Fair enough.
On the off chance you’ll be back from CS, what if new information comes to light after the war has begun that calls into question the decision earlier made?
There are a lot of movies where America plays a bad guy. “Love Actually” is not very flattering to America, some of the Tom Clancy movies show a dark side to America, Dances with Wolves wasn’t very flattering, there are other examples I am sure and they all did pretty well at the box office.
Why shoudl “ideologically counter to the Constituion” = “anti-American”? This is a nation state like France or Britain or Japan, not an idea-state like the Soviet Union. Would you call anti-Soviet dissidents during the Soviet period “anti-Russian”? :dubious:
Even better, what about those who opposed the three fifths compromise in the US Constitution ?
Did anyone oppose it?
Just about everyone IIRC, for good and bad. That’s why it was a compromise.
Well, anyway, it’s not part of the Constitution any more. But my point is, you can be hostile to the Constitution in its present form and still be a good and loyal American. E.g., Daniel Lazare – see his book The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy. And Lazare is a much better and more patriotic American than Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan.
It might or might not be a bad idea, but it would not be in any sense “un-American,” let alone anti-American. I mean, Britain also has economic-libertarian political traditions – was it “un-British” or “anti-British” for the Brits to adopt their National Health system? A nation’s cultural identity is not the same as its political system or culture, and it can make radical changes in the latter while still remaining the same nation – just as China has remained the same nation through all its political revolutions and reversals of the past century.
Actually the concept of “anti-Americanism” in one form or another has been around for a very long time. To cite just one example, consider the House Un-American Activities Committee, which while focusing heavily on Communists and alleged sympathizers throughout much of its history, also looked at Nazi supporters and the KKK.
I know that, but from what I see, many Americans seem to believe that the US is a sort of idea-state. It’s part of the American founding myth: America is this place where people from all over the world came, putting religious, political and economic oppression behind them, to build a New World based on freedom and individualism. This would also explain RikWriter’s statement that “socializ[ing]” America’s industries (whatever that means) would be “anti-American”.
I know, I know, but it’s bullshit. As is any form of American exceptionalism.
Interesting thread, BrainGlutton. I didn’t read all of it, but I think I was able to get a sense of what your opponents’ arguments were, and since I don’t want to bring that other thread back from the dead, I will briefly respond to them here.
There point seems to be that the sense of being “American” is strongly tied to the US’s political culture. Americans hold their political and economic system in very high regard, especially their constitution, and the fact that it guarantees their freedom. As well, by moving to America and sharing this committment to a free society, anyone can become “American”. Indeed, the US is a nation of immigrants, starting from the British who first came there, to the Irish, French, Polish, Italians, Chinese, etc. who came since the US became an independent country.
On the other hand, other countries’ (in your opponents’ viewpoint, that is) national identity seems based more on ethnic considerations. What is a Frenchman? Well, it is someone who lives in France, speaks French, and takes part in France’s culture, which isn’t that strongly linked to France’s political culture. As you said (I think it was you), since 1789, France has gone through two monarchies, five republics, two empires, as well as German occupation (at least twice, I think) and a fascist puppet state. But, while its culture has evolved, it can be said to have remained the same nation.
In other words, this is the old civic/ethnic nationalism dichotomy expressed in other terms (as I said, I didn’t read the other thread in its entirety, so if someone brought this argument there, I’m sorry). American nationalism is seen as different from other countries’ (and, for many people, better) since it is based on sharing a common political goal instead of belonging to a culture and ethnicity by virtue of blood. It has the added benefit of allowing anyone who wants to to join the American nation. Joining the French nation, for example, isn’t as easy.
But what your opponents seem to forget is that American nationalism isn’t all civic, it also has its ethnic component; and many other countries have also tried to express their national identity in civic or liberal terms in the past as well. For example, while the US doesn’t have any official language (as civic nationalists will often proudly remind us), it’s quite obvious that knowing English is almost necessary to live and work in the US. This “English” also has to be Standard American English (not Ebonics or however you call it), and, as xtisme, himself an immigrant from Mexico – or child of immigrants, I’m not sure – said in another thread, you have to learn to speak it like a native. This does have a “civic” justification (ensuring that people can understand each other), but at the same time, it’s part of the effort to make the American people “one”.
As well, other countries have at time tried to define their national identity in terms of subscribing to a founding ideology instead of being part of an ethnic group. Consider France, as mentioned earlier. France’s motto is “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, a civic goal if there is one. France isn’t as ethnically and linguistically homogeneous as some would think; people in Brittany, Corsica and the Basque country don’t come from the same roots, and the French government made a conscious decision to make French the only language of the country. Whether you think it was a worthy goal, whether you think it was done for civic or ethnic considerations (I could argue both ways), the fact remains that the same thing happens in the US, people have to learn to use English to be part of the nation. The only difference is that the US uses economic pressure instead of political or educational pressure to enforce this policy.
As for those who think that the American nation will somehow die, if only to be replaced with another one, if ever the US becomes a monarchy or a dictatorship, consider this. I live in Quebec. Sixty years ago or so, we were a strongly Catholic nation, where the Church was involved in politics, education, pretty much everything. Sharing in this ideology was necessary to be part of the nation. Today, we have become so secular that some people (link to a letter to the newspaper Le Devoir, in French) are arguing that our elites have made secularism into a new religion and that it is starting to influence our capacity to integrate immigrants, particularly Muslims, who may be very deeply religious. Whether you agree with him or not, the fact remains that we replaced an ideology with another that is almost opposite, but we continued existing as a nation.
I’m sure it must be much easier to integrate Muslims into a strongly secular society than into a strongly Catholic society.
I’m sure you’re right, and I don’t agree with the author of this letter’s whole argumentation. However, including deeply religious people into a strongly secular society cannot be done without any difficulty either.
What he meant was nationalizing industries – the government taking ownership and managment over companies, which i would definitely call at least un-American, if now downright anti-American. But that’s just me. Besides, **RikWriter ** left a long time ago.
Fair enough; ‘communist’ was just a sort of temporary synonym for the pre-existing term, which has now returned to currency.
severus, your perspective was mind-opening. I’m in my sixties, but you gave me a way of looking at my country in ways that I hadn’t before. I’m sitting here thinking, “Why didn’t I notice this before now?”
My first thoughts really were about the Constitution – especially the Bill of Rights. When I perceive that that is threatened in word or deed or intent, I label that threat anti-American.
I was born during WWII and I really grew up thinking that Americans were the good guys. I know better. But when I see such glaring violatings of human rights and the Geneva Conventions and sound environmental policies, I just can’t believe that we’ve come to this!
In one of the other posts on another forum, I read last night that 85% of our troops believe that we are fighting in Iraq to take revenge for the September 11 attacks. Shouldn’t someone tell them why they are fighting? Why should there be any confusion? To leave them misinformed is anti-American.
The thing is that “nationalizing industries” can mean a few different things. It can mean the government buying a specific company to compete in a specific industry. It could mean the government setting a public monopoly in a specific industry. It could mean switching completely from private ownership of industries to public ownership of industries. And it could mean switching to a communist dictatorship as in the Soviet Union.
Now, I know that Americans in general are quite strongly in favour of private entrepreneurship, so right now, most of them would probably be against any of these possibilities. So yes, an American government who would do any of this, right now, could be called “anti-American” since it would go against the will of the people. On the other hand, we don’t know how Americans will believe in, say, 100 years. Right now, there are Americans who would like more governmental intervention in the economy; I’m sure BrainGlutton is one of them, and I certainly wouldn’t call him “anti-American”.
Tying up your national identity into a specific political opinion is wrong, since inside your citizenry, there can be a whole variety of political opinions.
Well thank you! I enjoy the political discussions here, and it’s true that on some subjects I have a viewpoint that’s a little different from the majority one; it’s nice to know that it makes people think.
I beg your pardon. There was absolutely nothing un-American or anti-American about Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas or Michael Harrington.
Simply out of curiosity, what would you consider to be an example? Because there are instances of governmental oversight working, too.