So, what’s the German, British or French national holiday celebrating said depredations?
OK, so maybe I misspoke when I said “national holidays”, but the fact remains that the French are proud of Napoleon, the Bristish are proud of their former empire, the Turks are proud of the Ottoman empire, the Greeks are proud of Alexander the Great, …
And when these subjects are taught in the schools of these countries, they are not taught in the spirit of “look what bad things our ancestors did to other countries”, but most likely in the spirit of “look how awsome and powerful our country used to be, we wish we were that powerful today”
What’s with the ‘moral authority’ crap? I’m talking about self-interest. I fail to see how it advances my well-being one particle to have a substantial fraction of the world pissed at the US
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What I said was that non-Americans who are “outraged” at U.S. behavior and arrogance are being hypocritical and/or stupid for failing to see the hypocrisy.
Of course people should be against aggression by any country, but people’s feelings go beyond that. They are “outraged” by the audacity of the U.S. to do as it pleases and by the arrogance of Americans. Given the pride many people have in their country’s past “audacity” to do as it pleased when it was able to do so, I claim that this outrage is hypocritical.
Now, whether it is in the interest of the U.S. to minimize this outrage (whether it is hypocritical or not) by being “nice” on the international stage is another issue.
[ Just to be clear, let me give an example.
Assume my grandfather was a mafia boss who ruled the city, and during his reign he did some pretty bad things. But, he did rule the city and my family had many benefits from this. As a result, we look back at those times and at the accomplishments of my grandfather with pride and nostalgia.
Now assume that our family lost power and the city is now being ruled by another mafia boss, who also does some pretty bad things, and some of those happen to my family.
I cannot claim “outrage” at the unbelievable arrogance and behavior of the new mafia boss, if I still look back at what my grandfather did with pride.
I can of course be pissed at the new mafia boss, and it may be in the new mafia boss’ interest to keep people in the city from being too pissed at him, but this was not the point I was making in my previous post.
]
So? Are you saying that if the French, for example, castigate the US for our rash plunge into Iraq in 2003 we should say, “Well, what about Napoleon in 1812?”
If people rightly call us to account for present, and in my opinion misguided, actions and refuse to help us carry them out it results in great cost of our lives and our wealth it hurts me and you, whether or not they are hypocrites - which trait isn’t limited to those others.
And I don’t see why a ‘moral authority’ for them to do so is even a factor.
At very least, can my fellow Americans grasp the concept of being a “team player”?
We shouldn’t say
“Well, what about Napoleon in 1812?”
but
“Well, why are you, in 2004, proud of Napoleon’s conquests and have not
denounced his actions as barbaric?”
Anyway, there is not much point continuing this discussion. I agree that the U.S. should change its behavior, both because it is the right thing to do, and also because it is in its own benefit. I just reserve the right to call some U.S.-bashers hyprocrites.
By Sysiphus’ Stone: *"Accept that you are terribly deficit in all of your logic, ambitions, political nous, world understandings, greeds, accumulations and profit-motive rather that service-orientation.
You have so much to learn and so little capacity for intellectual and cultural growth." *
Admit it! You’re just jealous because Nicole Kidman likes it better over here. 
Pots & Kettles? Anyone? Your just jealous because nobody though to call Antarctica “South Australia.”
Political leaders who think that we can still separate the two are a large part of the problem. In the long run, it is in the best interest of the United States to consider the common good.
I suspect that geopolitical penis envy is as much a myth as similar accusations of women’s psychological makeup in the early and mid-Twentieth Century. Not everyone wants to rule the world. Pissing contests are for frat boys.
So many of your accusations are familiar stereotypes of only the rich and powerful in the US. I don’t disagree with all of what you have said, but this one is way off base. Americans in general make it a point to help out. Even the state that I live in is nicknamed the Volunteer State. It’s a matter of pride. Maybe you are confusing the American public with our political leadership du jour.
[QUOTE=Polerius]
We shouldn’t say
“Well, what about Napoleon in 1812?”
but
“Well, why are you, in 2004, proud of Napoleon’s conquests and have not
denounced his actions as barbaric?”
[QUOTE]
Disagree here, as have others.
IF the British, Germans and French individuals were waving their pride in their past Empire-building exploits in your face then you might just have a point. They ***do not ** * have to start a long list of denouncations as a preface to being a critic of other governments.
I am not responsible for the actions of my past governments or their actions, I carry ***some * ** responsibility for their current actions if I voted them in. Sensible people do not hold individual Americans to action for the actions of their current President, unless the express support for those actions (or to a lesser extent they voted for him, but don’t agree with what they got).
Moral authority is retained on a personal basis - not granted to a people by their governments actions or inactions.
In any event past actions can only be judged by the standards of the time, an appreciation of your countries history does not mean approval. Slavery, past oppression on the basis of race, religion or gender, colonialism, environment damage, legalised theft etc are part of British history, and that of many others. Just as genocide of the American Indians is part of American history. Live with it and move on…
OK, one last time: I’m not judging the past actions. I’m judging people in the present who feel proud about such actions.
I don’t think most people simply “appreciate” the glorious past of their country, I think they are proud of it and look back at it with some nostalgia. I would say that this amounts to approval.
Most people can appreciate the past achievements of a country, even their own, and still recognise that shameful behaviour occured.
Likewise, they may long for former prestige but realise they are lucky they do not have to live a life without advanced medicine, TVs, cars, whatever …
Few people ever claim their country has been all good, all the time, and no one is saying everything about America is bad. Most countries try to emulate it to some degree.
What people are increasingly unhappy about is America’s arrogant approach to everyone else and, as long as they are aware their own country has and had faults - as all do - it is not hypocritical to call the US’ on its failings.
Here’s a take on things. The name of the country is the ‘United States of America’. Which means that the resulting adjective would be ‘United-States-of-American’. Because the adjective is too long, it is shortened to ‘American’. Now the adjective does happen to be common to the adjective that describes anyone residing in the adjoining landmasses (South, Central, and North America). However, I think we do follow the same rule that you cited for Europeans (we consider ourselves as part of our country first, then part of our one continent second). Just as the French consider themselves French first and Europeans second, we consider ourselves Americans first and North Americans second (Mexicans and Canadians are also North Americans).
However, I think our intent in calling ourselves Americans is to refer to the country (whose name happens to be the same as the landmass) we’re from, rather than to disclude people that reside on the same continent as us.
Can you think of a convenient adjective to refer to someone from The United States of America, other than an ‘American’?
As for “usurping” the name of our country from two continents, we are not going to change the name of our country after over two centuries of existence, no matter how insensitive Europeans think that makes us.
That’s definitely not what I’ve been taught in school. The atrocities during the spanish war (the peninsular war for the british) or the pludering in Italy, for instance, since you’re talking about Napoleon, were definitely mentionned. The XIX° and XX° century colonialism or the Algeria war denounced, etc…
I read a school history book from the 30’s which is somewhere in my parent’s basement which was similar to what you described, though. I think you’re 70 years late concerning what is taught in schools.
Now, the fact that you believe such a thing makes me wonder about how US history is taught in american schools…
On BookTV this past weekend, British historian Niall Ferguson said (paraphrased)“The U.S. cannot and should not hope to be loved, it should do what is in it’s interest and the best that it can hope for is to be respected.” His last book was Collossus which says that the U.S. is an empire and its citizens should stop trying to deny it. He listed the three areas in which the U.S. is weakest as an empire.
[ul][li] We rely on the cash of other countries to maintain our standard of living.[/li][li] We do not emigrate our citizens to other countries. On the contrary we have the most immigrants of any country.[/li][li] We have a bad case of ADD. We lose interest too easily. This Professor Ferguson says is our biggest weakness and it is the one that will cause our loss of power.[/ul][/li]
He pointed out that Britain invaded Iraq in 1917. They quickly set up a government. The religious leaders formed a rebellion and the British had too return and put down the rebellion with an iron hand. After about 10 years, Iraq was fairly well governing itself but the British troops still remained until 1955, when Iraq was given complete independence. So Britain had troops there from 1917 until 1955 and there are many in the U.S. that would like to bring home our troops ASAP.
Polerius I understand your point. I wouldn’t worry if they were just being hyprocrites; it is when the wish to retain lost power influences the actions of such nations, that I object.
First of all, I want to repost this, because I really liked it.
“Geopolitical penis-envy”. What a phrase.
And on to the debate:
IOW, it is a derogatory ethnic slur, like “nigger”.
Nothing like taking the high road, is there?
I think part of the problem here is that when you say the above, you are likely thinking “Iraq”. I am thinking more about “Rwanda”.
Well, all due respect back atcha.
At least in the case of the death penalty, it seems that some posters in this thread do want the US to tamely submit to the will of the EU in our domestic policy. Nearly every poll ever taken in the US finds a substantial majority of our citizens firmly in favor of the DP. But it is suggested that we drop it, because our European friends dislike the notion. And in return - what? They will think nice thoughts about us?
So you think 9/11 happened because of our European policy? I’m sorry, that idea is too moronic to know how to address.
As far as I can tell, bin Laden and company attacked us because American soldiers set foot in Saudi Arabia in the process of driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And because we are not a fundamentalist Islamic country - we don’t force our women to wear burkhas, we don’t impose *sharia on our country, we recognize the right of Israel to exist, etc.
If we “don’t give a shit” about what happens to other countries, why did George Bush Sr. form an international coalition and drive Saddam out of Kuwait?
So admitting that the US has the largest economy, the greatest military power, and the most international influence in the world, and interests that do not always coincide with what the Left in Europe want for themselves, is “elitist flag-waving”? And “endangering us all”?
You are posting idiotic crap. I’ll thank you to knock it the fuck off and stop embarassing yourself.
Perhaps you would like to withdraw that last remark, and apologize. In fact, I would recommend it. Immediately.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, take a deep breath.
Done? Ok, now let’s re-examine things. Foreign support for the US was very, very high after 9/11, probably higher than it had been since the second World War. Right now it is, undeniably, in the sewer. Why? Because of Iraq and the mentality and process that led up to it. You have an administration in place in the US right now that squandered so much good will that it almost seems deliberate. The decision to invade, the way the decision was made, the attempt to bully other nations into supporting the invasion, the arrogant disregard for any other opinion, policy or point of view, the revelation that the reasons for going to war were false or trumped up, the handling of the war situation itself, the chaos that is reigning in Iraq currently, the prisoner abuse, all this has left the world with a sour taste in its mouth.
Now you may not care. In fact, you probably don’t. However, the OP asked for non-Americans to give their opinions, and we have legitimate beefs with the US’s foreign policies. How would you feel, if you were Syrian, or a Saudi, or whatever, and saw your fellow Arab brothers being killed for a bullshit war? How would you feel if you were a nation like Canada, or the Netherlands, or most of Africa, and because of your relatively small size you rely on the UN for international relations and dispute resolution, only to have it be summarily ignored and debased by the most influential member? How would you feel if you wanted to belong to a community in good faith, but the biggest and strongest member of that community decided it really didn’t care about the community and said it will do whatever it wants to if it feels justified in doing so? Bullies are never popular with anyone but shameless sycophants in desperate need of approval, or who selfishly want to cash in on proximity to power or wealth. Eventually people get tired of bullies and they fight back. I’m not saying the US should expect invasion or anything, but it’s obvious that there are people out there capable of hurting Americans, and it does no one any good to keep pissing off the world at large.
Note, however, that I am in no way suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any terrorists should be appeased. They’re worthless scum that the world is better off without. I am more so suggesting that the conditions for which nations are responsible that contribute to the development of terrorists are what we need to deal with.
As for the death penalty, I sincerely doubt that it has any serious bearing on foreign relations. There are lots of international conventions that someone wants to push as their agenda. So forget that one and think about the rest. Again, no one is saying the US should roll over and take it up the ass like a good bottom. We’re just saying the US may want to work with the world, not despite it. Please remember that.
The US increasingly appears to me as the rich and powerful uncle who becomes frustrated when he perceives that the rest of the family are merely politely indulging him, the truth being that they don’t really like the way he stomps around the party with his utter lack of tact, subtlety and personal development and his misapprehension that everyone else actually behaves like him (when actually the only ones who do tend to be the disadvantaged children in the family who have much to learn.)
It is simply not true that everyone, from Soviets to Swedes, is as bad as each other in terms of their approach to international interaction. Some nations are more selfish and diplomatically incompetent than others. I can only vote for how the UK relates to the rest of the world, and I believe it is less selfish and inept than most, but that others set an example we ought to follow. However, I can still sorely wish that the most powerful nation in the world would try harder in this regard - unlike the UK they don’t even seem to be trying at all.
There’s been a lot of information and rhetoric in this thread. It’s interesting to see, that’s certain.
Reading this thread makes me believe that there is nothing that can be done that will make the US “popular”. If we abolish the death penalty, and withdraw our troops from the world, and stop intervening in international affairs, we will quickly be reviled for “abandoning our responsibility”, particularly when we don’t act when, in the scenario I’ve drawn above, the slaughter of Isreal occurs.
However.
Nobody complains when we send aid. In fact, when I’ve brought that up, I’ve gotten the response that “The US sends a lot of aid, more in cash than any other nation on the planet… but because Sweden sends more in relation to their GNP, the US isn’t doing it’s best.”
Other nations hate our culture, our McDonalds, our Levi’s, our Hollywood. Nobody puts a gun to anyone’s head and forces them to eat the Big Macs, but it happens anyways.
Until other nations realize that they are no better, and no worse, than the US, nothing will change.