What's going on in Paris?

[BPSCG]

The assumption that there's a "going forward" in which some are "left behind". Progress being, as an unconscious axiom, becoming 'Murrican. You could have used "those who stayed", but you chose "left behind". I'm no disciple of Freud, but I'm a connoisseur of nuance.

I doubt things would have been much different in the US if the whole population of Europe had moved in during the 19thCE.

Oh, I think it would have been quite different. Fortunately, the aristocratic riff-raff didn't want any part of us:

"All I say is, kings is kings, and you got to make allowances. Take them all around, they're a mighty ornery lot. It's the way they're raised."

"But dis one do SMELL so like de nation, Huck."

"Well, they all do, Jim. We can't help the way a king smells; history don't tell no way."

"Now de duke, he's a tolerble likely man in some ways."

"Yes, a duke's different. But not very different. This one's a middling hard lot for a duke. When he's drunk there ain't no near-sighted man could tell him from a king."

"Well, anyways, I doan' hanker for no mo' un um, Huck. Dese is all I kin stan'."

"It's the way I feel, too, Jim. But we've got them on our hands, and we got to remember what they are, and make allowances. Sometimes I wish we could hear of a country that's out of kings."

What was the use to tell Jim these warn't real kings and dukes? It wouldn't a done no good; and, besides, it was just as I said: you couldn't tell them from the real kind.

Despite the open land the US managed to have a pretty substantial blood-letting in the 1860's.

Yeah - largely for the purpose of setting other men free - not land-grabbing. What was the purpose of Europe's two 20th-century bloodlettings?

Your expressed opinion vis-a-vis chran's, for starters.

No, I meant what do you believe are the causes of the big differences between Europeans and Americans? Again, my hypothesis may be a bunch of Rule 8; I'm curious to hear other explanations (and maybe this would make for a good separate thread...)

 

[Orwell]

As stated above, I don't claim this hypothesis is by any means a finished product. It may even be wrong, in fact. I'd be delighted if you could show how it's wrong, instead of just tossing out a casual insult.

Well, you probably didn't even notice it, but I found your ignorant generalisations about Europeans to be quite insulting.

If it's so "bleeding obvious", why have they not done so? At least one Frenchman* on this thread says people can own hunting rifles there without a permit, so if it's so "bleeding obvious" that the right-wing nutjobs would get a big charge out of gunning down a guy with a molotov cocktail, you'd think the streets would be littered with dead rioters and crashed scooters. So explain why it's so "bleeding obvious," 'cuz I, for one, sure don't see it.

Probably because the French government doesn't find those kinds of actions acceptable, and the right wing nut-jobs know it.

Back off. I have never pointed a gun at anyone, and pray to the FSM (blessed be His noodley appendage) I never have to.

Ok on that. I hope you won't ever do that too.

Yes, very violently, due to their perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators. Damn near destroyed themselves the last time out.

Yes, Europeans nearly destroyed themselves twice in the last century, but it wasn't because of their "perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators". It was rather because of their perverted affection for their respective countries, which was manipulated by dictators. It should be pointed out too that many americans also have this "perverted affection" for their country.

*Howcome you can say "Frenchman" or "Englishman", and that's okay, but saying "Chinaman" makes you a racist...?

Because of one thing you seem to be pretty ignorant about, and that's History.

 

[Freakshow]

In real life, unfortunately, you are just as likely to end up in hospital with your shop burnt anyway.

Do you have some statistics you can post here that support this?

 

[Freakshow]

That is a very American thing to do; I'd rather leave it and hope for the best.

If you really mean that, then thank you so much, for again reminding me of yet another reason I am happy and proud to be an American.

"Leave it and hope for the best"? That's not the way success is achieved.

 

[Freakshow]

Personally, I've always liked this habit that the French people have of kicking up a manure storm when they finally get fed up with something. It's not the first time that violence related to social issues has blown up in France, and knowing the French, it probably won't be last time. Maybe now the festering problems of the poor "maghrebins" and of those awful suburban ghettos will finally get some real attention!

This is odd. When we talk about the US foreign policy, you are always cautioning against the risk of taking violent action, because of the over-reaction it might cause from the other side. Why do you excuse it in this case?

 

[CBL4]

Yes, Europeans nearly destroyed themselves twice in the last century, but it wasn't because of their "perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators". It was rather because of their perverted affection for their respective countries, which was manipulated by dictators. It should be pointed out too that many americans also have this "perverted affection" for their country.

The reality is that the US has been the model for democracy since it was established. We rid ourselves of kings, emperors and dictators over 200 years ago. Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, etc have a much more recent brush with tyranny and Russia and Ukraine are still there. Many of the people of these nations support the tyrants and in several cases it was the majority (as much as polls and such can be trusted in tyrannies.)

Emigrants by emigrating show much less tolerance for the status quo. Clearly a country founded by immigrants will have a different attitude (at least temporarily) than an established nation. Canada is kind of an interesting case because they were emigrants who supported the home nation's tyrant.

I think BPSCG's idea is interesting but certainly not convincing - yet.

CBL

 

[BPSCG]

Well, you probably didn't even notice it, but I found your ignorant generalisations about Europeans to be quite insulting.

Last I checked, 1) Canada wasn't part of Europe, and 2) you're probably no more European than I am, so why are you offended?

In any case, you still have given neither logical nor empirical explanation why my hypothesis is faulty. Observing that I may have a right-wing bias and that you may be offended does not constitute refutation. If you'd like an example of serious discussion on this point, have a look at CapelDodger's recent posts on this topic.

Probably because the French government doesn't find those kinds of actions acceptable, and the right wing nut-jobs know it.

Oh. Well, earlier, you were saying:

Let me point out the bleeding obvious for you: there's quite a lot of frenchmen, particularly on the right, that would probably not hesitate shooting these rioters.

Seems they would hesitate, after all.

Yes, Europeans nearly destroyed themselves twice in the last century, but it wasn't because of their "perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators". It was rather because of their perverted affection for their respective countries, which was manipulated by dictators.

And how did Hitler and Mussolini come to power in the first place? Puppets placed by the US to combat international bolshvism...?

 

[BPSCG]

The reality is that the US has been the model for democracy since it was established. We rid ourselves of kings, emperors and dictators over 200 years ago. Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, etc have a much more recent brush with tyranny and Russia and Ukraine are still there. Many of the people of these nations support the tyrants and in several cases it was the majority (as much as polls and such can be trusted in tyrannies.)

Emigrants by emigrating show much less tolerance for the status quo. Clearly a country founded by immigrants will have a different attitude (at least temporarily) than an established nation. Canada is kind of an interesting case because they were emigrants who supported the home nation's tyrant.

I think BPSCG's idea is interesting but certainly not convincing - yet.

Thanks. I'm going to make a thread out of it. As I said, it hasn't passed from the realm of hypothesis to theory. I've mentioned it to a number of people, but nobody has seriously challenged me on it (probably overwhelmed by the blinding glare of my dazzling intellect...), so I can't say it has stood up in combat. Or, as Huntsman observed, you don't prove a hypothesis by mollycoddling it; you prove it by ramming it into a brick wall at 60 mph and examining the pieces. If the pieces come from the wall, the theory is sound.

 

[kittynh]

well, come on, this is a very FRENCH thing to do. Barricade the streets and riot. Victor Hugo and all that. Of course, blowing away the rioters is also the way to handle it...or has been in the past. Historically taking to the streets is the way to go. Maybe they've assimilated more than we think.

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks. I'm going to make a thread out of it.

Please do. I would like to see some numbers regarding this:

They did all this [emigrated] because they no longer wanted to be taxed to death by the king, or burned to death by the priest, and were willing to risk the devil they didn't know as long as it got them away from the devil they did. Those restless, dissatisfied people came over here and they passed their lives' lessons and their values on to their children.

I think many, many of them came simply because they were poor and had hopes of a better future here. In other words, not necessarily the restless or brave, but those who couldn't find a way to make a living at home (much the same reason why people emigrate today, I guess).

I picked this quote from Norwegian textbooks, but you'll probably find the same when you read about other countries:

Scarcity of land and work caused about 860.000 Norwegians to leave the country during the following hundred years. Most of them emigrated to the USA.

They left behind people who liked the way things were in Europe; very few princes and dukes came over to strike out a new life in the New World. And they also left behind the people who might not have liked the way things were in Europe, but were more afraid of the devil they didn't know than the devil they already did. And those people passed their lives' lessons and their values on to their children.

Most of all they left behind those that had managed to do well - the winners, if you like.

 

[Orwell]

This is odd. When we talk about the US foreign policy, you are always cautioning against the risk of taking violent action, because of the over-reaction it might cause from the other side. Why do you excuse it in this case?

Freakshow, I like you and I think you're a cool guy, but... Think two minutes about it... You're trying to compare a street riot to a country's foreign policy!

 

[Orwell]

The reality is that the US has been the model for democracy since it was established. We rid ourselves of kings, emperors and dictators over 200 years ago. Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, etc have a much more recent brush with tyranny and Russia and Ukraine are still there. Many of the people of these nations support the tyrants and in several cases it was the majority (as much as polls and such can be trusted in tyrannies.)

Emigrants by emigrating show much less tolerance for the status quo. Clearly a country founded by immigrants will have a different attitude (at least temporarily) than an established nation. Canada is kind of an interesting case because they were emigrants who supported the home nation's tyrant.

I think BPSCG's idea is interesting but certainly not convincing - yet.

CBL

More "founding myths". Remember the little comment I made about "perverted affection for their country". Well, you're being guilty of it right now: your nationalism is making you re-interpret US history in a way that is flattering to you. Read Bjorn's comment.

 

[Freakshow]

Freakshow, I like you and I think you're a cool guy, but... Think two minutes about it... You're trying to compare a street riot to a country's foreign policy!

What does that have to do with right and wrong?

 

[Elind]

What are the causes of the big differences between Europeans and Americans? Again, my hypothesis may be a bunch of Rule 8; I'm curious to hear other explanations (and maybe this would make for a good separate thread...)

Less languages (ignoring the Spanish irritation for the moment).
Less established locals (apologies to the Seminoles and relatives).
Less crowding.
Less immigration from any one source (culture).
Less rules.
Less royalty.
Less tradition.
Less religion (relatively speaking).

Mostly just less = more.

 

[Orwell]

Less languages (ignoring the Spanish irritation for the moment).
Less established locals (apologies to the Seminoles and relatives).
Less crowding.
Less immigration from any one source (culture).
Less rules.
Less royalty.
Less tradition.
Less religion (relatively speaking).

Mostly just less = more.

You forgot one pretty important factor: less poverty, or at least, the illusion that there were more economic opportunities. The immigrant experience also includes many disappointments. But both Canada's and America's national mythologies emphasise the successes and ignore the disappointments.

 

[delphi_ote]

Less religion (relatively speaking).

Less religion in America than Europe? I highly doubt that...

 

[Orwell]

Last I checked, 1) Canada wasn't part of Europe, and 2) you're probably no more European than I am, so why are you offended?

Because I'm a second generation immigrant who fluently speaks the old country's language, understands its culture and who often visits: my parents went back there and most of my extended family staid there.

In any case, you still have given neither logical nor empirical explanation why my hypothesis is faulty. Observing that I may have a right-wing bias and that you may be offended does not constitute refutation. If you'd like an example of serious discussion on this point, have a look at CapelDodger's recent posts on this topic.

CapelDodger is generally a more patient man than I am. Your hypothesis is flawed because it doesn't fit both the history of the US and European history. You are not taking into account all the revolutions, armed struggles and political upheavals cooked up by those "tamed europeans". You are not considering the fact that the US was not, for a long time, "the land of liberty for all", you are not considering slavery, indian wars, Mexican wars, that initially property qualifications were required for voting and officeholding, etc. You are also looking at Europe as if it was some kind of unit, and equally "blaming" all Europeans for their long history. The US is barely 200 years old. Most European nations have histories that go back more than 5 times that. You are reinterpreting history in a way that flatters you, the hallmark of the nationalist. Many Europeans have done (and do) that...

Oh. Well, earlier, you were saying: Seems they would hesitate, after all.

Well, you got me there. I guess I was more interested in taking a dig at you than in making sense. So I'll change tack: we both don't know why there haven't been more shootings. But it isn't because the French are "tame", or because there aren't any weapons around. Maybe chance hasn't allowed it to happen yet. Maybe the police is intervening in time? If I recall correctly, rioters getting shot by civilians is something that didn't happen very often in the US, but I dunno why things work out that way. Maybe I'm wrong. Please disabuse me of that notion if that is the case.

And how did Hitler and Mussolini come to power in the first place? Puppets placed by the US to combat international bolshvism...?

They got into power by manipulating fear and prejudices, by using demagoguery, by appealing to nationalist feelings, by stirring anti-communist hysteria, by talking incessantly about their country's humiliation (the Italians felt they didn't get enough recognition for their WWI efforts, the Treaty of Versailles caused lasting resentment in Germany), etc.

 

[Orwell]

What does that have to do with right and wrong?

Right and wrong are also measured in terms of political and historical context, they often are not absolute things. One can do something that is wrong, but still deserve some sympathy because of "mitigating circumstances" i.e. context.

 

[Elind]

If I was dumb enough, I would actually try to engage you in a constructive debate.

But I have lurked long enough on this board to know that that would be a pointless exercise.

So I'll just keep on being annoying.

Nuff said.

 

[Orwell]

Nuff said.

Pops is still sore at me, it seems...

Hey "elder"! I thought you were too "good" to "engage" me, you know, one of them "betters"! Still taking this internet thing way to seriously, aren't we?