A Challenge for Oliver: This is America

[UnrepentantSinner]

Actually, I don't mind it so much. I did go back to read the context of the quotes (once the thread was linked), and strangely enough, all of this ties into my OP very well. (Yay! Drag everything back into context.)

Cool. I just hate to see what might be a very interesting thread sidetracked by bickering not related to the OP. Carry on.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I don't mind that one, but what's wrong with private property?

It's incinerating The Planet™

 

[Luke T.]

Argument by majority.

What church you going to this Sunday?

This from the guy who claimed "the rest of the world sits back and laughs at the Yanks" to support his argument that the US was in the wrong. And was wayyyyyyy off.

The hypocrisy continues, I see.

 

[The Atheist]

This from the guy who claimed "the rest of the world sits back and laughs at the Yanks" to support his argument that the US was in the wrong. And was wayyyyyyy off.

The hypocrisy continues, I see.

My word. I didn't think you were that stupid, but here's a lesson for you:

"Hypocrisy" is not being simply incorrect, which is what you are indicating. You are suggesting that I'm wrong, because the majority of people answered the quoted, irrelevant, poll in the affirmative. Even if your premise were true, that would make me WRONG, not HYPOCRITICAL.

Lukey, "hypocrisy" is saying one thing, then doing the opposite.

An excellent example would be someone who'd sworn never to post at JREF again coming back and posting here.

See the difference?

Good boy! It's easy, eh?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Hey, The Atheist!

Remember the scene in Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles where the cowboy bar fight breaks through to the next set where they are rehearsing "The French Mistake"?


... hands on your hips, give 'em a push ...

 

[The Atheist]

Hey, The Atheist!

Remember the scene in Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles where the cowboy bar fight breaks through to the next set where they are rehearsing "The French Mistake"?

Not a movie I ever saw, but as far as movie fights go, do you remember that scene in Cool Hand Luke where the little ponce tries to take on the big, bad guy and everyone's rooting for the pretty-boy....

And the pretty-boy gets his face pushed through the back of his head?

Now, that's a fight scene.

There was a good scene in Last Tango in Paris as well. Scissors.

<<Strange little man>>


Hokulele, I also apologise for derailing your thread, but you wanted to look at why people react to information, and how. Pretty good stuff all over the place!

 

[Elizabeth I]

To whit:

To whoo? Oh, you meant "to wit".

I'm just astonished that you'd react like that, when I hadn't said there was anything wrong with it. I was pointing out that Americans are perceived as being more "into that stuff" than other nations, in response to RF's comment that he doubted it was true.

I'm just astonished that you'd be astonished that someone took you up on your use of "jingoistic." Perhaps you intended it to mean something besides "[marked or influenced by] extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy." It may be true that U.S. foreign policy has recently been belligerent, but my point was that "God Bless America" is hardly chauvinistic, or even particularly nationalistic, asking more for support than anything else.

"A shooting war" now?

cf "jingoistic" above: when people describe other people as "chauvinistic" and "belligerent" I assume they mean that they expect some sort of aggression.

QED

Exactly what do you think erat demonstrandum?

 

[The Atheist]

Exactly what do you think erat demonstrandum?

The sensitivity involved as soon as patriotism or nationalism is discussed. You've done it really well.

Cheers

 

[RandFan]

While I could not agree with you more, and I share your indignance, this is actually where things can and do come unstuck...at times. I have to re-iterate that the people they are negotiating with will often form their opinions of the USA not on the above (plainly obvious) attributes of the USA being a country of 300 million individuals. Instead, they will see the USA as a bloc, represented and typified by what they learn of it through media, and through the Americans they typically see or read about. It leads to stereotyping, of course. Both ways...

How about this set: All Muslims are terrorists, out to destroy the USA. The EU are all a bunch of bureaucrats bent on destroying trade for the USA. All Japanese are inscrutable and two-faced. The UN is dominated by the African and Arabian states and is a waste of time and money. Anyone who doesn't support global free trade is a socialist commie bastard. If schoolchildren don't run Old Glory up the pole every day and salute it and recite the Oath of Allegiance they will definitely hate the USA and turn commie...

All patently false, wouldn't you say? Now read some of the posts in this and other threads about the subject.

I'm not really sure of the point that you are trying to make. I'm sincerely sorry.


Let me ask you two questions.
Do ignorant and stereotypical views of Americans by foreigners prove anything?
Do ignorant and stereotypical views of foreigners by Americans prove anything?

Sure, sometimes there have been diplomatic decisions by the USA that have not been universally applauded. In the past, there have indeed been some very positive and innovative results that were initiated and driven by the USA that had far-reaching positive effects globally. More recently though, it has been all downhill, and in a big way.

What is your basis for saying so? Are you simply relying on your observations and anecdotal evidence? With all due respect I'm very skeptical of your analysis.

I would be more than willing to concede that relations have been trained as of late though I honestly don't know to what degree. Certainly not to the breaking point. I think much of the opinions by pundits superficial and visceral. I couldn't, because of reason and intellectual honesty, simply accede to your proposition that diplomacy has only been bad and it is only going down hill. On the contrary, I think there is evidence of very significant improvement

In his victory speech, Sarkozy said he wanted to tell his "American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us."

Germany Rediscovers the US as a Partner

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reoriented Germany away from Russia and toward the United States. Expanded economic ties are just one area of renewed cooperation.

Putin offers compromise on U.S. missile shield

Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if the United States agreed to put the system in the central Asian nation of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic.

These are significant zep, now, you can argue that these events are in-spite of and not because of Bush but they clearly belie the notion that America's relationships with important world powers are simply going downhill.

Seriously, I am not joking when I suggest that people like yourself, and perhaps Beeps and Lt.Col. H. Bidlack USAF(Ret) among others here, would be far better proponents of US foreign policy development than the crew in now. At the very least, you are temperate and thoughtful, and have a much clearer understanding of what is required to proceed on the subject!

Thanks, I appreciate that. It doesn't advance your argument but, IMO, it doesn't hurt it either.

 

[RandFan]

What the eff is wrong with patriotism?

Nothing, so long as it doesn't become jingoistic.

BTW: I had a huge debate in this thread defending patriotism. But then you knew that.

 

[RandFan]

• Flag-waving.
• Allegiance & Pledges.
• Songs.

Thanks TA,

First off, patriotism (love of and loyalty to country) isn't jingoism (chauvinistic patriotism) by definition. I will concede that it is possible to find definitions that can make the argument but they are not really compelling.

It's very possible to love and to be loyal to one's country without thinking that one's country is superior to all others.

Second, that expresing love of country is rooted in the national culture doesn't prove that Americans feel more love, loyalty, or jingoism than other nations.

 

[President Bush]

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

Chorus

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

I believe that is what inspired this:

Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol

Bob Dylan
Idiot Wind

Damn north rural Minnesota anti-American bastard.

 

[Zep]

I'm not really sure of the point that you are trying to make. I'm sincerely sorry.

I'll simplify.

Outside of America, much of what we get to see of American culture is viewed as jingoistic, in our eyes. So it colours our views of you. But please don't take this personally!

Let me ask you two questions.
Do ignorant and stereotypical views of Americans by foreigners prove anything?

Yes - it provides inbuilt prejudices when it comes to international negotiations.

Do ignorant and stereotypical views of foreigners by Americans prove anything?

Yes - it provides inbuilt prejudices when it comes to international negotiations.

What is your basis for saying so? Are you simply relying on your observations and anecdotal evidence? With all due respect I'm very skeptical of your analysis.

I am indeed relying on many observations locally. And the commentary we hear from our own politicians - very often the ones who have to do the negotiating with he USA on our behalf. Plus the views we get in local newspaper commentary, on TV, etc. Remember, most of these views people form are based on hearsay written to inform at the intellectual level of a ten year old.

Here's a current example: What's the most frequently reported items about the USA on our morning programs? Hollywood gossip, Paris Hilton, movie premiers, music video, and the occasional police car chase on the freeways. Period. Do you think that describes Los Angeles accurately? California? The USA? I don't, but it's what the average Ocker gets to see most of...

I would be more than willing to concede that relations have been trained as of late though I honestly don't know to what degree. Certainly not to the breaking point. I think much of the opinions by pundits superficial and visceral. I couldn't, because of reason and intellectual honesty, simply accede to your proposition that diplomacy has only been bad and it is only going down hill. On the contrary, I think there is evidence of very significant improvement.

A sample, from the ANZUS treaty, our major alliance with the USA and NZ:

The value of the [ANZUS] alliance was again questioned when a new US Ambassador arrived to take up his post in Wellington, New Zealand, in 2005. In his first speech on the topic of NZ-US relations the Ambassador referred to the ANZUS treaty repeatedly as "Anzoo". Some commentators questioned how the Ambassador might know much about the alliance if he couldn't name it properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

These are significant zep, now, you can argue that these events are in-spite of and not because of Bush but they clearly belie the notion that America's relationships with important world powers are simply going downhill.

My observation seems to be that these negotiations seem to have picked up once BushCo no longer had so much influence in Washington, and it became obvious that Bush was a dead duck time-server. I don't know who is doing the negotiating - it could well be top-level conservatives - but someone is actually seeing some sense.

Incidentally, you need to "translate" many of these quotes from Diplomaticese. Many of them are simply saying, "OK, we'll talk and not try to strangle each other in the process."

Thanks, I appreciate that. It doesn't advance your argument but, IMO, it doesn't hurt it either.

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything or not. Merely to consider stuff through our* eyes. FYI, we don't always play well together either!



*Non-American

 

[President Bush]

... are those genuine comments from that other board? In more or less correct context?

The First Lady scored some points with this one.

 

[The Atheist]

Thanks TA,

First off, patriotism (love of and loyalty to country) isn't jingoism (chauvinistic patriotism) by definition. I will concede that it is possible to find definitions that can make the argument but they are not really compelling.

Yeah, that's why I put the quotation marks around it - to show that I wasn't using it negatively. Patriotism, whichever. You got the point anyway.

It's very possible to love and to be loyal to one's country without thinking that one's country is superior to all others.

I'm not sure the two aren't intertwined and certainly wouldn't rule out the combination of forced learning of pledges when the country is far superior to almost everywhere else in almost every area of human endeavour potentilly encouraging that type of thinking. The situation seems to be remarkably similar to the attitude purveyed by the English in days of The Empire.

Second, that expresing love of country is rooted in the national culture doesn't prove that Americans feel more love, loyalty, or jingoism than other nations.

It might not prove they have more of those feelings, but they are definitely seen to show them more often. I think that much is unarguable.

Tell you one thing I find interesting: in the past I've seen you stoutly defend USA against this claim or that, from one or other of the Eurotrash, striving to show USA as "the best" in particular endeavours, but in this post above you seem to be suggesting that Americans don't think USA is superior to most places?

 

[The Atheist]

The First Lady scored some points with this one.

Now if you could find me a forum full of posters like Laura Bush, I'd never be seen anywhere else.

What a woman! What the hell did she ever see in you, Dub?

 

[RandFan]

Outside of America, much of what we get to see of American culture is viewed as jingoistic, in our eyes. So it colours our views of you. But please don't take this personally!

Ok, we've dealt with this. I don't think there is much more that can be said.

Yes - it provides inbuilt prejudices when it comes to international negotiations.

Yes - it provides inbuilt prejudices when it comes to international negotiations.

These are not conclusions drawn via inference from the premises. These are conditions ostensibly caused by the premises.

I'm tired of going around and around. Never mind the point.

I am indeed relying on many observations locally. And the commentary we hear from our own politicians - very often the ones who have to do the negotiating with he USA on our behalf. Plus the views we get in local newspaper commentary, on TV, etc. Remember, most of these views people form are based on hearsay written to inform at the intellectual level of a ten year old.

Ok, and?

I'm not sure what you want us to do about the fact that you are fed a lot of codswolop and there is no rigorous method to find the truth.

Here's a current example: What's the most frequently reported items about the USA on our morning programs? Hollywood gossip, Paris Hilton, movie premiers, music video, and the occasional police car chase on the freeways. Period. Do you think that describes Los Angeles accurately? California? The USA? I don't, but it's what the average Ocker gets to see most of...

Ok, and?

I really don't get your point. So what if this is the crap YOU get? Now you are back to the OP.

My observation seems to be that these negotiations seem to have picked up once BushCo no longer had so much influence in Washington, and it became obvious that Bush was a dead duck time-server. I don't know who is doing the negotiating - it could well be top-level conservatives - but someone is actually seeing some sense.

So, if I understand you, your consumption of information is high in celebrity crap and this somehow justifies your perception AND it is our fault.

If I have a skewed perception of foreigners it seems that it is my responsibility to educate myself.

Likewise.

If non-Americans have a skewed perception of Americans it seems that is THEIR duity to educate themselves.

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything or not. Merely to consider stuff through our* eyes. FYI, we don't always play well together either!

Isn't this a two way street?

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure the two aren't intertwined and certainly wouldn't rule out the combination of forced learning of pledges when the country is far superior to almost everywhere else in almost every area of human endeavour potentilly encouraging that type of thinking. The situation seems to be remarkably similar to the attitude purveyed by the English in days of The Empire.

It might not prove they have more of those feelings, but they are definitely seen to show them more often. I think that much is unarguable.

I wouldn't rule anything out. It is human nature to assume that things are as they appear. I would hope that we would be a bit more skeptical.

Tell you one thing I find interesting: in the past I've seen you stoutly defend USA against this claim or that, from one or other of the Eurotrash, striving to show USA as "the best" in particular endeavours, but in this post above you seem to be suggesting that Americans don't think USA is superior to most places?

I'm not sure of your position nor am I sure what instances in the past that you refer to.

Let me make clear.

• I love America. It's a great place.
• I loath unfair judgments of America and will defend America at the drop of a hat.
• I'll be the first to admit our many transgressions including paternalistic and misogynistic past and current tendencies. Slavery and segregation (apartheid). The genocidal policies toward Native Americans and the taking of their lands through violence, deceit and broken treaties. Our hegemony and interference with foreign governments often with tragic consequences.
• I don't believe that American brand of Democracy is per se best.
• I concede that there are many nations that are in a number of ways superior to America.
• I wouldn't mind moving to Denmark, Norway or Sweden for a number of reasons.

I hope that clears things up. In the end I'm a pragmatic libertarian. I like freedom and the opportunity that America offers and the potential we hold but I'm willing to allow some measures of socialism given that they can be shown to be effective.

I concede that America is no more than a conglomerations of ideals and we succeed and fail to live up to many of those ideals in many ways.

 

[The Atheist]

I wouldn't rule anything out. It is human nature to assume that things are as they appear. I would hope that we would be a bit more skeptical.

I wish.

Unfortunately, my belief in the "good" of mankind evaporated many years since.

I'm not sure of your position nor am I sure what instances in the past that you refer to.

Doesn't matter, you set your position out fairly below, so the past is irrelevant>>>

Let me make clear.

• I love America. It's a great place.
• I loath unfair judgments of America and will defend America at the drop of a hat.
• I'll be the first to admit our many transgressions including paternalistic and misogynistic past and current tendencies. Slavery and segregation (apartheid). The genocidal policies toward Native Americans and the taking of their lands through violence, deceit and broken treaties. Our hegemony and interference with foreign governments often with tragic consequences.
• I don't believe that American brand of Democracy is per se best.
• I concede that there are many nations that are in a number of ways superior to America.
• I wouldn't mind moving to Denmark, Norway or Sweden for a number of reasons.

I hope that clears things up. In the end I'm a pragmatic libertarian. I like freedom and the opportunity that America offers and the potential we hold but I'm willing to allow some measures of socialism given that they can be shown to be effective.

Seems we aren't very far apart on many issues here. The only serious disagreement I have is with moving to Scandinavia. Can't say they attract me at all. They beat us in social issues I'd swap our weather for.

As to socialism, I have a different perspective on that, having been brought up in probably the most socialist democratic regime among English-speaking countries. (And more than most non-English speaking ones.) I class myself as a socialist [drum-roll for Abdul...] because I see the benefits of it as I also see the downsides it has created. I think there are more of the former than latter.

I concede that America is no more than a conglomerations of ideals and we succeed and fail to live up to many of those ideals in many ways.

"Let he who is without sin..."

You get my vote for Pres, mate and I hope our joint favourite for real Pres shares a lot of that!

 

[skeptifem]

Argument by majority.

I am confused about your objection here.