Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

[Magiver]

I've always like this quote.

What does this mean to you?

I'll explain my position after some posts have been made. I believe the responses will fall into 2 categories.

[dinoboy]

How about:
"Quit yer whining and get up off your duff and do something productive for once you lazy good-for-nothin' two-bit bust-out of a slug!".

Or something to that effect.

[dinoboy]

Ok, seriously though, do you mean taken at face value?

I think you've an interesting question here, and out-of-contex I think a watered down version of my first post would substiutet.

Though in context I think Jack was challenging the citizens of our country (U.S.A.) to take responsibility upon themselves and defend freedom in the world. And not just in the military sense necessarily, he advocates negotiations quite a bit prior to that line.

And I agree, It's a good quote (although a more appropriate one today might be his next line: "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man").

[dinoboy]

Aaaahh, I mean - substitute! I get a 'D' in proof-reading today.

[ElvisL1ves]

And today, the mainstream media would report it something along these lines: "President Kennedy made a speech today to a fundraising organization. However, he declined to address the growing controversy over his relationship with actress Marilyn Monroe. The clamor for a full investigation continued as Senator Foghorn Leghorn commented: 'In these times when the need for leadership from the President is most needed, it is most unseemly for him to be tossing out meaningless platitudes in speeches instead of addressing these serious issues.' The botched invasion of Cuba is seen by many as an attempted distraction from the President's woes at home. Back to you, Dan."

Essentially he was appealing to enlightened self-interest - the kind that understands that making the world a better place in general is also good for the individual. That's in contrast to the unenlighted type of self-interest that dominates today, when the world is presented as a dangerous place that must be contained but otherwise is on its own, to hell with them all.

Leadership depends on followership. We see it both then and now.

[Jack Batty]

I think he was saying he was a jelly donut.

Oh wait. Wrong speech.

[John Mace]

To put those words in context, here's the whole speech.

[furt]

Y'know, I did ask that, and the Navy rejected me. I try to pay taxes, but I've never made over 21,000 in my life, so I don't do much of that either. I thought about applying to the CIA or the State department after 9/11, but youthful indiscretions precluded that. Peace corps was a possibility, but, truthfully I'd be a liability in the jungle.

Of course, if they ever need someone willing to strap 50 pounds of C-4 to his ass and jump out of a plane, or live human subjects for anthrax testing or something else I'm qualified for, I stand at the ready.

In the meantime, I'm supose I'm free to leech happily.

[John Mace]

This speech was given at the height of the Cold War. I think JFK was saying that the threat to freedom and democracy in the world was impossible to underestimate:

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it.

He was asking Americans to put aside their petty differences and come together to face the dangers in the world. And he was asking the rest of the world to do the same:

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

[Rashak Mani]

I know when that phrase was first spoken in a speech and not to ruin the surprise I will withold giving away that info right now... Nope it wasnt an American President. Minister "G" prepared it for "H".

[Rashak Mani]

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

This was first spoken by Hitler in a rally (in german naturally) ... its author is Joseph Goebbels the infamous propaganda minister of the Third Reich.

[masonite]

I didn't know that about the authorship, but the sentiment has always rubbed me slightly the wrong way. The State, theoretically, exists to serve me. Kennedy's statement should be put the other way around; I ask what the government can do for me, since it's only there because I (and my countrymen) set it up.

I do not exist to serve the State. The State is merely a necessary evil, one that I gladly support with my taxes, military service (if I were to be called), and obeying the laws. But beyond these things I have no obligations to the State. It was created for me, not me for it.

[Chicago Faucet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves

Essentially he was appealing to enlightened self-interest - the kind that understands that making the world a better place in general is also good for the individual. That's in contrast to the unenlighted type of self-interest that dominates today, when the world is presented as a dangerous place that must be contained but otherwise is on its own, to hell with them all.

Elvis, the world has always been a dangerous place. Today, there are even more opportunities to provide for the general well-being than when Kennedy spoke those words.

I always wondered how the liberals truly felt about their figure head saying such words (eventhough both liberalism and conservatism have evolved since then) about taking responsibility and showing a sense of duty towards the country.

The war on terrorism is a fight to make the world a better place, which is good for the individual who would otherwise be killed in another 9/11 type of terrorist attack sometime in the future.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by Chicago Faucet
The war on terrorism is a fight to make the world a better place, which is good for the individual who would otherwise be killed in another 9/11 type of terrorist attack sometime in the future.

I agree... next step is securing the safety of the state and getting some "lebensraum"... then eliminating your ideological foes.

When is the state actually doing it for everyone... and when is the state doing it for individuals in power ? How to really know that they have your pitiful interest in mind ?

I think as individuals we should be willing to sacrifice a measure of ourselves to the State when it represents the common good... but at the same time we must be vigilant that its in fact the common good that is served. Blind obedience is what sheep do. Patriotism has many facets... not all of them involving bloodshed.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
This was first spoken by Hitler in a rally (in german naturally) ... its author is Joseph Goebbels the infamous propaganda minister of the Third Reich. [/b]

He probably also first spoke "Ich bein ein Berliner" (or wherever he was from) first.

Originally posted by masonite
...The State, theoretically, exists to serve me. Kennedy's statement should be put the other way around; I ask what the government can do for me, since it's only there because I (and my countrymen) set it up.

I do not exist to serve the State. The State is merely a necessary evil, one that I gladly support with my taxes, military service (if I were to be called), and obeying the laws. But beyond these things I have no obligations to the State. It was created for me, not me for it.

Well first of all, Kenedy said "country" not "state" or "government".

Second, your sucky attitude was probably what he had in mind with the "not asking what your country can do for you". We all live in this country and we all make it the way it is. If the government if doing something that is not in our best interests, it's our responsibility to change it. If you don't like something about your neighborhood, go try and fix it. "asking what you can do for your country" doesn't necessarily mean giving into fascism (as Rashak is hinting at) or volunteering for military or civil service. It means doing your part to not make this country a shithole and not expecting the government to clean everything up for you.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by msmith537
He probably also first spoke "Ich bein ein Berliner" (or wherever he was from) first.

He was from Austria and mostly came from Munich... but it wouldnt be impossible he said that... Thank God Marilyn Monroe wasnt around or I might get spooked by the similarity.
(Thou it seems Berliner is a sort of typical dessert too.. funny connotation.)

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Chicago Faucet
I always wondered how the liberals truly felt about their figure head saying such words (eventhough both liberalism and conservatism have evolved since then) about taking responsibility and showing a sense of duty towards the country.

Please explain your implication with that. I want to make sure I understand perfectly before replying.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh yeah, Rashak Mani, do you have a reference for the Goebbels cite? It would be interesting reading.

[masonite]

Originally posted by msmith537
your sucky attitude

Eh? I'm not surprised you and I have vastly different ideas on the role of governments and individuals. You're quite right, my attitude would certainly suck in a system where the individual lives to serve the state. Glad we're not quite there yet.

[stuyguy]

Hitler? Kennedy?

Well, just for the record, here's what Warren G. Harding said, "...we must have a citizenship less concerned about what the government can do for it, and more anxious about what it can do for the nation."

[Fear Itself]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
This was first spoken by Hitler in a rally (in german naturally) ... its author is Joseph Goebbels the infamous propaganda minister of the Third Reich.

I don't find anything on Google that corroborates this claim. The closest I found was this Goebbels quote that is vaguely similar:

"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

If you have any credible evidence to back up this claim, please present it. Until then, I must conclude it never happened.

[erislover]

At the very least, I think it means that an individual and his country are symbiotic, and in peace and general uneventfulness that relationship involves the government doing much for the individual, while in times of strife that relationship involves the individual acting subservient to the needs of the state, the state being the agent organizing against the cause of said strife (be that natural disasters or war).

So long as this is a rallying cry, I salute it. When used to justify actions like conscription, I abhor it.

[TVAA]

The intention behind the statement is good. The problem is that the idiots of the world use similar statements to argue that the individual should serve the interests of the state.

It should always be the other way around: the state exists to serve the individual.

[Rashak Mani]

In my high school class we were studying speeches and we saw a video of one of Hitlers rallies. My german was better back then... and he said the more or less the same words Kennedy did.

Yesterday I checked some sites with Hitler Speeches and there were way too many of them. Even using search words I couldnt find this specific speech. Key words like "ask", "country", etc... were repeated way too often.

The rally was in a stadium and I thought it was a Nuremberg rally... but I checked those speeches finding no result. Will try some more.

- As for the state-citizen relationship... it should be mutual. State should serve the individual and so should the individual serve the state. Treating the state as some kind of service provider that you pay fees (taxes) and expect X quantaty of service back just isnt enough. Nor do I want to be a slave of the system.

[Rashak Mani]

Seraching thru some Hitler speeches... found this pearl:

It is, perhaps, a magnificent effect when a statesman or a journalist stands up and in enthusiastic words announces the necessity of removing the regime of another country in the name of democracy or something similar. Practical execution of these glorious slogans, however, has quite a different aspect.

The whole speech...