Land of the free, actually. I think there are a lot of people, who, if they had their druthers, would replace The Star Spangled Banner with America the Beautiful. The content is more neutral, and it’s easier to sing. Plus it’s not littered with archaic prose like “O’er ramparts we watched…”
But it doesn’t seem unique at all. I don’t know how accurate this site http://www.thenationalanthems.com is, but here are sections they translated from other national athems:
Albania:
We stand in the battle for right and freedom,
The enemies of the people stand alone,
The hero dedicates his life to our land,
Even in dying he will be brave.
Austria:
Watch us striding free and believing,
With courage, into new eras,
France:
Sacred Love for the Fatherland
Lead and support our avenging arms
Liberty, cherished liberty
Ireland:
Soldiers are we whose lives are pledged to Ireland;
Some have come from a land beyond the wave,
Sworn to be free,
Philippines:
Do we behold thy radiance, feel the throb
Of glorious liberty.
Shall I go on?..
Yeah, but that’s just rhetoric. Pretty much every government engages in that at one time or another.
Well I do think that Americans enjoy a remarkably free society, but it’s certainly not unique to our country. Yes, there are a lot of people here who are arrogant, but what people from other countries tend to forget is that there are also many of us who abhor such arrogance. And not to wave the flag, but I think it’s a good thing that both sides are allowed to have a voice.
speaking as an ameircan … when i say “the american way”, it is not about freedom and bravery … it is in reference to capitalism. not just ordinary capitalism, but capitalism to the point of cold pimpin’. capitalism, and pity the fool that gets in its way!
Well, well, American Agent Cooper, too bad you weren’t around during the last Century, you could have told the two million American soilders before they died in the wars in which they were fighting , that they were not fighting for liberty and freedom, but instead they were fighting for "coldpimpin’ captalism. But of course you wouldn’t be able to say that today in English, because you would be speaking German, and so would the rest of the west, while the enslaved of the far east would be kneeling before the Japanese emperor, and a Stalinist Russia would rule their middle share of the remaining territories of the Earth.
NO? Well then tell me kiddo, what great organization other than the United States would have then risen up and made the world safe for those who believe in liberty?
Now here’s the scary part. What great organization will keep freedom alive in the new world today? The U.N.?
Considering the USA is currently sorely stressed with logistical and troop deployments in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I would suggest the USA is in no position to go about throwing too much weight around at the moment - not without making huge dents into her economic trading position. Funding such things isn’t cheap - even for the United States. The bills have to be paid somehow, and they’re ultimately paid by either slugging the ordinary American taxpayer or by reducing public funding to civil institutions.
Nope, the bottom line is that it’s a global world now. The European Union, while not a sovereign country in it’s own right, is surely such a thing at an economic level - and all the statistics indicate the EU wins over the USA in terms of GDP and economic clout and influence.
So Milum… you’re a proud American. That’s great. More power to ya… I’m a proud Australian too. Big deal. I don’t go out of my way to proclaim that Australia is the greatest country in all the world to live in (and there’d be more than few people who would argue that it’s true nowadays) - but if I did, wouldn’t it rankle you some? Wouldn’t it get up your nose a little bit? The arrogance, that is? The conceit I’d be showing? To go around shouting and jumping about what a great country Australia is?
Certainly, without even doing such a thing, I know how tacky it would be - and THAT’s the rub, you see. It’s the lack of tact about screaming “USA NUMBER ONE” which rankles people, because quite frankly, when you add up all the things that count at the moment - namely, quality of life, employment opportunities, cost of living, lack of violence, quality education, lack of racial problems, lack of gun problems - well, the statistics show the USA long ago slipped from being Number One. Sure, she’s still in the Top 5, but not a clear Number One say like in Dwight Eisenhower’s era. Hence, the “Freedom = USA” spiel is kinda bit of a moot point in my opinion.
That being said, I still love the United States. I have relatives there going back 3 generations or more. A great country. And a beautiful people. It’s just that some of them get a bit fuckin’ arrogant at times when they think they act on behalf of all the rest of us who have our shit together too.
Ahhh, too true** Boo Boo Foo**, you down under certainly have your act together, but what you term “arrogance” is in fact a silly form of ** envy**. You Aussies have always been admired greatly by the good people of the United States. Together we share common traits born of independence and freedom. Our shared sense of destiny was somewhat diluted when you all traded a part of your rugged sense of self-destiny for the opium of paternalistic socialism. But what the hell, we still like Elton John, a product of your parent country-- England.
But why,** Boo Boo Foo**, do you stoop to call us Americans arrogant?
Does your sense of our manner mean more than the **blood **that we have shed to keep your country and all countries of this world free?
The condition of freedom and liberty is rare in this world and those who hope for a better life for all mankind must unite and not quibble.
I think the whole freedom arrogance is a hold-over from the cold war. Back in the '60s and '70s the Commies were the bad guys, the “terrorists” of their time. Most people would agree communist states are far from being free.
Milum, with all due respect, please do read up a little on the sacrifices of the Australians during WWII. Unless, of course, by “we” you mean not only Americans *and * Australians, but British, French and Russians.
Sure, the USA provided man (and woman-) power, arms and much-needed supplies during wars to defeat fascism. However, John Wayne et. al. notwithstanding, they sure didn’t do it alone.
See, this is where I get confused. Why in the world would an American be offended if a citizen of another country proclaims loudly how wonderful his country is? It only seems natural to me that you would prefer Australia - after all, you live there! It doesn’t take anything away from my regard for my country.
Alone? Not “of course not”, but " hell no, of course not!"
But please simply note that you are today free to offer discourse on the relative merits of the degrees of the contribution by virtue of the brave countries who resisted enslavement by tyrants.
And it is my most sincere and deepest hope that you will be able to do so forever.
You dont understand Australians Milum. That “rugged sense of self-destiny” and self-reliance may be a big part of the American identity but the big theme of Australian identity is “mateship”. When life is tough you are there for your mates, you help him out and he will help you out, in war you dont abandon him on the battlefield, in peace you dont let his children go hungry. That’s your “paternalistic socialism”. A man who says to use our phrase “I’m all right Jack” and just looks after himself, well such a man is no mate at all.
My apologies, Eolbo. Please forgive my misunderstanding. My interpertation of the Aussie bent towards interdependence was based wrongly in my belief that all forms of socialism are shrouds that suppress the human spirit.
I feel much better knowing that I was wrong. Thank you.
I’ve never really understood the nationalistic sentiments in the US, and I grew up surrounded by them. Nor have I ever understood the country’s almost festish-like fixation with concepts such as freedom, liberty, etc.
Take “freedom,” for example. What do you mean when you use the word “freedom?” Do you mean freedom from something (for example, freedom from political oppression, or freedom from economic want)? Or do you mean freedom to do something (like freedom to choose between 10 types of jeans, or to buy a yacht)? Freedom to choose from 13 channels of shit on the TV? Freedom from hunger? Freedom to start your own business? Freedom to succeed? Freedom to fail? Freedom to express your opinion? Freedom to spread lies and innuendo? Do some kinds of freedoms exclude others? “Liberty” and “equality” can be mutually exclusive categories; which do you choose?
It seems to me that Americans never stop to ask themselves these questions, or really reflect on the answers. Instead, they just chant “freedom” as if it were an completely unproblematic concept, something everyone can agree upon as an indisputably good thing. American stands for “freedom,” and that’s all we do – we promote the spread of “freedom.”
I grew up in the States, in the Bible Belt; did I grow up free? Well, only in formal sense. I was technically free to express critical views. Technically, I could question the existence of God; but I paid a price for it. I was free to be a communist, to criticize “capitalism,” to espouse socialist alternatives, and so on – as long as I didn’t mind the line of football player and rednecks waiting after school to beat the living shit out of me. There were all sorts of informal constraints on the freedoms I was supposedly guaranteed in the Land of the Free.
Now, they tell us, we invaded Iraq to grant them “freedom.” Yet, the current uprisings there began as a protest to the closure of Muqtada al-Sadr’s newspaper. And who ordered it closed? Why, the Americans, of course.
So – if we are in Iraq to promote the spread of “freedom,” why we are clamping down on the “freedom of the press” there, one of those many freedoms that supposedly make America such a great place to live? We close Muqtada’s newspaper; he and his followers arrange for peaceful demonstrations. Over the course of a week, these demonstrations grow in size. How does the CPA respond? It arrests about 20 of al-Sadr’s lieutenants. Is this an example of the freedom we’ve come to spread in Iraq?
Hamlet writes:
Naturally, I don’t exactly disagree with this statement; it’s just that I can’t imagine it being written by anyone other than an American. Say the word “freedom” and they go all weak-kneed and maudlin on you, and wax poetic about how fantastic it is.
Hamlet assumes that when he deploys the word “freedom,” it will mean essentially the same thing to all of his readers. But I wonder. Might an American’s conception of “freedom” differ from a European’s, or an Iraqi’s? If so, whose version of “freedom” is the right one? Who gets to define what we mean with “freedom?”
First, we have this phrase: “America is one of the most free countries in the world.” Well, to me, its much more complex. I live abroad now (in Sweden); am I “less free” or “more free” here? I would answer: a bit of both.
Here’s this other thing, as well; the rhetorical coupling of “freedom” and “the Constitution.” Perhaps Hamlet should review some of the Federalist papers before making such claims.
Hamlet continues:
Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t call it arrogance. But I don’t know really what I would call it. Why would someone be “proud” of the Constitution? I simply baffles me. In Sweden they also have a kind of constitution, although its called simply “grundlagen” (Fundamental/Constitutional Law). It outlines the basic structure of government and the rights of Swedish citizens. It guarantees all the freedoms that are guaranteed in the US Constitution, for example.
A Swede would never say, “I’m damn proud of grundlagen.” The sentiment is completely alien to them.
Well its all about repeating a mantra a thousand times and it becomes true.
America might have a lot of freedom and a lot of defects… but the notion of Land of the Free stuck and people repeat it. They just don’t figure it means No Freedom abroad for others… so foreigners hating “freedom” is a silly excuse for fighting others.
Other countries perpetuate their own mythos. Brazil as an example has always repeated the “we are a peaceful and pacific people”. Our independence was RELATIVELY light on Bloodshed… but its portrayed as zero bloodshed. Revolutions and revolts are downplayed too. So even though we live in some cities areas with the equivalent of urban guerrila (criminals fighting police) the notion of a pacific people endures.
All that to say “freedom” is difficult to define? That many sentences to play semantics? Great. Rather than spending pages and pages stating, refining, and limiting the definition of “freedom”, I’ll just go ahead and use whatever definition you choose. Just let me know.
I would wholeheartedly agree that a majority of Americans do not spend much time thinking about the precise definition and limits of the term freedom. And I would wholeheartedly agree that it is annoying as hell that our current President wraps everything he does, from lying to the American Public and the UN to invade Iraq to endorsing questionable legislation, in the rhetoric of freedom.
Sorry for your traumatic teenage years.
Maybe you and I can go be weak-kneed and maudlin together, since you agree with my statement.
Yep. Got it the first time. Freedom is a difficult concept to define. Not only does the concept change from country to country, but also person to person. Not all European’s have the same conception of freedom. Nor all Iraqi’s. Nor all Americans. Freedom is a complex subject, with many different facets. Perhaps I should have started out with Lord Acton’s definition of liberty: “By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty, against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.” Then I could have reflected back on Aristotle’s, meld it with Frederick Douglas’ thoughts on freedom and then put it all in book form. I just didn’t think it was necessary to do that before I posted about 300 words on a message board. My apologies.
Gee, thanks for that insightful discussion from Mr. Lippman. I had no idea democracy and freedom were synonyms. See, it must be that difficulty in defining that term again, because your excerpt seems to stand for the proposition that the United State’s isn’t perfectly democratic. Great point, and I agree with it. I’m not sold on the relevance to this discussion, but it was a good read.
Were I you, I would have gone with this quote from the Federalist papers
From Federalist #1, written by Hamilton. You see, this quote is more appropriate to a discussion of freedom and the Constitution. It deals with the duties of a government to protect liberty, but also the possible abuse of the people’s freedom by a government that pays merely lipservice to it.
Or, were I you, I may have gone with Federalist #85, again by Hamilton, and quote the following.
This quote, much more than you democracy/freeedom misadventure, deals with the fear many States, and individuals, had with enacting the Constitution without the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Then, again, were I you, I would have pointed out that a majority of the freedoms (again, not democracy) of the Constitution were found in the Bill of Rights and not the Consitution proper. Again, it would be much more apropos of a discussion of freedom as opposed to democracy. Not that I feel I need to tell you how you should backhandedly mock me. You do fine by yourself.
As a quick aside, it appears from here that 792 of roughly 1300 are proud of the way democracy works in Sweden. As we learned earlier, or I hope we learned earlier, democracy and freedom are not synonyms. But I do believe that many Swedes take pride in their democracy.
And I’m not sure how I could explain my pride in the Consitution to you further. I am proud of the Constitution. I agree with Washington who said: “”[The Constitution] … is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any government hitherto instituted among mortals hath possessed." I think the Consitution changed the world for the better. I think it has been, and remains, the template for many countries considering their own Consitutions. The Constitution is not flawless. Again, as Washington stated: “”“[t]he warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has do not contend that it is free from imperfections." However, I am proud of the Constitution and what it stands for. That does, however, not make me a nationalistic, flag-waving psycho. But I am able to see, and take pride in, the freedoms incorporated in, and protected by, the Consitution.
Milum, my point, restated… is that while Freedom is nice, in America it historically takes a backseat to Profitability and/or Religion.
Freedom is NOT the highest value in this land. Greed is. Power is. (Just like the rest of the world.) If Freedom was tops, we wouldn’t have had to have so many civil rights movements (continuing today with gays), and our govt would not be run like a cold hearted business. On days when I’m feeling really cynical, I might even suggest our involvement in WWII had as much to do with satisfying American business pressures as it did with securing the freedom of Europe (sound familiar, Iraq?). Not to say that singing freedom while they fought wasn’t inspiring. Purely opinion of course.
