Partly as a backlash to some American citizens and outlets touting this nation as the “greatest on Earth” or somesuch, I see many foreign (and domestic) opinions instead stating that the U.S., its government, and/or its citizens are particularly (more) X than any other country, where X is any one of a number of negative adjectives: dumber, more violent, more greedy, more incompetent, more politically corrupt, gun-obsessed, etc.
Are there any negative adjectives for which this is actually true? Why is it so?
(Der Trihs doesn’t need to answer directly, because I already know his answer is “yes” to everything. :D)
Certainly not dumber. I think this speaks for itself. Further, no English speaking country can even begin to touch the corruption, bureaucracy and incompetence of Southern Europe. Northern Europeans, Commonwealth folk and Americans do not understand how lucky it is to have a society where everything just works, and where things get done largely on time.
It’s not as if any citizenry wouldn’t be forced into having similar attitudes, given the situation. Sweden could be just as jinogoistic and hyper-nationalistic, if Sweden were the preeminent hegemony with the largest economy in human history and full spectrum dominance over every inch of the planet. It comes with the territory.
Well, the rest of the world does not compare America against the rest of the world. For example, a Finn would rather compare Finland agaisnt the rest of the world. From our point of view, it comes naturally to say that America is a bit more corrupt than Finland but much less than Russia, as this is how they come up in international studies. Lumping Finland and Russia together here would just not make any sense.
I think the backlash rings somewhat true thou. America was seen as ideal in many respects in the years after WWII. Add to that American arrogance (as people who see American constitution as the bestest without knowing one single flaw in the constitution of Turkmenistan) and increasing accessibility to American news sources, touting the problems of American society, you get a certain emphasis on negativity.
It is kinda hard to disagree that we consume much more than anyone else, and that we seem entitled to a lifestyle that most of the world would see as luxurious.
The criticisms of the United States come from two perspectives IMHO:
Jealousy/envy at the wealth of the nation, coupled with resentment at US military and corporate incursions into other nations.
Disdain for the insular and unworldly perspectives of many Americans.
Having said that (and I could give examples from my own experiences) there are narrow-minded people and red-necks in every nation. Plus it is unfair to criticise people whose education system indoctrinates them to believe their home country has the only history and culture worth learning about.
I do not join in bashing Americans because I have a deep regard for the good and generous acts this nation’s people provide around the world.
Just to expand a little on the OP’s question: most citizens of OECD countries cannot understand why the USA does not have free public healthcare? Particularly when Hawaii does!
And why oh why do you allow handguns? In New Zealand even the police have to get a senior officer’s OK before they can draw a weapon from the station safe. Handguns are non-existent and weapons crimes are not common.
Why on earth do you elect judges?? Or Sheriffs? I mean - seriously, is the person with the best smile, the most glib speech, and the biggest campaign fund, really going to have the intelligence and integrity you’d expect of such crucial positions?
On the SDMB and in other venues, I frequently hear that movies, television shows, books, and many other cultural imports are “dumbed down” for us stupide Americans; not just culturally adapted, but altered to appeal to a less intelligent audience. I posted a message to the SDMB asking for examples of such dumbing down, and the results were inconclusive.
Often, many of the objects that are “dumbed down” really aren’t. Intelligent, sophisticated Europeans drive cars with manual transmissions that has a somewhat steep learning curve to perfect, while redneck Americans prefer to mash down on accelerators and scream “YEE HAW!” while their barge-sized cars burn rubber … really? However, if Europeans had the same road conditions, household income (before the 1990s), and built environment as Americans, they’d likely be driving automatics as much as Americans. Turn on the TV in any European country, and you’ll find the same lowest-common-denominator programming as in the US, with the addition of old-school variety shows.
I wonder if Australians, New Zelanders, South Africans and Canadians think cultural imports are dumbed down for their country. Will one ever hear something like “This Hour Has 22 Minutes is nothing but brute-force slapstick comedy appealing to dumb Canadians, compared to the sophisticated, subtle wit of The Daily Show.” (Yes, I know THHTM came along before the Daily Show.)
Not all judges are elected, and city police chiefs are appointed or hired through a civil service process. Electing judges, sheriffs and so on is a remnant of New England-style direct democracy. In Northeastern states, it’s not too uncommon to see elected engineers (highway superintendent), municipal clerks, and other positions that are normally just hired/civil service positions elsewhere.
I think it’s easy to get a sense of “exceptionalsim” when pretty much every person on earth wanted come here to live. I’m thinking of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Or when, after WWII, you’re the economic engine of the world, representing 50% of the planet’s GDP. Or, when you’re the first and only country to have sent a man to the moon. When your president is routinely referred to as “the leader of the free world”. When any NATO or UN military action rally means the US military with a little assistance from other countries.
We’re big, we’re bad, and we like to think we’re the best. I think it’s just human nature. I’m sure from the outside, many people have the reverse reaction.
The one thing that I’ve noticed is that whereas many other countries have a look at successful models for governance in other nations, the US seems to avoid it - at least within politicians’ rhetoric. A British Conservative politician was talking on the radio last week and said something like “we should look to Germany and how that country handles [subject], and emulate it”. I’ve never ever heard an American politician say anything like that. But then again, I don’t live in the US, so may be mentioning this from a position of ignorance - am happy to be corrected.
However, if I’m right, there’s a feeling of “start from scratch” regarding most policies rather than observing successful models elsewhere - or, e.g. re. the healthcare question, or the adoption of Metric, saying that “it would never work in America”, something I’ve seen on the SDMB several times.
The New England town model of direct democracy has worked well for a lot of years. In fact, the local/municipal level is where direct democracy works best. As to electing judges and sheriffs, I strongly support that. It makes them answerable to the people that hired them, holds them accountable, and they undergo a vote of confidence with every election cycle. I do believe these offices ought to be non-partisan, as they are where I live. Appointed judges and hired chiefs of police, on the other hand, are largely untouchable, and answerable to no one except perhaps the particular group that happens to be on top at the time.
SS
Other developed nations are almost completely free of crime. (From what I’ve read, no convenient cite handy, European countries tend to have a much higher rate of property crime (car thefts, burglary, and the like) than the United States, and pickpocketing is also far more common.
The type and rate of violence encountered in distressed areas of American inner cities (e.g. Detroit) is typical for the country as a whole.
if you grow up in a lower-middle class or wealthier household in the United States, crime really isn’t going to be that much of an issue in your life. It’s not like South Africa, where you’re always on guard, and you live much of your life behind security gates and walls. You may experience a bike theft or car break-in in your lifetime, but otherwise American cities, outside of places like the slums of Detroit and the like, are relatively safe.
No, America’s sense of exceptionalism (that is, awarding yourself constantly with the epithet of best nation of Earth, when having in reality very few inputs on how the rest of the world actually works) was something described by Tocqueville around the middle of the nineteenth century. There was no hegemon excuse back then for such a behavior, now that it truly is the most powerful country, that quirk went through the roof.
Sometimes, Americans just sound like North Koreans. As this is a behavior shed a long time ago by most Western nations, it is hard to ignore.
Yeah. After they got done plunging Africa, Asia, and parts of the Western Hemisphere into a post-colonial morass that is, in many cases, still festering. Oh, and plunging the world into two global conflicts in which they poured out the lifeblood of whole generations of their best and brightest. But, yeah, they shed that behavior and replaced it with a smug feeling of “at least we’re better than those Americans.”
I believe Scotland has a higher obesity rate than the US. There’s also an unanswered quantitave question around that: there’s a BMI-based obesity threshold, above which someone is considered obese (30 IIRC). However, from my travels in both countries, I’d say that while Scotland has more obese people, but less obese obese people than the US. I think the US has fewer obese people, but the people who are obese are obeser. If you see what I mean.