This is from my Mom's friend Sudha... and is so cool I needed to show it to you guys. Read on!
quote:From my friend Sudha, who has lived in America for more than 20 years and is the first to acknowledge both the good and bad things about this country.
> published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to
> anyone who killed an American, any American.
>
> So an Australian dentist wrote the following to let
> everyone know what an American is, so they would
> know when they found one. (Good on ya,
> mate!!!!)
>
> An American is English, or French, or Italian,
> Irish, German, Spanish,
> Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be
> Canadian, Mexican,
> African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
> Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani,
> or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee,
> Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one
> of the many other tribes known as native Americans.
>
> An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or
> Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more
> Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only
> difference is that in America they are free to
> worship as each of them chooses. An American is
> also free to believe in no religion. For that he
> will answer only to God, not to the government, or
> to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government
> and for God.
>
> An American is from the most prosperous land in the
> history of the world.
>
>
> The root of that prosperity can be found in the
> Declaration of
> Independence, which recognizes the God given right
> of each person the
> pursuit of happiness.
>
> An American is generous. Americans have helped out
> just about every other nation in the world in their
> time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the
> Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms
> and supplies to enable the people to win back
> their country.!
>
> As of the morning of September 11, Americans had
> given more than any other nation to the poor in
> Afghanistan.
>
> Americans welcome the best, the best products, the
> best books, the best
> music, the best food, the best athletes. But they
> also welcome the least.
> The national symbol of America, The Statue of
> Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the
> wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the
> homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the
> people who built America. Some of them were
> working in the Twin Towers the morning of September
> 11, 2001earning a better life for their families.
> I've been told that the WorldTrade Center victims
> were from at least 30 other countries, cultures, and
> first languages, including those that aided and
> abetted the terrorists.
>
>
>
> So you can try to kill an American if you must.
> Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and
> Mao Tse-Tung, and every other thirsty tyrant in
> the history of the world. But, in doing so you
> would just be killing yourself. Because Americans
> are not a particular people from a particular place.
> They are the embodiment of the human spirit of
> freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit,
> everywhere, is an American.
>
> Author unknown .Pass this around the World.
[ August 17, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
That was wonderful. I don't always agree with our policies, but I am forever grateful that I live here.
space opera
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(((Telp)))
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim....An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God...
Wow. This guy's a real winner. *rolls eyes* But I DO like being called the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. It's a toss-up, flattery-wise.
Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
Agreed, though I don't share the thoughts on the best food being here... Satyagraha
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't mean to sound too grouchy, either, but while the Statue of Liberty might well welcome the wretched and tempest-tossed, our immigration policies, as a general rule, do not.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I hate to point this out, considering that in this era of rampant anti-Americanism we Americans have a great need for acknowledgement from non-Americans that some people out there actually like and appreciate us. But this piece wasn't written by an Australian, dentist or otherwise. It was written by a law professor in Virginia. Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
Thank you for posting this Clyde . Sometimes I need to be reminded of the great things my country does/embodies.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote: Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
No I'm not.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yeah, it's nice and all. But shouldn't it really be a human as opposed to an American?
Other countries have ideals of freedom, equality and justice as well. Just as America doesn't have a monopoly on bad stuff, it doesn't on good stuff either.
<- Likes America, likes Americans but would never call myself one. I'm an Aussie, and I like to think the embodiment of human spirit isn't confined to one country.
[ August 17, 2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
But America *is* exceptional in that way, imogen - the Economist did an amazingly insightful article on that a few months back.
America is the only place, and 'American' the only nationality, to which you can belong regardless of your birthplace. It's one thing I really noticed while I was travelling through Europe this summer -- in Europe, your country is a fundamental part of your identity and everyone is automatically differentiated by it. A foreigner is a foreigner.
Although our defintion of foreigner is evolving (increasingly, the latino and Muslim communities seem to be thought of as 'foreign', mostly, I believe, because they are more separate than immigrant communities have been in the past), we have a history of accepting people, unconditonally, as American. If I meet someone in one of my classes who was born and raised in France, for example, I don't first think of him as a Frenchman. In fact, I tend to assume he is American.
Sometimes, this tendency can translate into what is seen as disrespect for other cultures. Maybe it is that. But it's also a manifestation of a truth that really makes America different from every other country in the world: you can become American. You cannot become British, or French, or African, or Indian or Chinese -- you have to be born there, raised there. You don't have to be born in America to be American.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I beg to disagree, Kasie. It seems to be increasingly true that you cannot in fact become an American these days, either legally or in the spirit you're refering to.
Besides there are many countries that now have a history of multiculturalism, my own Australia included.
Having said that, if you come as a refugee on a boat, you'd be in for a hard time trying to get in. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It seems to be increasingly true that you cannot in fact become an American these days, either legally or in the spirit you're refering to.
As far as I know, though the checks to get into the country have increased for logical reasons, I wasn't aware that the legalities of becoming an American were any harder. I certainly wasn't aware that, as you seem to imply, people are less accepting of immigrants than they used to be. Can you elaborate?
quote: Besides there are many countries that now have a history of multiculturalism, my own Australia included.
Maybe it might be instructive to compare the economic and social well being of immigrants in America versus other 'Americans', and how immigrants are faring in other countries, no?
I'll start.
This shows that immigration is increasing. The number of immigrants has almost tripled since 1960.
quote: There is no evidence that the economic slowdown that began in 2000 or the terrorist attacks in 2001 have significantly slowed the rate of immigration. More than 3.3 million legal and illegal immigrants have entered the country since January of 2000.
So, we need to compare how immigrants in the US are doing versus those in other countries. Let's keep in mind, though, that we should remember to compare immigrants with similiar educational backgrounds, if possible, across countries.
If you'd like to throw out some stats of your own at this time, that would be cool.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I skimmed through the links and the only one that seems to be relevant to our discussion at first glance would seem to be the oecd.org link, and unfortunately, it requires Excel to view its stats....which I don't have. Great site, though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting overview of immigration and its effects in the US. Some stats on how immigrants have done, in terms of what they earned, and are doing, versus the rest of the 'native' population.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I find it interesting, Kasie, that although America is the only place you've lived long enough to "become" part of a nation you have no qualms whatsoever in stating that it's the only place where such acceptance is possible.
I don't have a problem with Americans trumpeting that theirs is the best nation in the world. Of course they think it is, if they didn't they'd be living somewhere else. I do get annoyed when it's presented to me as gospel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the statements that all those things can be called American is because, for the past approx. 225 yrs., people have not always thought America embodied those traits...but past Americans were the best example for them, that such things could be done. Americans were the first to try them.
quote:Besides there are many countries that now have a history of multiculturalism, my own Australia included.
That's the thing, Troubs. I do not dispute that other nations now have that spirit. But which nation and group is most responsible for fostering that spirit across the world?
[ August 18, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
CT, and mister boy, you're both probably right -- comparing the American experience to the European one is probably incongrous, and using Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as comparisons is probably more fitting.
I suppose I'm just looking at it from a European vs. American perspective because I just spent the summer in Europe. I went over being ashamed of my president and what he's done with my country and wanting to be seen as 'European' as possible to realizing that there is indeed something special about being American and that it means a lot more than just coming from the world's superpower (though I am still ashamed of my president, hah). I guess I sort of found my own national identity. So I didn't mean to come off as American-centric....but at the same time there *is* a huge difference between the European experience and the American/Canadian/Australian one.
Edit: PS -- mister boy, great post
[ August 18, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But this is hard a lot of the time since you rarely appreciate the rest of us, and indeed seem to be proudly ignorant about even your sister democracies.
This is a vast overgeneralization?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Canada has a rate of foreign-born (18.4%, Canadian Census 2001) higher than most other countries, including the US (11.7%, US Bureau of Statistics 2003). Yet, Canadians in general seem not to have strong sense of exceptionalism. (Not that this makes us any better than anyone else!) Why is it so important for Americans to hold on to false notions of their national stature when they have so many well-founded ones? This is a sincere question; I'm at a loss on this.
I am unclear what false notions you are referring to or that it is any more important for Americans to hold onto them than it is for any other country.
Also, I would submit that there is a national identity in Canada, a shared history and language and experience for most Canadians about which they can be proud of. You mention your rate of foreign born, that's one example.
I submit that Americans aren't any more or less patriotic than people of other countries, or any less prone to think that their country is 'better' than other countries.
The question, though, is are some of the things that we take pride in warranted or not? Kasie gave some reasons why Americans might feel pride over and above some other countries, which isn't to say that other countries dont' have things they can't be proud of. This part of thread should, at this point, be about those issues Kasie raised as they are, to some degree, measurable.
[ August 18, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'd be more inclined to measure the success of immigrants in terms of "how they fare" than "how they feel." Feelings are subjective and may have nothing to do with the laws of the country. Indeed they could change from state to state, city to city, or even street to street. It would be a nightmare to figure out what's causing the feelings of discontent. That and I make the assumption that if the "how you fare" factors in your life are falling into place than the "how you feel" factors will soon follow.
Comparing the "fares" (for want of a better word but I seem to have left my mind elsewhere) of immigrants across countries seems useless to me, you'd have to decide which values are the "right" ones and such a choice would be largely arbitrary. This ties into your "What makes a nation-state great?" thread and as we haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion on that matter yet it seems wiser to just avoid the issue altogether in this thread.
As for the "how you fare" factors, those are set by the country itself. What does the majority of the population enjoy? Citizenship, voting rights, education, employment, salary, these can all fit into this. Again, you have to be careful that you only compare between the immigrant and the general population otherwise you're no longer measuring the acceptance of the immigrant but the greatness of the country. Great countries, in my opinion, have their immigrants integrated into their society but countries that integrate their immigrants may not qualify as great countries.
I"m curious as to how long the disparity between foreigners and natives can last before it's viewed as a problem. A week? A month? A year or years? One has to allow for some time to get accustomed to the new culture. And what about the type of immigrants you attract? If the lion's share of immigrants to Country A are from similar cultures of the same language and those to Country B from very different cultures and do not speak the official language of their new country how can you compare the two? What does it say if Country A only allows educated people of similar cultures who speak their language and Country B accepts everyone? Although, I suppose I'm now treading into the "What makes a country great" conversation that I promised I'd avoid.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
mb, you made the assertion, not me. I'm merely asking for elaboration. At some point you're going to have to get out of your role of socratic interlocutor and state why you believe something.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
BtL, obviously there are a lot of considerations. Pick some and try them out.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: I submit that Americans aren't any more or less patriotic than people of other countries, or any less prone to think that their country is 'better' than other countries
Not true, Americans are just one of the few nationalities in the world that is stupid enough to put ourselves up on a pedestal and say, "Look at me, look at me, I'm better than all of you." One would assume that we could do that for a few years after WWII, but it's been a while since then, we've lost a few conflicts since then, and oh ya, we've gotten cockier since then. I myself am a rather patriotical American, but I'm not going to travel abroad and think less of people who don't worship Americans (which according to some, we should be worshiped). I've been to Europe, and quite honestly, I liked it better, you didn't have to put up with half the political bull crap, and people over there are in general much more laid back.
Stryker
[ August 18, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey, Storm, I'm convinced that I should know what you mean by that last post but I appear to be letting myself down. Could you clarify?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I raised some points to get clarity about what you're trying to find out. (Okay, and I had a little fun along the way too.)
Ha. O.K.
BtL,
Your last post raised some great questions and considerations, but you didn't use them to answer the idea that Kasie raised, which is that America is, to paraphrase, very welcoming of immigrants, moreso than other countries.
Troubs said, basically, that this assertion was wrong because he thought that we weren't letting in immigrants the way we used to and because we were more suspicious of them than we used to be.
I countered the first part of this argument, I think.
At this point, the thread degenerated into people basically saying 'I wonder what this consideration means if we add it to the equation', and then not adding it to the equation themselves and not giving their opinion at all on the overall issue.
I'm not here to say America right or wrong. However, I think immigration is an interesting topic and something that a country might be proud of if it's doing it in a 'good' way. I think it might be interesting to see how America stacks up in comparison ot other countries with regard to immigration. Pick an opinion and make it march. I want to hear what you think on the subject. Raising questions doesn't tell me your opinion.
I think I am going to take a break from posting for a bit as I barely slept last night and am afraid that I am going to start really stepping on toes. Yes, even moreso than I have been. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'd be more inclined to measure the success of immigrants in terms of "how they fare" than "how they feel."
By the way, totally agree with this. That's why I picked income of immigrants as one possible measuring stick. It seems reasonable to me to assume that if natives allow immigrants to compete for the same resources, this might be a good argument as to how tolerant they are of immigrants. Lots of caveats with this statement, of course, see my links from cis.org above for some of them, but I think it has good potential for usefulness.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oooh. Maybe you'll even, as you kids say, 'get lucky'.
O_O
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I always assume that's why all the unmarried ladies are in political threads, anyway. So, why not?
ps. I am posting, but I'm not posting anything but fluff since my brain appears to be in a state of rapid disintegration. As to your question, mb, I will say income seems as good a measure as any.
Edit:I reread your point and see that I misinterpreted it. I think it would depend which 'criminal justice' and 'health' factors you're talking about.
[ August 18, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I thought the whole reason to have political discussions on Hatrack was to get dates.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
CT, what was your last post about? When did someone invite you for a drink in this thread? Am I going crazy here or are you responding to things outside of the thread?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
On Immigration:
There was a guy who was, well, of the best blood. He was well off and God blessed in all he did. As such, he deemed it important to help his homeland by defending it against immigrants.
"Why?" he asked, "should those of lesser blood or fewer of God's blessings be allowed to encroach on area that we hold by obvious Divine authority."
He started a movement to "Keep these lesser people out."
"We are here by God's divine order!" he would preach and command. "Do not let those--those--others in." Surprisingly, many followed his call.
When those in power refused his tougher immigration policy, he and his followers tried to take over the government themselves. They quickly resulted to violence, and were defeated.
Who is this icon of conservative immagration limitiation?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*hums 'It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas'*
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
no, no.
Bil1tmass
[ August 18, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Let me preface this post by saying that it is based solely on my own personal and therefore anecdotal experience.
quote:Rest assured. We like you, and appreciate you.
Some of you may know that Juliette, my wife, is a dual citizen of the United States and Canada. Her father is originally a New Yorker, her mother is from Ontario. Consequently, she has spent quite a lot of time in Canada in her lifetime. Now that I am a part of her life and family, I have been there a couple of times to meet and spend time with her family. Granting that her family may not be representative of the general Canadian population, I have to say that my experience with Canadians is that they do not like and appreciate "us." Both times that I have visited her family, it's been very obvious that they do not like the US or its citizens. It's never an overt hostility. Rather, it's the fact that they never miss an opportunity to ridicule or complain about the US. And the fact that one of the most frequent conversations brought to me was to have me explain why Americans are a certain way, or why the government enacted certain policies. I don't think they had any ill will toward me, personally; in fact, I think it's likely that they don't even really view me or Juliette as "Americans."
I recall during the Sydney Olympics, I saw Mike Myers on Letterman. He took every possible chance to point out the recent Canadian hockey victory over the US team, starting nearly every sentence with, "Well, I... four-one." It certainly wasn't as rude as, say, the Canadian student in my dorm that would turn around and scream "YEAH! F*** YOU GUYS!" every time a Canadian athlete or team (or any other team, for that matter) would outdo an American, but it still seemed a part of a pattern.
One of my best friends now has a reasonably strong dislike of Canadians because of an Olympic telecast he caught while in Washington (apparently he could only get a Canadian radio station where he was) in which the sportscasters took every possible chance to disparage the US team. I'm not sure when that was, but I was thinking about it a few days ago when I was watching the men's gymnastics team finals and the commentators seemed very enthusiastic about the Japanese gold medal.
I suppose it sounds like I am anti-Canadian. I'm not. I actually have really enjoyed my visits there, and I like nearly all of the Canadians I know. Some of my favorite Hatrackers are Canadian. I would just like to be able to go there without feeling like I constantly have to defend my country and myself for being a part of it. I'm not asking for sympathy, nor am I asking for "appreciation." No one owes me any debt and I don't think any other country is beholden to the US for what we may have done in the past. I don't think we as a nation are perfect or beyond reproach. I respect the rights of anyone to disagree with the policies of my country--especially given that I disagree with so many of them. I just want to be treated with the same respect and courtesy that I give to other people when I am visiting their homes.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:But this is hard a lot of the time since you rarely appreciate the rest of us, and indeed seem to be proudly ignorant about even your sister democracies.
Over-generalization, yes. But it's one based on truth, as much as it pains me to admit it.
quote:A related interesting question is: Why do you care whether you are liked? You are the most powerful nation-state on the planet as a matter of fact. Other nations (including other democracies) must take you into account in their domestic as well as foreign affairs. Why do you need to be appreciated too?
Because our position of power makes us more high profile and, yes, more "important" on the international stage than other countries, hatred against us is more vocal than hatred against other nations would be. We're deeply resented for exactly the reasons you just gave, and that makes people hate us in a way that they could never hate, say, Canada. Sure, there are probably people out there that hate Canada. But Canada is such a quiet, unassuming, inoffensive nation that it would be difficult to get a lot of agreement around the world that 'Canada is bad'. Most people would probably respond with something more like, "Canada? No, they never really bothered me. They're all right."
America, on the other hand, is so hated that it's practically impossible for an American to venture onto the world stage without receiving contempt from non-Americans. Non-Americans (yes, I'm the one over-generalizing now, but this, too, is based on truth) treat Americans with a smug sense of superiority. It's like they're always saying to us, "Yes, your military could defeat ours, you brutish criminal thug, but at least we can find your country on a map." Even those of us who are interested in other countries and actively try to learn about them get treated this way. (And then non-Americans wonder why we keep to ourselves so much. Stop calling us idiots every time we visit your lands or talk to your countrymen online, and maybe we'll start visiting more often.)
I think everyone, regardless of nationality, has a basic desire to be liked. That shouldn't be so surprising. If we seem more desperate for it, it's only because there's so much evidence that around the world, we are quite the opposite of 'liked'.
quote:Is it unquestioned support all American foriegn policy forever, even if we have legitimate concerns about it?
Of course not. But stopping the knee-jerk opposition to everything we do, simply because we're the ones doing it, would help.
quote:With respect, what is anti-Americanism?
Hatred of America. The desire to see America brought down. The notion that Americans must be ignorant savages simply because they're from the United States. Any or all of the above. Basically, the idea that America is inherently inferior in some way to the rest of the world.
quote:Canadians, for example, are quite used to Americans privately and officially holding them in mild contempt for being an inconsequential nation, but they don't bother giving it any special name like anti-Canadianism.
As I've alluded to, the practice isn't widespread enough to need a name.
quote:And, converesly, what would Americanism be? Logically, the former would be meaningless without the latter?
Not necessarily. "Anti-Americanism" is not "anti-" + "Americanism". It is "anti-American" + "-ism". It is the practice of being anti-American, of opposing America, not on specific actions, but as a general policy. Those who are anti-American are guilty of anti-Americanism. The opposite, I suppose, would be "pro-Americanism", which, if the word exists, would probably mean the idea that America is good. The idea that America should be supported, again not necessarily in specific actions, but in general.
Mind you, I'm not saying that a person must be either pro-American or anti-American. There is a middle ground. Personally, I'd just as soon everyone viewed us as just another nation, neither inherently angelic nor satanic, and with policies that are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I don't want to be worshipped by other nations. But to no longer be vilified as though we alone are responsible for all the troubles in the world would sure help.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:...the idea that Kasie raised, which is that America is, to paraphrase, very welcoming of immigrants, moreso than other countries.
I was actually referring to something deeper than just current acceptance of immigrants and tolerance of immigration -- I was referring to history and the way in which America was founded. We are a nation built by immigrants. Every 'American' once came from somewhere else, and every American has foreign heritage. Most families know when their ancestors came to the U.S., and where they came from. They know if their name is British or German or Polish or Russian or Indian or Chinese. We are also an extremely young nation. Perhaps that experience is changing as we (as a country) grow older, but we are still growing and in that way, I think, more open to foreign cultures and ideas because our own different cultures are not so far behind us.
Edit: Also, being American is different from many other nationalities in that you can become American by accepting a creed -- the Constition. Sure, you can move to England and follow English law and English customs and speak English or even marry an Englishman, but that does not make you English. To be American, you simply have to adopt and believe in the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: the instructions for how to be an American are actually written down. And the beautiful part is that there's room for all sorts of different cultures under the American umbrella, if you will.
[ August 18, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:We are a nation built by immigrants. Every 'American' once came from somewhere else, and every American has foreign heritage.
Isn't this also true of countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Sax,
Yes. Sorry, didn't mean leave them out.
However, Australia and Canada and New Zealand are not built on ideological creeds in the same way that America is. In fact, I would argue that all three have much stronger ties to their English heritage to anything else (and Quebec, of course, to its French heritage). After all, they do still have high commissions in London, not embassies.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Kasie, from my point of view Australia is as multicultural as America is today, and is built on a tradition both of immigration and of indigenous peoples.
The ties to Britain that still exist are mostly symbolic. While I would prefer a rebuplic, an Australian head of state and a different flag, the fact that we have a High Commission instead of an Embassy doesn't really make a practical difference.
I didn't object to the original piece because it said that America had a lot to be proud of, or that America is a multicultural country based on immigration.
What I objected to is the sentiment that America, and Americans have a monopoly on truth, justice, equality and the human spirit. That if you have these things then it's not enough to be a human, you have to be an American as well.
I guess just as anti-Americanism is thinking that America is inherently inferior to all others, that vein of thought seemed to suggest to me that America was inherently superior to all others.
I don't think either is the case. And I don't hate America, or Americans. But I also don't feel that I'm left out of equality, justice and the human spirit because I'm Australian.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I love Hatrack.
Hobbes Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:What I objected to is the sentiment that America, and Americans have a monopoly on truth, justice, equality and the human spirit. That if you have these things then it's not enough to be a human, you have to be an American as well.
I guess just as anti-Americanism is thinking that America is inherently inferior to all others, that vein of thought seemed to suggest to me that America was inherently superior to all others.
I don't think either is the case. And I don't hate America, or Americans. But I also don't feel that I'm left out of equality, justice and the human spirit because I'm Australian.
I have to say that I agree with all this, and that's why I've never cared for that piece. It's too nationalistic. I am an American, but I certainly don't feel like my countrymen have exclusive rights to the ideals of freedom and human dignity. I feel those are human traits that the whole world should be working toward. The piece treats the word 'American' as though it described a philosophy rather than a nationality. Granted, I, who am an American, do believe in that philosophy--that freedom is a vital portion of human prosperity, that generosity toward others in need is more satisfying than only looking out for yourself, and that true justice requires fairness and lack of prejudice. But I'm not an American because I believe these things. I am an American because my ancestors moved to Virginia Colony in the 1600s and stayed during the Revolution. They could have stayed behind in England, and then I would have been an Englishman who believed that philosophy. Or they could have moved to Rupert's Land, and then I'd have been a Canadian who believed that philosophy. I was offended at the suggestion that believing that philosophy makes someone an American. That seems too dismissive of other nations to me.
I didn't want to be the first one to say so and smash the "loveliness" of the sentiment, though, so I'm glad a lot of people already agree with me. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
imogen,
I don't think we disagree on very much at all. I think your place of birth has absolutely *nothing* to do with the value of your spirit or the level of digity you deserve.
And I don't mean to disparage multiculturalism in Australia or anywhere else in the world, either -- American *certainly* doesn't have a monopoly on that.
But I do disagree with Verity -- I think being American has less to do with being born here and more to do with deciding to uphold the values written down on paper. And I think that does make America different from other nations.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:But I do disagree with Verity -- I think being American has less to do with being born here and more to do with deciding to uphold the values written down on paper. And I think that does make America different from other nations.
I didn't say you had to be born here. I was, but then, I was only giving myself as an example. You can be born anywhere in the world and become an American by moving here and choosing to live our way of life. But that doesn't mean that someone born in, say, Australia, should have to move here just because he believes in the values that our country stands for. He can believe in those values and still remain an Australian if he chooses. That doesn't make him an American. It makes him an Australian who believes in liberty and equality and human dignity. All I'm saying is that believing these values is not a sufficient condition for becoming an American. A non-American can believe in them without abandoning his own nation.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
*points above and nods*
Verily, that is exactly what I think too. Thank you for phrasing it so eloquently and cogently.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Kasie - what if someone moved to Australia, but retained their original citizenship?
(For example, many people with european passports decide not to take Australian citizenship because then they would lose the advantages of EU membership).
What if then, that person became to believe all that Australia, as a nation, stood for - including equality, justice, independance and acceptance? They came to view themselves as Australian, and other Australian (citizens) saw them that way too.
I think that's exactly what you are saying you like about the US. And I think that's great. But such an attitude is not solely that of the US, and to have such an attitude you don't have to be, or think of yourself, as American.
So that's where I see my disagreement with your post - does that make sense?
[ August 19, 2004, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Some interesting statistics on immigration:
According to this site the USA is 30th on the list of net migration rate per capita (ie difference between people migrating to and emmigrating from).
Note that it is per capita - however, I think this only makes the statistic more realistic. The USA has a lower net migration rate per capita than countries including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Ireland.
In terms of overall percentage of population being born in a foreign country, the USA percentage is 10.4%. ( Source )
This is well behind New Zealand (24.2%), Australia (23.6%) and Canada (17.4%). (It's also behind Luxemborg and Switzerland).
The site says that the stats are obtained from the CIA factbook and the OECD.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Yes, imogen, I completely agree with you.
I apologize, I didn't want to make my post seem exclusionary. I'm not saying that those values are exclusive to America, I'm just saying that adopting those values are what make you American if you choose to be. I also didn't mean to imply that everyone would want to give up their citizenship or background or culture.
I was just saying what I think is great about America, not what was bad about other countries. Clearly, Australia has a lot of the same characteristics.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:politely looking for a wall to bang my head against
Not a good long-term coping strategy. Trust me on this. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I don't think you can make generalizations about the acceptance of immigrants here. My own ancestors were greeted with signs in shops that read "No Irish Need Apply."
The eugenics movement was successful in passing extremely restrictive quotas - and much of what they accomplished remains on the books.
Some areas are more accepting of immigrants than others. Some groups of immigrants are more readily accepted than others.
Sometime over the last year, Icarus posted an article in a national magazine sounding a call of alarm over the influx of Latino immigrants into this country. In Illinois, one of the Republican primary candidates for Senator ran largely on an anti-immigration message. He came in second or third.
We're a mixed bag, I think - like a lot of other countries.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey Storm, I don't want you to think I've forgotten about you. The problem with me taking part in specifics in this thread is that I'm woefully underqualified to discuss American Immigration Policy. I've never lived there and I've never considered living there. But that would probably just be a ping pong match between Mr. Boy and I (and by "match" I mean he'd be bouncing balls off the wall and every now and again I'd scamper to grab one that his missed, frequently being more in the way than I would be helping )
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I'm even cool with the knee-jerk reflex of being questioning per se, with adopting the critical eye toward all countries. And so just as I might question a Brit if he were to assert economic superiority, so would I an American.
But if I read you right, you are okay with that, too.
You are correct that I'm okay with questioning. I'm not offended by people who question a nation's actions. The only way to get real knowledge is to question everything. Simply accepting everything a nation does would be far more harmful than questioning. What I object to is people who assume the worst as a default. People who, instead of asking if what America is doing is right or wrong and trying to figure out what harm and what good will come of this action, simply state baldly that it must be wrong because everyone knows what a big bad imperialistic bully America is. The former is healthy, while the latter is pure anti-Americanism.
quote:I would like to disengage the evaluation of "anti-Americanism" from the mere action of questioning a statement of fact made by and American. Surely we can expect accuracy from one another, and that is a measure of respect, not loathing.
We can and should expect accuracy from one another, but keep in mind, I never accused anyone here of anti-Americanism. I made an offhand statement to the effect that there is a lot of anti-Americanism in the world. Then someone came and questioned why I should care about that, which I then tried to answer, and asked me to define my terms, which I then did. I never objected to the act of questioning my statements, and I never said or, I feel, implied that anyone here is guilty of the sin described by the word I was asked to define.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Well I, for one, am offended by the fact that both of the google ads at the bottom of this page (at the time of this posting) are for Hockey-related Web sites.
That's just wrong.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If I'd known that my post was going to be at the top of the page after all that deleting I might have put in something a little more thought-provoking.... or you know, maybe not.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Imogen, thanks for the stats. Interesting.
Posted by mister boy (Member # 6761) on :
Before I forget, this is the link to the statistics on immigrants earnings in Canada: Statistics Canada
Click on the Table: Earnings of recent immigrants relative to earnings of the Canadian-born, by sex, Canada, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
A day or so ago I left a link on this thread to the corresponding data from the US Bureau of Statistics.
In my experience working with this sort of information across nations, it is usually advisable to go to the data source in each country (usually their national census office site). Relying on secondary summaries of the information can be tricky because of differences in how and when the data are collected in each nation.
For the data sources I provided at your request here, please note that the US data are reported based on 2003 information, whereas the available data from Canada are based on 2001 information. Both then look backgrounds over time for patterns of change.
Also note that the US data reports raw numbers, whereas the Canada data have already been converted to show the average for immigrant employment earnings (individuals aged 15+) as a percentage of the average employment earnings (individuals aged 15+) for the nation overall. You may want to make a similar conversion in order to interpret the US data.
The Canada table also shows how this percentage changes by years since arriving in the country. In other words, that lets you see how many years it takes for the average immigrant income to become at least equal to national average overall.
In Canada this appears to be about one decade, although it reaches the 75% mark in about 3 years for men and 4 years for women. I haven't looked at the US data close enough yet to say what pattern is there. The American data may not allow as fine a breakdown.
I'm not sure what you would find other for countries, such as Australia, but a visit to their respective national census sites should pay off with some digging around. Also, most major universities have population studies libraries with these sources in hard copy.
I hope this helps in your ongoing discussions.
[ August 19, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: mister boy ]
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)