posted
I guess mister boy deleted his "Canadian Perspective" thread. I wish he hadn't. The only way we get through the issues is to respectfully hash them out, and I thought there was a good start, even if a slight detour in the middle.
posted
That's one thing I like about the forum software here and at Sakeriver...possibly others too. Mods can split a topic at a certain point if there are divergent topics.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was broadening my horizons so to speak. If it was self-defeated I am somewhat disappointed. I would like to thank Mister Boy for having the courage to convey his convictions. I didn't agree with everything he said but there were elements of truth in much that was discussed. Hopefully we haven't chased him away.
Edit: I was going to correct the term self-defeated to self-deleted but I think it works as is.
posted
See what happens when I get busy for half an hour? That's it...I'm never taking my eyes off Hatrack ever again.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was some piling on, mostly caused by overlapping posts, I think. Most of it seemed well within the spirit of a thread meant to describe the bad traits one group sees in another.
I hope he comes back. And here's another formal request to remove thread deletion from the board's functionality (except for our wonderful mods, of course).
If the software can't disable thread deletion without disabling post deletion, then people can still use the edit function to remove their own posts.
posted
Author Topic: A Canadian's Perspective mister boy Member Member # 6761
posted August 19, 2004 01:55 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is written in response to a rather interesting and thoughtful set of comments in response to questions I had raised in the ‘An American’ thread.
I am posting my thoughts here in isolation since it is quite long, really not in line with the topic there, and for many of you possibly quite annoying. If you are interested in the discussion leading to my odd historical account here, you might wish to examine and discuss the points with participants in other thread. They and you are course invited to share further constructive thoughts on the matter with me here.
Warning: If you are particularly sensitive about how America is viewed by others, don’t read this, please.
Let me start by doing the Canadian thing and apologizing for the offense my expressed thoughts have so obviously given. My questions are valid and important, but they were asked in a way that implied less respect for some of you and your country that is due. While inappropriate, my tone probably reflects some sense of the very real anxiety people in my country, and elsewhere, are increasingly having about your country, validly or otherwise.
I’m going to restrict the comments below to Canada-US relations at a political level primarily. In general I’m not very interested in whether individual Canadians and Americans have nice visits with each other. I have had my share of bad experiences here as well, and in other countries. When we travel, none of us is entitled to be treated well by the host country. It’d be nice, but that’s the risk of leaving home.
I should note that my family has lived and worked every year in both countries for three generations. My father had American citizenship for part of his life. I currently work in the US as a visiting researcher and have married an American woman. My experience is thus very bi-national. Also, by virtue of the work I do, I have had to spend a good deal of time studying both Canadian and American history, and have learned to appreciate the American contributions to the world. I’ve said as much elsewhere, although mixed in with some acerbic questions.
Canadians in general do like the United States. We don’t want to be part of the United States, but we like you folks and what your constitution tried to set in place in the world. This is confirmed again and again by opinion polls in Canada, and in Europe, even in France. Canadians feel a kinship with Americans, although one that is strained more and more in recent years. We are more like you than any other country, although there are fundamental differences in the kinds of society’s we want that are immensely important to us.
Out of sincere fascination with you, and out of an interest in protecting our sovereignty, Canadians watch the United States as much as we watch ourselves. That likely leads us to wonder how so many of you (present company excluded) can appear to know so little about your history, let alone the rest of the world. I regularly run into highly educated Americans who are quite stumped when asked what your Civil War was over. This frightens the heck out of us because you are very powerful and many of you--certainly many of your leaders--seem not to worry much about the learning the lessons of history.
Now we might be wrong in assuming this, but that is the image your country projects to the world. I’m sorry, but as a friendly neighbor, I’m trying to be straight with you. I’m afraid that a prejudice has built up against you in which it is assumed that you—as a nation—have come to the point where you feel you don’t need to bother understanding or taking the rest of us into account. How can this be fixed? I don’t know. When you travel and deal with others you might have to try extra hard to show the stereotype is false. If it matters to you, that is.
Back to the Canadian experience of the States, as we call you-- Like the other small, non-nuclear nations, we must reply on rational argument and diplomacy to deal with international tensions. It might be hard for you understand this, but the principle of multilaterism in global affairs is almost as important to many Canadians as the idea of free market is to many of you. (Not that this makes us any better than you, or us into Communists.) We value it and consequently identify strongly with the United Nations. We are also keenly aware from public statements and actions by your leaders that our approach is seen as accommodation and weak in the United States.
And, unfortunately, even bilateral talks do not work well with countries that have sufficient power to be able to skip over all that stuff. This is especially true when dealing with countries that have a history of exerting their power to meet what they consider their own interests and have virtually declared themselves to be answerable only to their god. The doctrine of manifest destiny and the claim to the whole world as within your sphere of interest is reflected and reinforced in your current foreign policy. We are reminded of this in every evening newscast, and we watch you every night. Again, that is the image you broadcast around the globe. Please accept my apologies for saying so.
Let me try to explain how much this affects our relations and perceptions with the US. You might be surprised to learn that Canada is America’s largest trading partner by far. We are also your largest single source of foreign oil and gas. While both sides benefit from this trade relationship, Canada is obviously the more dependent partner. It is consequently a matter of daily occurrence that Canadian citizens, corporations and politicians openly worry about offending the US. It is a fact of our lives. When was the last time you ever heard any American worry about offending Canada? You don’t need to. And that’s not your fault, it just the structure of the world. But it does shape Canadian perspectives in powerful way.
Yet, when 9/11 occurred Canadians grieved as much for the US and were as angered by the events as any nation in the world. When French journalists declared that today we are all Americans, I saw Canadians literally weep in sympathy. Even while most people in US were still uncertain what was happening, a hundred US airline flights were being immediately welcomed into Canadian air space. By the time they landed dozens of regular communities near airports all across Canada were ready to care for and comfort our American cousins who had been dealt this unthinking wrong. They were more volunteers than they knew what to do with.
(Some of you were whining about being hated by everyone. Give it a break. The facts don't support you, and there are more important things you need to worry about.)
In the two towers, people of many nationalities were killed, including many Canadians. While the debris were being searched for survivors, Canadian fire departments and police departments sent crews, dogs and equipment to assist. When your country determined it was necessary to root the terrorists out of Afghanistan, we considered the weight of your arguments seriously and joined with you. Canadians were posting Bin Laden bulls-eye targets on walls and computer desk-tops all over my country. Never a doubt about giving you support. Canadians troops are still there. Tragically, eight of our troops were killed when an American fighter mistook them for enemy forces at night and bombed them. Not a large loss by the standards of war, but poignant nonetheless. They were the first Canadians to die in military service for their country since the Korean War.
Indulge me a bit, and let me turn back the clock to the Second World War before I return to the tensions surrounding the Iraq War. It will be helpful in building understanding I think. In the first years of the WWII the United States opted not to join the Allied Forces until it was attacked by Japan. Now you have to appreciate that during that first phase of the war, Germany was invading Poland, exiling and exterminating Jews, and moving toward and into France. Canadians were in the war from the beginning, quite a while before the US would help. While we now hear of how the British PM of the time made the mistake of accommodating the Nazis, we also have to remember that the Americans held back too, until they were themselves attacked. If they had been involved earlier there might have been a much sooner end to the conflict. It is also important to know that the British (Churchill) and Canadian governments were appealing to the US to join with them.
Of course, eventually Pearl Harbor happened and the US went to war. The US was, as we all acknowledge, critical to final victory by the Allies. Your country then as now had almost ten times the population as Canada, and so could send ten times as many troops. Thank goodness for that. The turning point in war was D-Day with the invasion on the beaches of Normandy. Now this is where history and myth start their little dance. Americans I have met and seen in the media are quite often fond of saying how the US saved France that day. And to hear it told it would seem that only American troops were on the beach that day. But British and Canadians forces were also responsible for beaches that day. As it turns out Canadians lost proportionally more lives than even the Americans. And while the US was saving Italy, Canadians were liberating the Netherlands, also with great losses. It is true that the US made the difference, but it was not alone. Rightly or wrongly, Canadians remember you as coming late out of self-interest and now claiming all credit.
And over and over in the past year and a half I have heard Americans trash the French for not remembering what they owe your country. They remember I am sure, but Americans were outraged at being stood up to. This business of blood-debts is a black comedy. If France owes you, then it follows they it owes us too. How could this debt ever be divided? Shall we count the lives lost? So many thousands for Canada, so many more thousands for the English, so many, many more for you? Shall they support us in UN votes say 20% of the time, the UK 30%, and the US 50%? Very, very sad.
During the Korean conflict, Canada also fought with the United States. Not because you were our unquestioned partner, but because we assessed the situation and decided it was the right thing to do.
During the war in Vietnam, however, Canada did not agree. Neither did Britain, your current partner in Iraq. Many Americans escaping the draft fled to Canada and remain to this day, some having become Canadian citizens. During this time many countries were urging the US to cease the heavy bombing of Vietnam, Canada included. Now recall that Canada takes some real risk in annoying the US, since trade sanctions would do extreme harm to our economy and standard of living. Our PM at the time mentioned during a press conference on an official visit to the US that he regretted the US continued bombing. When he met with President Johnson the next day, LBJ literally picked him up by the collar and scolded him for stepping out of line. This is actually pretty funny when you about it. But you need to appreciate that when a leader of one country does this to another country’s leader he is speaking on behalf of his country to the people of the other country. It was the US telling Canada it was of no consequence in light of US power.
During the Nixon years, this got worse. Canadians were becoming more progressive in their health policies as well as shifting even more toward a stance favoring international collaboration. Now American leaders and press were labeling us as communists. Not particularly appreciative of our own strong democratic legacy, I’d say. Since then your country has gone into an increasing crises over health care. Your insurance industry and political leaders lie about the nature of our system, and Americans for the most part nod in agreement since they know little about Canada anyway (I suspect). In more recent years Canada, following its deep commitment to peacekeeping and international law, attempted to gain support for two fundamental agreements. First, it pushed heavily for the establishment of international criminal court to deal with the kind of cases that involve genocide and other crimes against humanity, in the same fashion as the temporary court set up by the US and other Allies to deal with the Nazi leadership after WWII. Second, we pushed for the ratification of an international convention against land mines. These weapons still maim and kill children around the world long after wars have ended. In both cases, despite any earlier sense of alliance between us, the Americans refused to support either effort, along with a few other countries that you now refer to as the Axis of Evil. Very consistant with the noble ideals you claim for yourself, that.
Now at this point, Canadians did not assume that you were being anti-Canadian, or disagreeing with us just because we were Canadians. But many quietly spoke of how you were really getting into a pattern of putting self-interest over the broader good. Not that we could do anything about that, since you leaders don’t bother discussing such things with leaders of nations that are not a threat to you or useful in other ways. Again, that is at least how it seen. Please forgive me for saying so.
In any case, then 9/11 happened and we went with you as sincere partners to Afghanistan.
Then things got very strange. As you know of course they scoured the hills for Bin Laden, but eventually came up with nothing. Now the US started to point to Iraq and the bully that was running things there. And you already know the whole mess about whether they really had WMDs and whether the intelligence was any good and Powell going to the UN and so forth. I’m not interested in arguing about whether the invasion was right or not. But I do want to explain some things about Canada’s involvement which Canadians knew a lot about and the average American very little (your press restricts itself pretty much to US domestic news).
During the time that the US was starting to ratchet up getting support for the invasion, Canadian leaders and the press were starting to note that we’d seen this before. The US installed the leader in Iran, then Iran fell apart. The US installed the leader in Panama and then it had to be invaded. And the US was quite supportive of Saddam during the time he was using WMDs against Iran (and it turns out, the Kurds). Pictures of Rumsfield being chummy with Saddam during this time are readily available. So we’re thinking, we should look closely at this situation to be clear about what is going on, rightly or wrongly. Quite frankly, your motivations get questionable when you keep such lousy company (the Saudis come to mind here). So our diplomats looked at your evidence for Iraq being an immanent threat. We decided the evidence wasn’t there. But, ever the nice guys, we tried to broken a deal at the UN to help bridge the gap so the US could have its way while accommodating some of the hesitancy of other countries in the Security Counsel. It would have involved a count-down to a UN blessed invasion with the UN inspectors continuing their work in the interim. By all accounts, the American leadership not only declined our proposal but roundly told us to mind our own f***ing business.
Then the US decided to invade without UN support. Canada officially declined, consistent with our commitment to the UN and sense that the evidence for an immanent threat was not compelling. Over the ensuing weeks, Canada was attacked by your press as being cowardly and anti-American because we would not support the US decision. Not long after the US Ambassador to Canada was directed by the White House to scold and threaten the Canadian people directly. I should note here that Canadians were outraged at being chastised for exercising their sovereignty, especially by a nation that had not supported us on matters important to Canadians. Canadians widely supported the decision by our government to not assist in the invasion and continue to do so.
Note the during this time, no one in the US would have asked, “Shouldn’t we support Canada.” Of course not. In the structure of thinking about the relations between us, such a question would be absurd. America is the reference point. It is whether America is agreed with, whether you are supported. The same with the international criminal court, the same with land mines. Unfortunately, it is what we have come to expect. And it is the way of the future. As you might imagine, this all makes it rather hard for me have empathy for the annoyance young Americans must endure because they get grilled about their country’s foreign policies while on a little holiday abroad. I’m sorry. But writing this might give you some handles to understand where others are coming from, even if our views of your country are inaccurate.
Your attacks on France echoed your abuse of us. Whatever their reasons, they too acted as a sovereign nation. And they too were your supporters from the very beginning. You sent Franklin and Jefferson to France to gain their support in defeating the British. When the time came, they gave it. Then they gave the glorious Statue of Liberty as a gift to honor what you stood for, the ideal of democracy. Even then many Americans hated the French—perhaps a link back to your Protestant founders—and didn’t want the statue. After 9/11 the French gave you the highest honor: “Today we are all Americans.” A year later, they disagreed on a matter of the highest importance: invading another nation. So you pissed on them. That tended to confirm our worst theories about you, correctly or not.
But the critical and frightening thing about the Iraq War was not that it happened, or that distracted us all from finding Bin Laden (although that comes a close second), or these difficult in relations between sister democracies. The scary thing for me and many Canadians is that we have shifted back in time to when the rules of war were very different. Before the UN. Before any notion of multilateralism. To the time of old Europe when nations invaded each other willy-nilly, without any checks, and might meant right. Back to the age of empire. This is now official US policy. Perhaps this was inevitable given the rise of terrorism. But it is a great step background that may take another century to turn around. Welcome to the old world.
And that brings us to the present. Again, I am sorry to have offended, but not for asking legitimate questions. I do not claim the superiority of Canada, but I do wish for more consistency and reciprocity in the way your country deals with mine. My perspective might be off-base, but it is one that I have been considering for a few decades now and I think reflects the view of many Canadians. We like you, but we don’t worry much anymore about whether you like us—we are both way past that in our tense relationship and the stakes are too high for such trivial concerns.
I am truly fearful of what the future might bring. I fear that our ability to influence the US on global affairs is almost gone, in part because the US has no need to hear us or value our perspective. I fear that some future President will see the strategic need to secure access to Canadian national resources and that will lead to tensions. Tensions without a well-informed American public might move rapidly in unexpected ways, and severe damage might be done before it could be checked. The damage of course would be born by my country, not yours. It would be primarily economic, of course, but that would immediately translate in an unraveling of Canada’s political structure and sovereignty. And that would be very sad, because my country is really quite wonderful you know, too wonderful too even be lost to you.
On the other hand, maybe this is just a draft for some tedious Card-esque science fiction work gone badly awry.
Mister Boy
[ August 19, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: mister boy ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
mackillian Member Member # 586
posted August 19, 2004 02:04 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm fearful as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 9974 | Registered: Dec 1999 | IP: Logged |
imogen Member Member # 5485
posted August 19, 2004 03:03 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mister boy, I am very glad that you finally joined hatrack.
I found that very interesting - although I do not know nearly enough about US-Canadian relations to comment.
I will say that I too, have been scared by the apparent culture of ignorance that is being bred in America. While the knowledge and learning of participants on this board do reassure me, I am aware that they are very smart people, and probably not representative of the norm.
I'll give an example - one that really astonished me. I've been to America twice for tournaments. Once for the Worlds School's Debating Championship (2000) and once for the Jessup International Moot (2003). Both competitions had competitors of extremely high levels. At Jessup, we came up against many of the top law schools in the country.
I don't expect many (if any) Americans to know as much about the history of my country as I do about theirs. It is reasonable, given our comparative sizes and world status. But for Jessup, this was when the war on Iraq had just started. These were the best law students in the country. And they didn't even know the name of the Prime Minister of Australia - one of the allies that was sending troops.
At debating, I knew more about past US presidents then the American National Team did. And I don't know an awful lot on that subject.
Both true. Certainly, only my experience - but I was absolutely shocked. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 1495 | Registered: Aug 2003 | IP: Logged |
TomDavidson Member Member # 124
posted August 19, 2004 08:07 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And they didn't even know the name of the Prime Minister of Australia - one of the allies that was sending troops."
I'll be blunt about this: for good or ill, the name of the Prime Minister of Australia is far, far less relevant to the lives of most Americans -- even informed, educated Americans -- than the name of the mayor of Chicago. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 15911 | Registered: May 99 | IP: Logged |
ElJay Member Member # 6358
posted August 19, 2004 08:12 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mister boy, I also am glad you have joined us. I don't know what you are apologizing for, as I stopped reading the An American thread when it became clear it was sentimental patriot crap. Perhaps I'll go back and see what it's evolved into... but I can't imagine why anyone from another country should be made to feel bad for questioning ours.
I love the freedoms I enjoy, the diversity surrounding me, and the rich heritage of living in America. But as we more and more act like the schoolyard bully, and more and more of our populace blindly believes whatever soundbite they happen to catch, I grow uncomfortable. Perhaps it's time to start working for change, instead of believing that the quiet majority is sensible and all this will turn around. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 299 | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged |
ClaudiaTherese Member Member # 923
posted August 19, 2004 08:40 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll be blunt about this: for good or ill, the name of the Prime Minister of Australia is far, far less relevant to the lives of most Americans -- even informed, educated Americans -- than the name of the mayor of Chicago. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is a matter of choice, Tom (but I could be misreading you or missing your point). What tangible effect does the mayor of Chicago have on a citizen of Sonoma Valley? The MOC has no effect on her trash collection, right to assemble, or the education of her children.
Beyond that basic level, it's a matter of perspective: are we citizens of the world community, or is the world solely the US? If we recognize an obligation for our government to act ethically and thoughtfully with other nations (albeit from the perspective of US interests, nontheless), then the identity of the PM of Australia much more impacts the interests of the woman from SV than does the identity of the MOC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6692 | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged |
Lost Ashes Member Member # 6745
posted August 19, 2004 09:48 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Boy, thanks for putting that perspective before us. As an American, I do put my country first, but I dearly love Canada (for more than just Rush, Molsens and good hockey), because it is still the New World and moving forward.
I would like to address two points made in your post, however.
First would be our unwillingness to listen to other nations when it comes to forming our national policy. We do, take our own counsel first and foremost as any nation should. And there was a time when we at least paid some heed to the thoughts and wishes of our neighbors.
Over the last twenty years, however, you have to understand that we have become home to corporations that can and do pretty much stand as nations themselves, both in deed and perspective. Those corporations (Halliburton and Exxon as quick examples) hold more influence over our governmental policies than even our own population does. You can imagine how much more important they are in our policy-making than any foreign country could be.
Why else would we be more sensitive to the Saudis than the Canadians when it comes to our oil supply? Because someone with strings tied to those in US power makes more money from the Sauds than from the Canadians. Welcome to the state of American politics: the influence peddlers, spin doctors and untouchable corporations have more power than anyone else.
And we, as American citizens, are pretty powerless to do anything about us. We aren't really as much an electorate anymore than we are customers to be harvested.
Now, let's move quickly onto the matter of the land mines convention. America said no. Why? It actually goes back to the roots of NATO and it's feared conflict with the Soviet Union, as well as the combat in the Korean War.
In the Cold War, we looked across no-man's land at the Warsaw Pact juggernaut. We and our allies would be outnumbered in conventional warfare and our strategy would have to be one of destroying as many of the enemy before they got within tooth and bayonet range. It pushed our innovations in air superiority, long-range artillery, anti-tank missiles and other items. Mines were an inherent part of that strategy. We developed directional mines (such as the claymore) as well as innovations such as FASCAM (FAmily SCatterable Air Munitions) which could be cannon launched to interdict penetrating armored forces.
As such important parts of our Cold War army, we are still reluctant to leave them behind. The world has changed and our armed forces are changing to meet that, but it is hard to give up something that extended the firepower of our own troops.
We will, however, completely phase out the "bury and forget" landmines that are the greatest cause of these problems. Unless somebody is making gobs of money off of them. Then, see what I said before.
Look, we Americans have a very bad situation right now. There is almost no turnover of politicians in our Congress and those tend to act as the nobles that were such a problem in Old Europe a century or two ago. And there is the same problem in our government that the kings of old ran into eventually, the idea that court politics was the norm and actually served the populace as well as it did the courtiers.
In Europe, it led to revolution after revolution until it finally looked like it had been shaken off. Now we see, that this may be the natural life-cycle of a political system and that America is just entering that phase.
Have pity on us at times, for we, the citizens, are getting pretty powerless in our own back yards. Our jobs are being exported out, our sons are being sent to fight in ill-advised foreign wars, and more time is spent on getting the wealth out of our pockets than is spent on making sure we have a shot at the American dream. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 27 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
ClaudiaTherese Member Member # 923
posted August 19, 2004 09:59 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eloquent and well-considered, Lost Ashes. Thanks.
I'm learning a lot by following this thread. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6692 | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged |
Space Opera Member Member # 6504
posted August 19, 2004 11:25 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for posting that, mister boy. I don't have any comments right now because I'm still taking it all in. But I definately learned from your post, and will continue to think on it.
space opera -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 926 | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged |
Rakeesh Member Member # 2001
posted August 19, 2004 11:26 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MB,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are also keenly aware from public statements and actions by your leaders that our approach is seen as accommodation and weak in the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By some. Measurably, roughly 1/6th of our population feels that way if voting is any indicator.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The doctrine of manifest destiny and the claim to the whole world as within your sphere of interest is reflected and reinforced in your current foreign policy. We are reminded of this in every evening newscast, and we watch you every night. Again, that is the image you broadcast around the globe. Please accept my apologies for saying so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We didn't want it that way, except for Manifest Destiny-which was completely typical thinking of Western nations at the time. We didn't want to be involved in world affairs, we didn't want any 'spheres of interest'. To be sure, some of our businesses did, and we got involved in some dishonorable things as a result. But after WWII, there was a little thing stopping us from our reflexive isolationism-to which we had reverted after the first WW.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Some of you were whining about being hated by everyone. Give it a break. The facts don't support you, and there are more important things you need to worry about.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think few people would say we are hated by everyone, but we are criticized by everyone, routinely and from a position of self-assumed superiority. This is par for the course: most famous person takes the most knocks. What irks me as an American citizen when I hear such criticism is the implicit assumption, "You could do better, and if we were in your position, we would do better."
I think that's why so many Americans have a chip on their shoulders about not being liked.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If they had been involved earlier there might have been a much sooner end to the conflict. It is also important to know that the British (Churchill) and Canadian governments were appealing to the US to join with them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I entirely agree, and furthermore view it as a national shame that America did not enter the war sooner. However this merely reinforces my point: that Americans didn't want to get involved in world affairs. It was not our natural state, so to speak.
There was another nation, though, of similar power, that did not lack that desire.
That's what bothers me. Now that the Cold War is over, the sharpened focus of the very real struggle between the USA and the USSR is gone. More than WWII, more than the Declaration of Independance or the US Constitution, that is what I think many Americans would like a 'thank you' for: saving the world's collective ass from the scourge of Soviet 'Communism'.
Things could have been very different. After WWI, when we reverted to isolationism once again, things were very different, remember? America did pretty good after WWI until the global Depression finally reached our shores. We were riding even higher after WWII.
I rarely hear the Cold War mentioned when complaints about America and American policy are made. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard it mentioned when it wasn't me mentioning it. That bothers me quite a bit, and I'm not sorry if that offends anyone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 5109 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |
MrSquicky Member Member # 1802
posted August 19, 2004 12:01 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What Rakeesh said folds in pretty well with what I'm going to say. I agree pretty closely with most of what you said mb, but I want to throw a couple of things out there.
First, there seems to be, as Rakeesh said, an air of "If we were in your place, we'd do better." in a lot of the criticisms of America. The thing is, for a lot of Americans (even thinking ones like me), this hardly seems to be the truisms that some other people seem to regard it as. Old Europe did a pretty awful job of being the head honchos. We still suspect France (and, less strongly Germany) of having imperialistic (as opposed to multi-lateralist or for the benefit of all) motives. In our minds, we recently beat down the latest evil empire bent on taking over the world. As I said elsewhere, while being often extremely selfish, most Americans aren't really conciously imperialistic.
Also, I, along with many other people I know, have major problems with the U.N. Not because they tell us what to do, but because they don't accomplish their mission. Rwanda happned and the U.N. stood by. The massacre in Sudan is resulting in pro forma protest and no action. The U.S. gets criticism over it's human rights record from a council of countries that include ones in our "evil" column. China (freaking China!?!) has full veto power. That's not the sort of international body that I'm going to put unqualified trust in.
In large part, the rest of the world has had the luxury of developing in the ways they had specifically because America has been the rough military presence that it has. Canada's very multilateralism is partially built on the fact that, as the country we like most and is closest to us, nodody was ever going to screw with them. The role of supreme military force for...well, not for good...let's say for non-evil has been a big formative influence on America in the last 60 or so years.
It's sort of like my friends who have been or are Marines. The sort of training that they get and the situations they find themselves in have, in many cases, changed them in ways that I don't think are all that good. But, at the same time, we need them to be Marines and what they do as Marines. They can develop into being a bit of a conservative bastard about some things, but even this development helps them be better Marines.
It's not so much that I want people to celebrate America's assholishness as to realize that it's a product of being the world's 7 samurai (albiet ones always looking out for their own self-interest) for a while. I'm pretty sure that, were another country to take over the reigns of superpower, we couldn't expect much better out of them and could reasonably fear much worse.
It's in part because America jumped into crap and got all messy that many other countries have the clean hands that they can use to talk about how much better they are. There's probably always going to be dirty work to be done and man hasn't come up with a way yet of keeping from getting pretty dirty yourself while doing it.
posted August 19, 2004 12:11 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have pity on us at times, for we, the citizens, are getting pretty powerless in our own back yards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's so much in here that I'd like to comment on, even if only to say that it resonnates as true for me, but I think I'll start just by saying that the above comment struck me as rather poignant, though not for the same reasons Lost Ashes gave.
Had I been born just nine days earlier, this year would have been the first in which I was eligible to vote. Thus, I've been trying to become more conscious of what's going on both here in the States and abroad - to try to see what is happening, why things are happening the way are or why they have done so in the past, and to truly force myself to develop some solid opinions or beliefs on things.
I've found that it's really not all that easy - at least not if you are looking for a more objective source of information to present you with just the facts, upon which you can then actually base your opinions and then be able to expect reasonable people to respect those ideas. This ties in with Lost Ashes' comment in the sense that, to me at least, we "are getting pretty powerless in our back yards" even in terms of what information we are given. As mister boy pointed out in his original post, the post-9/11 media was avidly tauting the idea of an unsupportive France or Canada - or, indeed, any country that did not follow along with US plans without any sign of protest. No media group here in the States was talking about WHY we were viewed negatively abroad, simply that we were and that that was not right or that something needed to be done about it. Something does need to be done about it, I will agree there. But what needs to be done is an elevation of the general American public's awareness of foreign affairs and our role within that context - from the point of view of both US citizens and those of other countries - so that we can actually do something and do it well (ie. make a truly informed decision). We can't always be right or do the right thing anyway - we are still human and prone to mistakes, however contrary to that idea Americans may be in the sense that our government "can do no wrong."
The average American citizen is presented with only one perspective in terms of foreign and international affairs - that of a "patriotic citizen" of the United States - someone who does not question or, even if he does, goes along with the government without fuss anyway (again the whole "we can do no wrong" idea).
The real question this brings up for me is why we are placing so much trust in people we truly know so little about. In terms of domestic issues, too, we tend to hear only two things - extreme polarity on one side of the spectrum, and then whatever its opposite happens to be. I have been following the 2004 presidential election pretty closely and... honestly, I'm disappointed.
We are openly presented with only two choices - Democrat, or Republican. How many Americans even know what those parties "stand for" today, let alone what their history is or what they represented in the past? We are again openly given only two choices - Bush, or Kerry. How many people even know what each of those men stand for - what they propose to do and what they have done in the past?
And how much opportunity have we really had to find out? It seems to me that each candidates' campaign consists mostly of, "He's doing _A__. __A_ is bad. I'm doing _B__ . If B is not A and A is bad, that means B is good. That means I'll be a good President." I have yet to hear either candidate really say anything that truly advocates his own qualifications for President more than it does the lack thereof in his opponent. I am tired of and disappointed in our practice of voting against one candidate instead of for the other.
Perhaps things will be better for and in America and even worldwide if we can 1. find a candidate people will vote FOR instead of against his opponent 2. drastically increase the objectivity of our press and thus our own ability to choose our leadership, influence policies, etc and 3. ... I don't know. Just slow down and gain a little perspective on things and start focusing more on our need for a real government than a bunch of politicians.
Normally I wouldn't say anything just because of the typical snarkiness in political threads but... this one isn't at all typical so far . That and thank you just for starting this thread, mister boy - it's been truly thought provoking so far and has touched on many important issues that often otherwise go unstated .
Edit: I was still working on this post when the last two were put up so if I restated something they said or if it seems like I was trying to refute their comments... I wasn't - all I ever really try to do most of the time anyway is just read and learn and hen maybe throw a few ideas out there for everyone else to toy with. That and I will admit that I am what I am so scornful of in my writing above (or if not there, then in day-to-day life) - an average, ignorant American who knows no more than what she's seen on CNN or read in the morning paper. I find the general ignorance in our country to be one of the biggest issues in our country today - one we must soon face of our own volition or, in the end, be forced to just to survive internationally and even domestically. Perhaps it is because I'm often frustrated at not being able to find the kind of objectivity in our media that would allow for better informed decisions, etc. The Economist and... grrr... that chunky little blue magazine that's almost a book??? Those two I like. THAT should be what we are told every day.
posted August 19, 2004 12:22 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Americans want and claim to be a world leader with the right to use force and coercion unchecked around the world, then it is reasonable to expect them to take seriously the consequences that go with that role. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See I'm cynical enough of my own country and others, to think that reason rarely enters into the equation, even if I think it would be better for all if it did. While we can learn from history, much of history is merely a series of fortunate or unfortuate accidents, with "It seemed like a good idea at the time" being the most rationalization that ever exists.
AJ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6652 | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged |
Eduardo_Sauron Member Member # 5827
posted August 19, 2004 01:09 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mister Boy, with your permission, I'd like to copy/paste/save your post, since it's one of the best I've ever read here in Hatrack (IMHO).
Maybe I'll expand this post later, but I'd like to add two things.
1) Not everyone in the world thinks that the U.S. were the "good guys" X the bad guys in U.S.S.R. Many view it as a conflict between two ideologies that carried both good and evil in them.
2) Living in a country who stood 20 years of U.S. supported military dictatorship (I'm sure it seemed better than a socialist-friendly president, at that time), I'd like to add that many people over here are strongly anti-Americans (I'm not anti-American. I just dont... agree with your present administration. But, being a foreigner, I can't do much about that. Only you can). Not that we usually mistreat Americans. Here in Brazil (and some people in Uruguay, Argentin and Chile whom I know) we tend to think about the U.S. like a bully, due to past and present actions.
It's curious that in the past 4 or 5 years, this general feeling is only getting stronger.
posted August 19, 2004 01:16 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mister boy, thank you for presenting us with a different point of view. Sadly, the only point of view many Americans hear is the one presented by the American media.
You are a great addition to Hatrack. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 1778 | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |
MrSquicky Member Member # 1802
posted August 19, 2004 01:37 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mister boy, I may not have emphasized this enough, but I pretty much agree with everything you said. I presented those caveats as just that, caveats, not as a blanket dismissal of what you had to say or what other people had to say.
Like before with the internet and computers and stuff, I'm neither looking for gratitude nor think that it's important. America has done some great things for the world and it's done some terrible things too. If we expect gratitude, we should also expect hatred.
I don't really know what I'm looking for, except maybe understanding. One of the things that I really like about Canadian culture (and I'm a fan, trust me) is that they have been largely able to develop without the stresses needed to actively defend themselves from military threats. I think that this is one of the causes for the current drift away from authoritarianism and a certain type of conservativism that you pointed out in another thread. Canada has developed along a different though related course from America and has been and is a good example for the goodness of other ways of doing things. Canada avoided or overcame alot of the problems of being strongly tied to the old order of doing things and, again, I think that this is in part because they were sheltered by America.
The thing I guess I'm trying to get at is that, yes, in many instances American's are jerks. And it's not good or acceptable that they are jerks, but they're not jerks because they are mainly bad people. The situation that America found itself in is highly conducive to people becoming jerks and adopting a jerky outlook towards the world.
Like I said, if most other countries took over America's role, I think that they'd be at least as big of jerks as the U.S. That's not to excuse or appologize, just to put it out there.
edit: In fact, reading over what I wrote, I don't think you had a basis for your attack on it, although I can understand why it would twig attack responses. Like I said before, I'm really coming to like and respect you as well as largely agree with you. I'm not one of those people who's going to post just to say that though. If I post, I'm either going to be expanding on what you wrote or bringing up things that at least in part disagree with it. Give me the benefit of the doubt, here. We're aiming for the same goal.
posted August 19, 2004 01:49 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fairness, however, it's a cop out to say that others only critique America because they hate your freedom, or envy you, or think they could do a better. Some might even say it was adolescent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's partially true. I cringed when Bush said that terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom. Ummmm... no. As Eduardo reminded us, the U.S. has supported plenty of brutal dictatorships to earn the undying hatred of nataionlists and patriots fighting for their way of life.
Having said that, I fully support the Rakeesh's statement that:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is par for the course: most famous person takes the most knocks. What irks me as an American citizen when I hear such criticism is the implicit assumption, "You could do better, and if we were in your position, we would do better." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any criticism implies that if you were in our place, you would do things differently. And given Canada's track record in human rights and internationl citizenship, I believe you have very good reasons to believe that.
However, if Canada were the unquestioned super power, it would not have the luxury of always making the moral decisions. Do you believe that if saddled with the responsibility of being the remaining super power, Canada would have a substantially different foreign policy outlook than the United States? (this is not a rhetorical question, if your answer is yes I would love to hear your reasoning).
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you might imagine, this all makes it rather hard for me have empathy for the annoyance young Americans must endure because they get grilled about their country’s foreign policies while on a little holiday abroad. I’m sorry. But writing this might give you some handles to understand where others are coming from, even if our views of your country are inaccurate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a bit harsh don't you think? Is it ok to grill random Muslims on the streets regarding Osama Bin Laden's foreign policy? Please remember that the majority of Americans did not vote for George Bush. It is ok to grill Americans, but please find out where they stand first before you do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 2315 | Registered: Apr 2002 | IP: Logged |
saxon75 Member Member # 4589
posted August 19, 2004 01:50 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mister Boy,
Your post was very well-thought out and well-written, and it was indicative of exactly the kind of attitude with which I have such difficulty. It is the comparing and contrasting, the constant opposition of “we” and “you.” The fact is that, however much the two of us may love and identify with our countries of origin, neither you nor I actually did any of the things you’re talking about. We may or may not have seen them happen. We may or may not have agreed with them when they did. We may or may not have voted for or supported the people who did do these things. But we didn’t do any of these things.
I know you know this. I know that your rhetoric is intended to do no more than make a point about the politics and policies of the American government. And you have good points. But I think you also know that choosing to phrase things the way you do is going to rub some people the wrong way.
You present yourself as someone very familiar—perhaps intimately familiar—with both Canada and the US. You have clearly spent lots of time in both places. In that case, you must be aware that the US is anything but homogeneous. You must know how deeply divided this country is about its leadership and its policies. You must have seen the bumper stickers both praising and vilifying the current administration for the war in Iraq. You must have heard many citizens of this country express many of the very concerns you put forward in your posts. Knowing all of these things, how can you be surprised that people will be sensitive when they are called to task for policies with which they not only disagreed but that they actively worked against?
You mentioned the lack of US support for the land mine treaty. While I’ll grant that it’s not a subject that often comes up in common conversation for me, I can honestly say that I’ve never spoken to anyone about it that didn’t support it in some way. Indeed, my entire senior English class in high school submitted essays to a national contest regarding the reasons for banning land mines. Certainly, most people aren’t so active as to write essays or organize meetings on issues like this, but a lot of people at least vote. I voted against Bush in 2000; I intend to vote against him again this year.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you might imagine, this all makes it rather hard for me have empathy for the annoyance young Americans must endure because they get grilled about their country’s foreign policies while on a little holiday abroad. I’m sorry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be an artifact of the medium—the fact that I can’t get your body language or vocal tone through a forum—but I find your apology insincere. I know that my own personal feelings are inconsequential in the larger discussion. I know that the way that I am personally affected by “anti-Americanism” is trivial in comparison to the ways that a people, a nation, can be affected by the apparent cowboy mentality of my government. But I specifically stated that I wasn’t looking for sympathy, merely courtesy. And in my opinion, pointing out your lack of regard for what feelings I may have, trivializing them as “annoyance,” and rationalizing it as trying to tell it straight seems a bit discourteous to me.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not claim the superiority of Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here again, I have a hard time believing this statement. Perhaps it’s just my own insecurity or the fact that I can’t view this discussion through any eyes other than those of an American, but when you phrase things the way you consistently have, I have trouble seeing how you are not trying to imply a certain moral superiority of Canada or Canadians. When you say that apologizing is “doing the Canadian thing,” when you present your country as “ever the nice guys”—especially in contrast to your portrayal of the United States as a selfish, ignorant, imperialistic country—how are you not claiming the superiority of Canada?
I’m not saying that our government doesn’t deserve criticism. I’m not asking anyone to feel sorry for me. I’m not even saying that your criticisms are inaccurate. But you don’t have to look any further than this very thread to see that we are not all the type of people you describe. And, as I said, I know you are aware of that fact. All I’m asking is that everyone keep that in mind when presenting their criticisms. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 3607 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged |
Irami Osei-Frimpong Member Member # 2229
posted August 19, 2004 02:39 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___ Democracy means that if you can't talk people into going with you, you don't get to go. That's why I don't understand this administrations attacks against the world community.
Mister boy, you should reprint this essay, and send it out. It's warm, eloquent, and charmingly written, above being true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 2456 | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged |
PSI Teleport Member Member # 5545
posted August 19, 2004 02:52 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I can't claim to have much knowledge about our relations with Canada, I wanted to comment on this, because it's very close to a conversation I had last night:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I’m afraid that a prejudice has built up against you in which it is assumed that you—as a nation—have come to the point where you feel you don’t need to bother understanding or taking the rest of us into account. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From my point of view, this seems pretty true. However, I feel that, as individuals, we are getting much, much better at this. I'm hoping that it will soon apply to America as a society as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 3244 | Registered: Aug 2003 | IP: Logged |
ClaudiaTherese Member Member # 923
posted August 19, 2004 02:53 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (mister boy, meet one of my favorite people in the world. This is Irami. I've told you about him. ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6692 | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged |
saxon75 Member Member # 4589
posted August 19, 2004 02:56 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What exactly do you mean by "pissing match"? My understanding of that phrase is a contest in which two people--typically male--each constantly try to outdo each other for no particular reason. I'm not trying to outdo you. I'm just trying to express my feelings. My current feelings are confusion at why you would distrust the motives behind or sincerity of anything I've said, irritation bordering on anger at being dismissed so casually, and insecurity over whether or not I and the things I say are actually a waste of time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 3607 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged |
saxon75 Member Member # 4589
posted August 19, 2004 03:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, you being personally rude to me is in some way equivalent to my government's policies toward yours? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 3607 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged |
mister boy Member Member # 6761
posted August 19, 2004 03:05 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mister boy, you should reprint this essay, and send it out. It's warm, eloquent, and charmingly written, above being true. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. Good to meet you. My significant other speaks of you often with high regard.
Feel free to disseminate the essay as you see fit. The same goes for anyone so inclined. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
posted August 19, 2004 03:11 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Experiential learning is painful sometimes. Next time you wonder why non-Americans have such complex attitudes toward Americans and their government, remember that feeling. It might give you some insights into some world crises. The rest of us are pretty used to it by now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
mister boy Member Member # 6761
posted August 19, 2004 03:14 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo - Please feel free to reprint as you find useful. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
saxon75 Member Member # 4589
posted August 19, 2004 03:15 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you just experienced a brief moment outside the American brain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, the rest of the things you've said that I've found rude I could write off as rhetoric, but I think that was pretty exceptional right there. Not only are you implying that I am generally insensitive, selfish, egocentric, and lacking in empathy, but you are by extension implying that that is the general rule for Americans. Seriously, if I am misunderstanding you, please clarify. If I am not misunderstanding you, could you at least tell me why you've come to this conclusion about me? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 3607 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged |
saxon75 Member Member # 4589
posted August 19, 2004 03:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think I need to back off of this thread. I'm actually a little surprised at how upset I am right now, and I don't see what good could possibly come from me continuing to participate in it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 3607 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged |
Noemon Member Member # 1115
posted August 19, 2004 03:19 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, just to clarify, the increasingly rude and dismissive tone that you've taken with Mike was consciously intended as an object lesson? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 5133 | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged |
ClaudiaTherese Member Member # 923
posted August 19, 2004 03:21 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (David, for clarity: saxon75 is "Mike," and "Storm Saxon" is someone else altogether.)
posted August 19, 2004 03:23 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the very real feelings you are now experiencing is what African-Americans often experience in the US, what Palestians experience in dealing with Israel and the US, and what many Canadians feeling in trying to deal with many Americans (including those in your government) for pretty much the same reasons. Did you personally deserve it? Probably not. Neither do they. Life's hard. You can choose to get some insight from this and share it with other Americans, or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
mister boy Member Member # 6761
posted August 19, 2004 03:27 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, just to clarify, the increasingly rude and dismissive tone that you've taken with Mike was consciously intended as an object lesson? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was it my intention? No. But I recognized the very important object lesson to be had. And it was.
[ August 19, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: mister boy ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
Bob the Lawyer Member Member # 3278
posted August 19, 2004 03:29 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder, Mr. Boy, why you continue to assert that Canadians like Americans. Certainly all our policians seem to realize that nobody ever lost ground for "sticking it" to America. Granted the NDP goes too far with it, but the level of integration between the two countries that Mr. Harper proposed hurt his party in the last election.
Rather, it seems to me that we're at the crossroads of trying to decide whether or not we want to take the plunge and strengthen ties with the US or continue to distance ourselves from them. I suppose being at a crossroad isn't mutually exclusive from liking them but I would say the attitude is more akin to the exasperation of someone living in their older sibling's shadow. There's love there, but it's not the primary emotion the kid is feeling right now (at least when not in times of crisis). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 2164 | Registered: Apr 2002 | IP: Logged |
mr_porteiro_head Member Member # 4644
posted August 19, 2004 03:29 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like the other small, non-nuclear nations, we must ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada is the biggest small country I've ever seen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 2619 | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged |
Dagonee Member Member # 5818
posted August 19, 2004 03:30 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- irritation bordering on anger at being dismissed so casually, and insecurity over whether or not I and the things I say are actually a waste of time --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I can say this isn't a new feeling for a LOT of Americans when dealing with people from other countries, especially our friends.
I don't see that as a knock on those people, because it's probably not a new feeling for anyone who has interacted with other members of the human race before. Nor is it a feeling that anyone who has interacted with others hasn't generated at some point or another. It's still pretty rude to purposely try to create such a feeling, and gives lie to the argument that somehow the U.S. is the world's champion at doing so.
posted August 19, 2004 03:33 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a very important object lesson to be had here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm trying to establish is whether it was your intention to deliver this object lesson, or if this is something that you're applying after the fact to excuse your snarkiness. I don't know you well enough to be able to judge that yet. The fact that you're married to CT suggests the former, of course, but I haven't quite made up my mind what I'm witnessing here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 5133 | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged |
Noemon Member Member # 1115
posted August 19, 2004 03:35 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, just saw your edit. That's too bad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 5133 | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged |
dkw Member Member # 3264
posted August 19, 2004 03:38 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm. I was assuming the object lesson was that the feeling of “irritation bordering on anger at being dismissed so casually, and insecurity over whether or not I and the things I say are actually a waste of time” is not depended on whether the other person actually intended to be rude or dismissive or even thought/thinks that they are being so.
As in, mb doesn’t think he’s being snarky or dismissive, but Mike interprets it that way. Americans often don’t think we’re being rude or dismissive, but people in other countries interpret it that way.
But that’s just how I interpreted it, so I could be very wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 4441 | Registered: Apr 2002 | IP: Logged |
punwit Member Member # 6388
posted August 19, 2004 03:39 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also find comparing a nation's policies and it's political stance in relation to other world entities with a personal interaction between two individuals a bit like comparing apples and oranges. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 707 | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged |
Dagonee Member Member # 5818
posted August 19, 2004 03:41 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So isn't the real lesson that everyone makes others feel that way without intending to?
And if so, why is this an American-specific object lesson?
posted August 19, 2004 03:41 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- grin, mister boy may have lived hatrack vicariously but he's still a newbie himself. What newbie doesn't step on a few toes with their passion? Now the problem is that I know both CT and saxon75 personally, which has erased the emotional distance I'm normally able to keep from these things and I'm sad that saxon75 is hurt and understand why he is at the same time.
Might I suggest you participate in more fluff threads Mister Boy? Until you see a serious thread degenerate into utter fluff you really won't understand hatrack.
AJ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6652 | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged |
mister boy Member Member # 6761
posted August 19, 2004 03:42 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I can say this isn't a new feeling for a LOT of Americans when dealing with people from other countries, especially our friends. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you will appreciate how the groups I mentioned feel. I didn't deliberately try to create those feelings, and I'm not responsible for them. We're adults. The more important question is how does understanding this feeling of powerlessness in others help deal with the serious problems we face out there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
BannaOj Member Member # 3206
posted August 19, 2004 03:44 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you won't even apologize for unintentionally hurting feelings?
Not even an "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings I really didn't mean to?"
That's rather rude and crummy of you. How American.
AJ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6652 | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged |
ClaudiaTherese Member Member # 923
posted August 19, 2004 03:46 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I feel very odd at stepping in here, but I feel I should say something.
This is probably one of the most thorny personal issues for David (mb). For a Canadian in the US, especially at this time, I think it's like trying to keep your feet in a riptide.
Hatrack, on the other hand, is a place where we tend to think of ourselves as engaging in intelligent but not ungloved discussions. Frank, forthright, but among friends. I'm pretty sure David doesn't have that sense of being among friends yet. That never comes right away. And as you've said, Noemon, those who stay tend to moderate their individual tone (not content, mind you, but tone) to fit the gestalt of the place.
Still, David, I understand what you are saying. I myself wouldn't dream of censoring you (I couldn't, and I like you undiluted, anyway ). You might catch more flies with honey than vinegar, though -- but you already know than, and maybe you aren't after catching flies, anyway. It is -- of course -- entirely up to you.
I still remember how you gentled the blows in our initial discussions about the US, though. You had a cats'-paw touch when needed. And I was pretty upset, especially when we got to the discussion about fresh water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 6692 | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged |
Dagonee Member Member # 5818
posted August 19, 2004 03:47 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you just experienced a brief moment outside the American brain. Welcome to our world, Saxon. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the statement I don't understand. It's not unique for Americans to make others feel this way. It's not unique for others to make Americans feel this way. It's not unique for Americans to make Americans feel this way. And it's not unique for others to make others feel this way.
So why was saxon's experiencing this supposed to make him step outside his "American brain?" Why welcome him to your world, clearly implying that it is a non-American experience to feel this way?
posted August 19, 2004 03:48 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mister boy, Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but how do you know that saxon isn't African-American, or maybe just half-Japanese? To put it more storngly, what makes you think you know enough about him (or me or anyone else here) to be able to decide that they need this lesson that you're so heavy-handedly passing out?
See, because here's the thing. You're acting like an immature jerk. I'm reasonably sure that everyone here has dealt with immature jerk at one time or another in their life. We've had them pop up from time to time on this very board. Oftentimes, they've been banned, because they broke the user's agreement just as you are now breaking the user's agreement.
To be honest, I don't know why you want to act like a jerk here. I don't much care. You want to and you've decided you've come up for a reason why you should be able to do so. Your reason is irrelevant. It is not acceptable behavior, either for respectful discussion or by the rules of this site.
When I was young, my mother told me a couple of things that I think are relevant here. First, she told me that other people's bad behavior never justify my own bad behavior. If I am responsible, I'm responsible no matter what provocation I have. Second, she taught me not to play with people who act like you are. So yeah, I'm not playing anymore if that's the way you want to play. I suggest others do the same.
posted August 19, 2004 03:53 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As in, mb doesn’t think he’s being snarky or dismissive, but Mike interprets it that way. Americans often don’t think we’re being rude or dismissive, but people in other countries interpret it that way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right. And it is an object lesson that applies to non-Americans as well, but one I think Americans need to learn the most given the power structure of the world today. Those feelings help explain the situation in the middle east. Do they need to taken into account? I'd say so. Are they? No.
Are citizens and their governements apples and oranges? Good question. I suspect the two blend into one another. In the end, like or not, citizens are responsible for their governments in a democracy. Who else would be?
Works calls. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2004 | IP: Logged |
BannaOj Member Member # 3206
posted August 19, 2004 03:56 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *gently*
May I also add that I think the reason CT likes us, is because for the most part this forum ISN'T like everywhere else.
I agree with a lot of what you say mister boy, as have many other people on this thread.
But here at hatrack, how you say something is often just as important as what you say. It's part of what makes this place special.
AJ
In other words perhaps you should know your audience a litte better before you try to administer object lessons that You think we need? (For example: Are you aware another Canadian has even posted to this thread and do you know who it is?)
posted
It's also possible he didn't know deleting the first post deletes the thread - this seems likely if he was deleting individual posts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad you had that, AJ. Hmmm. It's hard to be a newbie, particularly when one jumps directly into big debates. Too much potential for hurt on all sides.
posted
Man, I'm really sorry that he deleted the thread. I have often wondered about the very issues that he brought up (and I've often thought that if I get too annoyed with America, I'm moving to Canada).
(By the way, whose husband is mister boy? I remember that he is the husband of one of the prominant jatraqueras, but I can't remember which one)
posted
lusti it should be obvious who he's married to if you plow through all of the long post above. I should probably format it better but I was more worried about preserving what I had before I lost it.
posted
That's what I'd been thinking (that he was CT's husband, but I wasn't certain and I have a headache, so after about half-way through reading what had transpired on the thead, I had to quit).
posted
Mister Boy is indeed CT's husband, and I hope he sticks around while at the same time being opposed in general to thread-deletion.
Oh, and to explain myself just a bit, in the deleted thread I said, "I'm not at all sorry," or something like that. That came off as snarky, and it was intended that way, at least a bit. Included in that, though, was a point I didn't state: that I don't think it's productive to keep apologizing for sincerely held beliefs, nor do I think it's productive to apologize for someone else being offended.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tick, I read that was "So that's what's going on in the out of context thread." This made me very afraid.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Well I debated about posting it or not, once I realized I had most of it still in my short term memory.
It could be by reposting it that I ticked him off even worse. I would have reposted it if it had been a perfect stranger. I had more of a quandary because it is CT's husband and I'd like him to stay. But people should be held responsible for their actions and words, regardless of who they are.
posted
Sincerely held beliefs and how someone reacts to them.
That's fine and in most, if not all instances, I don't care if you're offended about my belief system and I'm not overly upset if you are upset at my belief system.
That being said, I think one can discuss sensitive issues without offending the parties involved.
I refer you to the "Religious haircut" thread and Rivka's response to poorly chosen words.
posted
This is why groups of people who know each other personally should not post on the same internet forum.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, incidentally it occurred to me that MB might not have know what deleting his post would do to the thread. I can't say what his experience is with forums like this.
Twink, your philosophy would sharply decrease the population of the `Rack Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously I have no idea why the thread was deleted. Perhaps he felt that he was . It's possible that I may further his irritation by pointing out that he chastised Saxon75 for copping out. If the deletion was intentional I find his earlier comments ironic.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The problem arises when you have existing social groups trying to integrate into a larger social group like Hatrack. For instance, I know BtL personally, he's a very good friend of mine. But he is the only other jatraquero who I knew before he started posting here. Now I've met a few, but this causes no problems because I got to know them here first.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
After all, according to him you would be acting like just another American....
I didn't feel too offended by his first post, but it got more offending the further I read into it. It seemed to me that he was trying to be accomidating (he apoligized a lot..)to some of our sensibilities but still get his views across, and while I didn't always agree with what he was saying I found it interesting.
I know things got more personal, even though a lot of posts seem to be deleted.
If you care, mister boy, I would recommend not doing that again, as it sets off all sorts of alarms to us here. It's what trolls do, although you aren't one yourself. So people here tend to be more touchy and on the defensive when you do that...most of the time it's better to leave it as it came about, even of there was some contraversy.
And that is what you were trying to do, right? Be contreversial, and stir up discurrion? Why else would you even want to start this type of topic? You had to know that there would be some bent feelings, at least at first....
I would love to discuss this more with you, as long as you can hear me all the way up there on your soapbox....
One way or another, welcome. Kwea
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
elaine ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
