I was being Serious.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And I use "Serious" to refer to a really bright star in the eastern sky. You know the one: it's the brightest one out there, and because it's so bright, geographically challenged people keep mistaking it for Polaris. ("Hey, honey! Look out over the Atlantic! I think that must be Polaris!")
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Parliament is also JUST a word.
Ex: Hey, would you like a parliament bar of chocolate?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
imogen: Unless you already said this on the first page, were you going to be referring to Australia or Europe or another part of the world?
I kind of wonder if maybe the pride in Europe is similar to the pride that people from Asia take in being Vietnamese or Chinese. I really don't know because I'm too much of a combination of things to really pick out one part of my ancestry to take pride in, aside from being Protestant.
-pH
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Edit: To Ret
I know. I wasnt. When I was complimenting you on your intensive research I was being rather sarcastic. You saying that "Many, many nations got the idea of the Presidential system from the United States" is not proof. Do some more research, READ about the points you are trying to make, and it will help you to engage in intelligent conversation about it.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
In any case, who's to say that your lovely Presidential system is any better than the Parliamentary system? It's not like there's only one form of democracy.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
pH - I haven't seen people in Australia say that this is the best country in the world. Not in the "Australia is the best nation on EARTH!" kind of way.
But on reflection I am sure those people exist.
Although the whole laconic / cut down what you like Australian attitude might also minimise the occurance of such sentiments.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Reticulum, in US political context President is uniquely what you're trying to describe. But you're failing miserably to prove all those blue countries are actually based on the US system.
"Prime Minister" is in every sense of the word unique to the Westminster system. "President" can be applied in a US high school. How about some proof that the French Presidential System is based on the US Presidential System? They don't even have a Congress (thoguh I'm sure some Americans would translate it to that), they have a National Assembly.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That isn't what I am saying. Base: The US influenced a great part of the world with the Presidential System. Both forms of government are good.
Read this, Cheiros. You will understand everything.
I suppose you think American influenced all the Republics in the modern world to become so too?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Plato was an American, you know . . .
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The French are a semi-presidnetial system. They use aspects of both the parliamentary and presidential systems. They are labeled aa Presidential because... they have a presidnet.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: I suppose you think American influenced all the Republics in the modern world to become so too?
Ohhh, Yesss, because all Americans think we are masters of the world, and that we influence and control EVERYTHING.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Presidnet is the name of the system of computers secretly watching over the internet. Eventually, it will take control of our defen--crap, I probably shouldn't've said that.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, read the article. Now. Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Well, Amanecer beat me to several points, including defending Texas and pointing out that many of the founding father's ideas were based on the thoughts of European philosophers.
And even in that wiki link Reticulum posted, it links the presidential/congressional system to the Roman Empire, which if I remember my history classes correctly, came long before the US. In other words, the US didn't invent it - modify it, sure.
And a question for you, where does France fall with it's President and Premier? Or how about many Latin American countries (and yes, like Imogen's comment about Africa, I'd question how democratic Latin America is. Then again, I'd question if the US is as democratic as we like to think it is.) that have presidents but based their constitutions on the French constitution, not the US model.
Back to the perception of Americans, I'd agree with much of what Icarus had to say on the last page. And in general, when I've travelled through Europe and Latin America, I've had no problems. I've found that most people have no problems with Americans as individuals, it's more the perceptions they have of us as a people. But every country has their stereotypes that they have to deal with.
And lastly, where's Papa Moose to comment on the self-loving?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: Back to the perception of Americans, I'd agree with much of what Icarus had to say on the last page.
What, and everything I've posted on this page is what--nonsense?!?!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
According to a trusted source, yes. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Alright then, where's the proof that all parliamentary nations are TRULY parliamentary nations, and haven't modified it?
My main point was that the U.S. has influenced many nation's government's with our systems and policies, and the Presidential system, is a fine example. THAT much, you really can't deny.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My main point is that in the US we speak a variant of English. Also, we have dirt here. Now who wants to try and deny THAT?!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
(Also, baseball is far superior to cricket, as is football [real, manly, American football] to both rugby and soccer.)
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Seems to me these were your main points.
quote:Many Europeans did indeed model some if their constitutions and governments after America. After all, look how wide spread the office of President is, and the fact that they are elected by the people.
quote:*realizing I said the wrong thing* I meant they modeled some of their governments after us ( ), which led to some of the freedoms we have, becoming theirs.
And what you said next seems to completely contradict yourself:
quote:After all, we got many of the things we do and have... from Britain.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: Back to the perception of Americans, I'd agree with much of what Icarus had to say on the last page.
What, and everything I've posted on this page is what--nonsense?!?!
Of course it's not all nonsense. I'm sure you're right about Plato being an American since Athens is in Georgia.
As for president being the name of the computers watching over the internet, well, that's just crazy talk. Everyone knows that that particular system is called Brunhilde. I mean, come on - the president? Why would they name themselves after a toilet brush? Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Ahh yes, because it makes perfect sense to play rugby on concrete, cover yourself in padding, call it gridiron and tell the rest of the world it's far superior to the original form. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Tut tut: presidnet. Get it right. Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Oohh... So you're saying that the title of the leader of the US is the result of someone misspelling the name of a system of computers?
Wow. I think my entire world may just have ended.
Does this mean that democracy came from the internet?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Makes more sense than playing baseball in effeminate white sweaters, with a wide bat held incorrectly with like 17 bases, for twenty, thirty days at a time. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Cheiros you completely took everything I just said out of context. You are no better then mass media. I don't think I have any respect for you anymore. None.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wow . . . I actually hadn't thought of that, Risuena. That explains what Al Gore must have been thinking when he created the Internet.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I should make a list of the people I have no respect for . . .
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Makes more sense than playing baseball in effeminate white sweaters, with a wide bat held incorrectly with like 17 bases, for twenty, thirty days at a time.
I got served. Though I'm not sure what you mean by 17 bases?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Really? The rest of that made sense?
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
And if Al Gore was involved, that explains the misspelling, too!
Now that we've established that Al Gore invented democracy, why does the rest of the world think Americans are arrogant, self-loving jerks?
Oh, wait. Al Gore. That'd do it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And so we come full circle . . .
I declare this thread victorious, and ended!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Why?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dagnabbit! A perfect thread-killing post, ruined!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Kids these days have got no respect.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Thread Officially Dead.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Hatrack Officially Dead?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
No fair! I wanna play! And Hatrack died this morning when I tried to post, and then we went out shopping (and I got some mighty nice expensive (for me) jewellery and stuff, and we just got home, and the thread expanded from, like, 25 posts to 3 pages, and I haven't had my turn to play, so *raspberries anyone who tries to stop me*
quote:For example, I went to high school in South Florida, which is a popular vacation spot for people from Quebec. If I were to judge all of Canada by their behavior, I would have a very poor opinion of it indeed - they were, without exception, shockingly rude and unpleasant. I
Um, yeah, but that's Quebecers for ya.
quote:I however DO think that America is the greatest nation on Earth.
I don't. But then, I don't think any nation is.
In order for any nation to be the greatest, it would first have to be great. I don't think any nations are.
Every nation has its good points and its bad points. I just don't think that we, as humans, have evolved enough to that point.
Now, if you were to say, "best nation on earth" then we might have some real debate going. I'd still argue that the US isn't, but I don't think any nation really sticks out in the forefront, either. I think there's a bunch who are pretty close together, and one will be in the forefront in one area, another in another area, and so on, but no, I don't think any one of them, including the US, shines far and away above the rest.
quote:(Also, baseball is far superior to cricket, as is football [real, manly, American football] to both rugby and soccer.)
Nah, that'd be Canadian football. With a playing field 10 extra yards longer, three downs instead of four, and played in much, much, much colder weather where body parts freeze... American football is wussy. Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: We may not have more freedoms then anyone else now, but where do you think most of the European nations got their ideas for such freedoms in the first place?
France, 1789! Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Madame Guillotine, she slices, she dices, she even frappes!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering most of the founding fathers used European philosophers in their reasonings for the inherent freedom of man, I'd say Reticulum is actually arguing against himself.
Posted by Rake (Member # 9195) on :
Well, France got the ideas in the revolution from the US, but the US "decleration of independence" is taken almost directly from the english philosopher John Locke..or so I'm told.
Posted by Rake (Member # 9195) on :
And in europe the ideas were spread from france
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Smoking in public... The fact that your country still allows that is nothing to brag about.
It's not allowed to smoke in public buildings such as schools, universities, and agencies. But it's still a restaurant owner's and a smoker's decision if he wants to smoke in rooms where non- smokers are forced to inhale the poisonoues smoke, too. Most smokers are ashamed to be smokers, to be addicted. But it's hard to quit, I can tell, although I have a bad conscience all the time. Especially because there are still people who think that it's just a bad habit.
I only feel riled about this government hypocrisy. As if one gave his child candies and chocolat all the time because that's cheaper than decent meals and then complains about the child's weight. In contrast to alcoholic drinks, cigarettes are even available for children. There are cigarette machines on every corner! I would like the government to forbid THOSE first. But they profit from smokers because of the high taxes on tabac. Here in Germany smokers joke, that we're the most patriotic part of the population, for the country would break down without our money. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Isn't nearly everyone armed in Switzerland?
Ooh! I'm real scared of those little folding knives with the corkscrew and nail file.
Stand back Imperialist Dogs! Or we'll file your nails! Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Speaking of 'reputations':
French people are snobby strike- loving, wine- drinking frogeaters.
Canadians are big, bearded lumberjacks.
English people don't know how to cook, have bad teeth and like to queue.
Australians are either 'Crocodile Dundee's or sheperds.
Italians are spaghetti- eating casanovas or 'Mammas'.
Mexicans are the ones who live in Los Angeles.
Suisse people all have a clock implanted and are so neutral, that even sour rain turns to drinking water when it hits the ground.
Germans are serious, bureaucratic people who drink beer, eat Sauerkraut and sausages and clean up all the time.
Americans are superficial and self- rightuous and are less offended by bloody corpes than by nipples.
Russians live from wodka, prostituition and corruption.
ETC.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sour rain?
Isn't that a Prince song?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Um, you're forgetting that Germans are stubborn, pigheaded, and obstinate. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And they travel in buses.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: This is something that has always purplexed me to the umpth degree. I can never understand why we Americans are always viewed as fat, self loving, arrogant jerks who think the rest of the world sucks. We aren't the only ones who love our nation and think it is great.
Here is my point. The rest of the world seems to think that we think they are bad. I am quite sure that any nation thinks theirs is the best. Be there any nation in the world that doesn't think theirs is the best? Doesn't every nation believe that they are 1 par above all of the other? We are represented as the ones who think we are the best.
My Answer: In all seriousness, I would actually have to say that many a nation are jelous of what we have achieved through history, and the freedoms that we have now.
Any thoughts? And please, please, please, do not say that the only reason I have given these explanations is becaise I am an arrogant American, who thinks that the rest of the world is inferior. I have feeling some will say that.
It's exactly jealousy. Or to be more precise, envy. People who haven't achieved what we've achieved can either look at themselves and ask the difficult question of why, or they can just dislike us. There's no question which one is easier to do.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:This childish reaction constituted a refusal to engage the terrorists on the terms of their own criticism; this is to say that we failed to recognize the ideological content of their radical politics, and instead, appealed to "universal" moral standards from which we could denounce them for their illegitimate use of force, morally degeneracy, and anti-democratic ideology.
That's right. One does not "engage" monsters on their terms. To call that "childish" is bizarre and twisted.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I kind of wonder if maybe the pride in Europe is similar to the pride that people from Asia take in being Vietnamese or Chinese. I really don't know because I'm too much of a combination of things to really pick out one part of my ancestry to take pride in, aside from being Protestant.
Most Europeans are pride of their countries. Especially French, Italian, Spanish and Suisse, I think. 95% of the German who say that they are "proud to be German" are either idiotic Neo-Nazis or they are considered to be ignorant. You know, in Europe, 50years are not a long time. It might probably take at least another two or three generations until there is a kind of national pride without the shadow of WWII. By now, we help ourselves with regional pride. I am not proud to be German, but I'm proud of my Hessian origins. If someone in the U.S. asked me, where I come from, the first thing I said would probably be: I come from Europe.
[ March 24, 2006, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Pinky ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote: We may not have more freedoms then anyone else now, but where do you think most of the European nations got their ideas for such freedoms in the first place?
Can you honestly not see how arrogant this is?
If you think it's not true, maybe explain why. I don't see it as arrogant at all. I see it as fairly accurate.
To reiterate: saying that a statement is arrogant is not a disproof of the statement. Not even a little bit.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Um, you're forgetting that Germans are stubborn, pigheaded, and obstinate.
I just didn't want to show off.
Edit: I forgot to mention "boring", too.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's exactly jealousy. Or to be more precise, envy. People who haven't achieved what we've achieved can either look at themselves and ask the difficult question of why, or they can just dislike us. There's no question which one is easier to do.
I think this *may* be an example of why some people think the way they do about Americans.
There's this notion that America has achieved a significant amount more than any other free nation in the world. The rest of the free world doesn't really agree with this idea.
Unless we're talking about military size, I suppose.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
It depends who you are dealing with, Americans are nice, i lived in NJ for a while and well even thou it was mostly hispanic or african american, (jersey city), most of the white people i delt with were pretty nice, never bragged about that fact. Well my history teacher did but you can see off the bat that he was american like the great president the US currently has.
Who made that country what it is? People who left and that didnt like the way their own country used to run things, so they tought of better ways to govern themselves, had their civil war, and eventually kept expanding and kicked native americans and mexicans out. And now they try to force people to be "united" and "free" as they are.
Well enough with America, a lot of people think their country is the best, like my father, he thinks his country Ecuador is the best, and well if it had an actual goverment, it would be great, but it hasnt evolved yet into a fully democratic civilized country.
Ive lived in 4 different countries and im only 18, and i dont plan to stay where i currently am.
What ive seen that is sad is the asskissing that Italy does to the US.
Most of Europe hate America because of what America has done to the world. But its not every citizen´s fault of what America has done.
People have opinion let them be heard.
My opinion i like every American except Bush.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by imogen:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We may not have more freedoms then anyone else now, but where do you think most of the European nations got their ideas for such freedoms in the first place? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you honestly not see how arrogant this is? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think it's not true, maybe explain why. I don't see it as arrogant at all. I see it as fairly accurate.
To reiterate: saying that a statement is arrogant is not a disproof of the statement. Not even a little bit.
The way its said, is what makes it very arrogant.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hello, LeoJ! Welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
thank you
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's exactly jealousy. Or to be more precise, envy. People who haven't achieved what we've achieved can either look at themselves and ask the difficult question of why, or they can just dislike us. There's no question which one is easier to do.
Envy? Why? That would mean, we would judge all our doings in comparison to the U.S.A. (and would decide that we do worse)! Envy is not the only reason to dislike the U.S.A. Maybe it used to be, but you're President is Mephisto! (His grin gives me the shivers. Bah.)
I would rather say there's a lot of fear and anger underneath. We're almost powerless to stop the U.S. government, even when its 'projects' affect us. The power of the U.S. Army, the will to use it AND the will to "forget" or ignore the parts of history one can't seriously be proud of, can be pretty frightening. Not to mention that your government signed but doesn't ratify the Kyoto- Protocol. That's frightening, too.
Don't you think?
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And they travel in buses.
Only the old ones... wait... Okay, when I think about it, we ARE nation of seniors, so most of us travel in busses... accepted. Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
I like Pinky´s comments, from the funny to the serious one.
Way to go Pinky
Read the Straight rights update
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
@LeoJ: Good speech! (and Thank you!)
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Thanks thanks. What makes it good is the boredom of my job.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Now I HAVE to ask what you do!
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Im some sort of secretary for the Institute of Accountants in some city of Spain.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Aha... you don't wanna be found? Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
If i did, i would tell u my exact location cause there is only 1 institute of accountants in this city, in fact theres less than 10 in this country, i pretty much told u were i was, damn u lol.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeoJ: Thanks thanks. What makes it good is the boredom of my job.
No, wait... do you want to insult me!? Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Hey P we should start our own topic, what do you think will be controvertial and have many replies, and have people arguing?
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
insult u how?
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeoJ: Hey P we should start our own topic, what do you think will be controvertial and have many replies, and have people arguing?
Uhm... Okay, though, actually, I don't like to argue. (I just can't keep my mouth shut.)
Insult: "What makes it good is the boredom of my job."
P.S.: I'll be back in two hours.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
hahaha i dont know what im laughin at but ok, i dont get the insult.
I dont know, where are you from maybe we can start there.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
America and its Bush seems to be a big topic nowadays
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Because, of course, America has only one Bush, the One True Bush. And a dozen helper shrubberies.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: This is something that has always purplexed me to the umpth degree.
Because it perplexes you, it puts you in the minority that isn't part of the 'arrogant americans'.
For starters, we aren't a polite society. Common day to day interactions with people prove this statement. Many people are completely focused on themselves or self image; or trying to destroy someone elses image, rather than rising above it.
I'm jaded but this is my opinion.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeoJ: America and its Bush seems to be a big topic nowadays
Ha ha, I like that formulation.
'Nowadays'... you mean the past five years? If one manages not to take that stuff to serious, it can be a lot of fun. But we have a problem: there doesn't seem to be a 'good guy' in this Soap.
@the so-called insult (*sigh*): your phrase sounds as if the only reason why you like to read the posts in this forum is your boredom! (I don't BELIEVE that, no way, so I'm not really insulted... I was just kidding )
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeoJ: I dont know, where are you from maybe we can start there.
You mean, you don't know?!
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: We may not have more freedoms then anyone else now...
With freedom also comes the freedom to do nothing, and to do bad things. Yes, there are consequences, but rather than pre-emptive striking you have cleanup. Which is a good example of what I think about wire-tapping and terrorism. If you are pre-emptive in your detection or attacks on terrorism (Think Minority Report) you lose some freedom, whether or not it is noticed at large you do lose some. Any loss of freedom is not worth the security gained, because you devalue freedom and whoever is enforcing this 'security' can remove even more freedom at the appeal of more security.
Back to the real topic at hand: American's are truely viewed as arrogant because they pay much less attention to what is going on outside of the states. We are a (multi)media driven society, and if it makes loud noises and pretty colors we will watch.
To sum up: We are viewed as arrogant, because we are.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: 'Nowadays'... you mean the past five years? If one manages not to take that stuff to serious, it can be a lot of fun. But we have a problem: there doesn't seem to be a 'good guy' in this Soap.
@the so-called insult (*sigh*): your phrase sounds as if the only reason why you like to read the posts in this forum is your boredom! (I don't BELIEVE that, no way, so I'm not really insulted... I was just kidding )
Well I mean the first election, fraud, then Iraq, etc..., then he goes on and says they are making progress in the war, and that they´ll succeed. Anyways what i mean new is now the Iran nuclear problem, simple it wants to become another north korea.
Bush has as much bush in brains as he has in his head.
Pink i mean i know and i dont know, you tell me.
Offtopic
----- I want to read something similar to the Ender Shadow series, what do you recommend? -----
1 hour and its friday night whooohoo
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Hey, if people in other countries don't like America, then they can get out.
i know i'm coming into this thread really late, but i just wanted to say that this made me laugh obnoxiously loud and everyone in my office looked at me funny. gah, thats funny.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: I would rather say there's a lot of fear and anger underneath. We're almost powerless to stop the U.S. government, even when its 'projects' affect us. The power of the U.S. Army, the will to use it AND the will to "forget" or ignore the parts of history one can't seriously be proud of, can be pretty frightening. Not to mention that your government signed but doesn't ratify the Kyoto- Protocol. That's frightening, too. Don't you think?
Yes, it's much better to sign and ratify Kyoto, but then fail to comply like Europe
[ March 24, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
andddddddddd............
żżżżżGod Bless America?????
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Hey, if people in other countries don't like America, then they can get out.
i know i'm coming into this thread really late, but i just wanted to say that this made me laugh obnoxiously loud and everyone in my office looked at me funny. gah, thats funny.
hahahahaha
and...
that reminded me i saw a movie or was it a comedy show, that an imitation of Bush said, God Bless America and no place else....
hahaha
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Blah
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Leo, I sent you an mail regarding the TOPIC. Waht do think?
(The Bush-topic itself is a little bit boring... I mean, there's nothing NEW!)
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Wow, some real discussion going on in here. Why don't you kids go play on the gamer forums, I'll even give you a link: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/ Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
How dare you suggest that you arrogant American!!! Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
It's actually quite sad to see the thread life here on hatrack drop to a day.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I'm not sure I'd call this topic a real discussion. There are just too many blatant misconceptions being thrown about to really say that there is anything useful going on here.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup: Wow, some real discussion going on in here. Why don't you kids go play on the gamer forums, I'll even give you a link: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/
And what do you think why I sent an Email to LeoJ, huh?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I sort of agree with ricree. I think the discussion ended two or three pages ago. And not all threads live a long life. It's not a failure when a thread ends, and attempting to artificially resuscitate a thread is its own kind of sad.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's exactly jealousy. Or to be more precise, envy. People who haven't achieved what we've achieved can either look at themselves and ask the difficult question of why, or they can just dislike us. There's no question which one is easier to do.
I think this *may* be an example of why some people think the way they do about Americans.
There's this notion that America has achieved a significant amount more than any other free nation in the world. The rest of the free world doesn't really agree with this idea.
Unless we're talking about military size, I suppose.
HA! This is a very, very ignorant statement. Tp say that besides military size, we have not accomplished anything to be jelous of, is a very ignorant statement. In a little under 120+ years(when America came out of isolationism), we have accomplished more things in such a short amount of time then any nation has... ever.
First, yes our military is vastly powerful. Not just it's size, but its effectinveness. No nation in the world comes close to equaling America's power projections around the globe. Nations and cultures that have been around centuries, have been outdone by a nation that has only been around for a fraction of their time.
Second. Our economy. America is the second "richest" nation in the world, in terms of per capita income. (After luxenbourg, which has a very small population). We make more money then any of our predecessors, and they have been around for hundreds of years. Our economy, is the largest in the world, by about 4 trillion dollars, and none other in the world even comes close. Our dollar, is the dominate world currency, more often used in world transactions then the Euro, and Pound combined. Our dollar is accepted in most countries.
Third. Our culture. Yes, it is a mix of other ones, but today, it has become uniquely our own. Because of our large economy, we are able to make as many cultural items as we want, and get them anywhere in the world. The movie industry is owned and controlled by Americans, as almost every mainstream movie comes from America, or one of companies.
So there, there is what the rest of the free world might be jelous of. Our nation has been able to become dominant in almost every single category one could imagine. This is what the rest of the free world might look at and wonder why they have not accomplished it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: I don't want to hijack this thread, but here is some quick info:
This was the best I could do for now (yes, I'm playing the tired new mom card ). And I'm not saying that an armed populace will reduce crime, I am pointing out that rigid gun control that forces upstanding citizens to surrender their legally-owned firearms does not reduce crime whatsoever.
On the other hand, the gun nuts who want assault weapons to be legal and insist on making gun ownership an all-or-nothing proposition make it very difficult to allow normal weapons.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Reticulum, we could've ended up calling the President the Ultimate Supreme Emperor. It really is just a word.
Ultimate Supreme Emperor Bush.
...wait a minute...
-pH
"And in other news, Generalissimo George W. Bush is still alive."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Reticulum, those don't sound like things to be jealous of, but they do sound like things to resent. So it seems to me like you're making your opposition's case.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: Maybe it used to be, but you're President is Mephisto! (His grin gives me the shivers. Bah.)
Call Dr. Strange!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Why are Americans viewed as arrogant self loving jerks?
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: HA! This is a very, very ignorant statement. Tp say that besides military size, we have not accomplished anything to be jelous of, is a very ignorant statement. In a little under 120+ years(when America came out of isolationism), we have accomplished more things in such a short amount of time then any nation has... ever.
First, yes our military is vastly powerful. Not just it's size, but its effectinveness. No nation in the world comes close to equaling America's power projections around the globe. Nations and cultures that have been around centuries, have been outdone by a nation that has only been around for a fraction of their time.
Second. Our economy. America is the second "richest" nation in the world, in terms of per capita income. (After luxenbourg, which has a very small population). We make more money then any of our predecessors, and they have been around for hundreds of years. Our economy, is the largest in the world, by about 4 trillion dollars, and none other in the world even comes close. Our dollar, is the dominate world currency, more often used in world transactions then the Euro, and Pound combined. Our dollar is accepted in most countries.
Third. Our culture. Yes, it is a mix of other ones, but today, it has become uniquely our own. Because of our large economy, we are able to make as many cultural items as we want, and get them anywhere in the world. The movie industry is owned and controlled by Americans, as almost every mainstream movie comes from America, or one of companies.
So there, there is what the rest of the free world might be jelous of. Our nation has been able to become dominant in almost every single category one could imagine. This is what the rest of the free world might look at and wonder why they have not accomplished it.
Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, this statement seems arrogant, self-loving, and jerky.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Why wouldn't it be something to be jelous of, but resent? And HOW am I making their case?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
It may sound like it, but not a single thing in their isn't true. All of it is true. And that's part of it. We have a lot of things that we can brag about, and many other nations can talk about the past, and things they once had, and accomplished.
So, yeah, it does sound jerky...Sorry.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I think, Reticulum, that you and I probably would not agree very much on what the priorities of our government should be.
Also, to make it clear, I am rather happy living in the United States. This is a different topic (yes, I know this thread needs another!) but I always find it odd that people suppose someone pointing out a fault in America makes that person anti-American or "against" America.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You don't need to apologize to me--I am not offended. I am simply pointing out a possible answer to what was, originally, your question.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: I think, Reticulum, that you and I probably would not agree very much on what the priorities of our government should be.
Yes. Yes, I don't
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:First, yes our military is vastly powerful. Not just it's size, but its effectinveness. No nation in the world comes close to equaling America's power projections around the globe. Nations and cultures that have been around centuries, have been outdone by a nation that has only been around for a fraction of their time.
Your last sentence would only be true if the projection of large-scale military might were still a goal of these other nations. Additionally, you're assuming: (1) that this is a worthy goal, and (2) that projections of American military power (and here I include semi-covert projections) are inherently praiseworthy.
The latter at least is certainly not true. The people who decry various American military operations are not doing so because they're jealous of America's ability to enforce its will on the rest of the world, they're doing so because they think these acts are wrong.
For example, as a Canadian, I am frankly afraid of America by accident of geography. I'm not jealous of America's might; rather, I'm fearful that it might one day be turned against us if your country's voracious appetite for our oil and water doesn't begin to abate. Which brings me to my next point...
quote:Second. Our economy. America is the second "richest" nation in the world, in terms of per capita income. (After luxenbourg, which has a very small population). We make more money then any of our predecessors, and they have been around for hundreds of years. Our economy, is the largest in the world, by about 4 trillion dollars, and none other in the world even comes close. Our dollar, is the dominate world currency, more often used in world transactions then the Euro, and Pound combined. Our dollar is accepted in most countries.
In other words, "you're polluting the environment for the rest of us." To the extent that this is true, it shouldn't surprise you that this is not universally appreciated.
You're also assuming that the pursuit of wealth is in and of itself a worthy goal. This is by no means true simply because you say so.
Finally, it's all well and good to rave about how rich you are, but you're overlooking the fact that poverty is a significant problem in the U.S., and will continue to be so as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.
quote:Third. Our culture. Yes, it is a mix of other ones, but today, it has become uniquely our own. Because of our large economy, we are able to make as many cultural items as we want, and get them anywhere in the world. The movie industry is owned and controlled by Americans, as almost every mainstream movie comes from America, or one of companies.
Define "mainstream." Have you ever lived outside America? Outside the Western world? Do you actually have the faintest clue what sorts of movies play in theatres in, say, Italy? Or Russia? Saying "we control the movie industry" from your seat in America is laughable.
Of course, there is a kernel of truth to your statement, as indicated by the global reach of franchises like McDonald's. However, you're making a mistake if you think this makes people in other countries jealous of your culture. Rather, your lack of respect for their cultures is what makes them angry.
Patriotism is all well and good. Nationalism is something to be concerned about. So yes, you are part of the problem.
Posted by Grim (Member # 9165) on :
I don't know. He does have a point there. Americans Do control the movie industry. Almost of the top-rated, and top grossing movies of all time, are American. They may not be seen halfway across the world, but they certainly have a larger extent, then any other nations movie industries.
China, India, and other nations are quickly becoming more pulluted then the U.S. in twenty years or so, China may be the nation that the rest of the world is angry at to stop polluting so much, so saying that the U.S. is polluting the environoment for everyone else is a very unfiar statement.
And yes, poverty is a problem in nearly ALL parts of the world, not just the U.S. It kind of sounded like you made it seem that U.S. was the only nation with poverty. It has a significgant less amount then most countries of the word. But... poverty is still prevelant
There military isn't really something to be jelous of.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Reticulum -
Because of the size of our military, our economy and the pervasiveness of our culture, it is very hard for other countries to stand up to the US. They see us as imposing our culture, our economic structure and our military on them (and whether or not that is our intention, that is what we do) and there's nothing they can do. If they try to stand up to us, we either invade, or impose sanctions or let Hollywood take over for us. Or all of the above. Why shouldn't they resent us for that?
Also, just having a big economy doesn't mean squat when there's so much income inequality. According to UNDP, the US has one of the highest GINI coefficients (measure of income inequality, with low numbers indicating low inequality) of countries with high Human Development Indexes. And since the other high HDI countries with higher inequality than the US include Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico and Argentina. That's not something to brag about. There are even lesser developed countries such as Ghana, Georgia, and Rwanda that have lower inequality than the US (of course, that's probably because they're all poor...).
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Second. Our economy. America is the second "richest" nation in the world, in terms of per capita income. (After luxenbourg, which has a very small population). We make more money then any of our predecessors, and they have been around for hundreds of years. Our economy, is the largest in the world, by about 4 trillion dollars, and none other in the world even comes close. Our dollar, is the dominate world currency, more often used in world transactions then the Euro, and Pound combined. Our dollar is accepted in most countries.
quote:
[QB][QUOTE] In other words, "you're polluting the environment for the rest of us." To the extent that this is true, it shouldn't surprise you that this is not universally appreciated.
You're also assuming that the pursuit of wealth is in and of itself a worthy goal. This is by no means true simply because you say so.
Finally, it's all well and good to rave about how rich you are, but you're overlooking the fact that poverty is a significant problem in the U.S., and will continue to be so as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. [QB]
Well, to start our economy, no matter how arrogant this may sound, is vastly important to the world. The rest of the world complains that we watse to many resources, and eat to much. However, if we STOPPED wasting resources so much, what do you think would happen to the rest of the other nation's economies? Most would plummit, because to a lot of them, America is a BIG buyer. It does not make sense to complain about our wasting of resources, for, if we stopped, the world would be in a pretty interesting situation.
It actually HELPS the rest of the world. With our wasting, you in turn, become richer. On a sidenote, as for you, you explicitly said that pursuing wealth is not a worthy goal. I do in fact believe that increasing standards of living are a worthy thing to strive for. If we stopped wasting your guys' resources, and became self supplying, the world's economy would take bad turn. Many nations would be thrown into poverty, and another great depression would begin. Would the world recover if we didn't? Yes, it would. Could it go on without us? Yes, it could. Would it hurt the world? Yes, it would.
So, in conclusion, however much poverty we might have; however bad it might be to want to be wealthy; we are needed among the world. Our economy is drasticly important.
Yes, that was a very arrogant statement/speech, you don't have to tell me. JUs because it is arrogant, doesn't it isn't true.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's exactly jealousy. Or to be more precise, envy. People who haven't achieved what we've achieved can either look at themselves and ask the difficult question of why, or they can just dislike us. There's no question which one is easier to do.
I think this *may* be an example of why some people think the way they do about Americans.
There's this notion that America has achieved a significant amount more than any other free nation in the world. The rest of the free world doesn't really agree with this idea.
Unless we're talking about military size, I suppose.
HA! This is a very, very ignorant statement. Tp say that besides military size, we have not accomplished anything to be jelous of, is a very ignorant statement. In a little under 120+ years(when America came out of isolationism), we have accomplished more things in such a short amount of time then any nation has... ever.
First, yes our military is vastly powerful. Not just it's size, but its effectinveness. No nation in the world comes close to equaling America's power projections around the globe. Nations and cultures that have been around centuries, have been outdone by a nation that has only been around for a fraction of their time.
Second. Our economy. America is the second "richest" nation in the world, in terms of per capita income. (After luxenbourg, which has a very small population). We make more money then any of our predecessors, and they have been around for hundreds of years. Our economy, is the largest in the world, by about 4 trillion dollars, and none other in the world even comes close. Our dollar, is the dominate world currency, more often used in world transactions then the Euro, and Pound combined. Our dollar is accepted in most countries.
Third. Our culture. Yes, it is a mix of other ones, but today, it has become uniquely our own. Because of our large economy, we are able to make as many cultural items as we want, and get them anywhere in the world. The movie industry is owned and controlled by Americans, as almost every mainstream movie comes from America, or one of companies.
So there, there is what the rest of the free world might be jelous of. Our nation has been able to become dominant in almost every single category one could imagine. This is what the rest of the free world might look at and wonder why they have not accomplished it.
Excellent, Reticulum. Thanks for posting this.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Thank you, also. It is nice to see someone agrees with me.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: On a sidenote, as for you, you explicitly said that pursuing wealth is not a worthy goal. I do in fact believe that increasing standards of living are a worthy thing to strive for.
I certainly agree that increasing standards of living are a worthy goal. However, I don't necessarily agree that increasing wealth is the best or only way to do so, let alone a successful way. If it were successful than why are the poor getting poorer and therefore their standards of living getting worse? After all the world economy is larger than it's ever been, so things should be better for everyone, right? I wish (although, if that were true, I'd have to find a new career...)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Grim, I was very careful with my qualifiers. I don't think I actually said some of the statements you -- or Reticulum -- are attributing to me. For example, I did not say "poverty is an exclusively (or even mostly) American problem," nor did I say, contrary to Reticulum's post, that the pursuit of wealth is not (ever) a worthy goal.
Reticulum, I'm not denying that the U.S. economy is big or important. What I'm saying is: "don't expect adulation from the rest of the world." You do seem to expect that adulation, or at least recognition, when there's no particular reason to merit it. So America is big and powerful. So what? That doesn't make it "great," let alone "the greatest nation on earth." You should probably define "great" before you go off making such statements.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Even though poverty is prevelent (sp?) in the U.S., most in poverty still have a fairly high standard of living. Most have luxuries and amentities that a great deal of the rest of the world in poverty... don't
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
A Canadian lecturing an American on pollution?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I'm not actually doing that. I'd be a raving hypocrite if I did, since Canadians have the highest per-capita environmental footprint in the world -- and not just because it's cold here.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Hmmm, here is something interesting. Perhaps we are viewed such as we are now, because we are so numerous and prevelent among the world. Most other nations among the world with large populations are to poor, or have a small percentage of people who are rich enough to travel the world like we do.
What think? Nations like China, Mexico, India, Russia, and many other countries with populations over 100 Million have a lot of poverty and unemployment, thus limiting their ability to be shown to the rest of the world.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I kind of wonder if maybe the pride in Europe is similar to the pride that people from Asia take in being Vietnamese or Chinese. I really don't know because I'm too much of a combination of things to really pick out one part of my ancestry to take pride in, aside from being Protestant.
Most Europeans are pride of their countries. Especially French, Italian, Spanish and Suisse, I think. 95% of the German who say that they are "proud to be German" are either idiotic Neo-Nazis or they are considered to be ignorant. You know, in Europe, 50years are not a long time. It might probably take at least another two or three generations until there is a kind of national pride without the shadow of WWII. By now, we help ourselves with regional pride. I am not proud to be German, but I'm proud of my Hessian origins. If someone in the U.S. asked me, where I come from, the first thing I said would probably be: I come from Europe.
The people I met in Berlin were pretty arrogant about being German.
But you guys have some sweet castles, so that's cool. I have a thing for castles.
As for America not being a "polite" society, that's DEFINITELY regional. The grand majority of the people around here (at least, the ones who don't work at the Walgreens pharmacy), are incredibly polite. But this is, after all, Louisiana. I think the people here are MUCH nicer than the people I run into in Florida.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Hmmm, here is something interesting. Perhaps we are viewed such as we are now, because we are so numerous and prevelent among the world. Most other nations among the world with large populations are to poor, or have a small percentage of people who are rich enough to travel the world like we do.
What think? Nations like China, Mexico, India, Russia, and many other countries with populations over 100 Million have a lot of poverty and unemployment, thus limiting their ability to be shown to the rest of the world.
I think I made this point on page one. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Then horray fo Icarus!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest -- having read this thread and his others closely -- I'm curious: why haven't other people written LeoJ off as a troll yet?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, the effect of tourism on America's image was discussed earlier in the thread. I think there's some merit to the notion.
Reticulum, before you thump your chest and shout about how great America is and how we're all jealous of your greatness, it would be a good idea to define "greatness." Many of the things that you point to as examples of American greatness are not universally accepted as great even within America. Having lots of power or influence is not necessarily equivalent to "greatness," depending on how you define the term.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
And before you start the flag burning and start rallies about how much America sucks, why don't YOU define greatness?
And yes, I know you will have a response with something like: "I don't hate America, I just don't like a lot of your guy's policies, and the things your people do and say."
Plus, can you honestly say were aren't among some of the best countries?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: And before you start the flag burning and start rallies about how much America sucks, why don't YOU define greatness?
I haven't done that. You're the one who made the initial claim; I haven't even said that I don't think America is great. I've simply offered some reasons why it might be possible not to think so.
You started off with the nationalistic chest-thumping, without defining what it is you're actually talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: And yes, I know you will have a response with something like: "I don't hate America, I just don't like a lot of your guy's policies, and the things your people do and say."
Not even that, at this point in the discussion. And as long as you continue to exemplify the trend you asked about in your original post, I'll probably continue to be uninterested in discussing what my opinion of America actually is -- not that it could be summed up in such a sound bite anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Plus, can you honestly say were aren't among some of the best countries?
There you go again, making a positive claim without defining your terms. What does "best" mean in this context? Highest quality of life? Most powerful? Most influential? All of the above?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think twinky stated that we were among the best of countries. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: And before you start the flag burning and start rallies about how much America sucks, why don't YOU define greatness?
And yes, I know you will have a response with something like: "I don't hate America, I just don't like a lot of your guy's policies, and the things your people do and say."
Plus, can you honestly say were aren't among some of the best countries?
Dear Lord, Reticulum. You need to go off somewhere and not come back here until you can actually create an intelligent response to someone.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
FWIW, I definitely think we are among the better ones. But I don't think I have to be arrogant in order to somehoe prove my belief--and the original topic was not "Is America the best?" but "Why are Americans vewied as arrogant . . . ?" (Not that there's anything wrong with thread drift, but if it feels like you are posting at cross purposes, it may be because some people are still addressing the original issue and some are addressing a different one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Reticulum, just chill out a bit. You started off asking why Americans are seen as arrogant jerks, but when anyone suggests that it's possible that America might not be the most good, just, noble, powerful, influential, or happy nation in the history of the universe, you take offence.
My point is: It's possible for a nation to be great (for reference, I'm basically defining great as "a powerful force for goodness, justice, and happiness in the world") without running around shouting about how great you are all the time. Such greatness doesn't need to be advertised. Relax. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Greatness: A nation that has universal suffrage, and excessive freedoms for all. A good education, with a high HDI, and a large portion of the population that can travel abroad. Also includes a large and flexible economy in which many products are available, and money can be put to various uses in the government and civilian matters. These nations will have a very large influence over the rest of the world, and have its large descicions generally have world impacting outcomes. It can or can not have the ability to defend itself from external/internal threats, and defend/force its wants overseas. The SoL should be quite high, with plently of oportunity for the educated to have a high standard of living. MUST have enumerable freedoms.
Britain, USA, Canada, Germany, and France, are all nations that completely or partly qualify for this.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There. Now everyone knows what you mean when you say that America is great. Thanks for supplying your definition. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
So, well then. I'm done with bragging about how great America is.
*starts doing something productive*
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, thank you. I apologize to all for being a fat/ignorant/arrogant/stupid American. I am done now.
Anyone willing to forgive?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Just relax, man. I don't think anyone was offended. Annoyed, maybe, but not offended. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ah, now we've reached the melodrama portion of our program.
Hey, nobody said you were fat! Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, it IS a stereotype of Americans.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You forgot ugly
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*catches a glimpse of BQT*
*shrieks in terror and runs away*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why do you even really care Reticulum?
Other countries are going to think what they want about America. It's the equivilant of the foriegn exchange student not liking you in high school. Winning the respect of your peers is always a nice goal, but it doesn't mean we dance to their tune just to make them happy.
I don't like a lot of the stuff that America as a nation does, and as a citizen, I do much of what is available to me to try and make the nation more into something I can be proud of. At the end of the day, it's impossible to make everyone happy. Half the world wants us to keep our noses out of their business, the other half says we aren't doing enough. Some of these are valid complaints, some aren't.
But at the end of the day we do much that is good for the world, whether they appreciate it, recognize it, or not. I don't expect a thank you card from the rest of the world for what we do, in fact I'd be surprised if the average European was even aware of the force for good that America is in the world.
I used to really care what Europe thought of us. Not so much other nations, because their cultures are so far removed from our own that our values systems are too different to really be on the same page for a lot of stuff. But Europe is our older brother, and you always want your older brother to be proud of you. But now I realize they'll never really be happy, not until we turn America into a carbon copy of Europe probably. And I believe they are far too willing to let anecdotes on American citizens and stereotypes to influence their thinking (not that we aren't guilty of the same thing, but they aren't any better). If I were to judge all of Europe based entirely on stuffy French people, I'd say all of Europe was filled with arrogant, stuffy, self centered, prigs.
I think Americans, AVERAGE Americans, as a whole are perfectly nice and polite people. I think it depends greatly on where the person is from, what region, what city, rural or urban (or suburban). But isn't that true of any country?
Reticulum -
Turn a blind eye. You'll never make them all happy, and it really isn't your job to. Europeans weren't any better when they were in control (for example, Britain, Germany, Italy, France), though they have done a FANTASTIC job of sweeping their bloody mistakes under the rug while harping on ours. The people who invented (well, other than Messopotamians) empire and colonization of "lesser" nations have the gall to call us imperialists and war mongers? I would ask them to see to their own wounds, for they are in fact practitioners. I think they should be ashamed.
Edit to add: Alright, the "carbon copy of Europe" thing was a bit of hyperbole, but I stand by my point that they will never be truly satisfied, either until we totally change our ways, or until we fall from power.
[ March 24, 2006, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You know, Lyrhawn, that is the most valid point I have ever seen anyone on this thread say. That is superb advice, and the simplest things I can say are, thank you, I am taking your advice, and you are right. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Lyrhawn, been watching 1776 lately? Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I would modify Lyrhawn's point by saying we SHOULD listen to other POVs (including other nations). They may be wrong, they may have ulterior motives for presenting their criticism... But it might still be correct criticism we ought to heed.
It's the arrogant to dismiss all input (:turn a blind eye") from another because you feel you have divined their deeper motives. It is comfortable to do so, I admit... But also somewhat cowardly. It isn't arrogant to listen, and decide to disagree.
And that's independent of whether others call you arrogant.
-Bok
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
Im proud to be a hatracker.
hatrackers unite and take over the world. we will be kindly overlords as long as our whims are meet.
((america is not better than every country we're just bigger and stronger and we've gotten used to getting our own way.))
Reticulum get off your soap box and do some real research besides wikipedia.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I don't JUST use Wikipedia.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Hollywood influence... Yeah, that's something to be proud of. Hollywood films make everyone around the world think that everyone in the US is loose and slutty and drinks all the time and does drugs, so yeah, that's what makes the US great...
Here's an interesting bit of info on a comparison between Hollywood and Bollywood, including money earned According to the Newsweek thingy that I linked to, for those who are too lazy to go there themselves, here's the scoop (for the year 2002).
Films produced: Bollywood 1013 vs Hollywood 739 Tickets sold: Bollywood 3.6 b vs Hollywood 2.6 b Annual growth rate: Bollywood 12.6% vs Hollywood 5.6%
Its the revenues where Bollywood sucks: Bollywood $1.3 b vs Hollywood $51 b
Please note that the above is Bollywood only - this does not include the sizeable film industries in Tamil Nadu (around 150 a year) or Andhra Pradesh (200-250 films per year).
And I've still seen nothing upwind that proves that the US is even Great, never mind The Greatest.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Just something that annoyed me.
quote:Well, to start our economy, no matter how arrogant this may sound, is vastly important to the world. The rest of the world complains that we watse to many resources, and eat to much. However, if we STOPPED wasting resources so much, what do you think would happen to the rest of the other nation's economies? Most would plummit, because to a lot of them, America is a BIG buyer. It does not make sense to complain about our wasting of resources, for, if we stopped, the world would be in a pretty interesting situation.
Umm actually, that's just the Broken Window fallacy. Waste or accidents aren't actually a boon to the economy, they actually represent lost productive capacity that could have been utilised in creating or providing additionaly goods and services.
Now when you have a situation where the entire world has had to alter its economies structurally in order to provide for the waste of resources by the american people, this is actually represents a huge loss to the world in economic terms. Some of this productive capacity (and in the long run, all) would have created downward pressure on prices and (hopefully) raised the standard of living, rather than being used to compensating for the tendency of the american people to waste.
Go America?
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: And even in that wiki link Reticulum posted, it links the presidential/congressional system to the Roman Empire, which if I remember my history classes correctly, came long before the US. In other words, the US didn't invent it - modify it, sure.
Huh... the Congressional/Presidential/Judicial branch system of Government in America is based on the Iroquois Confederacy. Even the U.S. Symbol, an Eagle holding Arrows is based on The Iroquois Confederacy. The ideal of personal freedom and equality is also based in The Iroquios Confederacy as well as other native cultures.
If you look seriously the Roman Senate and the American Senate have well almost nothing in common.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Considering that the Roman senate had a horse in it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, in all fairness, we did have Strom Thurmond in ours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Lyrhawn, been watching 1776 lately?
You have no idea. I live for that movie. I just wish there was a soundtrack for it, I only have the Broadway production soundtrack.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I would modify Lyrhawn's point by saying we SHOULD listen to other POVs (including other nations). They may be wrong, they may have ulterior motives for presenting their criticism... But it might still be correct criticism we ought to heed.
It's the arrogant to dismiss all input (:turn a blind eye") from another because you feel you have divined their deeper motives. It is comfortable to do so, I admit... But also somewhat cowardly. It isn't arrogant to listen, and decide to disagree.
And that's independent of whether others call you arrogant.
-Bok
I agree to that, and really should have put that in my original post. I never ruled out the idea that we need to listen to other people, my point was that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be ruled by their popular opinion, or let our actions be guided by it. We shouldn't let it bother us. But there's no problem with at least listening to them, some of the time they have valid criticisms.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mimsies: If you look seriously the Roman Senate and the American Senate have well almost nothing in common.
Depends on which Roman Senate you are talking about. The senate of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire, had a lot of similarities, but the Roman Senate was never as balanced in power as the American Senate is with the other branches. The R. Senate of the Republic was 10 times as strong as ours, and the R. Senate of the Empire was 10 times weaker.
Romans were never really good at sharing.
Well, unless it was a bath house.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's exactly jealousy. Or to be more precise, envy. People who haven't achieved what we've achieved can either look at themselves and ask the difficult question of why, or they can just dislike us. There's no question which one is easier to do.
I think this *may* be an example of why some people think the way they do about Americans.
There's this notion that America has achieved a significant amount more than any other free nation in the world. The rest of the free world doesn't really agree with this idea.
Unless we're talking about military size, I suppose.
HA! This is a very, very ignorant statement. Tp say that besides military size, we have not accomplished anything to be jelous of, is a very ignorant statement. In a little under 120+ years(when America came out of isolationism), we have accomplished more things in such a short amount of time then any nation has... ever.
First, yes our military is vastly powerful. Not just it's size, but its effectinveness. No nation in the world comes close to equaling America's power projections around the globe. Nations and cultures that have been around centuries, have been outdone by a nation that has only been around for a fraction of their time.
Second. Our economy. America is the second "richest" nation in the world, in terms of per capita income. (After luxenbourg, which has a very small population). We make more money then any of our predecessors, and they have been around for hundreds of years. Our economy, is the largest in the world, by about 4 trillion dollars, and none other in the world even comes close. Our dollar, is the dominate world currency, more often used in world transactions then the Euro, and Pound combined. Our dollar is accepted in most countries.
Third. Our culture. Yes, it is a mix of other ones, but today, it has become uniquely our own. Because of our large economy, we are able to make as many cultural items as we want, and get them anywhere in the world. The movie industry is owned and controlled by Americans, as almost every mainstream movie comes from America, or one of companies.
So there, there is what the rest of the free world might be jelous of. Our nation has been able to become dominant in almost every single category one could imagine. This is what the rest of the free world might look at and wonder why they have not accomplished it.
Excellent, Reticulum. Thanks for posting this.
ok,
How did it start, is what i want you to tell me, how many years of slavery, yeah later on it was abolished, but hardcore racism still goes on. The other nations had hundreds of years? yeah ofcourse they completely killed their resources, while america had (1 example) the gold rush.
Now what did America do to japan, simply atomic bomb their asses because of pearl harbor, tell me was it called for, an atomic bomb? no
So tell me, who is going to mess with a nation with an atomic bomb? which brings us back to the present, with Iran.
America is trying so hard to stay in its current position of power, but hey guess what as fast as it has become what it is, it will collapse, and its america's own fault, as each day goes by the world is hating america more, for what it has done, keeps trying to police the world, go into soil that is not theirs and impose their "authority."
Sure its a great country i like it, my sister lives there, my brother in law was born there, its a great country.
Now what we must watch is China, roqueting their way to the top, and hey its a very very old country, and how is it doing it, you tell me.
Whos was crying not long ago, because China is investing more money into their military.
I suggest you guys watch Syriana, its as good as hollywood can get.
Pink, i didnt get your email, all i got was bush and sandwich. =S
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow. I'll skip that first jumbled mess.
"What did America do to Japan" Yes, because AMERICA was the bad guy in World War II. Where do you live anyway Leo? Wherever it is, they apparently don't teach world history there, otherwise you'd know what an insane understatement and oversimplification your views on Japan and the atomic bomb are.
To be honest, I don't really think America is trying all that hard to stay in power. You know what trying hard is? Invading everyone with the intention of conquest. The only war in America's history that comes to mind that America ever got into with the intention of staying was the Filipino War. Americans get into war reluctantly, and then can't wait to get out.
The rest of the world doesn't mind the fact that America is the world's coast guard, you all love the fact that 98% of international shipping is done in sea lanes that WE pay to patrol, while you reap the benefits for nothing. When someone is in a jam, the rest of the world tends to sit by idly, and if America doesn't help, everyone criticizes us for not getting more actively involved, and when we get involved where they don't approve, then we're all imperialist pricks trying to take over the world.
America isn't going to collapse like the rest of the world powers has. It will simply step aside to make room for more powerful nations stepping into the forefront, and it's starting to look like all of those powers will NOT include the rest of the Western World.
The rest of the world needs to put up or shut up. Stop demanding that America fix the world's problems, then complain when we try, but not to everyone else's satisfaction. Maybe Europe should try sending some peacekeeping forces around the world for once, and send a few hundred billion in aid and medical relief to Africa and S. America. Half the problems we're out there trying to fix are ones that Europe created to begin with.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To be honest, I don't really think America is trying all that hard to stay in power. You know what trying hard is? Invading everyone with the intention of conquest. The only war in America's history that comes to mind that America ever got into with the intention of staying was the Filipino War. Americans get into war reluctantly, and then can't wait to get out.
The rest of the world doesn't mind the fact that America is the world's coast guard, you all love the fact that 98% of international shipping is done in sea lanes that WE pay to patrol, while you reap the benefits for nothing. When someone is in a jam, the rest of the world tends to sit by idly, and if America doesn't help, everyone criticizes us for not getting more actively involved, and when we get involved where they don't approve, then we're all imperialist pricks trying to take over the world.
\
To be honest America is trying, really really hard to stay in power, example is how its looming over the oil thats left in the planet, which as you know is what started the whole thing in Iraq. The middle East is HOT HOT, and is going to get hotter.
Americans get into war and then cant wait to get out because their sons are dying for a cause not their own.
So the world doesnt mind that america is the world's coast guard, last time i checked its hated by most of Europe, the middle east, asia, and not because of its greatness, which will collapse i can asure you, it will never be as powerfull as it once was, but because they meddle in everybodys bussiness, i told you about China, America puts as much money as it wants into their military, nobody complains, but other nations do it and America is making claims that they are into something.
So now we are problem solvers eh, thats nice. Helping other nations with problems like Kenya thats dying of thrist, america is so eager of helping.
America wont give a damn about Africa until it has something that America wants.
Why would the rest of the world care of the sea lanes that you so effortly patrol when your the ones that need more from the other continents, than the rest of the continents need from america.
like i said, God Bless America... ha
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're what, 13? 14?
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Where do you live anyway Leo? Wherever it is, they apparently don't teach world history there,
Oh and please tell me that America teaches world history,
the rest of the world teaches world history,
while you teach great American History, i did my HS in America FYI
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
--O low blow--
haha trying to talk down on me because you think im 13 or 14
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Lyrhawn, the debate about the atomic bombs is a very heated and discussed topic in the United States. You should know that before you suggest other countries are bringing up topics in history that you think are worthless.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well.
Leo -
I've had no problems learning about World History in America. But thank you for educating me on your extreme biases, certainly helps put this debate in perspective. Further, if you don't want to be treated like a 13 or 14 year old (which I've yet to do, but am quickly approaching), then don't act like one. The rest of the world might teach world history better than us, but apparently they aren't so hot at english skills. Work on that.
Chungwa -
I don't even know what you are talking about there. From conversations here and with others at school, it's clearly a topic of discussion voiced around the world. But I agree that it is most likely far more heated here. I'm confused however as to how I said it is a worthless debate. In fact, if anything I said there is a lot more to the debate, and that Leo wasn't doing it justice by trivializing it to the point of mass omission. If you could quote where I went wrong, I'd be happy to answer to it.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, using better grammar, and actually bringing up some valid points like I do, would throw off some suspiscion(sp?).
"To be honest America is trying, really really hard to stay in power, example is how its looming over the oil thats left in the planet, which as you know is what started the whole thing in Iraq. The middle East is HOT HOT, and is going to get hotter."
You, know, we actually aren't trying to stay in power. We simply go about our daily business, and the actions America has taken through its history all led up to us being where we are today. Democracy and freedom have helped greatly, since most were introduced in America.
As for oil, who the heck do you think is developing alternative fuels and alternative cars? America is the nation that is developing vehicles that are hydrogen ones, and trying to make alternative fuels widespread. So thats done. By 2015, hydrogen vehicles are suppsed to be available to the masses.
"Americans get into war and then cant wait to get out because their sons are dying for a cause not their own."
No, this is because we are a democracy, with many trains of thought. People voice their opinions freely, about everything the government does. There are just as many, who think we should stay in the war.
"So the world doesnt mind that america is the world's coast guard, last time i checked its hated by most of Europe, the middle east, asia, and not because of its greatness, which will collapse i can asure you, it will never be as powerfull as it once was, but because they meddle in everybodys bussiness, i told you about China, America puts as much money as it wants into their military, nobody complains, but other nations do it and America is making claims that they are into something."
To tell you the truth, America won't collapse. We are too powerful, to fair to our peoples, and if we did, the whole world suffer for our demise. The fall of the world economy, setting out a great depression, smaller nations becoming vulnerable to ones like China, nations losing their most powerful ally, and have the worlds technological advancements come to a grinding halt, do to the fact that most nations do their research with us, and if we fell, they would lose a lot of money.
"So now we are problem solvers eh, thats nice. Helping other nations with problems like Kenya thats dying of thrist, america is so eager of helping."
That is the point. I don't see Britain, France, Germany, China, or Canada helping either. Why should they go help? The sad truth is, no one cares about Africa. Very sad, and once the rest of the world's problems are solved, or Africa has something we want, then we will help them.
"America wont give a damn about Africa until it has something that America wants."
Or untill the rest of the world's problems are solved. But hey, the Europeans, they don't have ANY responsibility to help do they? I mean, they only caused half the problems in Africa.
"Why would the rest of the world care of the sea lanes that you so effortly patrol when your the ones that need more from the other continents, than the rest of the continents need from america."
Because we a big, hungry country, and don't turn a blinf eye tp China, as they starting to waste more then us. They already pollute FAR more then America.
"like i said, God Bless America... ha"
Indeed, God Bless America. God bless good grammar also.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Leo -
I wasn't going to, because your post was so riddled with goofy half truths and bias, but after seeing Reticulum's post, I'll post a reply to your reply to mine. Firstly, we aren't looming over all the world's oil. In the next 20 years, we'll have cut quite a bit of our own demand, and with increased imports from Mexico, Canada, and increased domestic production, we'll be just fine. It's China you need to worry about. They can actually launch a major land war on most of the countries in the area around them that have oil with very little effort. And maybe less effort if the Europeans start selling them more sophisticated weapons.
I really don't even know anymore what Iraq was really about, but it wasn't oil. If you think that, I don't think you understand the situation. What'd you think we were going to do? Invade and just take over the oil fields until we suck them dry? And we'd just take all their oil and no one would have a problem with it? There'd be no backlash? Contrary to your opinion, we really aren't that stupid. It took years for their production level to get to where it was before the war, we aren't getting any more oil now, and certainly not for cheaper, than we were before. I'm not a fan of the war, I've opposed it from the start, but even I don't think it was for oil. That argument doesn't have the evidence to back it up.
As for Americans quitting war because our sons and daughters are dying. We lost hundreds of thousands dying in Europe and we didn't quit. We lost tens of thousands dying in the Pacific, and we didn't quit then. Maybe we should have. We haven't fought a war for survival since 1865. Well, really 1812, 1865 just decided the composition of the nation, not whether or not it would be conquered by a foreign power. The last century has been America fighting to protect others (mostly). When's the last time Europe spearheaded an effort to defend the weak at the cost of their sons and daughters?
As for China, how are we putting money into their military? Sure, we buy their stuff, so does everyone. You could easily say that whenever a European buys American goods, they are really buying the tanks they revile so much. But we don't sell them weapons. That's something the Europeans want to do. And something Russians do on a daily basis.
As for Africa. Whew boy. Europe colonizes Africa, creates fake tribes and enslaves millions there for years (thousands of years, if you want to go back to Rome), plays cartographer and gets million embroiled in genocidal strife, then leaves the whole mess for them to handle themselves and it is somehow AMERICA'S job to swoop in and fix it for them? That's rich. Part of me wants to say "Clean up your own mess," but if we had to wait for Europe to fix it, it'd never get done. America gives billions in aid to Africa on a yearly basis, and asks for nothing in return. We loan them money then forgive their debt, we spend billions developing drugs then give them away for free to the helpless there. We send teachers, and relief workers etc to Africa to help the people, and Europe complains that we don't do enough. This, on top of complaining that we do TOO much in other places. Put up or shut up. Lead the way and we will follow.
And yes, because ALL international trade flows through America. The stuff that Europe imports from China, and from Indonesia and wherever else all runs over sealanes that America protects. Yes, we need the stuff that we import, but the WORLD's economy runs on global sea trade, not just America's. Turning a blind eye to that necessity is remarkably shortsighted and takes a rather dim world view. We make safe world trade possible while your toy navies (with the exception of Britain) puddle around in their harbors. Europe would be hardpressed to run a deep sea navy like America does without huge new financial burdens, the kind that caused Europe to slash it's navy hardcore over the last 50 years. I'm content to let you protect your own ships.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
All very good points, Lyrhawn. I wonder whether LeoJ will respond again, because if he did, it should be post saying that he was wrong.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: Maybe it used to be, but you're President is Mephisto! (His grin gives me the shivers. Bah.)
Call Dr. Strange!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Lyrhawn, I was under the impression that the movie had pretty much the same cast as the original Broadway cast--no?
I love Brent Spiner as Adams, but I have to say that the rest of the revival cast was extremely weak. I don't know how people with such poor voices get to be in a Broadway show.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: You, know, we actually aren't trying to stay in power. We simply go about our daily business, and the actions America has taken through its history all led up to us being where we are today. Democracy and freedom have helped greatly, since most were introduced in America.
I don't think LeoJ is worth your effort, guys. In any case, while I agree with a few of your points, I wanted to quibble with this statement. How does Americas long history of undermining democratically elected governments in Latin America and replacing them with violently repressive right wing dictatorships friendly to US economic interests jibe with saying that America has taken no action to try and stay in power, and only achieved its position through virtuous living?
I think this may be where quidscribis's p.o.v. comes in. I think the actions that the US has taken have been right more often than they have been wrong. The US has often been a force for good in the world. The US is also a country where people enjoy more freedom than in many other countries in the world--and became that way when it was not all that commonplace. Finally, the US is a place where anyone of at least average ability can achieve modest success, if they pair that ability with patience and a great deal of motivation--I really do believe that. My family made a choice to live here--didn't most of ours?--and I'm grateful for that choice.
But why even discuss whether or not America is great? Why not simply work on making it so, if it isn't already, and more so, if it is? I think it's a question that can pretty much only be posed by a nation resting on its laurels. A nation seeking to be better would make a point of focusing on the areas where it could. Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populaces. Destabilizing democracies and giving aid to dictatorships. Invading countries preemptively and under false pretenses. Passing laws to curtail the freedoms in which we take so much pride. Allowing ideological battles to play out in our children's curricula, and utterly failing to teach them science in the process. Enshrining discrimination into law. We should face the things we could do better, not try to deny that they exist, or suggest that to call attention to them is disloyal--it seems more disloyal to turn a blind eye to the places where we could improve. Whether or not we are "great" depends merely on how low we set that bar. We are pretty good, but we could certainly be better.
Standing around telling everyone how great we are, and that we invented freedom, and that we have never done anything wrong on the international stage, and that if they don't fall down and worship us, it's merely because they're jealous of how much better than them we are--that's arrogant.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:The people I met in Berlin were pretty arrogant about being German.
But you guys have some sweet castles, so that's cool. I have a thing for castles.
( )
Bad luck! I've never been in Berlin. I don't want to go there, EVER. I don't like the mentality of the people from Berlin I got to know till now. And the dialect sounds awful to me.
If I had to guess, where you'd probably meet Germans that contradict my post (do they???), then I'd say: In Berlin.
It's the capital! I guess that at least half of the people who live there are simply proud of BERLIN itself (it IS beautiful) and/or remember the time before 1989. It's nice to live in Germany, especially when you remember that you once had to queue to get bananas. At least, that's my guess.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Adams and Jefferson were the same with William Daniels and Ken Howard. Also Richard Henry Lee was played both times by Ronald Holgate. And William Duell plays Mcnair, Congressional Custodian.
Otherwise:
Benjamin Franklin was played by Howard Da Silva in the movie and in the opening few weeks of the show, but not throughout the show's run.
All of the other major characters were played by different actors, including, Dickinson, Rutledge, Livington, Morris, Sherman, Abigail Adams and more. Many of the background characters are the same however, but they're just the chorus. I really like that the broadway version has "Cool Considerate Men" in it, which was nixed from the movie because of Nixon. Bastard.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Lyrhawn, I think I misunderstood your post. Sorry if I came off as harsh and/or arrogant.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The DVD has "Cool Considerate Men" [back] in it. It's really freaky/psychadelic/weird the way they staged it for the movie, though.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
hmm? America? what's that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's all good Chungwa.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I have the DVD, it's great! I love the stuff they added back in that was taken out. And though a lot of the CCM song is really, REALLY creepy the way they did it, I still like the song.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh yeah. We did it much better when I was in it four years ago . . . Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wish anyone around here, either my high school, college or even local theater group had done it.
I would've been a sweet John Adams. Or Dickinson. Or Rutledge. Or Corporal guy who sings "momma look sharp."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Or chorus member? Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote: Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populaces.
How can you hold that against the U.S.? However many lives it destroyed, it saved thousands more. The bombs brought an end to WWII, and ensured that as few lives as possible would have been lost. Had the invasion of Japan taken place, far more civilians and soliders would have died.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Chorus member? Nah. I'm too good for that. Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The rest of the world might teach world history better than us, but apparently they aren't so hot at english skills. Work on that.
Now coming up on me because of my grammar, buddy i dont know you have noticed, but English isnt my first language, spanish is, and i know as much english as much as i know spanish, i understand italian, some french and im learning a new language where its only spoken in a region of spain.
Having said that well, why should the rest of the world be "hot on learning english skills" while America has a large spanish speaking population.
The rest of the world tries to learn english, but dont forget that America didnt spawn the language.
Now, i was a little rushed in the writting and didnt care about grammar, and looks like i didnt write well what i tried to explain. Mind you, you've got some good points, but i also have mine. Anyways ill re-post you again tomorrow its 1:20 am and im going to sleep.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote: Dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populaces.
How can you hold that against the U.S.? However many lives it destroyed, it saved thousands more. The bombs brought an end to WWII, and ensured that as few lives as possible would have been lost. Had the invasion of Japan taken place, far more civilians and soliders would have died.
Well, yes, but it is not clear that the choice was between bombing and invasion. Just a tiny touch of flexibility, an assurance to the Japanese cabinet that the Emperor's person would be respected - which the Maericans did anyway, so it wouldn't have been a concession - might well have been enough for a negotiated settlement.
That aside, I can't really get too excited about those nukes. It's worth remembering that by today's standards they were pretty small stuff; nobody was going to have a nuclear armageddon with twenty-kiloton firecrackers. And considering what conventional high explosive had been doing in Europe - 100000 dead in the raid on Dresden, anyone? - and what the Japanese had been up to in China, not to mention it being the end of a six-year war and everybody sick of it - well, war consists of doing Bad Things to your enemy until he does what you want. The only reason people keep harping on this particular Bad Thing, as opposed to, say, the firebombing of Hamburg, is the long ICBM standoff. Not to mention they're superstitious about radiation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah I have the DVD, it's great! I love the stuff they added back in that was taken out. And though a lot of the CCM song is really, REALLY creepy the way they did it, I still like the song.
I was bummed that they didn't restore it all. I have the album, and there's a verse in Adams' song at the beginning ranting about Congress that they left out.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all evil acts. The one doesn't reduce the other.
(Incidentally, I saw on the History Channel--so take it with a grain of salt--that Japan tried to surrender after the first nuke, and we would not accept it. We were determined to drop the second one. Assuming that's true, what does that say about our noble desire to save lives?)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Leo -
No, I didn't know you were originally a Spanish speaker, and I apologize, do you live in Spain now? judging by the time zone difference, there's no way you live in North America. I wasn't sniping at your grammar so much as the fact that some of your posts (or parts of them) made little or no sense. Given that you said you went to school in the US, I just assumed you knew how to speak English correctly.
As for my snarky comment, given what you said about America and it's history classes, I'd say we're at least even. Hyperbole for hyperbole. I don't expect the rest of the world to speak English, but I do expect that when someone enters a debate where the language of debate is English, that that person would in fact have some coherence in the language of the debate. I don't think that it at all unreasonable. And you don't have to take my words so wildly out of proportion. I never said that the world has to learn English, I never claim we invented the language. Don't be so quick to assume, or put words in my mouth.
KoM, Icarus -
Don't forget about the firebombing of Tokyo. It was easily just as bad as Dresden. My grandfather was a bomber made to participate in the bombing, he said you could smell the flesh cooking off from thousands of feet in the air. He said none of them liked doing it, but it was war.
starLisa -
I forgot about that part! You're right. I don't understand a lot of the stuff they cut. The movie was already so long, why not just go the extra step and just fully restore it you know? I still love the movie though, it's one of my favorites, and by far is my favorite musical.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's definitely in my top five. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I thought it was an interesting story, and divulged two points first off.
1. Non-Americans are aware of the prejudice and some are trying to combat it. (Saying so in a speech to a foreign parliament is a pretty big deal).
2. This quote:
quote: “We have to show that these are not Western ... American or Anglo-Saxon values, but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen
echoes something I was trying to say earlier.
A lot of concepts that American people believe in are not exclusively American values. And when (American) people insist that they are it does seem arrogant.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Which ones?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, most of the concepts discussed in the Declaration of Independence come from European philosophers.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
As a minor point, anyone who uses "self-loving" pejoratively scares me. It implies that they see "self-hatred" as a virtue.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm not sure it really implies that.
I know I'm scared of people who are overly self-loving. Or, rather, people who put far more importance into what country they're from than really ought to be.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Pixiest posted this line on another thread back in January, but I think it bears repeating:
"As an American, being mocked by people from third world hell holes is a bit like being made fun of by the retarded kid on the playground. I know I should be insulted, but I can't stop laughing."
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
That quote actually makes me a little sad.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: The rest of the world seems to think that we think they are bad. I am quite sure that any nation thinks theirs is the best. Be there any nation in the world that doesn't think theirs is the best? Doesn't every nation believe that they are 1 par above all of the other? .
How many people do you know from other countries? Have you ever lived outside the US? Based on my experience, your base assumption is quite simply wrong. Most people in most countries aren't as nationalistic as Americans.
While most non-US citizens I've known have a love for their home and their culture, I've never heard them claim that their nation is better than other nations. Most Europeans I've known who come to the US are aghast at how we sing the national anthem at the beginning of all sporting events and fly the flag so much. People I know from China, say it reminds them of the propaganda they experienced during the cultural revolution and can't understand why we do it if we aren't being forced to by the government. People I've known from the middle east, africa and Latin America all have a certain love for the culture, but little love for their nations as political entities. They often associate their flags and anthems with the propaganda from brutal dictators.
I was working in Germany during the run up to the last US elections. Many of my German colleagues watched the democratic national convention while I was there, and were apalled at all the hyper nationalism that was expressed. My friends said that if any German candidate publicly claimed that Germany was the greatest nation in the world, they'd be fleeing the country on the next train.
In my experience traveling abroad and working with people from around the global, the US is indeed unusually arrogant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see that as wrong at all. Well, personally I too am aghast at the fact that we sing the national anthem before every sporting event, but as for the rest of it, I'm not ashamed to be an overly proud American, and I don't think anyone else should be either.
You don't think that the morally superior Europeans ever say that they are better than America? I'd be very surprised to learn otherwise. Besides, the grand majority of the rest of the world hasn't had a stable democratically elected government for the last 200 years. Not without a revolution or renaming or some other such upheaval that changed everything. I think we have something to be proud of, and there is nothing wrong with screaming it from the rooftops.
It's not arrogance, it's pride. Well, some of that is arrogance, but for the most part pride. And I don't see anything wrong with that, and no one has explained why there is anything wrong with it yet.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:It's not arrogance, it's pride. Well, some of that is arrogance, but for the most part pride. And I don't see anything wrong with that, and no one has explained why there is anything wrong with it yet.
I think Rabbit just gave a pretty sweet reason.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
One of the biggest things (and I think we've discussed this a few times) is that many of the "unique" accomplishments that Americans scream about from their rooftops are not at all unique. Sure, the third world doesn't share them, but the rest of the developed world does.
For example, as Americans we sometimes consider the idea of democracy to somehow be unique to us, as if democracy is our invention.
Also, I think that our government has (and has had) its fingers in so many pies gets a lot of people angry - American citizens included.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: That quote actually makes me a little sad.
I'm curious, Chungwa. Why "sad"?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, not to sound arrogant, but we have to have had done something right. I, on the other hand, have heard a lot of people say their nation is the best. The French, and the English are two prime examples. I have met one or two people from England, and I know a few people who have been to France. They are the same as we are. It all depends on who you talk to. There all people in all countries who think theirs is the best. And then there are those, who think it is the worst, or not the best.
Flying the flag a lot, and singing the national anthem is not nationalism, that is patriotism . There is a very big difference between the two. Just because we aren't being forced to by the government, doesn't mean we can't wave our flags, and love our nation. We have the right to do it in our own nation, and it is not as if, all Americans spend their days waving their flags around, and saying we are best. Some do, of course, but not a lot.
We don't associate our flag with brutal dictators or propaganda, because throughout our history, that is not what the flag has come to represent. To us, it represents freedom, and democracy, and how we have changed/shaped the world. Others may not think we have actually done these things, and maybe we haven't, but that doesn't mean it can't represent that to us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:It's not arrogance, it's pride. Well, some of that is arrogance, but for the most part pride. And I don't see anything wrong with that, and no one has explained why there is anything wrong with it yet.
I think Rabbit just gave a pretty sweet reason.
What? Just because the rest of the world says so? That's a horrible reason.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
*nods in agreement*
Just because the rest of the world says it, (or Europe, really) doesn't mean it's true. If the rest of the world said 1+1=3, would that make it true?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, much of the "third world hell holes" are hell holes because of actions of the developed world. While I may not think people living in despair should be mocking Americans, I certainly wouldn't find it funny.
At any rate, I don't know the context of the quote (though I'm not sure how context would change my opinion of it in this case) and I don't really want to end up insulting Pixiest based on a remark from a different thread.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Well, much of the "third world hell holes" are hell holes because of actions of the developed world.
Europe, really.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
From my very limited travels I have seen much more nationalism in the United States than in other countries. And by nationalism I'm not simply saying a love of your country, but the notion that your country is better than all others.
Don't get me wrong, though, I found a comparable amount in Canada.
Reticulum, are you lumping those people who think America is the worst country in the same group as those people who think it is not the best country.
(Again, I'd like to say that arguing which country is "the best" is pretty ridiculous)
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Well, much of the "third world hell holes" are hell holes because of actions of the developed world.
Europe, really.
Europe certainly has influenced many negatively. So has the US, I could list a long number of countries, but I don't think that will really get us anywhere in this discussion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eh. I'm not going to point specific fingers, but even pretending that America is as much to blame as Europe for the mess in Africa is beyond the pale for me. Europe has done more to mess up Africa, and until recently, the Middle East than anyone else on earth. Maybe it won't help solve the problem or further this discussion, but there has been plenty of US bashing in this thread, a little perspective on Europe's sins is warranted I think, and certainly fair.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Actually I wasn't even thinking about Africa.
I disagree that pointing out legitimate (or atleast, what I think are legitimate) negative aspects of America is "US bashing."
I constantly complain (mainly in the form of writing letters) about things that the Canadian government has done. I probably seem harsher on the US, but then, I'm living here so I feel a little more responsibility about expressing my opinion.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Europe has done far worse things to the world then the United States has EVER done to anyone.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I think I'm going to politely leave the discussion now.
Thanks, though, I found it mostly thought provoking.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Europe's also been around far longer than the US has. Give us a few hundred more years, we may catch up.
And I don't necessarily think you're right, either. Some of the political manipulation we've done in Latin America has been pretty creepy. At elast as bad as anything a European nation has done in Africa, if not worse.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Wait, wait wait. You can't be serious. You think that what we did to Latin America, even has legs against what Europe did to Africa, and Asia?Worse? I'm afraid not. Yes, what we did was terrible, and wrong, but to hold us in the same category as Europe, I don't approve.
*cough* colonies *cough* North and South America *cough*
Though yeah, we probably WILL catchup, is the sad thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The problem is that we are still doing it.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
What are we doing currently?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not so sure Europe is any more to blame for autrocities in Africa than the US. The US was built on the back of slavery, predominantly African slavery. During the cold war, the US helped depose every progressive government in Africa. Africa suffered under European colonialism during the 19th century, but during the 20th century American neo-colonialism did as much damage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: What are we doing currently?
quote:Flying the flag a lot, and singing the national anthem is not nationalism, that is patriotism . There is a very big difference between the two.
I'm curious. What is the very big difference between the two from your perspective.
Websters defines nationalism as "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"
and patriotism as "love for or devotion to one's country".
The difference there seems to be a level of degree and the line where patriotism becomes nationalism is hardly a clear one.
I would say that flying the flag and singing the national athem a lot are indicative of a strong sense of national consciousness which is generally indicative of nationalist sentiments.
When you add that to the American propensity to talk about how we are "the greatest nation in the world", and considerable economic, diplomatic and military resources we put into promoting our culture and interests around the world, I think nationalism is the right word.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What are we doing currently?
Well the US backed a coup to over through the democratically elected government of Venezuela quite recently.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Europe has done far worse things to the world then the United States has EVER done to anyone.
Really? The US undertook a systematic and prolonged and very effective effort to eradicate the indigenous peoples who lived here. Our genocide of the American Indians was more effective than Hitlers genocide of the Jews. What have European nations done that was worse than that.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Can you give some proof to that? Kind of sounds interesting.
Rabbit, I have to say you are right. I always thought of nationalism as extreme patriotism to a very bad degree, and Patriotism as good. Apparently I was wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not so sure Europe is any more to blame for autrocities in Africa than the US. The US was built on the back of slavery, predominantly African slavery. During the cold war, the US helped depose every progressive government in Africa. Africa suffered under European colonialism during the 19th century, but during the 20th century American neo-colonialism did as much damage.
Yes, we were, but that was a very long time ago. It doesn't hold sway anymore. Most nations of the world had slavery. But even that doesn't clear it up, because we had racial segregation, which is racist and unfair, and one of the darker parts of U.S. history. And actually, colonial Africa went untill 1914. Do you have anything to back up how America ruined Africa?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Europe has done far worse things to the world then the United States has EVER done to anyone.
Really? The US undertook a systematic and prolonged and very effective effort to eradicate the indigenous peoples who lived here. Our genocide of the American Indians was more effective than Hitlers genocide of the Jews. What have European nations done that was worse than that.
Oh, I don't know, when they colonized in the first place? They were the ones who founded these colonies, and kicked them out in the first place. Spain destroyed Latin American culture, and created it in it's own image, and the French and British, killed inumerable native Americans. And lets not forget when Europe had slavery just as the U.S. did. And killed millions of Africans in their homeland, from the 1880's to 1914. I think that was a bit worse.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you go back prior to 1776, then the US and the Europeans are one and the same. It is ridiculous to say that those autrocities are their responsibility but not ours. No modern European country has the same government today that it had 200 years ago. Our country is as equal a decendent of the European Nations of the 17th and 18th centuries as is any modern European country. As such, we have at least as much responsibility for the crimes of those former European Nations as does any modern European Nation.
You are quick to note that few other Nations have had a stable government for as long as the US has when it suits your argument, yet utterly neglect the fact when arguing about the sins of the past.
Earlier I made a distinction between loving ones home and culture, and loving ones country. The distinction I intended to make was between a Nation as defined by its government, military and laws, and a country as defined by its culture, land and people. The US is the only country I know that is unashamedly arrogant about itself as a Nation (ie laws, government, military) rather than as a country (ie people, land and culture). Our National Athem is a glorification of militarism, our flag is designed to represent political units. They are expressions of the love of our government, not expressions of the love of our land, culture and people.
[ March 27, 2006, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You know, you have made an excellent point there. I must say, in that post particularly, you are completely right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh please, have you heard France's national anthem? It's a song about the citizens rising up and "let impure blood soak the furrows." Their anthem is ten times more militaristic than ours. Besides, subsequent verses of the Star Spangled Banner temper the song as a whole I think. And I don't think it's a glorification of militarism, it's a poem/song about a battle in a war in defense of our country, what's wrong with that?
And quite frankly, I've yet to decide which is worse, a nation arrogant about it's culture or a nation arrogant about it's laws and government. It was Germans who thought of themselves as the master race, and that sparked off world war two. Doesn't get much more arrogant than that. And most Europeans I've met are insanely culturally arrogant, and I really don't see how that's a better or more acceptable kind of arrogance than American nationalistic arrogance.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
This might seem a little off topic now, but I'll post anyways.
The reason other countries consider Americans to be fat, self-loving jerks probably has a lot to do with what they put on t.v. They make a lot of jokes about other countries that don't speak their language, and even countries that do. Being from Canada, I especially notice the remarks about our country. I don't really get terribly offended. However, that may just be me. A lot of the things they say are funny, and seeing as I know how untrue they are, it doesn't really bother me. In this situation, they are really just showing their arrogance. But I'm sure people do take offence to these comments.
Yet another thing that I have noticed from them against Canada is their protests against the seal-killings in Newfoundland. They can say whatever they want about how it's wrong, but the only reason they don't like it is because seals are cute. I'm saying this from a neutral standpoint, by the way. Yeah, they're cute, and I don't think they should kill baby seals, but the adult seals, well, I don't know if I think that's wrong. How is killing a seal worse than killing a cow? Because cows are bred to be killed? Why can't seals be? Is it so much worse to bash a seals head in than to force a cow to live a life of hell (packed living areas their whole lives, and then being dumped on to trucks to go get killed. Yeah, that's humane) and then kill it? They could shoot the seals, sure, but what if they miss? I think that would hurt the seal a little bit more. I don't have a problem with people disliking the seal hunt because I understand how people can think it's wrong. But shouting "Shame on Canada" when they treat cows the way they do (and we do too, I'm not putting total blame on the States) seems a little bit wrong.
And closing the border on Canada when we got a case of BSE, that was just plain nasty, no matter how you think about it. Yeah, they were protecting their country, but the fact is that they didn't open the border, even after the problem had passed. Do you know what that did to Alberta? That could have killed it. They didn't need to keep it closed for so long. It stopped being a way to protect their country and became a way to hurt Canada. Maybe not so harsh, but it certainly seemed so to us.
Other countries are just as patriotic as the States, but they aren't as loud about it.
And to the States, it's okay to have opinions, but there's a point where views and opinions become insulting, and these things need not be said.
Now, to stop trashing the States and join their side:
I've never actually met an American that believes the things about other countries that the people on television do. But other countries have made these stereotypes and they'll be here for a long time. Thank you, American media. You've backfired on yourself.
And now back to what everyone else has been talking about:
Every country has done something horrible in their days. Some more than others, but blame can be placed on every one. Slavery in the states, the Holocaust in Germany, the descrimination and separation of the Japanese in Canada. You can't say one country is better than the others. Sure, the Holocaust was worse than the separation of the Japanese, but that was still pretty bad. I love my country, but I still hate some of the things that it has done. So no American can say their country is nicer than another one. And no matter how much you say it’s a free country, it’s not exactly free of discrimination. Just look at the media. Television is always making fun of foreigners. And how many foreigners do you see on television? And I mean on American channels and shows. One? Two? I’m sure that these people are great actors, but they have odd accents. Heaven forbid!
Don’t get me wrong, there are things that are wonderful about America. But there are things that are wonderful about other countries that America fails to notice.
Whoo, this was longer than I intended it to be. And very off topic. Oh well.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh please, have you heard France's national anthem? It's a song about the citizens rising up and "let impure blood soak the furrows." Their anthem is ten times more militaristic than ours. Besides, subsequent verses of the Star Spangled Banner temper the song as a whole I think. And I don't think it's a glorification of militarism, it's a poem/song about a battle in a war in defense of our country, what's wrong with that?
And quite frankly, I've yet to decide which is worse, a nation arrogant about it's culture or a nation arrogant about it's laws and government. It was Germans who thought of themselves as the master race, and that sparked off world war two. Doesn't get much more arrogant than that. And most Europeans I've met are insanely culturally arrogant, and I really don't see how that's a better or more acceptable kind of arrogance than American nationalistic arrogance.
I think he needs some ice for that burn. Culturally, Europeans are the MOST arrogant people you can possibly meet on the entire face of the Earth.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Fae-Ray: This might seem a little off topic now, but I'll post anyways.
The reason other countries consider Americans to be fat, self-loving jerks probably has a lot to do with what they put on t.v. They make a lot of jokes about other countries that don't speak their language, and even countries that do. Being from Canada, I especially notice the remarks about our country. I don't really get terribly offended. However, that may just be me. A lot of the things they say are funny, and seeing as I know how untrue they are, it doesn't really bother me. In this situation, they are really just showing their arrogance. But I'm sure people do take offence to these comments.
Yet another thing that I have noticed from them against Canada is their protests against the seal-killings in Newfoundland. They can say whatever they want about how it's wrong, but the only reason they don't like it is because seals are cute. I'm saying this from a neutral standpoint, by the way. Yeah, they're cute, and I don't think they should kill baby seals, but the adult seals, well, I don't know if I think that's wrong. How is killing a seal worse than killing a cow? Because cows are bred to be killed? Why can't seals be? Is it so much worse to bash a seals head in than to force a cow to live a life of hell (packed living areas their whole lives, and then being dumped on to trucks to go get killed. Yeah, that's humane) and then kill it? They could shoot the seals, sure, but what if they miss? I think that would hurt the seal a little bit more. I don't have a problem with people disliking the seal hunt because I understand how people can think it's wrong. But shouting "Shame on Canada" when they treat cows the way they do (and we do too, I'm not putting total blame on the States) seems a little bit wrong.
And closing the border on Canada when we got a case of BSE, that was just plain nasty, no matter how you think about it. Yeah, they were protecting their country, but the fact is that they didn't open the border, even after the problem had passed. Do you know what that did to Alberta? That could have killed it. They didn't need to keep it closed for so long. It stopped being a way to protect their country and became a way to hurt Canada. Maybe not so harsh, but it certainly seemed so to us.
Other countries are just as patriotic as the States, but they aren't as loud about it.
And to the States, it's okay to have opinions, but there's a point where views and opinions become insulting, and these things need not be said.
Now, to stop trashing the States and join their side:
I've never actually met an American that believes the things about other countries that the people on television do. But other countries have made these stereotypes and they'll be here for a long time. Thank you, American media. You've backfired on yourself.
And now back to what everyone else has been talking about:
Every country has done something horrible in their days. Some more than others, but blame can be placed on every one. Slavery in the states, the Holocaust in Germany, the descrimination and separation of the Japanese in Canada. You can't say one country is better than the others. Sure, the Holocaust was worse than the separation of the Japanese, but that was still pretty bad. I love my country, but I still hate some of the things that it has done. So no American can say their country is nicer than another one. And no matter how much you say it’s a free country, it’s not exactly free of discrimination. Just look at the media. Television is always making fun of foreigners. And how many foreigners do you see on television? And I mean on American channels and shows. One? Two? I’m sure that these people are great actors, but they have odd accents. Heaven forbid!
Don’t get me wrong, there are things that are wonderful about America. But there are things that are wonderful about other countries that America fails to notice.
Whoo, this was longer than I intended it to be. And very off topic. Oh well.
Doesn't matter that it was off-topic, because it was right. Good job. Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
"And quite frankly, I've yet to decide which is worse, a nation arrogant about it's culture or a nation arrogant about it's laws and government. It was Germans who thought of themselves as the master race, and that sparked off world war two. Doesn't get much more arrogant than that. And most Europeans I've met are insanely culturally arrogant, and I really don't see how that's a better or more acceptable kind of arrogance than American nationalistic arrogance. "
Does that make it okay to be arrogant, though? Be the better person, rise up against the wrongs other countries have made. Saying it's okay to be arrogant because Germany had that whole Aryan thing is like saying it's okay to steal a TV 'cause someone else stole a truck.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
Thanks. I've been waiting for a chance to explode about my political (if you consider these political) views. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, they are highly intelligible ones. Feel free to create a new topic, as I would be the first in line to reply, if I am on the site. So, what are your views on today's America?
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
Well, it depends. Are you talking about the media afflicted America, or the people themselves? Of course, it's getting harder and harder to differentiate between the two nowadays.
The people themselves are just like the ones in any other country, until they meet up with good ol' media. The need to be accepted in the cultural melting pot that is America has taken over free will and made people desperate to be the same. So what if my new pumps are going to break my back when I'm thirty? I'll wear 'em 'cause that girl in the magazine did. I've never been to an American school, so don't quote me on this, but if you went to a school there, you'd find a lot less free-thinking than you do here. Not to say Canada doesn't have their fair share of media mind-control.
My biggest problem is the contradictory messages being sent out. They're telling young girls to eat a 1200 calorie burger, and attempt to squeeze into a size 1 pair of pants. And when they can't, they get depressed and become anorexic. A whole generation is being raised to believe they're no good, and they need to change to fit the current image of what is in.
And my political views- well, I'll probably just embarrass myself here. What with the election, I haven't been paying as much attention to other political news as I should have been. But anyways...
My big political problem is the war in Iraq. I don't even know why they're in there anymore. And it's a political war, so why are they killing innocent civilians? I'm not sure how much of this has gone on, but any is too much. I wont go any further with this, however. I don't know enough about this topic to post my political views all over the net.
Note: I apologize about any innacuracy here, please correct me if there is any.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Of course, as an American, I'm impressed that there are other countries that give free stuff away every day! Two of those countries are Canada who gives HEALTH INSURANCE to its citizens and Germany who gives away HIGHER EDUCATION.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
How old are you(fae)? I really can't put an age description on you, from what you have said. You could be 30, you could be 20. I can't really say.
However sickening it may be to hear these things, and however much I may love my nation, and however devoted to it I may be; that's true. The media part at least. I myself think the war was a very good idea, and that we still need to be there, to ensure stability and that Iraq doesn't fall to America's greatest enemy... Communism . *gasps*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Culturally, Europeans are the MOST arrogant people you can possibly meet on the entire face of the Earth.
How do you know this, Reticulum?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Because I have met quite a few of them. I haven't been there, but I have met them. I also know some people who lived there for a while.
But in retrospect, it really wouldn't be too wise to judge an entire people, judged on a select few.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fae-Ray
I'm not saying that just because Europe is arrogant, that makes it okay for us to be arrogant as well. I'm saying we're both arrogant, just in different ways, and if Europe doesn't want to be arrogant AND hypocritical, it should shut up. Just because we're more in your face about it to visiting foreigners doesn't overwrite the fact that Europeans are cut from the same cloth, and they aren't fooling anyone.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
To attempt to keep my identity safe, I'll give you the range. How anyone would be able to figure out my identity by my age, I'm not sure, but I've been made paranoid. I'm 12-15. I'll have to add this now, too. Please don't take anything I say less seriously because of my age. It's always been a big problem of mine.
I think that the problems in Iraq (gender descrimination is one of the big ones) are too big to be solved by war. It's going to take a lot more than guns and tanks to make the Iraqis understand gender equality.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
I s'pose you're right, Lyrhawn. My apologies.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Asking me not to judge you by your age is a very ironic statement. Gender equality isn't what is trying to be solved. Democracy has been established, and within 20-50 years, the conlict will arise. That is however, I can really see why this is a subject America should stick its nose out of.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
I understand wanting to help Iraq out, and I know the country is doing what it thinks is right. But going to war to stop a country from becoming communist... America is a democracy. It works for them. But Iraq contains a completely different culture, different people. It might not work for them. And even if they become democratic, America is now going to feel as though they have to give women the right to vote (which they should, but will more war resolve that?). A forced democracy... sounds kind of odd if you think about it. Democracy is about the freedom to choose.
Edit: Sorry, I misread your statement. However, I'll leave this up anyways.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The communist thing was a joke. And no, communism works for no one. It never has, and never will. Democracy works. It is the reason America has the longest lasting government currently in order.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Disclaimer: the following is posted by Tzadik
Reticulum, what exactly do you mean by:
quote: Culturally, Europeans are the MOST arrogant people you can possibly meet on the entire face of the Earth.
Have you lived in Europe? Have you lived in most of the European countries? I mean lived, not visited the way Americans visit - 10 countries in 10 days. You are making very bold statements about Europeans and Europe - and have no clue what you are talking about.
I am simply offended by your statement about my arrogance, seeing I am European as well. Guess your statement confirms to the Europeans the stereotype American - caring for nothing but the US, the rest of the world means nothing. What do you know, what have you experienced about Europe and Europeans that makes you make a statement like this?
You talk about Europeans being culturally arrogant - please come over to Europe and experience it. Experience your fellow citizens coming to Europe and acting as kings of the world because they are Americans - not caring at all about the culture of the nation they are visiting. After all, we are Americans so we can do whatever we please! We are going to be loud and obnoxious and don't care about how we act on a visit! Of course, not every American is acting this way - not at all. But a lot of your fellow countrymen do, that's a fact nobody can deny!
I know US, have been there, love it there, I think it's a great place to live. As well as the Czech Republic where we live with my wife (who by the way is an American) or Slovakia, where I was born, or Hungary, Poland, France or Switzerland etc. So please, think before you post something so offensive! It just confirms the title of your thread... Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Well, much of the "third world hell holes" are hell holes because of actions of the developed world.
Europe, really.
And your nation doesnt pay the corrupt politicians in mine so that they vote against building an oil refinery, so that the crude is sold to your country cheaper?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Europe is not a single culture. Culturally, the French are very different than the German, or the Polish, or the British -- to the point that you might have *great* problems living in one of those countries -- I sometimes think some of the European cultures are more foreign to one another than the American is to them.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
I dont understand, Reticulum started the thread, and then he makes such arrogant comments.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
(This is actually Lissande)
LeoJ - I actually think it's kind of funny. Reticulum answers his own question with every post he makes, doesn't he? *amused*
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Im amused with you
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
I think if you sit back and let Reticulum argue this one out by himself, he'll make a pretty good case against Americans himself Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The communist thing was a joke. And no, communism works for no one. It never has, and never will. Democracy works. It is the reason America has the longest lasting government currently in order.
It may not be really pertinent, but it's worth pointing out that communism is an economic system and democracy a political system. In actual practice it's debatable, but from what I know about communism the two aren't mutually exclusive in theory.
And never say never. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Of course, as an American, I'm impressed that there are other countries that give free stuff away every day! Two of those countries are Canada who gives HEALTH INSURANCE to its citizens and Germany who gives away HIGHER EDUCATION.
As far as Canadian health insurance goes, it ain't free.
Some provinces, such as BC, charge a flat rate for individuals or families, although that amount can be subsidized for those earning under the threshold. In Ontario, I believe it's paid for by the employer (Ohip). The remainder of the cost - in all provinces and territories, comes out of tax money that Canadians pay.
And Canadians pay a heckuvalot in taxes.
That doesn't make it free. That just makes the income/expense stream less visible.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Education is free, as in america, but the problem is that in america it sucks.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I guess all nations have prejudices and unjust expectations attached to it. U.S. just has more visibility in this point of history. British were seen in a very negative light, sometimes, in their hayday, as the ancient Romans. And it goes on, and on.
Many people tend to think there are only few things in Brazil, for example:
- Beaches with lots of naked or scantly clad "mulatas". - Amazon Jungle. - Big "favelas" (slums) where drug dealers hold sway.
Although all three do exist here, most of Brazil isn't composed of beaches or jungle or favelas. There are big, great cities, deserts, mountain ranges, etc, etc.
Unfortunatelly, some nations are seen as a threat, because of the sheer power they have, and how they wield it. Over here, in the third world, it's not hard to feel bullied by the U.S. and other First-World Countries (strangely, this feeling tend to come more fron the U.S. than the other countries combined), as though the rest of the world was their playfield. It may seem paranoic to some of you, but after 20 years of bloody military dictatorship backed and funded by the U.S. (please, I'm not arguing if it was or wasn't. Neither the military at the time nor American Government ever denied it) many Brazilians tend to have a very dim view of U.S. interference in other country's politics.
Just a non-American perspective on the subject. By the way: I don't hate America, nor it's people (heck! I'm planning to spend my honeymoon, or part of it over there!) But yes. I'm veeery skeptical of the good intentions in U.S. foreign politics.
(sorry for the broken english)
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Free Higher Education! Free Healthcare!
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
lets revolt the streets now
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeoJ: Education is free, as in america, but the problem is that in america it sucks.
Education is free but Higher Education is not. In Germany once you are able to go to University it is free. All you have to worry about is paying for room and board.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Education is free but Higher Education is not. In Germany once you are able to go to University it is free. All you have to worry about is paying for room and board.
Both education and higher education are free here in Sri Lanka ... so does that mean we poor old third-world country people are better off than Americans? Or is somebody going to tote out the "some guy from a hell-hole country insulting me" bit again? Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Free Higher Education! Free Healthcare!
Free? At the cost of the taxpayers you mean, even the ones who never use it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In the U.S., it is true that higher education at private institutions is far from free. At state institutions it's still not free, but it's pretty cheap -- for residents.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:In the U.S., it is true that higher education at private institutions is far from free.
It is if you get private scholarship, like from the Gates Foundation and the United Negro College Fund for those disadvantaged culturally, and the LDS church for Saints to go to BYU.
It's just a matter of what you want to give back. Contribute to society with ideas from a diversity of culture, or pay taxes to let politicians decide how your money should be used as far as "welfare" goes.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think "publically-funded" is probably a better term to be using here than "free."
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yup. You could even call it "apparently free to the user" and I'd be happy. Sort of. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Also, as far as I know, OHIP has nothing in particular to do with employers. It is funded with public dollars.
I did my taxes last weekend, and I have to say I'm not convinced that we pay a "heckuvalot" in taxes, whatever that means. You might be interested to know that Canada's taxation rates are roughly the OECD average. Slightly lower, in fact. We do pay higher taxes than our large neighbour to the south, which I think is where the perception that our taxes are astronomical comes from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reticulum, what did you think about the links I posted?
The saying that love is blind is a false one. Infatuation can be blind, but real love requires understanding. Failing or refusing to see that a dear one has flaws or is ill, is not love; it is cowardice.
The same is true for love of one's country. It is especially true for countries like the U.S. where we have a duty to find our flaws and correct them. What our country becomes is our responsibilty. That is an awesome thing.
Loving the U.S. and what it stands for requires that you be a citizen, not a cheerleader.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: . . .our large neighbour to the south. . .
You callin' us fat?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, LeoJ, saying that education sucks in America is kind of an unfair statement. Have you ever been to an American school and been educated there? What are you comparing it too? All these scores you see Americans getting on tests are all averages. Does it mean every person in America is as intelligent as this test? No. There are a lot of intelligent people in America. There are also a lot of dumb people. In those kinds of tests, they put a person who gets strait A's, in the same group as a person who gets strait F's. Is this an accurate way to judge the intelligence of a nation? No, it is not.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Ur so fat that...
nevermind. ;-)
(I guess I'm not my normal self this afternoon)
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
quote: Is this an accurate way to judge the intelligence of a nation? No, it is not.
As a teacher, I must say it: it's very hard to conceive a way to do it that isn't dumb (and I never knew of anyone who succeeded).
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Huzzah! A teacher agrees with me!
At least, I think so. Me American, me dum, and not know much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lissande: Disclaimer: the following is posted by Tzadik
Reticulum, what exactly do you mean by:
quote: Culturally, Europeans are the MOST arrogant people you can possibly meet on the entire face of the Earth.
Have you lived in Europe? Have you lived in most of the European countries? I mean lived, not visited the way Americans visit - 10 countries in 10 days. You are making very bold statements about Europeans and Europe - and have no clue what you are talking about.
I am simply offended by your statement about my arrogance, seeing I am European as well. Guess your statement confirms to the Europeans the stereotype American - caring for nothing but the US, the rest of the world means nothing. What do you know, what have you experienced about Europe and Europeans that makes you make a statement like this?
You talk about Europeans being culturally arrogant - please come over to Europe and experience it. Experience your fellow citizens coming to Europe and acting as kings of the world because they are Americans - not caring at all about the culture of the nation they are visiting. After all, we are Americans so we can do whatever we please! We are going to be loud and obnoxious and don't care about how we act on a visit! Of course, not every American is acting this way - not at all. But a lot of your fellow countrymen do, that's a fact nobody can deny!
I know US, have been there, love it there, I think it's a great place to live. As well as the Czech Republic where we live with my wife (who by the way is an American) or Slovakia, where I was born, or Hungary, Poland, France or Switzerland etc. So please, think before you post something so offensive! It just confirms the title of your thread...
So you're going to allow the words of one American affect your opinion of ALL Americans? I've met my share of arrogant Europeans vacationing and living in America, and my share of perfectly nice Europeans. It's Reticulum, sometimes he says valuable stuff, sometimes he's a bit of a windbag. Take it all with a grain of salt, but you show your own arrogance when you judge an entire nation on the actions of a few, especially anecdotal evidence.
quote:Originally posted by LeoJ: Education is free, as in america, but the problem is that in america it sucks.
Lots of stuff to post in this thread, but I'll focus in on this one.
A majority of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States. Thousands come from all over the world to study in America. If you want to make such a RIDICULOUSLY blanket statement like that, at least try and back it up.
I think you are trying to refer to everything except for higher education. And while I'll admit that our education system, below the college level, could use some work, it is far from sucking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So, Reticulum, any response? Other than sarcasm?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Lyrhawn, can you tell me where exactly in his post Tzadik says that it is his opinion of all Americans? I must have missed it.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
"Well, LeoJ, saying that education sucks in America is kind of an unfair statement. Have you ever been to an American school and been educated there? What are you comparing it too? All these scores you see Americans getting on tests are all averages. Does it mean every person in America is as intelligent as this test? No. There are a lot of intelligent people in America. There are also a lot of dumb people. In those kinds of tests, they put a person who gets strait A's, in the same group as a person who gets strait F's. Is this an accurate way to judge the intelligence of a nation? No, it is not. "
Don't confuse smart people with good education. Some people are naturally brilliant. Some people are following too easy of a curriculum.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Oh please, have you heard France's national anthem? It's a song about the citizens rising up and "let impure blood soak the furrows." Their anthem is ten times more militaristic than ours. Besides, subsequent verses of the Star Spangled Banner temper the song as a whole I think. And I don't think it's a glorification of militarism, it's a poem/song about a battle in a war in defense of our country, what's wrong with that?
The question raised wasn't whether our national anthem was more militaristic than that of other countries. It was a question of whether the fact that we sing it for every public occasion is an expression of patriotism (i.e. love of our people, land and culture) or an expression of Nationalism (i.e. loyalty to our government and army).
I always though the third vs
quote:And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country should leave us no more! Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave
was even more militaristic than the first.
And although the French National anthem is bloody and gruesome, they don't singing it all the time. I've been in France on Bastille day and been to the reenactments of the revolution -- and still never heard anyone sing La Marseillaise.
Extreme Nationalism in Germany was the cause of WWII, which illustrates the evils that can come from excessive nationalism rather than justifying it. Germans today recognize that and are ashamed of their past, which is why Germany today has one of the most anti-nationalistic cultures around.
Lets hope the USA won't have to go through what Germany went through to learn the same lesson.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One of my Canadian friends once complained to me that "Americans tend to forget that their are 2 countries in North America".
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One of my Canadian friends once complained to me that "Americans tend to forget that their are 2 countries in North America".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kama -
Apologies, I misread him.
Rabbit -
How much do the word really matter to people? I hate to say it, but I don't think they matter much. Everyone knows the words (sadly, ALMOST everyone knows the words) to the anthem, but I'm betting the majority don't. And they don't care. They just know that singing the song means they are celebrating America. Plus the whole anthem, flag waving thing is a lot more of a red state thing than a blue state thing, which is an issue I don't recall you addressing yet.
American "arrogance" in the sense of over-patriotism/over-nationalism isn't the same throughout the entire country. All 300 million Americans aren't the same. I'm proud of our form of government, though not this particular administration. I'm proud of our constitution and I support the military. The thing about that is, that love of the military and so on and so forth has always been interwoven into the culture, they aren't always mutually exclusive.
But people also love the land, and love a culture of freedom and democracy that many Americans consider to be part of the fabric of American culture. I think before you can decide the difference between nationalism and patriotism, you need to define what each entails for America. Good luck with that.
As for the anthem, you made a point of it, and I think it's a moot one. A lot of the world's anthems are militaristic, and the frequency with which Americans sing the anthem doesn't matter. At least I don't think it does.
I don't see America going to the lengths that German nationalism went to. Apparently part of the fold of German nationalism was racism, genocide and conquest. America doesn't have the stomach for it, and I don't think it's a part of our national identity.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:It is the reason America has the longest lasting government currently in order.
Any Danish kid can tell you this isn't right eather.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Denmark changed their government in the mid 19th century. How is theirs longer lasting?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Our government works. Qhich is why we love it. Our militaristic ways (mostly of the past) have worked for us, and we are grateful for it.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
But at what cost?
Yeah, democracy works. But it isn't the only form of government that does. Have you ever thought that maybe there's a better one?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Our militaristic ways (mostly of the past) have worked for us, and we are grateful for it.
Ummm, how can you consider our militaristic ways a thing of the past when we are still involved in a war of agression and spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
No, Fae-Ray, Democracy is the best type of government, hands down. It is a pointless argument that there is something better. Others work, but none are as good for the people.
Rabbit, that's why I said mostly of the past. Plus, considering, it really isn't a war. The major fightning only lasted three weeks.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
[quote]Plus the whole anthem, flag waving thing is a lot more of a red state thing than a blue state thing, which is an issue I don't recall you addressing yet.[quote]
I think that's a big myth. There was as much flag waving, anthem singing, nationalistic rhetoric at the democratic convention as there was at the republican convention. It really pisses me off that the right wing has tried to co-opt what have historically been national symbols and make them into republican symbols.
Even so, I do think that Nationalism has always been a right wing ideology so it's not surprising that Nationalist sentiments are more frequently expressed in red states. I've also observed that as people try to distance themselves from the Bush administration, they also stop flying the flag and singing the anthem. That behavior is part of why I say that the flag and the anthem have become expressions of loyalty to our political and military leaders) rather than expressions of love or our land, people and culture.
You may think that the words to the National Anthem don't matter, that no one listens to them, but I disagree. It's all part of the myth that our treasured American freedoms have been won by military combat. As a woman, all my rights, including my right to vote and my right to own property, were won in the voting booths and the courts not on the field of battle. The rights of blacks, hispanics, and asians were not won by soldiers. Soldiers have never fought to protect my freedom of worship, in fact both militia's and federal troops have been used against my church. The old poem about how "It's the soldier, not the politician who has given us the right to vote", may be clever but its not true.
Everytime I hear a soldier say that he fought to defend "The Flag", I see the connection to the national anthem. I mean really, wouldn't it be tragic if people were really killing and dying to defend the flag?
On a side note, How did red get to be the color of the right wing in the US, when it is the color of the left wing every where else in the world?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, that's why I said mostly of the past. Plus, considering, it really isn't a war. The major fightning only lasted three weeks.
I hope you don't really believe that.
Applying the same standard, the last war between Germany and France lasted only 6 weeks. Well, actually its not quite the same standard because France signed an armistice with Hitler 6 weeks after the invasion started. We still don't have an armistice with Iraq.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Democracy is the best type of government, hands down. It is a pointless argument that there is something better. Others work, but none are as good for the people
Yes, but one could easily argue that there are more democratic forms of govenment than the US form. We don't, for example, directly elect our president. Our legislative bodies are elected to represent geographic regions rather than ideological groups.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
You've never lived in a country without democracy though, have you?
I will agree with you to a degree. I think it's the best form of government. But I don't know it.
It's like... I'll use martial arts as an example.
I'm in Tae Kwon Do. I love it. To me, it's the best form of martial arts there is. But I've never been in Karate or Jiu Jitsu. So how do I know?
You can say you've heard about countries with other forms of government, but I've heard of others' experiences with different martial arts. I still agree that mine is better, but I still don't know for a fact.
Yeah, I think the people should have a say in their government. But people can be stupid. There have been mistakes in goverment, even with democracy. Especially with democracy. You can't trust that what someone says in their campaigns, or how someone acts in their campaigns, is what they're going to do or how they're going to act while they're in the actual Presidential/Prime Ministerial position. Take Stephen Harper for example. He became our Prime Minister, and in the first week he screwed up major. So I can and will say that I think democracy is the best, but I won't say I know it is until I've experienced another.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
"Yes, but one could easily argue that there are more democratic forms of govenment than the US form."
Exactly. In Canada, we elect our Prime Minister. But we still have the Queen as the head of our country. She's really more of a figurehead here, however. But in Britain they have a Prime Minister too. Canada's still a democracy, but a very different one.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
Oh. I just realized this.
How much Canadian history do/did you learn in your schools?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
What does that matter? But to answer, none whatsoever. How much American hisstory do you learn?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Fae-Ray: "Yes, but one could easily argue that there are more democratic forms of govenment than the US form."
Sure, I suppose you could. But then one could bring up that none have ever been as successful as the United States, in terms of economic prosperity, military, power on a global scale, influence, and other such things.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
It matters because it shows the arrogance in the American school system.
We don't learn a huge amount of American history, definately less than the amount of Canadian we learn. But we learn some. Currently we are learning about the Revolutionary war. Yeah, it ties in to the rest of the Canadian history we're learning, but we still learn about it. Because it's important.
The Revolutionary War has a lot to do with Canada, if you think about it. All of those who wanted to remain loyal to the British came here. Battles were fought here. Americans died here. But you don't learn about it because it's in Canada. America used to be Canada. There didn't used to be an America. They were all one big place shared by the British and the French. But the reason the Americans don't learn about our history is because they don't think it's as important. And that, my friend, is arrogance at it's finest.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
"Sure, I suppose you could. But then one could bring up that none have ever been as successful as the United States, in terms of economic prosperity, military, power on a global scale, influence, and other such things. "
And you could say it's also globally feared and hated. You go on holiday in another country with a Canadian flag sewn onto your backpack, totally random people come and say hi. They talk to you about Canada, how they love it, how wonderful the country is. And yes, this is true. How often does that happen with an American flag sewn onto your bag?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I really can't say, I don't know. You definitely have a point, but any nation that is big and powerful is bound to have those who are jelous of it, and those who don't like it. Where do you get the idea that people will automaticly say hi, just because you are from Canada? THAT is arrogance, if I have ever seen it. I'm sure there are areas of the world, that do this, but I am also sure that there areas of the world that won't.
Point: America is a big country and gets a lot of spotlight in the international world. Everything America does is put forth to all of the world. A lot of the bad things mostly. Any nation that gets this much exposure, is almost definitely going to have a bad rep, or at least, a lot who do not like it.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
"Where do you get the idea that people will automaticly say hi, just because you are from Canada?"
I never said everyone does. They don't. But it's common. Since Canada is overshadowed by America, the things that are put forth from it are generally good. Other countries don't see all the bad things we do. You have a rep for arrogance and power, and we have a rep for being a great country. These aren't the only ones, but they are some. There will be people who don't like Canada, for sure.
And yeah, it's arrogance. The stuff I just said is arrogant. You'll get some forms of arrogance from every country. The question, however, is how much and what kind of arrogance you get from that country.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually, I really wouldn't say you have a rep for being a great country. Not where I live, anyway. From what I see (where I live), most people jokingly refer to Canada as the 51st state, which is actually quite humorous. You kind of have a rep for saying eh, and replacing out with oot. Not for being a great country. This is all from what I see and hear, in my neck of the woods.
So, if someone in Canada were to say, "Get out of my house", they would say "Get oot of my hoose."
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
Hey, I don't know for a fact that we have a rep for being a great country. But we're generous. We help out other countries when they need it (I'm not saying America doesn't) and we rarely fight in wars. But pretty much every person I talk to about holidays has a story about how people came over and talked to them about the flag on their backpacks.
Yeah, but you hear the made up version of Canada. Have you ever heard about how we drive around town in dogsleds and live in igloos? Snow year round? If you listen to television, they say "eh" there more than we do here. And I've never head someone say "aboot" instead of "about." What you hear from TV isn't neccesarily true.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
If the American view of Canada was correct, it'd be more like "Get oot of my igloo, eh?"
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually, that is very funny.
As the American, waving a flag, would then procede to kill the Canadian, and annex their land.
Wow. Our rep really does suck. Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
XD
Well, at least you can joke about this stuff. Last time I spoke to an American about this, and told them that we didn't say "eh," and actually rode cars, they proceeded to argue about how wrong I was. And when I told them that they're views were silly, they began to harass me and trash Canada.
One thing I love about being Canadian is the stereotypes from other countries. XD
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Lucky. You guys get funny ones, whilst we get ones about murderers, and gun toters, who annex land from the poor, and invade to get rich. Wait... Do people in Canada really say "eh" all of the time?
Fat, lazy, arrogant, dumb, and others. Geeze, we get crappy ones. Well, at least we can invade them, and take over tomarrow, and then enslave them and reap the profits. Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
And while you do that, we'll drive around on our sleds led by huskies and chop wood with our lumberjack axes, then realize we forgot to turn off the oven back at the igloo. We'd be in a bit of a pickle then, eh?
Anyways, I'm off for the night. Fare thee well!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Have a good sleep. Wow, that was funny.
*wipes tear from eye*
Great, great stuff.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Reticulum, whenever I see your name, I think Rectum.
This is really unfortunate.
I'm sorry. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Where did that come from? Well, whenever I read yours, I think of some snooty waiter serving squids on platter at a fancy party.
Hmmmm, this might make a good thread. What think?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [quote]Plus the whole anthem, flag waving thing is a lot more of a red state thing than a blue state thing, which is an issue I don't recall you addressing yet.[quote]
I think that's a big myth. There was as much flag waving, anthem singing, nationalistic rhetoric at the democratic convention as there was at the republican convention. It really pisses me off that the right wing has tried to co-opt what have historically been national symbols and make them into republican symbols.
Even so, I do think that Nationalism has always been a right wing ideology so it's not surprising that Nationalist sentiments are more frequently expressed in red states. I've also observed that as people try to distance themselves from the Bush administration, they also stop flying the flag and singing the anthem. That behavior is part of why I say that the flag and the anthem have become expressions of loyalty to our political and military leaders) rather than expressions of love or our land, people and culture.
You may think that the words to the National Anthem don't matter, that no one listens to them, but I disagree. It's all part of the myth that our treasured American freedoms have been won by military combat. As a woman, all my rights, including my right to vote and my right to own property, were won in the voting booths and the courts not on the field of battle. The rights of blacks, hispanics, and asians were not won by soldiers. Soldiers have never fought to protect my freedom of worship, in fact both militia's and federal troops have been used against my church. The old poem about how "It's the soldier, not the politician who has given us the right to vote", may be clever but its not true.
Everytime I hear a soldier say that he fought to defend "The Flag", I see the connection to the national anthem. I mean really, wouldn't it be tragic if people were really killing and dying to defend the flag?
On a side note, How did red get to be the color of the right wing in the US, when it is the color of the left wing every where else in the world?
And yet, the original American freedoms WERE won with military combat, over and over again. 1776, 1812, 1861...all dates that created and shaped America, all fought with soldiers in wars, and without which there would be no America as it stands today. The first century of our existance secured with war. Everything that came after was only made possible because of the original soldiers who died to secure it.
However, I do agree with what you said in regards to the current soldiers who say they fought to protect my freedoms.
But the red/blue thing isn't a myth. Bible thumpers in the south have different values than midwest suburbanites. Which isn't to say it's a different morality, it's a different view of America and the American role in the world, and that has only become more polarized in the last 6 years. Ridiculously polarized. Yes, I realize that the democratic national convention is full of flags and red white and blue balloons, but the people that throw that event aren't indicative of the average American. Almost no politician is. You can hardly use such a outrageously out there event like that as some sort of representation of the American people. I don't use the riots in France as a representation of all of Europe, or even France.
Were I to treat that the same way as apparently the Europeans view Americans, via television, I'd have a rather low opinion of their forms of crazed protest. It pisses me off too that Republicans have cloaked themselves in everything American, and have tried to inject their personal value system into the greater American way of life, as if theirs was the only way.
And I'm not entirely sure what you are saying with the distinction between political forces and love of land/culture/people. Americans have many beloved figures who are also political figures, how does that play into the theory? The right to vote for blacks, women and others was won largely through our governmental and political process. So what exactly are you celebrating?
quote:Originally posted by The Fae-Ray: It matters because it shows the arrogance in the American school system.
We don't learn a huge amount of American history, definately less than the amount of Canadian we learn. But we learn some. Currently we are learning about the Revolutionary war. Yeah, it ties in to the rest of the Canadian history we're learning, but we still learn about it. Because it's important.
The Revolutionary War has a lot to do with Canada, if you think about it. All of those who wanted to remain loyal to the British came here. Battles were fought here. Americans died here. But you don't learn about it because it's in Canada. America used to be Canada. There didn't used to be an America. They were all one big place shared by the British and the French. But the reason the Americans don't learn about our history is because they don't think it's as important. And that, my friend, is arrogance at it's finest.
I learned quite a bit about Canadian history in the early stages, as it pertained to American history. It drops off a bit after 1814, but Canada's governmental reforms and issues with Britain really don't matter much outside of Britain after 1814, at least not to American history.
I'm convinced that you don't really know all that much about American schools. I know about American forrays into Canada, and it was never called Canada, it was British North America, but even then, before the Rev War, it wasn't Canada either, you were only under British control for a decade or so before the Rev. War, and before that you were all Frenchman (my ancestors ). A better way to put it was there never used to be a Canada or an America, there was a British Empire. Then we created America. A long time after that, you guys created Canada.
You want to talk about arrogance? Arrogance is assuming all Americans are stupid just because they were educated in America, and that you know more than us just because you were educated outside of America. That's arrogance. American schools teach tirelessly about World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam and tons of other places where Americans fought and died. You're welcome by the way.
And no, I don't think that I personally am deserved a thank you, but jeez, of all the arrogance, assuming that Americans don't learn about other countries just because they are geographically removed from us, even when our own men have died there. You're beyond arrogant, you're downright insulting, and ignorant.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Where did that come from? Well, whenever I read yours, I think of some snooty waiter serving squids on platter at a fancy party.
Hmmmm, this might make a good thread. What think?
It was just a random observation. No more than that.
I also sometimes think of diverticulum when I see your name. So I'm kinda split.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I always think Reticulous.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Hmm. Now I'm thinking Ridiculous! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Our militaristic ways (mostly of the past) have worked for us, and we are grateful for it.
Ummm, how can you consider our militaristic ways a thing of the past when we are still involved in a war of agression and spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
Granted it's been creeping up, but then, so has Chinese and European spending as well.
Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Reticulum, whenever I see your name, I think Rectum. This is really unfortunate. I'm sorry.
This might have something to do with the fact that he appears to talk out of that end more than half the time in this particular thread ... or then again, maybe not Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Ouch!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
And so Fahim, tell me what gives you the right to just come in and say that? Not a very kind thing. I'd appreciate it that if you aren't going to even to contribute to this thread, but insult the people in it, you never post in it again.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Well, LeoJ, saying that education sucks in America is kind of an unfair statement. Have you ever been to an American school and been educated there? What are you comparing it too? All these scores you see Americans getting on tests are all averages. Does it mean every person in America is as intelligent as this test? No. There are a lot of intelligent people in America. There are also a lot of dumb people. In those kinds of tests, they put a person who gets strait A's, in the same group as a person who gets strait F's. Is this an accurate way to judge the intelligence of a nation? No, it is not.
ok...?
Buddy if you havnt read my last replies, I DID HS in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Compared to free or as someone said “publically-funded” education in most european countries is way better than the public education from the US.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A majority of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States. Thousands come from all over the world to study in America. If you want to make such a RIDICULOUSLY blanket statement like that, at least try and back it up.
I think you are trying to refer to everything except for higher education. And while I'll admit that our education system, below the college level, could use some work, it is far from sucking.
If you know that i dont mean higher education, why you show off with "A majority of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States." see...
---Arrogant---
Lyr dont take it to the heart, i like you budd.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Reticulum, whenever I see your name, I think Rectum.
HAHAHAHA i agree but didnt want to say anything about it...
[ March 29, 2006, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: LeoJ ]
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
oh, wait i forgot Lyr, community college does suck, well the ones from hudson and bergen county in NJ, i dont know the rest. Compared to public universities here in spain where they are far from sucking and you only pay for credits and books Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Reticulum, whenever I see your name, I think Rectum. This is really unfortunate. I'm sorry.
This might have something to do with the fact that he appears to talk out of that end more than half the time in this particular thread ... or then again, maybe not
Oh boy i missed this one and it made me laugh more than the other one
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Reticulum
quote:The communist thing was a joke. And no, communism works for no one. It never has, and never will. Democracy works. It is the reason America has the longest lasting government currently in order.
We know now it was a joke and it didn't work. I know, I grew up in communist country.
You can't say Democracy works, it works the best out of all the other systems. If you are looking at it from the Western world point of view. Democracy doesn't work in other parts of the world.
And America does have the longest lasting government in order. Really? So how do you deal with the question of slavery (which in Europe was abolished way before US) and segregation? That simply does not go together with the Democracy, or does it?
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tzadik:
And America does have the longest lasting government in order. Really? So how do you deal with the question of slavery (which in Europe was abolished way before US) and segregation? That simply does not go together with the Democracy, or does it?
OH blow for the Americans,
specially Lyr Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One of my Canadian friends once complained to me that "Americans tend to forget that their are 2 countries in North America".
Umm.... There are 3.
Stupid Canadians...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Fae-Ray: Oh. I just realized this.
How much Canadian history do/did you learn in your schools?
none
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Sure, I suppose you could. But then one could bring up that none have ever been as successful as the United States, in terms of economic prosperity, military, power on a global scale, influence, and other such things
While none are currently as successful in those terms, others have been in the past (take England for example. Even right now many European countries have a higher standard of living than the US.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So, Reticulum, any response? Did you read the links?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And America does have the longest lasting government in order. Really? So how do you deal with the question of slavery (which in Europe was abolished way before US) and segregation? That simply does not go together with the Democracy, or does it?
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Well, LeoJ, saying that education sucks in America is kind of an unfair statement. Have you ever been to an American school and been educated there? What are you comparing it too? All these scores you see Americans getting on tests are all averages. Does it mean every person in America is as intelligent as this test? No. There are a lot of intelligent people in America. There are also a lot of dumb people. In those kinds of tests, they put a person who gets strait A's, in the same group as a person who gets strait F's. Is this an accurate way to judge the intelligence of a nation? No, it is not.
ok...?
Buddy if you havnt read my last replies, I DID HS in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Compared to free or as someone said “publically-funded” education in most european countries is way better than the public education from the US.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A majority of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States. Thousands come from all over the world to study in America. If you want to make such a RIDICULOUSLY blanket statement like that, at least try and back it up.
I think you are trying to refer to everything except for higher education. And while I'll admit that our education system, below the college level, could use some work, it is far from sucking.
If you know that i dont mean higher education, why you show off with "A majority of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States." see...
---Arrogant---
Lyr dont take it to the heart, i like you budd.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Reticulum, whenever I see your name, I think Rectum.
HAHAHAHA i agree but didnt want to say anything about it...
I don't know, I think you are probably the most arrogant jerk here. Sure I am arrogant, but you don't see me making stupid jokes intended to hurt others.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Oh, yes, and don't forget T, that the Soviet Union had labour camps up untill 1960, and Nazi Germany had them too. But I suppose those don't count, do they? And as for slavery being abolished in U.S. way after. The North states got rid of it soon, many right after the Revolution. It was the south who did not. Infact, all the way up to the civil war, there was great conflict between the states over slavery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So for this country that you love, you are content that we are better than the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? When I love something, I want it to be the best it can possibly be. I don't settle for "not the absolute worst".
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Reticulum, whenever I see your name, I think Rectum.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So for this country that you love, you are content that we are better than the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? When I love something, I want it to be the best it can possibly be. I don't settle for "not the absolute worst".
Well, I was giving those just as examples, and that T claimed Europe got rid of slavery "way before" the U.S. did, and I thought those would be two very good answers.
Plus, what's with the Rectum thing? Does it make any difference in anyones life? Does it contibute at all to any of your points? I would appreciate it if you guys stopped, please.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So did you read the links I posted?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those links are about the "modern United States". Stuff we are doing now. And if Nazi Germany is fair game, why isn't slavery?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Because it has been discussed long enough, and in no way is something that the U.S. would do today.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:And America does have the longest lasting government in order. Really? So how do you deal with the question of slavery (which in Europe was abolished way before US) and segregation? That simply does not go together with the Democracy, or does it?
Yes, it was much better for them to establish a virtual slavery over much of Africa and some of India in their native country as opposed to removing them to other nations. Britain planted the seeds of slavery in America, then dropped the whole thing when they lost the colonies.
America takes responsibility for what happened after Britain left, but saying that Europe's complicity in slavery ended when they outlawed it in Europe is a JOKE. Europe had nowhere near a sizeable amount of slaves when the trade was eliminated there. So instead they transplanted labor and slavery to Africa proper, where they could force the inhabitants there to do whatever they want, and they did so. Their hands are stained longer than ours are.
And our government is still the longest lasting. It is true that not everyone has always had a place in that government, but we're talking about the stability of the government and the form of it, which has not changed since its inception. That more groups were brougt into the fold is a testament to the will of the American people overcoming the negative traits left to us by the Europeans. It's a disappointment that it took us so long to overcome their evils, but we've tried to fix it since then.
And, the discussion of slavery goes further in my earlier assertion that America never has been and for the forseeable future never will be one unified people on every issue across the board. Everyone talks about American slavery as if we all liked it, until one day just decided to get rid of it. Many of America's founding fathers were against slavery, and made sure to write a provision into the constitution that outlawed the slave trade by 1809.
The abolitionist movement was strong across the Union, and brought thousands to volunteer for the Union army which fought against the south to free the slaves. So whenever anyone starts talking about America's past with slavery, also remember the hundreds of thousands of Americans that died to free those slaves.
Here is my final question for all of you. If the Americans had either lost, or never started the Revolutionary War, and Britain had maintained control over the colonies, when do you think they would have gotten rid of slavery?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor is the Holocaust something "modern" Germany is going to do today.
Reticulum, you seem to want to direct this discussion so that you get to make your points while disregarding or at least failing to discuss viewpoints contrary to your own.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Far after they did in this universe.
No, I think Lyrhawn just ended the discussion of slavery. I just plain don't like it. It was something amazingly disgusting that the only way to defend it(or discuss it), is to put blame on others. So that is why I don't to discuss slavery anymore.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Plus, what's with the Rectum thing? Does it make any difference in anyones life? Does it contibute at all to any of your points? I would appreciate it if you guys stopped, please.
Sorry Reticulum. I didn't mean to make you the butt of any jokes.
Pix
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Far after they did in this universe.
No, I think Lyrhawn just ended the discussion of slavery. I just plain don't like it. It was something amazingly disgusting that the only way to defend it(or discuss it), is to put blame on others. So that is why I don't to discuss slavery anymore.
100 years is not really a long time. And if you consider civil rights, our disgrace is even more recent than Germany's.
So don't defend it or put the blame on others. Recognize that we have made mistakes. Recognize that we still make mistakes. Understand it that so you can work to make our country what it should be.
What you continue to do with this thread is to simply dismiss any viewpoint other than your own.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Fae-Ray: But at what cost?
Yeah, democracy works. But it isn't the only form of government that does. Have you ever thought that maybe there's a better one?
Like, say, no government?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Far after they did in this universe.
No, I think Lyrhawn just ended the discussion of slavery. I just plain don't like it. It was something amazingly disgusting that the only way to defend it(or discuss it), is to put blame on others. So that is why I don't to discuss slavery anymore.
100 years is not really a long time. And if you consider civil rights, our disgrace is even more recent than Germany's.
So don't defend it or put the blame on others. Recognize that we have made mistakes. Recognize that we still make mistakes. Understand it that so you can work to make our country what it should be.
What you continue to do with this thread is to simply dismiss any viewpoint other than your own.
If you wish to view things that way, it is fine with me. I don't really care, sice that is not what I think. I am trying not to put the blame on others. I am simply saying that is the only way, you can discuss slavery. There is no point to it. Yes, America has made lots of mistakes, and I acknoledge that. Did I wrongfully defend a couple in this thread? I suppose so, it depends on your viewpoint. However, I would greatly appreciate another topic, other then slavery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fine. So what did you think about the links I posted?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Eh. Lets start a new discussion. What would be a good thing to discuss now? How about something GOOD about America? I think we deserve a LITTLE praise, for something. Maybe? Give other countries praise too?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So I guess you are going to be a cheerleader rather than a citizen? Making ourselves feel good about America is easy. Doing the hard work and facing the tough problems of keeping the U.S. great is the work of a citizen and a patriot.
By making your choice, you have answered the question you posed at the start of this thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ret -
You're going to earn a lot more respect in your threads if you don't ignore issues brought up by people who disagree with you. Slavery and the ills that came with it are a stain on America's history, but they can't be ignored or swept under the carpet. Several times in this thread you've thrown down a gauntlet and have recieved well thought out answers in return, and then you stonewall them and try to move on, just like now.
Everyone here is discussing the greater realm of the question your thread title poses, so stop and let the discussion flow, and participate in it without trying to stifle it.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Alright then, I never thought of that. Thank you Lyrhawn. So, back to slavery. Who'd like to give opening statements? I got nothing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No one is saying that the conversation has to be about slavery in particular. I was reacting to the fact that everytime someone wrote, "well what about X ?" you dismissed it rather that discussing it. It seemed that the only responses you are willing to hear are ones that back up your own point of view.
So, do you think we should keep the (renamed) SOA open? Do you think it really has changed? How does something like that impact your ideas about the U.S.?
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
I strongly disagree with the above statement. True, US was formed as republic - but nothing close to what it is in present. You had so many restrictions on right to vote and right to be elected! So many census imposed on people. And when it comes down to - you still don't vote for your president directly. You are electing the college of electors! Unlike some of the European countries, which vote the president in directly.
Please don't feel like I am hammering down on US or its form of government. What I am trying to do is point out that give America as an ultimate example of democrazy to the rest of the world is rather arogant. Altough you have a right to do so and I won't deny you that right. I just ask to refrain from making calls on Europe that are NOT true!
We can talk about the slavery for a long time - I do no deny that European powers played a leading role in it. As well as you can't deny that US had and to some point still has an issues because of slavery.
And the founding fathers did not have enough guts to outlaw the slavery in Declaration of Independence to begin with. An outstanding document, talking about the freedom of people. Just not ALL the people. Some people were considered to be personal property! Can't deny that!
So, there you have it...
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, "All men are created equal." They just don't have the same rights.
I too believe the electoral college should be done with. We SHOULD directly elect our president. Al Gore would probably be President right now if we did. I don't know if he would have won reelection, but there is a good chance. Europe indeed has democracy, they just haven't been as prosperous as the United States.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It had nothing to do with guts. If Adams and Jefferson had their way and an abolition of slavery were included in the Declaration of Independence, there never would have been a Declaration. The Southern colonies wouldn't have gotten on board with it, and any attempt at a Revolution would have failed. Given the choice between continued British domination, and a new country that still had slavery, they chose the lesser of two evils and worked from that moment on to end slavery, which eventually culminated in the Civil War. Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
I don't know if you were referring to Reticulum or not, but what claims did I make against Europe that were false?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The electoral college needs to be done away with on account that it does not recofnize what the people want. The people chose Al Gore, but instead, George W. Bush became the POTUS.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
The people didn't choose Al Gore. Plus, who's to say that Al Gore and George Bush were the best candidates for Presidency America had?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It had nothing to do with guts. If Adams and Jefferson had their way and an abolition of slavery were included in the Declaration of Independence, there never would have been a Declaration. The Southern colonies wouldn't have gotten on board with it, and any attempt at a Revolution would have failed. Given the choice between continued British domination, and a new country that still had slavery, they chose the lesser of two evils and worked from that moment on to end slavery, which eventually culminated in the Civil War.
Jefferson didn't work particularly hard considering that he didn't even free his slaves.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Ever think in that particular time and place they would have been better off with him?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: The people didn't choose Al Gore. Plus, who's to say that Al Gore and George Bush were the best candidates for Presidency America had?
The American People said so, and I think we know who we want. And yes, the people DID chose Al Gore. He won the Popular vote.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Okay, so you can specifically vouch that the required majority of the American people "said so"?
Wow.
I think how the election turned out, the fact that there IS massive support for Dubbya and the Republican party makes a better case than your "The American People said so."
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
"Okay, so you can specifically vouch that the required majority of the American people "said so"?
Wow.
I think how the election turned out, the fact that there IS massive support for Dubbya and the Republican party makes a better case than your "The American People said so." "
Do you know how Presidential elections take place in the United States? They go by the electoral vote. George Bush Narrowly won the electoral vote, and it is still disputed today. Al Gore won the popular vote; AKA more people voted for him to be President.
Massive support? George W. Bush'd approval ratings are down the tube, and are somewhere below 30%. Look it up anywhere, the American people more so voted for Gore, and because we are a democracy, we chose who govern us.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Specifically, "In 38 states, the voters are required by law to vote for the candidate who won the popular voter in their state, although all electors usually cast a ballot for the popular vote winner."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The people didn't choose Al Gore.
I'm curious about your reasoning on this issue. Al Gore won a plurality of the popular vote in the 2000 elections. I hadn't heard that this was even controversial. Is your contention that winning more of the popular vote than any other candidate does not constitue being chosen by the people, or are you making some other argument.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Your point is?
EDIT: Directed to Cheiros.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
The fact is the US is made up of united states. So by popular vote alone Califronia, Texas and New York get more of a say than any other state. Considering the fact that any state has the right to become independant at any time, even wage war on the others, do you really want that?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Ever think in that particular time and place they would have been better off with him?
i'm not really a part of this discussion, but i just wanted to say that this is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. when would it ever be better for a person to be a slave? wouldn't it be better for them if they were hired labor? or even just released with a pocket full of jerky to find some quaker to help them out? then they would be free. of course i didn't know them, so i don't know for absolute sure, but i can make a reasonable guess that Jefferson's slaves very much wanted to be free.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You aren't even making sense. You points are invalid. If you are going to discuss our elections, at least bone up first.
But anyways, if we were to go by popular vote, states wouldn't matter all. The only thing that would matter is what the majority of the people want. A states population, would mean nothing. What you just described is the problem with the electoral college.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:But anyways, if we were to go by popular vote, states wouldn't matter all.
But the States do matter. Think for a minute what the long form of the USA is. It's not just a name either.
quote:The only thing that would matter is what the majority of the people want.
Mob rule, you mean?
Just figuratively, say you had the system as your proposing, with only two states. One has 50 people in it. The other has 30. The larger state decides they want to use the popular vote to force upon the 30 people of the other state whatever suits them. Do you think the law will protect those thirty from being unfairly treated. Do you think war won't break out if they are?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
cheiros, the electoral college is kind of a tricky idea. Each state gets a certain number of votes based on population plus two . This has the effect of giving less populated states more "power" per capita than states with higher populations. A person voting in Wyoming, for example, gets more bang for his vote than someone from California. This is how, even though more people voted for Al Gore, there were more electoral votes for G. Bush.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Considering the fact that any state has the right to become independant at any time, even wage war on the others, do you really want that?
No! That issue was settled conclusively in our civil war. States do not have the right to leave the union or to wage war on other states.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:...because we are a democracy, we chose who govern us.
Lest anyone forget, this isn't exactly true. We're a republic, which is a little different. We each get a voice, but in a true democracy there'd be no electoral college. The popular vote would be the only vote.
We cast our vote for the candidate we want, and our representative in the electoral college almost always casts his vote in our name for the same candidate. But he doesn't necessarily have to.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:No! That issue was settled conclusively in our civil war. States do not have the right to leave the union or to wage war on other states.
If I'm not mistaken, Texas still has the power to secede from the union under certain conditions.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Exactly. And Cheiros, you are being completely illogical. The states wouldn't matter in Elections, is what I meant. They would matter in eveyrthing else, just not elections, which would be quite fair.
Not mob rule, no. Th thing is, there aren't two states. There are fifty, so that isn't a problem. States are too divided, though most are put into categories, to force rule on others. It would never work. the popular voting system, would be best.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
Just figuratively, say you had the system as your proposing, with only two states. One has 50 people in it. The other has 30. The larger state decides they want to use the popular vote to force upon the 30 people of the other state whatever suits them. Do you think the law will protect those thirty from being unfairly treated. Do you think war won't break out if they are?
Well, they could. Sort of. For example, if a majority of people in the country want something, they could get the House of Representatives to pass a law. Now that power is checked by the Senate, where every state, regardless of size, has the same amount of power.
Then this law would have to get past the President.
But best of all, no matter how much of a majority wanted this law, it still has to get tested against the Constitution. This is what really protects us.
At least that is how it is supposed to work.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
STATES RIGHTS!!! down with the federal gov't having supreme control! BAH!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The federal government is good, IMHP. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:No! That issue was settled conclusively in our civil war. States do not have the right to leave the union or to wage war on other states.
If I'm not mistaken, Texas still has the power to secede from the union under certain conditions.
What are those conditions? And how can we make them happen?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:No! That issue was settled conclusively in our civil war. States do not have the right to leave the union or to wage war on other states.
Do you seriously think they wouldn't though, under an extreme enough circumstance? A Blue and Red states seperation under such a system would seem even more likely to me.
quote:Lest anyone forget, this isn't exactly true. We're a republic, which is a little different. We each get a voice, but in a true democracy there'd be no electoral college.
Does that mean there's no such thing as a Democratic Republic?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That would be BAD! PLus, it would never work. NO president would ever have the guts to declare war on a state for seceeding. And Cheiros, however much you want it to happen, the US won't have a civil war. We may be divided in domestic matters, but as a nation, we are unified.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
IMHP:
the federal gov't is good for upholding the Constitution and nat'l defense. other than that, it should get it's nose out of me and my states business.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I think the Feds should regulate everything. IMHO.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:And Cheiros, however much you want it to happen, the US won't have a civil war. We may be divided in domestic matters, but as a nation, we are unified.
Where on Earth did that come from? I'm talking about what I believe would be much more likely without the Electoral College.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I don't know, you kind of seemed to be promoting that we break apart. Wouldn't happen. There wouldn't be substantial change. We would just elect our president directly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: cheiros, the electoral college is kind of a tricky idea. Each state gets a certain number of votes based on population plus two . This has the effect of giving less populated states more "power" per capita than states with higher populations. A person voting in Wyoming, for example, gets more bang for his vote than someone from California. This is how, even though more people voted for Al Gore, there were more electoral votes for G. Bush.
Its actually more complicated than this because of the winner take all system. If candidate A gets a plurality of the votes in a given state, candidate A gets 100% of the electoral votes for that state. This means that the power of an individual vote in a given state is equal to the number of electoral college votes divided by the margin of victory in that state.
For example both New Mexico and Utah have 5 electoral college votes. In the 2000 elections Gore received 366 more votes in New Mexico than Bush. If 367 voters had changed their minds, Bush would have received 5 more electoral college votes. So we can say that the voting power of an individual in New Mexico in the 2000 presidential election was 5/366. In contrast, Bush won 312,043 more votes than Gore in Utah. Gore would have had to change the minds of 312,044 voters to win Utah's 5 electoral college votes. The power of an individual Utah voter in the 2000 elections was 5/312044. In the 2000 elections, New Mexico voters had 852 times as much value in the election as individual Utah voters.
This is the only legitimate way to look at the value of individual voters in an election because it is the way candidates have to look at voters in an election. One vote in a swing state with a large number of electoral college vote, is simply worth more to a candidate than one vote in a non-swing state whether no matter how many electoral votes that state carries. Everyone knows that a vote for a democratic Presidential candidate in Utah, will have no impact on the election out come.
Big states have more power in the electoral college system not because of their size, but because big states tend to be more diverse. That means that they are more likely to be swing states so swaying a small number of voters in those states is more likely to make a big difference in the election.
The biggest advantage to changing the electoral college system to a direct election system is that it would make every vote count equally. In a direct election system one more vote in Utah would count just as much as one more vote in Florida or California. A direct election system would require candidates to court voters in every state equally. With the current system, candidates focus all their attention on swing states and ignore the rest of the country.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Go Rabbit!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:
quote:If I'm not mistaken, Texas still has the power to secede from the union under certain conditions.
What are those conditions? And how can we make them happen?
Oops. It turns out that Texas' right to secede is a widely believed urban legend, according to snopes.com. Texas did negotiate the right to split into 4 additional states, as needed, to balance out the number of free states when they were first admitted to the Union. They still have this right written into their constitution, but it's been specifically disallowed by Article IV of the US Constitution.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I have to agree that the electoral college has to be abolished. I understand that we're a Republic, not a Democracy, but I would much rather see the President elected by popular vote (and by that I mean that every individual's vote is counted for or against the canidates in question, regardless of what State they live in.)
As it is, living in a State that has an overwhelming majority of Republicans, my vote for a Presidential canidate often counts only as a vote of agreement or disagreement. It's hard to feel like my vote helps my canidate win if my Electors simply vote for who won the vote in the State as a whole. Did my vote actually have an impact on who wins the election? No, Not unless Utah has a HUGE paradigm shift in the next three years.
Barring the abolition of the Electoral college, I guess that I'd feel better if the Electors voted in a way that acurately represented popular votes in the state. Say, if you have four electors and 25% of the state votes Democrat, and the other 75% votes Republican, that one elector vote Democrat and the other three vote Republican. Maybe they already do this, I'm not sure.
Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
quote:I learned quite a bit about Canadian history in the early stages, as it pertained to American history. It drops off a bit after 1814, but Canada's governmental reforms and issues with Britain really don't matter much outside of Britain after 1814, at least not to American history.
I'm convinced that you don't really know all that much about American schools. I know about American forrays into Canada, and it was never called Canada, it was British North America, but even then, before the Rev War, it wasn't Canada either, you were only under British control for a decade or so before the Rev. War, and before that you were all Frenchman (my ancestors ). A better way to put it was there never used to be a Canada or an America, there was a British Empire. Then we created America. A long time after that, you guys created Canada.
You want to talk about arrogance? Arrogance is assuming all Americans are stupid just because they were educated in America, and that you know more than us just because you were educated outside of America. That's arrogance. American schools teach tirelessly about World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam and tons of other places where Americans fought and died. You're welcome by the way.
And no, I don't think that I personally am deserved a thank you, but jeez, of all the arrogance, assuming that Americans don't learn about other countries just because they are geographically removed from us, even when our own men have died there. You're beyond arrogant, you're downright insulting, and ignorant.
I never said you didn't learn about Canadian history. I asked if you did. And other AMERICANS told me you didn't. And I had very much assumed that you learned about other countries, but no, I didn't think you learned much about ours.
And when did I say I think all Americans are stupid because they were taught in America? I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.
"A better way to put it was there never used to be a Canada or an America, there was a British Empire."
Yes, you're right. That is what I meant, but I should have worded it better.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I believe Maine does that.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Wow, people actually wrote a lot in the time it took me to write that last post. Who'd a thunk it, eh?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
This is quite the popular thread. But yes, Maine does what you were talking about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:
quote:If I'm not mistaken, Texas still has the power to secede from the union under certain conditions.
What are those conditions? And how can we make them happen?
Oops. It turns out that Texas' right to secede is a widely believed urban legend, according to snopes.com. Texas did negotiate the right to split into 4 additional states, as needed, to balance out the number of free states when they were first admitted to the Union. They still have this right written into their constitution, but it's been specifically disallowed by Article IV of the US Constitution.
Well, thanks very much for getting my hopes up!
And thank you for giving a more complete answer, to the electoral college, Rabbit.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I know, I've been hoping against hope for years now that Texas would take its ball and go home, but to no avail.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
What's wrong with Texas? Besides Hicks with guns that is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I can't help but wonder what would have happened in 2000 if the tables had been turned. If Bush had won the popular vote, but Gore had won the electoral college vote.
With Republicans in control of the House and an even split in the Senate, I'm pretty confident we would have had a constitutional amendment circulated to abolish the electoral college. Since consitutional amendments must be passed by 3/4ths of the states without regard to the State size, and since there are more Red states right now than Blue states, I think that the passage of such an amendment would very likely have happened.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
The electoral college worked perfectly and as designed in 2000 and I'm pretty tired of explaining this. We've covered it to death.
And just so you know, I live in a firmly blue state, my votes are constantly for the loser, which means my presidential vote is pointless. I still think the Electoral college is a good idea.
Pix
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I can't help but wonder what would have happened in 2000 if the tables had been turned. If Bush had won the popular vote, but Gore had won the electoral college vote.
With Republicans in control of the House and an even split in the Senate, I'm pretty confident we would have had a constitutional amendment circulated to abolish the electoral college. Since consitutional amendments must be passed by 3/4ths of the states without regard to the State size, and since there are more Red states right now than Blue states, I think that the passage of such an amendment would very likely have happened.
I don't think it would have been abolished...
But I do think most of the people currently supporting it would be against it and most of the people currently against it would be for it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
The electoral college worked perfectly and as designed in 2000 and I'm pretty tired of explaining this. We've covered it to death.
And just so you know, I live in a firmly blue state, my votes are constantly for the loser, which means my presidential vote is pointless. I still think the Electoral college is a good idea.
Pix
So it is better that people in the cities are ignored? I don't think we saw a single presidential campaign ad in 2004.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Can't speak to where you're from, kmb, but here we were flooded with political ads. And not just presidential ones.
California is too big of a state to ignore even when it's a forgone conclusion.
Thing is, Cities tip the whole state. They're not going to be ignored.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chicago
Not one ad. Heck, we even sent our volunteers to campaign in Wisconsin!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
What about Independents?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
The electoral college worked perfectly and as designed in 2000 and I'm pretty tired of explaining this. We've covered it to death.
And just so you know, I live in a firmly blue state, my votes are constantly for the loser, which means my presidential vote is pointless. I still think the Electoral college is a good idea.
Pix
I assume you mean smaller by population. Either way, that's crap.
Tell me all about the heated presidential race in Wyoming. Or how Kerry and Bush blazed a trail across Alaska.
The electoral college does absolutely nothing for smaller states. Swing states are the only ones that get any attention, and at that, the only ones that matter are ones with high populations, which is why so much money goes into Florida, Ohio, Michigan and similar states. It doesn't even make sense in colonial format. The populations were spread evenly enough within the original 13 colonies to make it a moot point, and candidates didn't exactly campaign like they do today. In fact, campaigning back then was widely considered ill form.
Eliminating the electoral college is a good move for all. Right now people in states where it's a foregone conclusion that a certain part will win don't even bother voting. What's the point when your state went red last year by a couple million votes? Your vote isn't worth anything. On the other hand, were the college to be abolished, votes EVERYWHERE would count, meaning millions more across the country might see a point to voting, whereas before their vote would probably only be stifled by a larger majority.
Furthermore, it forces candidates to campaign in more places. They have to campaign in more states, more often and hit more population centers. There'd actually be a point to a Democrat hitting Alaska and Wyoming, or the bible belt or the plains states. They aren't trying to win the state as a whole, but all of a sudden everyone is up for grabs in a meaningful way.
It would change the nature of the campaigning process, and I'll bet you all the money I have, that you'd see the highest turnout in American history the first year we vote without the electoral college.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
That's a common myth. I've lived in small rural states and they get almost no attention in National elections unless they are swing states. The electoral college forces candidates to focus on swing states and ignore other states.
In the past 8 presidential elections, California has been won 4 times by the democrats and 4 times by the republicans and it currently has a Republican governor. It is a swing state.
If we went to direct election, every vote would count and candidates couldn't afford to write off any part of the country.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
How about just eliminate presidential campaigning?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It had nothing to do with guts. If Adams and Jefferson had their way and an abolition of slavery were included in the Declaration of Independence, there never would have been a Declaration. The Southern colonies wouldn't have gotten on board with it, and any attempt at a Revolution would have failed. Given the choice between continued British domination, and a new country that still had slavery, they chose the lesser of two evils and worked from that moment on to end slavery, which eventually culminated in the Civil War.
Jefferson didn't work particularly hard considering that he didn't even free his slaves.
Jefferson campaigned heavily to the second continental congress to include the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Rights but was overruled the south, of which he was a part of. Jefferson's original draft included the following against the King of England: "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.."
It was removed, based on the actions of Rutledge, from South Carolina. Jefferson got a measure passed in Virginia to end the importation of slaves from outside the state. And many of the slaves he owned were either his wife's, his parents', or held as a lien against debt. Yes, at the end of the day he is still a hypocrit, but to say that he didn't try to end slavery is like saying Hariett Tubman was lazy and could have done more.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: How about just eliminate presidential campaigning?
What do you suggest to replace it?
Rabbit -
Huzzah! We agree.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Nothing should replace it. I don't mean not telling anyone who their voting for. I just don't see a need for the Candidates to travel across the country telling everyone how great they think they are.
Rabbit, you can't eliminate the swing states problem because there's going to be an obvious preference of candidates from ones own state anyway. Therefore, getting rid of the Presidential Campaigns will make for a more efficient outcome than getting rid of the electoral college.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At least getting rid of the EC is a possible goal. We'll never get rid of campaigns.
You'd do better to discuss ways to REFORM the campaign process.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No Cheiros, you don't understand the swing state problem. The swing state problem exists because the electoral college system is a winner take all system. Under the electoral college system, if a candidate wins in a swing state by only 1 vote, then the candidate gets all of the states electoral votes. Under the electoral college system, winning just one more vote in that state could change the outcome of the election, while winning 100,000 votes in a state like Utah would make no difference at all. In a direct elections system 1 vote in Utah would be exactly equal to 1 vote in Florida.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: CA has gone Democrat each of the last 4 elections.
The 3 elections prior to that, their former governor was running or had just been term limited out.
Did Carter not win CA in 76? I was very young then and don't remember. It seems odd he would have won the white house without CA back then.
Decades old history aside, CA is firmly in the democrat column and has been for a while. Heck, Bush came in 3rd in SF in 2000.
Our republican governor is the result of a corrupt democratic governor being recalled and the democrats running someone who belonged to an organization dedicated to returning California to mexico as his replacement. Usually such dizzying ineptitude is reserved for the CA republican party. Further, the Republican Nominee was a popular Celebrity.
The weight the small states get is in the way electoral votes are figured. You get 2+(some amount based on your population) so a vote in a small state is worth slightly more than a vote in a large state. Otherwise the states with the greatest population would dominate the national scene even more than they do.
Pix
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
As of the 2000 census, 79% of Americans lived in urban areas but only 58% lived in urban areas with a population over 300,000 and less than 7% lived in cities with a population over 1 million. Given those demographics, it would be impossible for a candidate to win a national election by courting only the votes in the 10 biggest cities.
All you need to do is look at what happens in the many countries that directly elect their presidents. They don't have the problems we have.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was coming to say exactly what the Rabbit just said. Your argument for the EC was once valid, but becomes less so with each passing year. The cities are at or are approaching maximum capacity, while the overall population continues to grow. Hence, the rural areas are catching up every day.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The weight the small states get is in the way electoral votes are figured. You get 2+(some amount based on your population) so a vote in a small state is worth slightly more than a vote in a large state. Otherwise the states with the greatest population would dominate the national scene even more than they do.
Read my earlier posts Pix. That differences has been noted and included in the calculations. It pales in comparison to the swing state issue. Under the current system, your vote is far more valuable if you vote in a state with close elections, than if you vote in a state that is firmly in one camp.
quote:Did Carter not win CA in 76? I was very young then and don't remember. It seems odd he would have won the white house without CA back then.
Do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to have posted that stat. without looking it up first? No only did Ford win in CA in 76, Nixon won in CA in both 68 and 72.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The weight the small states get is in the way electoral votes are figured. You get 2+(some amount based on your population) so a vote in a small state is worth slightly more than a vote in a large state. Otherwise the states with the greatest population would dominate the national scene even more than they do.
Pix
Still doesn't make much sense to me. Candidates don't spend time in small states that only have 3 electoral votes when they can visit the midwest where at the least they will get 2 or 3 times that for the same effort. Larger swing states dominate the national scene, it almost doesn't matter how much they dominate when the base fact is that they DO dominate. It takes more than a dozen of those tiny populated states to match even Texas' and New York's electoral power (each), to say nothing of California's. It doesn't make much sense to say that smaller states are empowered by this system, when all a candidate has to do is campaign in California, New York and Texas, and then virtually ignore every single state that has 3 electoral votes.
If anything, the system leaves small states even more out in the cold.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Lyr, you're neglecting the fact that campaigning in the big states does little good if you're not of the right party. Texas is big time R, NY and California are big time D. So to say all a candidate has to do is campaign in those states is like saying all you need to fly is the ability to substantially change your body density.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol. Yes, that is a valid point.
But by that same token, the grand majority of those little 3 vote states are solidly Republicans.
Bang for your buck, where are you going to campaign? You hit a swing state with a dozen or so votes that has even a marginal chance of flipping to your side and ignore those little guys who are A. Solidly in the enemy camp. B. Would cost much, much more if you wanted to campaign in as many as it would take to equal ONE mid sized state. It's a huge untertaking, and not just financially or physically for the candidate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Candidates don't spend time in small states that only have 3 electoral votes when they can visit the midwest where at the least they will get 2 or 3 times that for the same effort
Here is the issue. Let's assume, that it takes ta given amount of effort to sway one voter. Effort can be viewed in lots of ways from spending advertising dollars to sponsoring different legislation. Now suppose that you have the resources to sway 500 voters. In the two thousand elections, if you had spent that effort in New Mexico -- it would have brought you 5 electoral college votes. In order to get the same 5 electoral votes from Utah, you would have had to sway over 300,000 voters. Given the difference, there is no question where candidates are going to spend their political capital and its not in Utah. The result of the electoral college system is that the voters in states with tight margins are far more valuable to candidates.
The difference in the electoral votes/voter in small states is miniscule compared to the voting margin issue.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit, I don't think we could agree on the colour of the sky...
I did read your earlier post and while your argument seems compelling, we DO have swing states across the demographic ranging from large (FL, OH) to small (IA, NM)
quote: Do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to have posted that stat. without looking it up first? No only did Ford win in CA in 76, Nixon won in CA in both 68 and 72.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was questioning your diligence/honesty. I found the fact surprising is all.
So... Which countries specifically that directly elect their presidents are you refering to?
Come to think of it, what problems are you refering to? Non-swing states not getting love? Losers winging on 5 years later? The fact that neither party has put up a decent candidate in 20 years?
Pix
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Coming from a country with compulsory voting, I think a major step in improving democracy in America would be to do the same. (Make voting compulsory that is).
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: I don't know, I think you are probably the most arrogant jerk here. Sure I am arrogant, but you don't see me making stupid jokes intended to hurt others.
Oh boy, well put, if anything i would be a laughing hyena.
Oh i love this:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Sure I am arrogant
Does that answer your thread?...
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
quote:Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US.
I do have high respect for the US colleges. But frankly, I still believe that a high school graduate in Czech/Slovak Republics has a better general overview than a high school graduate in the US. Our education system is pretty good!
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
quote:Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US.
I do have high respect for the US colleges. But frankly, I still believe that a high school graduate in Czech/Slovak Republics has a better general overview than a high school graduate in the US. Our education system is pretty good!
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Whoopps, double post, hehe, i tried to tell them that Tzadik, but, hey, they´r American.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
LeoJ, I think you migh just be jelous of the U.S., considering your nation, which was once a world empire, is now nothing.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Reticulum, trust me, we are not jealous... Far it be from that... Just trying to point out that there is life outside of the US. I hope one day you get to explore it more and broaden your horizons.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: LeoJ, I think you migh just be jelous of the U.S., considering your nation, which was once a world empire, is now nothing.
You know that is exactly the kind of statement that causes people aroung the world to view Americans as arrogant self loving jerks.
Why should anyone want their country to dominate the world?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, we sure did solve that mystery. Americans are viewed as arrogant, self-loving jerks because the rest of the world is stupid and envious and just can't admit that America roxors.
Now some might say that there never was any intention of doing anything but stating the above by the thread starter, but not me. No, I was suprised that such a fair and open minded investigation would turn up such a seemingly juvenile result, but there you go.
Now, if we could just solve the mystery of who put mud in the freezer.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, I know it is. But if the rest of the world judges an entire population of 300 Million, soley on individuals like I, then I really can't those who do it too much. I can however, respect those who don't. So, LeoJ, I have absolutely no respect for you.
My point was, I cannot see why LeoJ so desperately hates the United States. Apparently, he thinks we Americans are dumb, arrogant( ), and live in a nation that bullies others. I have yet to ample evidence for this, and since he views us as arrogant jerks, why not act as he views us?
And yes, while I should be proving him wrong, and be a respectful, kind, and humble American, I have encountered to many people, (over the internet, that is) and been humble and kind, and respectful, yet still in the end, they say; "Your nation sucks, and you are arrogant bastards." So that is why. Does this give me the right to be arrogant and a class 1 jerk? No, it does not.
Well, seeing as I just proved your point, I shall heed your advice. Thank You...me?
Edit: Does this mean that others have to respect me? Nope, if someone chooses not to respect me,(in this thread) that is fine, now. All I want, is for my opinions to be respected.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But if the rest of the world judges an entire population of 300 Million, soley on individuals like I
My head asplode
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
What? What are you talking about.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're a bright lad. Look over that statement and look for something that might cause a bit of mental tension, like maybe an ironinc contradiction or some such. It's subtle, I'll grant you, but if you look real hard you might be able to pick it up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tzadik:
quote:Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US.
I do have high respect for the US colleges. But frankly, I still believe that a high school graduate in Czech/Slovak Republics has a better general overview than a high school graduate in the US. Our education system is pretty good!
And yet you don't know the basics of the foundation of American history. Furthermore, I'm betting it's a lot easier to learn about two and a half centuries of American history than it is for us to learn about four thousand years of European history, don't you think?
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but history isn't the be all/end all of high school education. And that really hurt to say, I'm a history major and future high school history teacher. But who are you trying to kid? You learn more about European history in Czech schools (no friggin duh, you're actually IN Europe!) and based on that you're entire school program is thus better than ours? I received a very well rounded education in high school, and very comprehensive as well. I'm sorry if we didn't spend a dozen years learning the names of all the Emperors of Rome, and all the kings of Britain, so on and so forth all of your history. But who has time, or the need for that in America?
You guys went to war with each other every five minutes back in the day, there's no way an American high schooler wants to know that, or for that matter should even need to know that.
Why should American students even learn THAT in depth about European history? You can briefly cover American history, at least all the hot spots and important parts, that don't necessarily deal with Europe, in a single semester. Why should spend years working through your long history? And that doesn't even cover Asian history, or South American history, unless it's in relation to you guys plundering and murders thousands to steal their gold in South America, or colonizing and enslaving millions in Africa.
At the very least, I'd say we're even.
Edit to add: Your bet is a sucker bet. You'll always be able to point out SOMETHING in the massive span of European history that an American doesn't know. You have 10 times as much length of time, and for that matter a dozen or more countries. It is utterly ridiculous to say that the 230 year history of ONE nation is the equivilant of the 4000 year history of an entire continent of a dozen or more nations.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I fail to see it. Is it that I am judging other countries on the people I meet here? Because yes, that is wrong. If it isn't, then what?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Lol.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, I'd just like to point out this, which should clear things up.
edit: On the thread in general, not so much the extremely subtle irony that statement, Ret.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Curse you Australia!
Edit: WOO! Five Hundred Posts!!!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Oh Reticulum, you're priceless.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Huh, I always thought I was worth at least €3.50.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Only in high end retail. I bet I could find you at Wal-mart for much less.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, into a new discussion. Why does Europe think they are so much better then America/rest of the world?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Our militaristic ways (mostly of the past) have worked for us, and we are grateful for it.
Ummm, how can you consider our militaristic ways a thing of the past when we are still involved in a war of agression and spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
Granted it's been creeping up, but then, so has Chinese and European spending as well.
OK, This is a bit late but I just checked your link. From this link, In 2005, global military spending was $1083 billion. The US military spending was $522 billion (including appropriations for the Iraq and Afgan wars). So in 2005 we spent very slightly less than the rest of the world combined (yippy).
Those budget numbers for the US do not include current payments we are making past military actions, such as interest on borrowed money and veterans benefits. If you add, those in the US was spending substantially more on the military than the rest of the world combined in 2005.
Since then the situation has gotten worse. The US military budget for fiscal 2006 is 441.6 billion plust $120 billion for the Iraq and Afganistan wars. (The 2006 special budget for the includes only money for combat and no reconstruction money). The 2006 global numbers aren't available but since the US military spending has been growing significantly faster than global military spending, chances are very good that we are now over the 50% mark even if we ignore interest on the debt and veterans benefits.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
But does the world budget include the debt and other such things of the other nations? Plus, our economy allows for this, without significantly impacting our it. Don't forget that other nations, if they had the money, would spend just as much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rabbit -
Possibly, but then you also have to remember that China is also greatly increasing it's military spending, and the UK, Germany, and France are all talking about increasing theirs as well, in an attempt to create a more mobile striking force as opposed to (in the case of France and Germany) a largely outdated support role ground forces.
The UK, France, and Italy are all purchasing new aircraft carriers next year, which will be one time costs, but will cause their budgets to jump slightly. Also, consider that the figures for global military spending don't include what the "coalition" is spending on Iraq, which while vastly less, all adds up in the end.
And, I don't think this trend will last for long. The US, while getting hundreds of billions of dollars in boosts in the last couple years, is heading for a slash in the near future. Rising budget deficits will cause deficit hawks and defense doves to look at our global military commitments and some things are going to get cut, you can count on it. Several programs have been cut in the past few years, a trend I think we can see continue. What's really questionable is the future of the Navy. New warship designs call for a totally new direction for shipbuilding, and the next generation of carriers will be smaller, cheaper and more efficient.
Either way I'm just quibbling with you, and I apologize, a bit. It's a moot point when the numbers are that close, and I can't deny either way that the US spends far, far too much on military matters. But, it should be pointed out that many billions of those dollars are used towards matters of WORLD protection, not just a selfish use of money for American interests.
And regardless, I'd be perfectly happy to see America's funding for it's military drop by a hundred billion dollars, and for the majority of those funds to come from support of foreign militaries, foreign military bases and less patrolling of international waters where US interests aren't involved.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ret, Probably not but since we have a much larger national debt than anyother nation, and military spending has been a larger fraction of our national budget than any other major country, I think we'd still come out way ahead.
I should also add that $441.6 billion 2006 US military budget is just the department of defense. Our nuclear weapons are all in the DOE budget and there is also military spending in the Homeland security budget. These total to an additional $114 billion in military spending.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually, our military spending is only around 3% of our GDP. Other nations spend far, far, far more percent of their GDP, or just the same. Also, don't forget that we are in a time of war, and before the war, spending was significantly less. Most nations aren't in wars, and thus their spending can be quite low. We had a major attack on us, and had to boost funding to defend. Let us not forget September 11.
Our debt may be larger, but in proportion to our GDP, it is en route with other nations. We have to try to proportion things with the size of our economy and others.
As for your lower paragraph, yeah, you're right.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But, it should be pointed out that many billions of those dollars are used towards matters of WORLD protection, not just a selfish use of money for American interests.
I guess that's a matter of perspective and is one of the perspectives that causes the world to view us as arrogant.
Take a look at the table. The US military expenditures are 8.5 times the next closest country. China, Germany, France and Russia could all ramp up their military expenitures considerably, and we would still be off the scale.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, but in proportion to our GDP, it really isn't off the scales, but right on que.
China? Why the hell is China #2? They aren't fighting any wars...or anything.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know how that's really arrogance. When we spent hundreds of billions during the cold war to keep Russia from invading the crap out of Europe and other places there weren't as many complaints. No one seems to mind the fact that there's virtually no piracy around the world, certainly not of anything larger than a cruise ship.
And I concede the point that we should spend less. I'm all for reduced military spending. So long as the reduction in spending all goes towards deficit and debt reduction. We can buy more tanks when we have more money in the bank.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Holy crap, did you actually look all that up?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ret, I don't know where you got your numbers.
From the CIA world fact book, The US 2005 GDP was $12.77 trillion and military spending was 522 billion. That means we spent 4.08% of our GDP on military.
The UK GDP in 2005 (same source) was 2.275 trillion and they spent 51.1 billion on military or 2.25%.
China's GDP (2005) was 1.833 trillion, and their military expenditures were 62.5 billion (3.4%).
Germany's GDP (2005) was 2.83 trillion and their military expenditures were 30.2 billion (1.07%)
Even as a percent of GDP, we are way ahead.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Damn. I thought I made a mistake somewhere. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
OK, I finally found a country that beats us in terms of % of GDP spent on the military. Russia.
Russia 2005 GDP was 740 billion and its military expenditures were 61.9 billion or 8.3%.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lyhawn, Evidently Reticulum didn't. But I did.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Wait. I made mistakes, but I don't know where you are getting your information from. Here is what the factbook actually says.
U.S. 3.3% China 4.3% Germany 1.5% UK 2.4% Japan 1%
I looked this up directly from the fact book. It says right there. They are similar, but you messed up China's.
Don't forget China. They outdid us too.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare military expenditures as a percentage of the total federal budget rather than GDP? The government doesn't have the entire GDP available for spending money.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Reticulum, your numbers are from 2004. Rabbit's are from 2005. She didn't mess up anything.
edit: Actually, I'm wrong about your numbers being from 2004. China's and Japan's are from 2004; the rest are from 2003.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, that didn't sound like him.
And wow, Russia's GDP is THAT low? I know that's still way ahead of a majority of the world's nations, but it's a lot lower than it could/should be.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
How exactly did you get your info, Rabbit? Since when are there different fact books? What didn't sound like me?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is there a breakdown of the military budget available online anywhere? What the crap are we spending all that money on?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
So it appears I was wrong. We do kind of spend a lot on our military proportionately...somewhat. So if we were to cut 100 Billion dollars from our military, Lyrhawn, what would you suggest we do to keep up the military with 1 out of every 5 $ gone? I think the military knows what they are doing. You can't be the best in the world and not know what you are doing.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Is there a breakdown of the military budget available online anywhere? What the crap are we spending all that money on?
quote:The fiscal 2006 defense budget of $419.3 billion represents a 4.8 percent increase over fiscal 2005 in real terms, but is about $3 billion less than projected for fiscal 2006 in last year's plan.
This budget does not include an expected administration request for $80 billion in supplemental appropriations, including $75 billion for the Defense Department to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the current fiscal year.
Highlights of the spending include $108.94 billion for military personnel, including funding for a 3.1 percent pay raise and additional recruiting and retention bonuses for troops. That funding would include $4.1 billion for Special Operations forces -- boosting their numbers by 1,400 and increasing spending for language training -- underscoring the request's assessment that the forces have "contributed significantly" to the war on terror. The budget also allocates $416 million to start the repatriation of 70,000 military personnel from overseas bases.
In terms of weapons systems, procurement funding declined about 2 percent to $78 billion. Funding was stepped up for some systems considered important to the military's goal of modernizing: The Army's Future Combat System receives $3.4 billion, an increase of $200 million; and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship gained an increase of $156 million to $613 million.
But the budget would cut funding for such weapons systems as the F/A-22 fighters, DD(X) destroyers, LPD amphibious ships, Virginia-class attack submarines and V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
As you can see, we need this money.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*pops in for obligatory t-shirt slogan*
Make levees, not war.
-pH
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
That money may be needed to maintain the current level of military action, but whether that level of military action is needed is very much up for debate.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
And what would your opinion be Reagan?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I still don't know where you got your numbers Reticulum.
My numbers for GDP are (2005) estimates from the CIA world fact book. My numbers for Military spending are from the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation (I posted the link to these numbers earlier). With the exception of the numbers for China and Russia, the data is all from 2005. I calculated the percentages.
I don't know how your percentages were calculated or where they come from. The military expenditures for US in the world fact book are for 2003, I haven't checked the other countries.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm confused by that break down of military spending.
They report a total of $419 billion. $108 billion of that is for personnel and $78 billion is for weapons. Where did the spend the other $233 billion dollars?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Toilet seats and hammers.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
A lot goes into research and developement.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
A lot goes into research and developement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I should also add that the budget requested in that article, is about 30 billion less than the budget that was approved.
(We should note that 30 billion is an additional $100 for every man, woman and child living in the US.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: A lot goes into research and developement.
$263 billion worth?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
No, but quite a bit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of stuff. Ship building, ordnance, base building, base maintenance, operational costs.
I'm reading a breakdown of the proposed budget for just the Navy FY2007.
As far as I'm concerned, we could cut the size of the army. We don't need a standing army that large. Cut it by 40,000 troops at least, and save billions. That's billions saved in salary costs, future training cost, maintenance cost, across the board it saves money. Increase spending on unmanned vehicles, and for that matter, don't cut the F/A 22 program that we've already spent billions on, it's near completion, and we've already cut the latest stealth helicopter design from Sikorsky and the Palladin weapons system.
From what I've read in this budget, it allows funding for the construction of 2 DDX Destroyers, and 4 LCR shallow draft ships, and one VA-class submarine. I'm a big navy fan, a powerful navy and a powerful airforce, as far as I'm concerned in this day and age, are more important than a massive ground force.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you want a quick breakdown (all approx.)
$25 billion for Naval operations $2 billion for Naval training $4 billion for Naval administrative costs $4 billion for Marine operations/training and administrative costs. $10 billion for Naval aircraft procurement $10 billion for Naval aircraft R&D $2.5 billion for weapons procurement for Naval aircraft $10 billion for Naval shipbuilding $17 billion for additional Naval R&D/System development and demonstration
So, for the Navy and Marines anyway: $84.5 billion. And that doesn't include the cost of naval and marine salary, which is included in the abovementioned 100 billion+ figure.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The large ground force, is indeed needed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For what? Wasteful wars of aggression that produce no gain for the US but waste HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of tax payer dollars? And in the face of rising deficits, and a massive debt, I don't see how we can justify it.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas. If we were to cut our soldiers, we would cut our vehicles, which would cost to get rid of. We would also have to store extra vehicles, aircraft, and uniforms. Our capabilities would lower, and we couldn't defend our interests overseas. It wouldn't be good, short to say.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Where do you think we keep those vehicles and uniforms now? That's utterly ridiculous. We don't just get rid of vehicles, we store them, and do routine maintenance.
We project power like crazy. Each individual aircraft carrier group we operate could take on (almost) any one of the world's navies and fight it to a standstill. We can strike with impunity in almost any nation in the world at this point.
We're perfectly capable of defending our interests with a smaller, more mobile strike force, and more special operations soldiers. Our major allies are perfectly capable of helping themselves without our help. Europe doesn't need American military power to defend itself, and even if it did, it certainly shouldn't. They have no excuse.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas. If we were to cut our soldiers, we would cut our vehicles, which would cost to get rid of. We would also have to store extra vehicles, aircraft, and uniforms. Our capabilities would lower, and we couldn't defend our interests overseas. It wouldn't be good, short to say.
How about we start defending our interests within our own borders before we go play Police of the World?
-pH
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That's what the military is for. The military does what the military does. Your adressing what the federal government should do. The military couldn't help in any of these things short of helping disaster reconstruction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really? Britain, China, and India don't seem to have a problem keeping their interests protected for a fraction of the cost.
The military is an ARM of the federal government. They aren't separate entities in the way that you are suggesting. Federal policy dictates what the military is used for.
You're suggesting the military simply exists to BE the military. The military exists for whatever purpose we decide to give it, and that purpose can be reduced and increased in scope, depending on the desires of the government, and god willing, of the people. And right now, the purpose of the military seems to be only to waste money for no return.
America should be focusing on itself. You need to help yourself before you can help others. Besides, I think it'd be good for our image, not that I really care what others think about is, goodwill is never a bad thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: That's what the military is for. The military does what the military does. Your adressing what the federal government should do. The military couldn't help in any of these things short of helping disaster reconstruction.
Oh, you don't even WANT to know what I think of the military and the federal government and our glorious "disaster reconstruction."
-pH
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Pfhhh, SUCKS MORE THEN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE, is what disaster reconstruction was. Part of the reason Republicans will lose the next election. But then, it all depends on the administration.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas.
With the possible exception of defending our allies, I find those goals to be highly immoral.
Its one thing to defend your country from an invading force. It's quite another thing to defend your "interests" and "power projection". To me those are just euphanisms that allow us to call aggression defense. I mean seriously. When did anyone ever start a war that they didn't think was defending their interests? Hitler's invasion of Poland was to protect the interests of German speakers in Poland.
If we consider any war for US interests to be self defence, then we've basically justified every possible aggressive scenario that anyone would ever propose.
[ March 31, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That's what the military says. Except the power projection one.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Can anyone find what the total goals are?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Okay, every time I read this title, I at first think it's "United Satans."
-pH
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
"United Statians" is a proposed alternative to American. it doesn't work, as you can see. Should I change it. I was considering.
The American Problem America's Problems America: The Great Debate
Which one is best?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Okay, every time I read this title, I at first think it's "United Satans."
And it could not be more accurate.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes it could. Could be "devils", or "Diablo", or my favorite: El Chupacabra!
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Variations on a theme, Ret.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
What do mean? Since the debates keep changing, I thought I would change it too:
America: The Great Debate ; and why we're viewed as arrogant, selfloving jerks.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Take North Korea's military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (I'm using mismatched numbers here)
2005 estimated GDP $40 billion 2002 military expenditures over $5 billion
Approximatly 12% of GDP!
Sergeant
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thus far, the majority of this 12 pages of debate has been: How Many Ways Can Reticulum Avoid Debate and Delivers Crazed Bombastic Replies.
Little long for a thread title though. However, HMWCRADDCBR works. Pronounced: Him-wah Crad Kibber.
[ March 31, 2006, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Bam! Go Sergeant!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Lyrhawn, you delivered just as many crazy replies as I have.
Plus, I have a liscense.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
"Bombastic" is a word that should never be used outside of the context of a Britney Spears song.
Or in this case because it makes me giggle.
-pH
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Of course, we could always scrap the military and replace it with Britney and the gang.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
We could always use short green people. Or could we?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: Take North Korea's military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (I'm using mismatched numbers here)
2005 estimated GDP $40 billion 2002 military expenditures over $5 billion
Approximatly 12% of GDP!
Sergeant
Considering, but since NK is not a democracy, but a dictatorship, the government can (according to my knowledge) do whatever they want.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Judging from the way things are in America Reticulum, you could make the same case for us.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: LeoJ, I think you migh just be jelous of the U.S., considering your nation, which was once a world empire, is now nothing.
You know that is exactly the kind of statement that causes people aroung the world to view Americans as arrogant self loving jerks.
Thanks Rabbit, you cut my fingers some slack.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: My point was, I cannot see why LeoJ so desperately hates the United States. Apparently, he thinks we Americans are dumb, arrogant( ),
I think, in my previous thread, I made it clear that I liked America, and no I dont think Americans are dumb, (only the guy that used to be my neightboor, and he was very arrogant about the U.S.), but you made it pretty clear how arrogant most Americans can be.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: and since he views us as arrogant jerks, why not act as he views us?
You have been arrogant way before you tought i tought Americans were arrogant. Now im not saying all Americans, im stating that you answered your own question. And no, im not jelous of America, anything i could be jelous about is the movie´s release dates, since here i have to wait a couple of months.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: and live in a nation that bullies others.
America is a big bully (or well bully isnt the correct word but its close enough), and some can agree about that with me, ofcourse most of the ones who would agree are likely non-American, and lets not put Europe in the picture, im not talking about Europe im talking about America.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: And yes, while I should be proving him wrong, and be a respectful, kind, and humble American,
I don´t see how showing off about how your nation is the best militarily, politically or whatever you spat out on your previous replies, fits in your definition of humble.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: they say; "Your nation sucks, and you are arrogant bastards."
All i ever said is that the public HS education system sucks, and that they mostly teach U.S. history while the world (Europe is not the World) teaches World History.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Well, seeing as I just proved your point, I shall heed your advice. Thank You...me?
You didn´t just proved my point, you also answered your own question.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Edit: Does this mean that others have to respect me? Nope, if someone chooses not to respect me,(in this thread) that is fine, now. All I want, is for my opinions to be respected.
Respect towards Reticulum is still on my book, therefore i respect your opinion.
And sorry that your name sounds like rectum to me, but hey, its life.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yay, I'm respected. Alright LeoJ, contrary to what I said earlier, and since this posy was a good one, I shall resume respecting you.
I don't see why you say we don't learn world history. I have 2 siblings currently in high school, and they learn world history. I also have one in 9th, but that doesn't count. As you get higher and higher and higher in grades, you start learning world history. Which is about the world. Do they teach as much as they should? No, they definitely don't.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Of course, we could always scrap the military and replace it with Britney and the gang.
*shaking bon-bon* Show me how you want it to be! Tell me bayyyyybayyyy 'cause I need to knowwww now, oh becauuuuse!
Yeah, I think we could use that to scare other countries into bending to our will.
-pH
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
*Iraq*
Alright, alright, you win! We'll get rid of Saddam, and create a democracy.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). And I'm not saying that an armed populace will reduce crime, I am pointing out that rigid gun control that forces upstanding citizens to surrender their legally-owned firearms does not reduce crime whatsoever.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
] ... but where do you think they got the and terms for a President?"![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)