LP: Is it really “sloppy jingoism” to expect a little gratitude when your actions benefit others, even though your actions may have been largely due to self-interest?
No, and I never said it was. What is sloppy jingoism is to talk only about the benefits and not at all about the self-interest, as the Sinclair quote does.
All we’re really asking for is some balance and perspective.
Then I don’t see why you would have any problem with what I said, because that’s what I was calling for too.
Any Brit criticizing the U.S. for delaying entry into WWII should think long and hard about his own country’s response to German agression against other countries in Europe, attempting to bargain those countries away in a vain attempt at appeasement.
Britain didn’t enter the war until Poland was invaded and it became clear that Britain could not remain at peace no matter what it did. Until that point, Chamberlain was willing to allow Germany to annex Austria, and even signed a pact with Hitler at Munich allowing Germany to take possession of a part of Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland), plus an outright bribe of some of Czechoslovakia’s most valuable mineral assets. Then when Hitler’s tanks rolled into Prague anyway, and then Hitler invaded Lithuania. Britain didn’t do a thing.
So let’s not get too haughty about America’s perceived isolationism.
Obviously you are the kind of politically correct liberal who sneeringly dismisses even the mildest display of patriotism as “obnoxious jingoism.”
No, you were not. You were merely bashing patriotism. The most exasperating and disgusting quality of the modern liberal is that he always sneers at the patriotism of others and then takes offense when someone questions his. Your hypocrisy reeks.
Wow, Lonesome Polecat. Bad day? Or maybe you inadvertently mixed up one of my posts with somebody else’s? Because I really don’t see what there is in what I’ve said to provoke accusations of “hypocrisy” or “sneering”. Recall that my first post was in response to a quote that claimed “it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth,” and proceeded to support that with a rather one-sided presentation of certain American actions as though they were acts of pure altruism. I simply criticized that presentation—quite temperately, I think—and protested that we shouldn’t try to compensate for biased anti-Americanism with biased pro-American jingoism.
I don’t see at all how you get out of that the notion that I’m “sneering” at “even the most mild expression of patriotism.” Either, as I said, you’ve temporarily mixed me up with somebody else who said something different, or you honestly feel that even sober and reasonable criticism of any patriotic claims should be construed as a vicious attack. Either way, I think you’ve gone beyond the point at which it’s possible to have a productive debate.
Poor Gordie… He’s probably rolling in his grave at the criticism laid upon that piece.
jingoism indeed
The Quote must be given context.
Mr. Sinclair wrote and broadcast this editorial at a time when America was hurting. Viet Nam, Watergate, the crippling recession and high inflation were ruining that Nation. It was at that time many nations took the time to verbally kick the United States while it was down. What Sinclair was trying to do was chastise those who so quickly forgot how they were helped by the same people whose misfortunes were being jeered at.
Sinclair was not trying to say that The U.S. did these things because the U.S. was noble. He was trying to show those who spat at the country and referred to its army as baby killers, and its leaders as crooks that there was forgotten better side to America.
As a Canadian who gets P.O’d by some U.S. Policies I sometimes fall into the trap of griping about everything American and knocking everything about the nation Sinclair is a little splash of cold water to give perspective. I read that article by a fellow Canadian and I regain a sense of balance.
Sure the Marshall plan was set up to stabilise European markets for the eventual influx of U.S. Goods, but it also helped people who after years of brutal warfare and privations. The fact the United States after many years of following isolationist policies did not retreat back to North America as it did in W.W.I shows a certain quality in American’s for doing what is right… eventually.
But that is just my take on things.
A productive debate isn’t possible with the likes of you. If that little article struck as “obnoxious jingoism,” you’re just another shitbrain PC liberal. Now go outside and play. The adults are trying to have a conversation.
A productive debate is not possible with people who use phrases like: “you’re just another shitbrain PC liberal”, nor is a Great Debates the proper forum for direct insults.
I suggest that either an apology or a shift to the appropriate forum (or both) are in order.
Kimstu, I am getting the feeling that it matters what the intention of the US is for whether or not its support is a “good thing.” Why on earth would it matter whether the us was acting out of altruism or selfishness?
I don’t hear the following from you, but I wonder if I can’t picture you saying it: “The US only gives $5 billion in aid which is some miniscule portion of its GDP when other nations give more blah blah.” As in, five billion dollars isn’t generous. As in, aid given with the hope for a return in some other way isn’t generous. Now, forgive me for saying so, but isn’t the reason the government aids its own citizens is so they can be productive and we can have a good economy? Isn’t the reason they protect some property rights so that there is incentive for innovation? Isn’t the reason they support unions so that people don’t starve?
If the government offered a living wage so people could spend more, and hence the economy would increase, and hence the government would get more taxes… should we scrap the living wage as jingoism? What about aiding college education? Promoting free trade with other countries?
I’m sorry, Kimstu. With individuals I can see questioning motivations as having an impact on the total evaluation. But, personally, I try to look at things from a more utilitarian perspective with respect to institutions. Thus, whatever reaons the government has to help me doesn’t change the fact that I am thankful that they did. How do you look at it?
erl: I don’t hear the following from you, but I wonder if I can’t picture you saying it: […]
I think that’s exactly the problem I’ve been having on this thread: several people are responding to something they’re “picturing” me saying rather than what I actually said. I stand by the remarks I made, but I see no point in arguing about what you imagine I might say.
As though that matters. I guess we both stand by what we said.
Kimstu, I’m picturing you saying a few things, and I have to say damn you have a dirty mouth. Though that three-way I’m picturing you proposing sounds intriguing.
Mind-reader. 
Are we seeing the return of Mistress Kimstu?
Who gave you permission to speak, worm??
I see things have been all cleared up…[sub]mistress**
“We British have been very fortunate that the Americans happen to speak our language - if France had had more influence in the US back in the day, the UK would now be in a very poor state (WAG). I guess Mr Blair has realised that the only place to be is holding onto Bush’s coattails as tight as possible…”
Most Americans ARE British, of course they speak our language. Britain isn`t a 3rd world country you seem to portray it.
“And the “being seen” bit is perceptive - apart (perhaps) from the SAS and certain airbases, I wouldn’t have thought that British troops are vital to the attacks?”
SAS widly acknowledged as the best fighting force in the world. heck theres only 250 of them they should be good. Perhaps they arn`t vital, but they are among the most highly trained in the world, why not?
Somebody mentioned earlier about USA and UK starting NATO. Not strictly true. If I remember correctly the UK and France began negotiations on collective security which was then joined by the WEU (Western European Union) and then Canada and the USA (could be wrong).
Yes the UK would be able to undertake a campaign the Americans undertook. Just because we dont have massive military shows in the streets like Moscow doesnt mean we don`t have a military. Indeed we would probably undertake the mission in a totally different way (not to say the USA way is wrong)
With reference to the WW2 posts. America does have an isolationist streak in it and many feel that Britain was treated like a defeated nation by the Americans after the conclusion of the war i.e giving up the Empire (maybe a good thing)
I feel total affinity with my American cousins. Far too much politcal correctness going on here and I’m too lazy to get cities. Fun talking with you guys.