posted
My NPR station just played a broadcast of this address, given this May in New York at a function for the Center for Economic and Social Rights, and apparently the broadcast was by Alternative Radio. I found a transcript of the speech here. (scroll down) It's long, but worth reading.
As I was listening to the speech, my Mom stopped in to the Gallery and said "Oh - are you listening to this? Isn't it sad?"
I'm trying to figure out why she would have called it sad. I really liked Roy's perspective, and she made some good points, though her presentation was definitively slanted. (Perhaps this is why Mom found it sad - because she referred to GWB as "Bush the Lesser.)
I thought I'd see if any of you have read/heard this speech or are familiar with Roy's writings and get your opinion on her ideas.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hardest part for me is that I really agree with a lot of the Arundhati Roys and Noam Chomskys out there, but I find little in common with many of the social liberal philosophies that most groups saying anything against the current administration adhere to.
I'm not going to lambast Republicans for being religious idiots, because I myself am a religious idiot. But that's my predicament - I find a lot of my recent political beliefs and my utter abhorrence of the war in Iraq to be rooted in my religious convictions. Most of my recent research in school has been on social issues in Europe, and I'm really convinced of a lot of the doctrines espoused by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a declaration that the United States failed to ratify). For me, my Christianity is what convinces me of the wrongness of so many things in the Bush administration's policies, but it's the Christian majority that I'm arguing against and my allies on one front are my enemies on another.
It's all quite frustrating, and I'm having a really hard time deciding where I can turn to do the best work. I appreciate sources that are saying the kinds of things that Roy is saying without all of the inflammatory rhetoric that comes up in politics.
On that note, today I had to drop off some art at the local Catholic mission. On the doors of the church and its offices, they had a sign printed that said "Absolutely no politics are to be discussed on this premisis." Recently in my own church services, a letter was read from the President and Quorum of the 12 Apostles, the heads of the Church worldwide, re-stating the Church's official policy of political neutrality. It stated quite pointedly that church facilities and directories were not to be used for any political purposes, nor any affiliations with the church proclaimed. I was so relieved to hear this read. When I was young, I was aware of the church's policy, but assumed it was just polite lipservice to cover the church's obvious Republican affiliation. The more I think about this, the more I realize that I got that impression from a very small number of my parents' associates who would talk politics and talk church as if it were the same. Never can I recall having heard those types of things preached in any official church function.
I may not know who I stand for politically, but I do know that at least my religion allows me to make that choice and I've lost the guilty burden of listening to liberal media that was entirely a figment of my familial philosophy.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm trying to figure out why she would have called it sad."
Well, you DID say earlier that she was dying of being a Republican (or something to that effect *grin*), so I'd imagine that any criticism of the administration's effort in Iraq -- which is, for many Republicans, as much a religion as any belief they might have about God -- strikes her as not only sacriligious but, from the mouth of an Iraqi, deluded and ungrateful.
(Edit: and, of course, it's passionate and paranoid rhetoric, basically inciting the American people and citizens of countries abroad to topple our institutions in a Marxist blow for freedom. I'm not exactly a conservative, but she's waaaay left of me.)
posted
Yeah, yeah. Pick on the guy who only skimmed the ridiculously long speech, why don'cha? Of course, I should probably have read the intro more closely. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, Your words tear at my heart strings. I've been teaching the Book of Mormon this year and in every single lesson their are strong statements about caring for the poor, peace, and humility. I teach these lessons that my IWW friends would be proud of and all the LDS people nodded their heads Amen.
Then they go out and put BUSH signs on their lawns and bumper stickers on their cars. I simply can't understand my own people anymore.
Are you still in Bozeman? We need to meet up next time I'm there. I had hoped to come up this weekend but now it looks like we won't make it up until October (moan).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I find her message sad because I once believed that my country stood for liberty and justice for all peoples, because I believed we lived by a higher standard, because I believed we gave more than lip service to human rights. I have known for years that we had not always lived up to those ideal so elequently articulated by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Elenor Roosevelt and others, but until this past 4 years, I thought we were at least trying.
I remember the forth of July for years ago. After the fireworks at Sugarhouse park, they flew a huge American flag waving horizontal to the ground and lit by spot lights. It brought tears to my eyes and a stood in gratitude for my country. Now thanks to Bush, I feel only anger and betrayal when I see the American flag, and I find that heart renching. They have stolen my country, my home from me.
I doubt that your mother find's Roy's words sad for the same reasons. Perhaps she finds it sad that others believe these words even if she does not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, good to hear from you I'm still disgustingly jealous of your Tour de France. I'm home for the summer now, but will be back in Bozeman when school starts.
And I have had so many enlightening moments in Gospel Doctrine too this year! I was teaching in my student ward before I came home for the summer. So many times I wondered why there was so much on war included - why was that so important in a spiritual record? But it's all there for us, today, and it's never been more evident to me than now.
quote:Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you and come out in judgment against the Lamanites, when it is the tradition of their fathers that has caused their hatred, yea, and it has been redoubled by those who have dissented from us, while your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world? (Alma 60:32)
How can we call Muslim terrorists the ultimate evil in the world when they've been raised in an environment of limited freedom and limited information? How much more evil are those who know exactly what's right and wrong (like the apostate Nephites) and still defy the Geneva convention?
---
quote:In some areas we've hit the ball out of the park, but in others, we're still in the dugout (chewing tobaccy and scratching our collective crotch).
CT.... can I be you when I grow up? Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think that the reason your mother thought the speech was “sad” was that she couldn’t get past the invective and rhetoric. I think you can probably relate, based on the reaction that Hatrack has to trolls who show up and use the most inflammatory language possible just to make everyone angry.
For example:
quote:All of it is based on insinuation, auto-suggestion, and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "Free Press," that hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests.
Couldn’t it be possible that the general public isn’t interested in getting better information than they can get from the tabloid headline or the talk around the water cooler? Nope. The only possible reason is lack of journalistic integrity.
Or possibly your mother was put off by the Roy’s taking quotes out of context to make the speaker look bad:
quote:U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recently declared that U.S. freedoms are "not the grant of any government or document, but….our endowment from God." (Why bother with the United Nations when God himself is on hand?)
This quote is taken from this speech: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2002/021902religiousbroadcasters.htm given at National Religious Broadcasters Convention Nashville, Tennessee, February 19, 2002. Ashcroft was attempting to point out that the reason our nation is based on
quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
is because it is morally correct…regardless of your professed faith. I think that you would readily agree, but the way the phrase is turned by Roy you’re “converted” into believing Ashcroft is states that the US is based on religious fundamentalism.
Is there nothing in Roy’s speech that is correct or worth paying attention to? Of course there are reasonable positions! However, do you really expect everyone, regardless of their political starting point, to wade through all of the insults and exaggerations to pick out the wheat from the chaff? I don’t think so.
Or put another way: “Isn’t it sad that Ms. Roy thinks that she can get through to me using such obviously slanted, defamatory histrionics?” Perhaps this is what your mother was saying?
I personally would love to discuss many of Roy's positions about what is wrong with US foreign and domestic policies. Maybe you could take a couple of Roy’s arguments that you think are reasonable, re-phrase them so that they aren’t insulting or demeaning, and start up a thread about them. I bet you’d get plenty of constructive response from all political perspectives.
I think that when you live in a society that includes a lot of religious discussion you have to be careful not to be put of by people that use "religious jargon" in a setting where it was appropriate. In the case we're looking at it is a speech to religious journalists and Ashcroft resorts to lines such as "the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator." My take is that I have to set aside my distaste for the language and look for the broad meaning. For example if I substitute "creator" with "moral foundation" I can get more from lines like "we will defend civilization. And yes, we will preserve the rule of law because it is that which makes us civilized," and "our freedom is not license to behave in anyway we choose. It is the ability to make choices with the understanding that what we choose has real consequences. We may be free to choose to act for good or for evil, but our's is not a freedom from consequence."
Now you and I both know that in this speech Ashcroft may very well have been speaking from the heart and meant everything literally. But when he is representing our government I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, since he is supposed to abide by separating his religion from his governing.
Please don't take my previous post as an attack on Annie or those of us that agree with Roy's positions. I'm more annoyed with presentation than anything else.
It is frustrating. The principle they're using is "speak to the heart of the audience". However, there is a limit. As you said
quote:just not as if he did not also speak for and uphold the good citizens which are not religious.
(almost too many negatives for me to figure it out )
Back to the rhetoric argument, though. All sorts of people use all sorts of jargon that can be take the wrong way--Roy's speech notwithstanding. The trick is to be civilized about trying to understand them, and perhaps be a little forgiving of their idiosyncracies. (I take your point about making official statements and that less lattitude should be allowed.)
posted
"I think that when you live in a society that includes a lot of religious discussion you have to be careful not to be put off by people that use 'religious jargon' in a setting where it was appropriate...."
Either the jargon is sincere, in which case it's downright threatening, or it's insincere pandering. Which is better?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either the jargon is sincere, in which case it's downright threatening, or it's insincere pandering. Which is better?
There are times when someone using religious terms can say exactly the same thing as someone using non-religious terms. Remember ak's thread about wanting to go to Iraq? One of the comments was something like "why not stay at home and provide your labor to your closer community" and an answer was "follow your own counsel, there are many things that motivate and only you know what you want to do"?
Then it turned into "Each to his or her own calling".
(lots of poetic license for paraphrasing).
So I think that "follow your calling" is sincere, but not threatening. Do you disagree?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit-- do you think that those students of yours have a scriptural basis for their support of the war in Iraq?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how I got into the business of defending John Ashcroft. My intent was to defend a generic person using jargon that could be offensive by its mere use.
That said, with the following definitions:
Smarmy: Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous
Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness.
I'll give you complacently or effusively earnest; and exaggerated (but not necessarily insincere) earnestness.
I still think that in this case, the point that is being made is that as a nation, regardless of religions, "We hold these truths to be selfevident"
p.s. Why aren't you attacking the conpiracy of the "free press"! Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
The love of distinction is old. I think it started with the first foot race, and now we've formed it into an very good economic system. The Olympics this month are built on this love of distinction from our peers, even in democracy, someone comes out ahead. I only see a problem when the love of distinction stops being between peers. That's why steroids, tyranny, monopolies, or party machines destroy the relationship. _____________________ It's manifest in the 100 bests lists that come out every year, and the queerest thing about it is that it's almost egalitarian because you get your distinction coming from the assumption that everyone began equal.
Americans may take this love of distinction too far, becoming evangalistic because we want more people to be in the league, thereby making our distinction even more manifest.
The difference between this love of distinction, which is old and not at all bad, and a healthy exceptionalism is clear I think. Distinction occurs under the law, exceptionalism is not bound. Distinction is mastery of a craft while exceptionalism is a bully. Distinction happens within a brethen, exceptionalism is singular. Virtuous distinction happens within a construct, legal or moral, exceptionalism opens itself up to violence. In Of Mice and Men, Lenny was exceptional. Billy Budd was exceptional. Ghandi and Mother Teresa are distinct. Achilles is exceptional, Hector is distinct.
posted
America is exceptional, both in its situation and its character. That's a large part of our problem.
Our natural endowments are enormous. Because of this and because of our geographical isolation, our development as a nation was less constrained by other countries than possibly any other country in the world. Once we kicked out the English and more or less wiped out the Indians, we were left with vast stretches of open, resource rich land that was ours to do with as we liked. In most places, a frontier was a border between Us and Them, a place to fear and protect. In developing America, the frontier was something you crossed looking for freedom, opportunity, and new things.
Our intellectual heritage and the make up of our settlers made us almost uniquely suited to this frontier. Individualism is perhaps the central trait of the American character. We are so far to one side of the individualism/collectivism axis that we almost define the extreme. The Greeks, our intellectual forebearers, invented a description of nature as being the world with humans removed. Americans could be said to have defined the world as everything that is with the individual self taken out.
If we view being an individual versus being a part of a group as being opposing situations, Americans (especially historically) were those who practically fled the established groups for being an individual. We were settled by immigrants and criminals, by people who passionately believed in new philosophies and religions, by those who didn't fit into the old order. Ours was the first country were the idea of individudal rights really got expressed.
To rely on the self, to be an individual, we invested our ideal of the self with certain qualities. The self must first of all be powerful, able to effect changes on the outside world. As part of this, the self must be, as I said, separate from this outside world. It must be central to a person's existence and it must be the stable point.
Armed with this philosophy of the individual, America's tackled the New World with a pragmatism, fervor, and, above all, optimism that reshaped not just this land, but the world in general. The American was not just willing to go it alone, they were almost eager to do so. You can see great contrast between this attitude and the character of the Canadian expansion, which was largely a matter of sound, conservative decisions by central bodies to send out exploratory expeditions which were then followed by judicious settlements. In contrast, America's treatment of the frontier comes about as close to sustained anarchy as just about anything in history.
Individualism gives amazing benefits and opportunites, but it carries some pretty big weaknesses too. The same focus on the self that makes so much new things possible also cuts a person off from others. When one's own wishes and ways of thinking are paramount, the entire outside world takes on the character of the border between not Us and Them, but rather Me and Them. Relationships take on a immediate focus as opposed to a more long-term contextual one. Others come to be seen as objects, to be used and manipulated for your own ends much like any other part of the outside world.
The stability and strength that comes from relying on others, on connectedness to the current social world and to the well of history becomes something that a person can't accept, at least consciously. As power and stability are the hallmarks of a "good" self, it beomces important not to admit weakness or a need to change. Situations that suggests this are met with primarily with aggressiveness, of the established pattern of the self exercising power over the outside world, rather than changing and growing to accomodate the outside world. Also, because of this need for feelings of power and stablity, a great importance is put on comfort of the self.
Consider one of the major advances Americans contributed to industry: assembly line mass production. Henry Ford, fueled by his extreme paranoia and disconnect from thoer people, worked out a system to turn people into interchangable, replaceable objexts. Motivation in this system was seen stricly in the simplistic reward/punishment structures that, not coincidentaly, were the central tenets of the Behaviorist school, America's main contribution to the field of psychology.
Taking it from another direction, optimism is a very strong determiner of success. When people try to do something, believing that they are going to successful is very important. Going into something fully committed to doing it, without anxiety, has proven its worth countless time. However, there's a big difference betweem optimism while acting and optimism in contemplation. If you're try to do something and are committed to doing it, unreservedly giving your all is your best chance of success. But, when you're considering options of things to do and ways to go about it, it's important to consider the ways something can go wrong. While optimism still plays an important role, throwing yourself unreservedly into believing in a course of action is a good recipe for disaster. Likewise, while believing that how much effort you put out is the determiner of success when engaged in doing something is very important, when looking back, it's important to acknowledge the role that beneficial situational factors played.
All of these negative tendencies were, for most of American history, ameliorated by the intense challenges presented by the world people lived in. To be a true individual with all the weakness I suggested was to commit a sort of suicide. The external harshness of things drove people together, presented them with situations where the best way to maintain stability was to admit that they needed to change and where people realized that valuing comfort today meant tons of pain come tommorow. Relying on blind optimism without planning would leave you like the Donner party, stuck on some mountain analog without the resources you needed.
The important thing to realize about this is that, in general, people were driven to these anti-individualistic things by the realities of external world imposing on them. Many times, people through experience came to see them as valuable in their own right, but always there was still this ideological opposition.
Remove these external restraints and the American character becomes much more free to express its underlying weaknesses along with its strengths. I maintain, however, that Americans are, in general, not imperial. We aren't generally all that interested in power over other people, per se. We're individualists; we care about ourselves. What we really want is to be undisturbed. We want to have a completely comfortable life and be able to view ourselves as the best and the strongest people in the world. Americans don't support hurting other people because we can. This always has to be justified as being defending ourselves. We don't revel in our empire. We deny that it exists, or justify it as the best that people can hope for. We're not evil, we're just apathetic. We just want to be left alone in our dream of American exceptionalism where we get to do whatever we want without restriction. If we could do that without hurting the rest of the world, we totally would.
posted
Scott, How about this, TO SUM UP: Americans aren't imperialists. We're people who have built an empire because it serves our other purposes. These purposes, the empire we've built to serve them, and the way we built and now maintain that empire are an expression of our underyling philosophy, one of the major pieces of which is our extreme individualism. There's a lot to be said about this extreme individualism, especially in challenge rich environments, but there's also many bad things about it. In the past, external constaints limited the expression bad things and emphasized the benefits of the strengths, but in the relatively unconstrained situation America finds itself in, the weaknesses are increasingly being brought to the fore.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the time I really want to invest in this discussion, but I really wanted to respond to the first point Tom made that I really think is important, and that is how politicians talk to religious audiences.
It seems in the Bush administration there are two presentations - the general secular face and the religious (read: protesant Christian) face.
When Ashcroft spoke to the church group, to me it smacked of artificial chumminess. It was as if he said "well, of course we can't say this to everyone, but since you all are so enlightened, we'll base this on Biblical arguments."
Oh - I'm so glad you let us in on the real story since we've got the proper theological background.
Except it's not about that at all - we're being pandered to and our faith being exploited. That's what makes me the angriest. The fact that the Bush campaign requested church directories for campaigning would have been enough for me to erase my name from the Republican rolls. Don't pretend that this is a religious issue. This is a secular country and you have no right to be appealing to Christianity to back up your political stances.
I say nothing of personal convictions; I think it's important that our leaders rely on personal convictions as a moral guide. The sincerity of their religious affiliations (and this applies to both Bush and Kerry), though I'm far from qualified to comment on it, seems to me to be something affected as a political tool.
Once I got a call from some sort of survey asking me to sign a petition on decency in Hollywood. The saleslady (because that's exactly what she acted like) explained to me how this would be a statement from the Christians of the nation who felt that decency standards were contrary to Biblical beliefs, etc. etc. She then asked me for 10 phone numbers of friends that I'd like to refer to sign the petition as well. She said "just get out your church directory, I only need 10 names." It was at this point that I got angry. I told her that the mainstream Christian groups I'd had experience with often told me that I wasn't Christian because LDS doctrine was different than mainstream protestant. I told her that to ask me for phone numbers so a Christian organization could exploit LDS people who they didn't even consider part of their religion was arrogant and rude. I also told her that our church had a strict policy of political neutrality that I would not violate.
This is how I feel now. Any politician who tries to appeal to me based on religion is not only arrogant and patronizing, but if he's truly religious himself, quite sacrilegious and prideful.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't trying to attribute rugged individualism solely to America. I was more trying to show ohw America largely developed an ideology of solely individualism, in large part in response to situational factors. The community-oriented individualism of Canada gives a good contrast to the American model. So to does the non-stick up the ass style of the Australians strongly contrast the positivistic, power-oriented aspects of the Americans.
Seymour Lipset, who I took most of my stuff on frontiers, explored this issue a bunch. Here's an interview he gave about it.
I am talking in broad sweeps here, no doubt. Also, something that maybe I didn't make clear was that I;m taling about guiding ideologies and not necessarily reality. I don't necessarily agree with more tribalism in America, either in the increased amount over other places or that it's an Us vs. Them mentality rather than a Me vs. Them one, but Americans definitely show a large amount of sado-masochistic celebrity worship, in defiance of their supposed individualism. Or, to put it another way, try to prevent an American from voting and he'll fight you to death, but offer to, for a nominal fee, relieve him of the burden of having to vote, and people would line up into the street.
I'm not saying that Americans are necessarily genuinely individualistic (or rather more genuinely individualistic than other places) but that the guiding myths we use and goals we strive towards are more strongly individualistic. This striving is correlated with actual individualism, but there's not a one-to-one correspondence.
In fact, I'd argue that things like the disputed tribalism and the celebrity worship are consequences of American individualism in that it discourages secure reliance on social interconnectedness, thus depriving people of a useful method of coping with threat and leading towards less mature methods. The anti-individualistic components of American society are of a neccessity unconscious, or at the very least marginalized.
As I said, I think that when people accuse Americans of being imperialistic, they are misreading the American character. They are accusing Americans of having an active desire to subjgate other people. My contention is that this push for empire is a second order motivation in service of the more central drive to extreme individualism. Most Americans find no basis in the charge of imperialism because its not a part of their active conscious. The average American feels what could be called imperial impulses only in response to perceived threats, not as an end in themselves. Instead, I'd say that, if anything, most Americans feel consciously that they are against empires.
A more effective criticism would be towards the reality of the American empire and not the supposed desire towards it. The motivational claim is easily dismissed, but if each time an American went to buy a pair of Nike's, they had a mental image of 6 year olds in a sweatshop, there's be significant change in America's behavior. Right now, we work very hard so that we don't have to think about the consequences (like the child-labor sweatshops) of our lifestyle. I think that breaking this willful blindness (along with realigning America's guiding mythologies) is the best chance people have towards reigning in American imperialism.
posted
Would you say that 'zed' is like a lumberjack?
Striding through the forests of British Columbia with his best girl by his side, and they'd sing. . . sing. . . sing!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mister Boy (Do you prefer that, or David? I ask since we've heard the name so often ),
quote:In any case, my suspicion is that these traits of "rugged individualism" so often attributed solely to the American character are really just a construction of US popular culture and mythology.
It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, it's just that I think the things you're saying can be attributed to humanity in general, not America in particular-much like the better traits Americans claim for themselves.
quote:Americans love a great story, especially one about themselves (where else could Hollywood have arisen with its fantasies like the classic 'western').
Who doesn't like a great story, especially about themselves? I can't think of a nation on Earth that lacks that enjoyment, but I can think of many-most-that lack Hollywood's means and skill to put it to the screen.
quote:For example, I find Americans to distinctly more tribal than other Euro-based societies, especially when confronted with threatening situations.
It's possible, I suppose-certainly 'tribalism' is on the decline in Europe now, after two World Wars. But I would also attribute part of that decline to the need to band together simply to compete with America and-eventually-China and Russia and other nations. Win together or lose seperately, after all. Also, there is still quite a large amount of tribalism, so to speak, in Europe today. The hue and cry about increasing admission to the EU, for one, or the recent anti-immigration French candidate for another.
quote:Crises seem to elicit an immediate emotional public ritual of declaring us-them oppositions in terms of good and evil, and the moral need to take vengence on individuals challenging or straying from the flock.
This I'll agree with, it's always happened but lately the rhetoric has changed into terms of good vs. evil. Largely due to our mass media and partisanship, I think. I also think other nations exhibit similar tendancies, but again lack the means to show them to the world and have the world be interested.
Edit:
quote:Rather, their acceptance of the exceptionalism mythology leaves them rather uncritical keepers of the American system of influence over other nations.
I'll definitely agree with that. I can't describe how aggravating it is for me as an American who is aware that I do not share the honor of past Americans simply by fortune of birth to hear current Americans brag and take pride in being American. It's equally silly, to me, as taking pride in belonging to a family or an ethnic group. That's like taking pride in winning the lottery.
Of course...I also can't think of a single nation now that really is very inward-looking and reflective, thoughtful and self-analyzing. And certainly none who have ever been in a position of world power.
posted
mister boy, I find myself liking you a lot. I mean, you know and respect Lipset and you're familiar with the enormous role the Enlightenment played in the development of democracy. I even think you might have read Fromm (have you?). So, from this perspective of growing respect, I'd like to say that that's a load of cultural supremecist BS.
America isn't the bad little brother that is looked down on with good natured condescension. Our number one export is entertainment. Also pretty high up on that list are our fashion products, such as clothing. People don't watch our television shows and movies and listen to our music and buy our clothes and our jewerly and our cosmetics because they regard us with contemptuous amusement. They do because for all its faults, in the eyes of the world America is cool. People pretty much everywhere want to be or at least be like Americans.
The picture you painted sounds like the effete elitism as typified by the French governments attempt to ban using the Engligh term e-mail. American culture spreads because people want what we've got, not because we've got some sort of stranglehold over what they could choose. Most of our wins are in the marketplace of ideas.
Now, I'd say that at the very least a majority of the culture that America exports is egregious crap. I'm definitely not trying to defend America as a shining beacon of quality that people are drawn to. No, I'm trying to point out that we ship out an enormous amount of crap because people want to buy our crap.
And bringing it back to an early point: e-mail. We gave the world that, along with the internet, computers themselves and countless other inventions and advancements. America's strongest point (besides its geographical isolation and immense natural resources, of course) has always been its ingenuity. The strange thing for me is that the energy and creativity that we habitually bring towards things seem to be linked to the American style of approaching things that I was criticizing before.
The stereotypical image of the average American has a lot of validity to it, no doubt, but if you think that's what America is about or even the main determining factor, I think you're missing something pretty major. America has at least as much to do with it's heights and it does with it's averages. We've got a national crisis of mental obesity to go along with our physical obesity (and for metaphorically mostly the same things), but our olympians of the mind are as world-class as the athletes that you're about to see in Athens.
It's strange that way. Not only are we the country of "let's ban evolution", but we're the country of Microsoft. And, not only are we the country of Microsoft, but we're the country with by far the largest open source community in the world, where people just give stuff away.
edit: I'm extremely proud to be an American. Not because of our power or our wealth (although, I've got to admit that stuff is nice - although the whole living off the suffering of others puts a pretty big fly in the ointment), but because I'm heir to the American tradition that has led to so many good things in this world. I'm also ashamed to be an American, because that same tradition has brought forth some pretty horrible things as well. However, at final inspection, what I most take from America is hope, because, while it permits depths and even encourages mediocrity (heck, in a historical view, mediocrity in a majority of a population is something to shoot for), it also allows and can foster a very high degree of excellence.
posted
Why would you be proud (or ashamed) to be an American or European or any other nationality? It is an accident of birth for the vast majority of people.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The quintessential American is not the Mayflower descedant, but the self-made immigrant.
We call America the land of opportunity, and despite America's flaws, is there another country with a better claim to that title?
quote:Sure lots of people come to America. But that doesn’t make America particular special
I think it does. America is the number one choice of most immigrants looking for a better life for themselves and their children.
I'm an immigrant and I grew up in Southern California among other immigrants from all over the world. I see my childhood friends grow up to become doctors, engineers, business owners, graphics designers, and lawyers.
Maybe that's where American exceptionalism comes from. A nation filled with people who pulled themselves up from their bootstraps is bound to be a bit arrogant.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I know many European countries may have more immigration, but I seem to recall that they also have extraordinarily strict naturalization laws . . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting question, David. Off the top of my head, I'd say that the qualities that impart greatness on a country would include:
High Standard of Living for the country's citizens. This would include such factors as literacy, access to education, adequate nutrition, access to healthcare, freedom of expression and religion, and general happiness, althogh that last one would be pretty difficult to quantify.
The Extension of Professed Values to Interactions With the World Community I don't think I expressed that one very clearly, but what I'm talking about here is essentially treating the world's citizens with dignity--if you wouldn't hold your own citizens without legal representation or trial, don't do it to other country's citizens--that sort of thing.
The Encouragement of a vigorous program ofscientific research and technological innovation in all fields
The Embracing of Ecological Responsibility, recognizing that an acceptable standard of living is impossible without a healthy ecosystem in which to experience it.
The Possession of a Vibrant Program of Space Exploration
I'll think of others later, and maybe refine these--as I said, that's just my first stab at articulating all of this.
posted
The naturalization process is an important one-- I've known too many folks who immigrated to Italy with the expectation of easy naturalization, only to find out that Italy's naturalization laws are practically impossible to navigate.
Without being naturalized (in Italy, for example) you can't hold a job as anything other than a laborer.
1. The rule of law and equal protections of all citizens under that law. 2. Property rights under that law 3. Security of citizens from domestic and international violence 4. National cultural identity 5. Ability to generate new knowledge
(The last couple are "lifted" slightly from John Gray, "Al Queda and What it Means to be Modern"
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an excellent article on the building of American empire in the July/August 04 "Foreign Affairs": "History and the Hyperpower", Eliot Cohen.
I think you can link directly to the article, but the hotel computer I'm using is a bit neanderthal and I can't provide it as yet beyond:
I'll have to get back to you a bit later. Essentially, I think each item in my list is requried in order to be considered a nation, let alone a great nation. I would then rate a nation's greatness based on is ability to provide in those categories. I think that national identity is required for a nation to find its place in the international community of nations.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume this criterion for greatness on the world stage would in turn require a prerequisite criteria that (a) the nation had humanistic professed values and (b) these values were lived by as a rule within the nation in question. No?
Yeah, you're absolutely correct in your thinking here, filling in blanks that I shouldn't have left blank. The Nazis, for example, had as one of their professed values that "inferior" races should be eliminated, and I'm sure, had they won, that they'd have been most interested in seeing to it that this was carried out the world over. Wouldn't have made them great, in my book.
quote:Also, just to be clear, this 'extending' criterion you propose does not include converting other nations to your professed values? Or should a great nation be messianic?
No, of course not. Again, thanks for filling in blanks for me.
quote:My understanding is that there are other countries with a proportionally greater immgrant population than the US, at least in their large cities. Could you please substantiate your claim above? (I've heard it before, so I know that it is bandied about fairly regularly, but I've never seen it substantiated.) Thanks!
A fair question CT. I could not find specific data to back up my claim, but here are some interesting bits of information.
-Michigan has the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East ( NPR); Los Angeles has the largest Korean community outside of Korea ( Encarta Online); Orange County has the largest Vietnamnese community outside of Vietnam ( Northwest Asian Weekly ); and San Francisco has the largest Chinese community outside of Asia ( Tiscali Reference)
-"Miami has the largest foreign-born population of any city in the world -- 59 percent -- followed by Toronto, Los Angeles, Vancouver and New York, according to a U.N. report on Thursday." ( Reuters Article in PDF )
quote:What would you accept as a valid answer to your question? Would you accept data that substantiates greater interclass mobility for immigrants in different country? That is, what are your criteria for defining "The Land of Opportunity" (whichever one it may be), since -- of course -- we intend this to not merely be an empty rhetorical term, but one with some substantial meaning.
My criteria for land of opportunity would be:
1. Interclass mobility for all citizens 2. High standards of living 3. Acceptance of immigrant cultures 4. A strong public education system 5. Guarantee of basic human rights to all, regardless of citizenship
By the way, everything I've said about immigrants applies to Canada, although to a lesser degree.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think you already took enough from us, thank you very much.
I didn't mean to sound condescending (well, not THAT condescending anyway).
Among Asians, the United States and Canada are our top immigration choices. Canada was a close second choice for my family.
So when I compared Canada to the US, I'm just trying to say that many of the things immigrants admire about the United States also apply to Canada.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
