Hey Everyone-- Let's Bash the US!!!

Great Debates
81

To erislover:

The title of this thread is “Let’s Bash the US” and some people make it oh so easy to do just that.

America is the term for the planet’s second-largest isolated landmass (after Eurasia), sometimes known as the western hemisphere and consisting of the continents commonly referred to as North America and South America. The country whose capital city is Washington, D.C., is the United States of America.

Now, there is little doubt that the simple term “America” frequently functions as a shorthand for referring to the United States. As a student studying US history and as someone seeking to make my everyday conversation easier, i commonly use the term “American history” to refer to my field of study, “America” to refer to the US, and “Americans” to refer to those that consider themselves part of this nation. But it does everyone some good every now and again to realise that this is just a shorthand, and that the term properly used refers to the US, Canada, Mexico and all those other pesky little countries down there that have been the recipients of so much US largesse over the years [sic].

In fact, referring to the United States in the singular has not always been the practice in this country. Before the Civil War, the term was generally used in the plural. That is, whereas nowdays we would say “the United States is at war with England”, they used to say “the United States are at war with England”, giving notice that this was in fact a union of states as much as a collective entity.

A concrete historical example can be found in the remarks of James Madison at the constitutional convention in 1787 when, discussing the stage of national development in the US, he said:

82

So then “American” is a term like “mankind”? We all know what we mean but we should change the usage anyway??? Seriously, I can’t believe this is a problem… “Americans” are citizens of the only country in the western hemisphere which uses the word “america” in its name as far as I can tell…

I don’t see that any more lazy than typing “Mr.” for Mister. Or any more exclusive than mankind.

83

As i hope my post made clear, i use the term “America” and its cognates without worring too much about it, even though i know that it’s not fully explanatory.

It was not the fact that you, or millions of other people, do this that startled me. It was more the fact that many “Americans” never even stop to consider that over the years they have appropriated for one country a term that really applies to the whole hemisphere.

It was not a criticism of usage, but of awareness. And i think that’s what much of this thread has been about.

84

Just a question, what should they call themselves? “Citizens of the United States”? And do you think that people in other countries are going to start saying that too?

85

Europeans eat big macs, drink coke, watch american tv and films and say ’ i hate american culture’.

A lot of it is whinging, NATO sit about on their arse saying ‘the yanks should come sort out our mess’ instead of doing it themselves.

Europe and everyone else should grow up and realise the cold war is over and they have to sort out their own problems.
For example, the middle east — what has this got to do with the USA – ok, ok, apart from keeping israel up and running.

I think the problem is that the USA was the big player in the cold war so still has ‘history’ in backing different areas.

The USSR fell apart and walked away.

86

Dude, please give evidence for your summary of European attitude to the US. Then please compare it to the statements made in this thread by Americans about Europeans.

I’m just waiting for some Russians to come in and start ranting about how they had to bail Europe and the US out in WW2 (Sure that’s silly, but no sillier than the constant harping by some of how America saved the rest of the world single handed, without any consideration of the combined operations in the European, African and Asian theatres)

87

Thought everyone here would find this amusing. A lady I work with has come here from London after living in Britain for all but the first 8 years of her life. Yesterday she mentioned that England is America’s lapdog.

I cannot tell you how hard I laughed at her.

She said, “America says ‘Jump!’ and Brits say ‘How high?’” Do you UK dopes find this to be an accurate assessment of the US-UK relationship?

I have also been informed by a Dane that I work with that many Europeans consider England to be (some witty phrase meaning) “The easternmost American State.” Is this a representation of how some, or perhaps many, Europeans feel?

mhendo, I am still not quite sure what you are getting at and perhaps I am being deliberately dense on the matter. Fill in the meaning behing the following usage:
Americas-- North, South and Central America
Americans-- refers to the only citizens whose state includes “America” in it.
North Americans-- refers to the peoples that live on the continent referred to as North America

Do you find this ambiguous or implying something that I have not included there?

We could of course say that “People who live in the Americas are Americans,” is that what you are getting at? That the current usage of “Americans” is based in ignorance?

I think the term “Asians” is far more biased as it doesn’t ‘normally’ include Russians, and whatever we should call those states are considered part of Asia. Is that a usage from ignorance as well?

Is “That’s very English” more specific or entirely different from “That’s very European” ?

Seriously, I’m not trying to be condescending or anything, I’m trying to get a feel for what we should consider an ignorant usage or an acceptable one.

88

Yup, I’ve heard that one too. There’s been quite a lot of criticism aimed at the UK for being seen to be overly keen to back American policy in certain issues (Gulf “no fly zone” strategy, yugoslav bombing campaign, Echelon, etc)

Like I say, bashing of national policy is hardly restricted to the US.

89

That, of course, should read “dopers” not “dopes.” Sheesh. I normally dodn’t correct typos here but that one was just not acceptable to me.

Gary, but that’s just it… are they criticizing British decisions themselves or by implication? If it was OK to be like America, wouldn’t that be seen as a compliment instead?

I would like to thank the posters here who have not lived up to the spirit of the OP on either side and answered as objectively as posssible.

90

Well, it is fun when they get mad. Even more so when they back their points with… what is it you back your points with?

As I am not as bright as my detractors, I was hoping for a little insight, maybe a little help understanding some of the posts. So I will start slow so the forum can explain it too me.

SPOOFE
The entire post hinges on a three word quote “its illegal laws.” For which he nominates your truly, for the oxymoron of the week. Now I admit I had to look up oxymoron. I did know the meaning of moron, but I could not figure out, what an organic chemistry prefix was doing on the front of it. The definition I got from Webster was “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words. So now I am more confused. “its illegal laws,” refers to laws enacted within the United States which are not in pursuance thereof the Constitution. This is an illegal law, by the laws of this nation. See Article VI, U.S. Constitution. Is this what you are referring to, or maybe I still don’t get it? But attacking the use of a particular phrase, as a concrete reason for ignoring the facts, somehow still escapes me. The only other thing I can think of, is that I failed to put a possessive apostrophe after the s in its. Come on, tell me, I am just an ignorant American.

Gobear

Your interpretation of the events of the second world war are in some ways accurate. However, I would state the facts a little less kindly. So…
Question,
Could western Europe have survived without American help during WWII.

Facts.
The Germans invaded Poland with their Panzer divisions. Poland counter attacked with soldiers on horseback. Nuff said.
The Germans then decided to take a picnic lunch to the French coast of the English Channel. They had a problem with ants at this picnic. I believe the French called it their army.

The RAF fought with the tenacity of truly inspired warriors. It was their bravery, which allowed the United Kingdom to hold on. During this time Churchill came to Roosevelt and to put this delicately, ask for assistance. The American president was very sympathetic to the British, but had problems with the congress. So what he did immediately was give the British 50, as in FIFTY naval vessels. In return the American tax payers got 99 year leases on ports in the British empire. I am not sure how many of those ports are left, but I expect not many. The reason he excepted the leases, for the ships was obvious. The British could not pay for them, he could not tell congress they were a present, so they came up with this lame ass deal. The concept that the British air force, somehow saved the United States, from having to accept a Nazi Europe, is a bit of a stretch.

The British victories you mention are accurate. However, are you aware of the tactics which were at hand. The North Africa campaign served what purpose? The purpose it served, by my history books, was to give the American economy time to retool for war. As the desert action continued, the U.S. was able to bring its’ incredible war machine on line. In this way, the allies were given time to plan for the final assault on the continent, as they mopped up smaller pockets of Hitler’s aggression.

Then of course the lend-lease agreements were reached, and the American people poured some 50-100 billion dollars into the war effort in loans, aid, and military hardware, to the allies. This does not count one dollar of the costs for the U.S. Army. Perhaps Europe had many sources for loans and armaments they could have went to. I suppose that most of them wanted to be paid in advance though. Damn those Americans, they are such a bunch of self centered, know-it-alls.

Not being a expert on military strategy, I was hoping for some help. The text books in this country, say that the Germans basically threw the British army, into the sea at Dunkirk. Perhaps in Europe it was seen another way. Maybe it was a strategic regrouping, or other masterful battle move. I might point out that, when you regroup, it is usually a good idea, to take your equipment with you.

Questions
Could one of the scholars in this forum tell me how western Europe would have defeated the Germans without U.S. involvement.
Could you tell me how you were going to get the raw materials? Where were you going to build the armaments? How were you going to remove the German army from their fortified positions? Please tell me. Give me your logistics, tactics, production capacities, training facilities, supply lines, amphibious capabilities, or any other item of relevance. As far as I can determine, to even argue that it could have been done, is a joke. But I am willing to be enlightened by facts.

Question
If the Western European nations, did not need U.S. firepower, munitions, or support personnel, how come you made one of our Generals the guy in charge? Seems to me that allowing a foreign commander to take charge of your fighting forces indicates you needed some kind of help. Hey enlighten me, I am willing to be shown the path to knowledge.

One final comment, I saw a couple of posted items relating to Americans being some sort of collection of low lifes from the world cesspool, people who were not fit for the rest of the world. As I remember it, we are the people who the Europeans persecuted for religious beliefs, or forced from their lands by governments gone mad. We were forced to seek a new life from those educated and holier than thou Kings and Dictators who blazed a trail of blood and misery across Europe for the last 2000 years.

Quoting an American actor from the movie Stripes, “our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in Europe. We are the retched refuse, we are the mutts. Look feel this guys nose it’s cold. But we all have one thing in common, we were all stupid enough, to enlist in the army. But it is the American army, we don’t have to worry if we have trained, we don’t have to worry if …because we are the greatest fighting force this world has ever seen. Now go out there and make me proud.”

Kinda gets you right here, doesn’t it?

91

I’ve said it twice, but i’ll say it again. I don’t really have a problem with saying “Americans”, and it is obvious that the use of the term to apply to US citizens is too deeply entranched to be changed. All i was calling for was a greater awareness that this term excludes millions of others who might, if they so choose, also refer to themselves using the term.

There is a term in Spanish, which admittedly does not seem to be used that often, that is used to refer to someone from the US. And no, i don’t mean “gringos” or “yanquis”. It is “estadounidenses”; maybe if the English language had developed some similar term over time, then this would all be a non-issue now. Any votes for “United Staters” or “United Statesers”? They all sound a bit awkward to me.

Current usage of the term “Asians”, as you rightly point out, is incomplete. It has become a racial rather than a locational term, referring to people generally seen to possess similar physical characteristics and linguistic heritage. The term “south Asians” is often used to refer to people from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Again, as with the use of the term “American”, i’m not advocating a change. Any term of address we use will always be arbitrary and constructed, rather than “natural” in any real sense of the word.

In fact, if we were to categorise people only with respect to the continent they lived on, then there should really be no distinction between Europe and Asia. The land mass that makes up these two areas, Eurasia, is a single mass, and the separation is a result of historical desire to separate the two rather than any geological imperative. The Ural mountains are generally taken as the dividing line, but a mountain range is not a continental boundary - by this logic everything west of the Rockies would be another continent.

92

No, of course not! We’re “United Stations!” :smiley:

93

This is what historians call a counterfactual question. In other words, a “what if…” question. The problem with these is that historical contingency is so great that they can almost never be answered with complete certainty.

My first inclination would be to say “no”. Without America’s help western Europe may well have been overrun by the Axis. But that fails to take into account a slew of factors. As usurper points out, the African campaign was important in acting as a holding mechanism. Now, as someone else mentioned previously, the Soviet Union was also crucial to the result in Europe. Maybe, in the absence of American aid, the Russian advance on the Eastern front might still have been sufficient to defeat the Axis. Probably not, but it’s at least a possibility. And while the Brits may not have been able to defeat Germany outright, that is completely different than asking whether Germany would have been able to undertake a successful invasion of the British Isles.

But i really think that usurper is missing the point here, that point being that, while America was extremely important, and probably essential, to the Allied victory, it was not the only player on the field. I’ve heard some people say that a football team couldn’t survive without some star quarterback - maybe so, but send that quarterback out onto the field with no running backs, receivers, offensive tackles etc. and see how far he gets.

I don’t think anyone on this thread is really denying the importance of American aid to Europe both before, during and after WWII. But many Americans are happy to point to such acts as evidence of generosity and selflessness, and to use this as a rhetorical club to beat down any criticism of the US. Of course, they are not unique in doing this. Nationalism is a powerful and often very destructive emotion. I just wonder how long it will be before the “glorious victories” of WWII will no longer be seen by these people as justification for just about anything else that the US does, whether it’s good or bad.

My home country of Australia also played a part, admittedly much smaller, in WWII. Australians were also crucial in setting up the United Nations at the end of that war. But i don’t see that as a reason to defend the stupid, or self-centred, or greedy, or ignorant things done by the Australian government or individual Australians in the present.

94

Usurper, you are really full of Impacted Faeces.
It was a joint force of US and British and French troops that defeated the western Front of Nazi Germany.
The Russians defeated The entire Eastern Front by themselves. We have them to thank just as much as we do the rest of the Allies.

When you state that something is a fact, you better be able to back that up

Not one factual statement in that section.

who said that we didn’t need your help? No one on this thread.

Kicked out? Christ, you’d swear you were Australia or something.

Not quite “Tired and Hungry masses waiting to be free”, is it?

Greatest fighting force the world has ever seen? I think maybe Gengis Khan’s Mongolian army might have a few words to say about that.

It does. Excuse me while I retch. Its that kind of “Gung-ho, God Bless America” attitude amongst some Americans that ruins the reputation of every other American abroad.
I, for one, like America. I like Americans. not all of them, but the ones I have met so far have been cool.
Basically, Usurper, you have a very narrow view of what happened in the past. I’d recommend that you don’t rely on “Stripes” and its ilk as valid historical reference.

95

Usurper-learn the difference between patriotism and nationalism, and you’ll realize what your problem is.

96

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jinxie *
I don’t know. It seems as though my statement was quite mild, actually 2 mild statements. A lot more mild that I had intended too.

  1. A lot of countries are proud about histories.
  2. A lot of those histories are full of self-interest.

What I had intended to say was the citizens of … well basically all countries tend to white wash their history in order to be proud of it

[QUOTE]

I totally agree with your second statement. Concerning the “washed” history, though I could argue about some details, I believe it’s on the overall true. My own post was mainly, I believe, about how people express (or don’t express) their proudness and also its intensity.

By the way, it would be interesting to know, through some sort of comparative study, how one’s country is depicted at school, in history classes and textbooks. It plays certainly a major part, but it’s not really the topic of this thread.

97

Just learnt something. Until know, I always tried not to forget to use the plural when refering to the US…Seems I was at least one century late…

98

Actually, I know that some people from latin america resent the fact that the…err…the inhabitants of the US call their country “America”.

99

Though somewhat exagerated in your (funny) example, indeed, european people tend to consider that the UK always side with the US and always give preference to their relationship with the US over their relationship with the “continent”, putting in the process obstacles to the european construction. Though somewhat caricatural, it’s a very common view, and it’s often resented. And when it comes to strategic/international affairs it’s quite often true and an obstacle when an attempt is made to come to a common official position or course of action.

100

Actually, I think you’re the one who’s kind of missing the point here. I don’t think Usurper was saying that America won the war all by itself. I don’t know anyone who’s even superficially familiar with the history of that war who doesn’t understand the importance of the air war over Britain and the battle of Stalingrad. (Of course, we Yanks do often talk as though we ought to get all the credit for stopping the Axis, and I can see how that would be exasperating and even offensive to the folks across the pond.) No, I think what he’s saying is “Could the Allies have won the war (defined as crushing the Axis completely and not merely stopping their expansion) without America?” I don’t think they could have, but being an impenitent gringo, I obviously have some prejudices in the matter.

And, yes, Usurper is doing some high intensity flag-waving here. But it seems to me that his reference to Bill Murray’s little speech in “Stripes” clearly shows that he’s doing it somewhat tongue-in-cheek.