Why Are Americans And Europeans Different?

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
This is a spinoff of the "What's Going On In Paris?" thread. Around page 4 or 5, it started getting into a discussion of why French store owners and home owners don't use physical force or firearms to defend their property, since the police seem to be powerless to protect them. The cleavage between the Europeans on this forum and the Americans was dramatic; the Americans all seem to think the Europeans are crazy for not putting a couple of rounds into the next guy who rides by on a scooter, carrying a molotov cocktail. And the Europeans all seem to be horrified at the Americans' willingness to kill someone just to protect a building which, after all, can be rebuilt.

I don't intend this thread to be a discussion of who's right and who's wrong (we all know the Americans are, after all :rolleyes:), but rather, a discussion of why such different attitudes. I posed a hypothesis, extracted as follows:
This kinda supports a hypothesis I've been working on for a couple of years, regarding why Americans and Europeans, despite a common heritage, are in some ways so different.

The vast majority of us on the west side of the Atlantic are here because our ancestors were fed up with life in the Old Country. Most of them didn't know anyone here and a great many of them didn't speak the language, and had no clear idea how they would earn a living once they got here. They were often leaving behind friends and even family - my parents are people's exhibit A. They did all this 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.

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.

So today we see the Americans here shaking our heads in baffled wonder at the Frenchmen who won't shoot at people trying to burn down their homes and their businesses. And the French here shaking their heads in baffled wonder at people who would shoot at someone who was trying to burn down their homes and their businesses.
Click to expand...
CapelDodger had some interesting things to say about this; I'd like some more thoughts on it. I may really be on to something here. Or I may be completely out of my mind.

Make a case one way or the other.
 
Why are Texans and Floridians different from Vermonters?

In florida I guess you can just pretty much shoot as you please.

Why are people in Northern California different than Southern California.

And Italians aren't like Germans aren't like the Swedes. And people in Holland seem really to not like the Germans at all....

So all Europe isn't alike, and all the US is not alike.
 
kittynh said:
So all Europe isn't alike, and all the US is not alike.
Click to expand...
Fine, but 1) Is there one explanation that outweighs the others? and 2) Is my hypothesis that one overriding explanation for the differences between Americans and Europeans? Or is there a more significant explanation?
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1263427#post1263427

Originally Posted by BPSCG :
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Most of all they left behind those that had managed to do well - the winners, if you like.
 
My people who came to New England in the 1600's were most likely fleeing poverty or debtor's prison. There was some mention of someone's horse gone missing.
My wife's maternal grandparents fled Sicily because the local warlords stole most of your kine and crops after harvest and you could barely survive.
My friend Gavin says his great grandparents were supposed to be shipped from Ireland to Oz on a coffin ship, but the captain decided to sail to Prince Edward Island and dump them all into the surf. He could get so many more trips that way.
My friend Skip's ancestors had even less choice that that.
 
Last edited:
If George Washington from his high horse will descend,
I'm sure that in good King George he soon will find a friend.

He's an Englishman born who loves battle and wench,
And a far better man than those parley-voo French!

Derry down, down ...
 
Bjorn said:
Most of all they left behind those that had managed to do well - the winners, if you like.
Click to expand...

Or simply because they had the fortune to be born the oldest son, and thus inherited the farm.

(Of course, it's also worth noting that a surprisingly large number of the persons who went to America later returned to Norway, even though there was a large net emigration.)
 
I'd like to add to your hypothesis something about the last couple of big wars, as well. These wars absolutely trashed Europe, in the main, and wiped out most of a generation of young men. America lost many as well, of course, but didn't quite suffer the same total devastation as France, Britain, Germany, etc.

I think the memory of this is still present - particularly in the older Europeans, who remember lean years following the end of WWII, the splitting of Germany, etc. - and so many Europeans are afraid of any sort of violent escalation and militarism. I suspect that this results in a willingness to put up with civil unrest, because the unconciously purported alternative - that an armed European population will have another big war - is so frightening.

This is not a rational fear, but I think it exists and may help explain the different attitutdes.
 
BPSCG said:
This is a spinoff of the "What's Going On In Paris?" thread. Around page 4 or 5, it started getting into a discussion of why French store owners and home owners don't use physical force or firearms to defend their property, since the police seem to be powerless to protect them. The cleavage between the Europeans on this forum and the Americans was dramatic; the Americans all seem to think the Europeans are crazy for not putting a couple of rounds into the next guy who rides by on a scooter, carrying a molotov cocktail. And the Europeans all seem to be horrified at the Americans' willingness to kill someone just to protect a building which, after all, can be rebuilt.

I don't intend this thread to be a discussion of who's right and who's wrong (we all know the Americans are, after all :rolleyes:), but rather, a discussion of why such different attitudes. I posed a hypothesis, extracted as follows:
CapelDodger had some interesting things to say about this; I'd like some more thoughts on it. I may really be on to something here. Or I may be completely out of my mind.

Make a case one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I have a theory of my own. Yes, Americans are made up of the descendants of people who immigrated here under various circumstances. But I think your theory ascribes overly romantic and idealistic qualities to immigrants.

America was a place that offered a release from the societal heirarchy and structured allotment/transfer of land of the Old World. But it wasn't free for moving in- it was already inhabited. The natives, being strange and brown, could be treated as miserably as one wanted. So it was still there 'for the taking', if willing to use force. And so even today, to Americans, what was taken with a gun some time ago is legitimately defended with a gun today.
 
kimiko said:
And so even today, to Americans, what was taken with a gun some time ago is legitimately defended with a gun today.
Click to expand...
Er, yes. Or you could say Americans recognize reality instead of pretending it ceased existing and human natures have changed for the better.
 
It could just be that fewer Americans have adequate insurance, and bullets are cheaper than rebuilding.

That, and we just like shooting at things.
 
I'd say that the fact that not all people any longer think material property is worth killing for is proof that human natures have changed for the better. Or, at least, human behaviour.

Hans
 
European countires have a fairly long tradition of centeral control. There was never really a european equiverlent of the wild west. Secondly european population densities tend to be higher. This requires a certain level of "politeness" simply in order to get by. In the UK you have to que because shear number of people means the alturnative is chaos and it has been like that for a long time. An extension of this is that you don't kill people for mere propertly damage.

Finaly you have the issue that afterr 1000 years of warefare we may finaly have got at least some of the urge to kill each other out of our system.
 
BPSCG said:
he cleavage between the Europeans on this forum and the Americans was dramatic; the Americans all seem to think the Europeans are crazy for not putting a couple of rounds into the next guy who rides by on a scooter, carrying a molotov cocktail. And the Europeans all seem to be horrified at the Americans' willingness to kill someone just to protect a building which, after all, can be rebuilt.
Click to expand...

Is it really as polarised as that, or does it just appear to be because of the attitudes of the people who happen to be posting? I'm sure we could find some Americans who don't regard property as more important than lives, and we can certainly find some Europeans who would shoot people to defend property. Tony Martin springs naturally to mind, but there have been other British people who have opened fire on people in non-life threatening situations. (Including, strangely enough, one chap who hid in a shed on his allotment with a rifle and shot someone stealing onions).

Paging Jon_In_London... He often comes across as a hanging-and-flogging type, be interesting to get his opinion.
 
Matabiri said:
I'd like to add to your hypothesis something about the last couple of big wars, as well. These wars absolutely trashed Europe, in the main, and wiped out most of a generation of young men. America lost many as well, of course, but didn't quite suffer the same total devastation as France, Britain, Germany, etc.
Click to expand...
I think that's certainly an element of it. Europe had had such a long history of protracted, enjoyable wars - the Thirty Years' War, the Hundred Years' War - that they decided to see if it was possible to get too much of a good thing, and found the answer was "yes", in WW I and WW II.

Thing is, there's nobody left who has any memory of the former, and not all that many who have a clear memory of the latter. I'm as well acquainted with the carnage of the American Civil War as anyone (I've read a book or fifty...), but I couldn't possibly have the visceral horror of it that someone who lived through it would.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I'd say that the fact that not all people any longer think material property is worth killing for is proof that human natures have changed for the better. Or, at least, human behaviour.

Hans
Click to expand...

If the question becomes, though, where do I house my family, or how do I feed my children, then yes, I think material property is worth killing for. If my life's work is burned to the ground because someone decides that destroying the property of others is a good way to make a political statement, then that person can go to hell, and I'll generally be glad to help them. I'm sorry the system doesn't work for some people. If it has worked for me, particularly if it has "worked" through the sweat of my own brow, I don't think anyone has the right to remove that from me through a molotov cocktail "protest". I'm sure these people care so much about the lives of others that they have personally cleared out every building, checked every car, and sent letters to the families of every police officer explaining their situation, just to make sure no one is harmed.

Oh, wait. They don't seem to have that kind of respect for people and property. Sorry.

The option of nonviolent protest is always available, and usually more politically successful, in place of violence (at least in Western Nations). Which was more successful in the USA, Selma marches, or Watts riots? If the police beat down or shoot nonviolent protesters, people notice the injustice more than if they shoot a looter or arsonist. Violence does nothing to further any political cause short of full-out revolution.

So, yes, I lack respect for these "protesters". I consider them common criminals, and would afford them no respect as otherwise. The European scale may be different, but that pretty much makes them walking target practice in the USA.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I'd say that the fact that not all people any longer think material property is worth killing for is proof that human natures have changed for the better. Or, at least, human behaviour.
Click to expand...
Do you acknowledge there is an ethical difference between killing someone to take his property and killing someone to prevent his destruction of your own?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom