According to the Moderator, this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5523055&highlight=Mojo#post5523055
When I said that those outside the US understand this without explanation, I meant that it is a typical example of the sense for exaggeration that one finds in the the USA in general, and I don’t talk here only about the patriotism and the adoration for the flag (almost seen a a sacred symbol).
It is difficult to explain to someone of the USA since you are used to this. But when we hear things like “The Leader of the Free World” that is completely in line with the other exaggerating and often very arrogantly used sentences.
It all must be Big Bigger Biggest - Great Greater Greatest or it wont do.
Like:
The only Free Country of the World
God’s Chosen Nation
God bless the USA
Our Great Nation
The Beacon of Freedom
etc… combined with the in the USA so popular idea that the USA is such a Great Example for The World. (The Great Example)
Well, in some cases it can claim that. Yet other nations can make that claim equally in some cases, which in my view and in the opinion of many others is something the US citizens fail to see and recognize. Or even don’t know because they don’t learn all that much about what lives and moves in the rest of the world.
Salaam. A
In this case there was reference to a kind of cooked or steamed or otherwise prepared meat that people slice very thin and then put on a sandwich.
Comparable meat preparations exist from other animals then porc and are sold with the same purpose = to be used the way the porc “ham” is used.
I don’t eat that kind of stuff but as far as I know you can have that sort of preparation done with chicken, turkey, lamb, beef, whatever.
Salaam. A
Note that I’m not just picking on the use of the phrase by Americans; it crops up everywhere: on the BBC, in letters to the editor, in blogs, etc, etc, usually as a colorful bit of hyperbole. It bothers me, ergo I rant.
Two of those quotes make it perfectly clear that they’re not using the phrase “in anger”. One has inverted commas around “free world”, which implies the title is nominal, and the other outright says he’s the leader only in name.
Great. Then we’re in agreement that this nomenclature is not reserved for Yanks.
Pardon.
…use of this nomenclature…
I understand what you meant, but as you said; it’s a generalization. There’s a large number of people from the U.S. who have travelled abroad, do have ideas about how things operate outside our borders, and have a genuine concern over what’s happening in countries other than our own. And saying it’s “typical of America,” is just as stereotypical and wrong as saying “pffft. Typical Armenian/Lebanese/Spanish/little furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.” Especially when said in a derogatory manner.
Other US presidents might have been worthy of the “Leader of the Free World” title… Bush deserves perhaps only “Divider of the Free World” title.
Dubya even tends to use “the Western world” in too free a manner… and he shouldn’t. Bush barely fits into “western civilization”…
Leader of the free world? That’s laughable.
The USA is the most powerful nation in the world, both militarily and economically, but that no more makes it a leader than a bully down the block is a leader.
Leadership results in the bringing together of parties, the building of consensus, and the moving forward of the community. The USA has failed miserably at this.
The USA led the charge into Iraq, and most of the free world rejected such leadership. The USA led the opposition to Koyoto, and the free world went on without it. The EU is developing a unified economy that is beginning to give the USA a run for its money. Developed nations are calling the USA on its trade practices. Developing nations have a tremendous mistrust of the USA based on decades of misbehavior by the USA.
Quite simply, the free world has no need of the USA’s self aggrandized leadership, and in fact there is no such leadership. “Leader of the free world” is no more than a jingoistic phrase that ill informed Americans lap up. The more Americans proclaim that the USA is the leader of the free world, the more the free world perceives the USA to be both dangerous and a laughingstock.
Alot of us in the USA are bothered by this attitude of assumed superiority over the world at ‘everything’ too, and we probably outnumber the people here who blindly assume we are the best at everything and every other country is a backwards shithole. We are the silent and largely ignored dissidents.
And the phrase ‘leader of the free world’ is just a holdover of the fight against communism, when we were the most powerful nation fighting communism.
Not to mention the fact that the US helped to rebuild the free world after WWII.
The USA played a central role in rebuilding much of the world after it had been ripped apart by war, and several of the nations of the world were better for it.
But today the “leader” is not helping heal the wounds of war. We only have “the leader of the free world” making war.
Save us from such “leadership”.
Are there any countries out there that have both the same civil liberties that we have, and also the same protection of its citizens? I know that’s a poorly woorded question, but I can’t think of a better way to write it.
All G7 nations, all pre-2004 EU nations and most since then, quite a few Commonwealth nations . . . .
Yes.
And none of those countries has any major kicker that would take it off the list, right? Like denying rights to a single group of its citizens or anything along those lines?
You mean, like, denying same sex marriage?
While a great answer, I was hoping for examples in other countries.
I know. My point was, you cannot hold up a ruler to other countries and expect them to match certain criteria when our country no longer meets that criteria.