What would happen if the ENTIRE world starts hating the USA?

[HPL]

*Originally posted by AvidReader *
**That is so banal, trite and lacking in originality that I am going to reply in kind.

If the French had not backed us both financially and militarily in the Revolutionary War we would today be participating in a Parlimentary form of government and taking our marching orders from Tony Blair… **

I think we paid france back during WW1 and WW2, even if we were a bit late to both parties.

[Ms2001]

Sometimes friends have to tell friends they’re screwing up, like France and Germany did.

[AvidReader]

*Originally posted by HPL *
**I think we paid france back during WW1 and WW2, even if we were a bit late to both parties. **

I realize that. But, my larger point is that it is so sophomoric for Americans, or Frenchmen, or Britons, etc. to believe (demand!!!) that since Nation “A” helped Nation “B” in a past crisis that “B” must now concur with “A”'s current policies “carte blanche”. It is not only sophomoric, but also shows a complete lack of realism and sophistication and an attitude of arrogance of supreme proportions.

[mooka]

*Originally posted by Milum *
elucidator : It’s our planet, the rest of you are here at our sufferance. We got the Big Stick, you speak softly. If at all.

Now now elucidator, I agree, but let’s be fair. Remember it was we who gave the modern world free speech. These tyros need time to sublimate their envy and resentment and learn to live as equals with men who are guided by high purpose and truth. **

You are being sarcastic aren’t you? I’m fairly sure you are, but not completely…

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by mooka *
**You are being sarcastic aren’t you? I’m fairly sure you are, but not completely… **

Based on this poster’s other contributions to debate, I’m afraid that, IMO, there’s no sarcasm there. Somebody clearly didn’t study history…

[Milum]

jjimm :* Based on this poster’s other contributions to debate, I’m afraid that, IMO, there’s no sarcasm there. Somebody clearly didn’t study history…*

Dern jjimm, aren’t you being a bit testy. Whatsa matter, war ain’t going your way? Ok, you got me, I skipped History class to chase the girls…

Let me think now…let’s see, hmmm… another free speech nation in 1776…uh…I got it! England!..naw, if you cussed the king they put you in jail…uh, Eskimos?..no? What the hell, I give up.
What other free-speech country was it, jjimm?

Hmmm?

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by Milum *
**Let me think now…let’s see, hmmm… another free speech nation in 1776…uh…I got it! England!..naw, if you cussed the king they put you in jail…uh, Eskimos?..no? What the hell, I give up.
What other free-speech country was it, jjimm?

Hmmm? **

Sorry old chap, the onus is on you to prove that “it was [the US] who gave the modern world free speech”.

[furt]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**Sometimes friends have to tell friends they’re screwing up, like France and Germany did. **

Sure. I told my best freind to his face that I thought his marriage was a mistake.

But I did NOT take it upon myself to go around actively trying to make everyone else agree with me and break up the wedding.

[istara]

My discontent at American actions has shit all to do with anti-Americanism. It has everything to do with loathing and despising much of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, and in particular its motives.

Similarly: I loathe and despise the actions of Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath party. But I am not anti-Iraq. I love all the Iraqis that I have met, and I would love to visit Iraq. I admire its history, its people, its place in civilisation, I view Saddam as a tragic, unfortunate blot on Iraq’s histroy, much as I view Bush on America’s.

But yes - hatred of your administration is going to cause you problems. Because for every “thinking” person who can discriminate between America and its leaders, or American people and their leaders, there are probably several who lump the whole lot together and hate with passion.

It may cost American companies some business, it will certainly cause American tourists hostility in certain countries - unfair, yes, because those companies and tourists didn’t necessarily support America’s actions.

I guess the only remedy is for Americans to make sure that prick doesn’t get reelected, and vote in an administration with slightly more honest, forward-thinking and constructive (in terms of the world, not just America) foreign policy.

[istara]

Ooops - I forgot I was posting in GD not the Pit - that language is probably very inappropriate for this forum!

Sorry. If a mod would like to change the offending “p” word to “fool” or something more appropriate, I would be very grateful.

[mooka]

*Originally posted by Milum *
jjimm : Based on this poster’s other contributions to debate, I’m afraid that, IMO, there’s no sarcasm there. Somebody clearly didn’t study history…

Dern jjimm, aren’t you being a bit testy. Whatsa matter, war ain’t going your way? Ok, you got me, I skipped History class to chase the girls…

Let me think now…let’s see, hmmm… another free speech nation in 1776…uh…I got it! England!..naw, if you cussed the king they put you in jail…uh, Eskimos?..no? What the hell, I give up.
What other free-speech country was it, jjimm?

Hmmm? **

Free speech exists unless there are laws banning it. So i’m afraid the onus is on you to provide a cite for the law that significantly curtails free speech that was enforced in Britain in 1776. I don’t think there was one.

*Originally posted by jjimm *

Originally posted by mooka
You are being sarcastic aren’t you? I’m fairly sure you are, but not completely…

Based on this poster’s other contributions to debate, I’m afraid that, IMO, there’s no sarcasm there. Somebody clearly didn’t study history…

Actually, reading back his quote, i’m more and more sure he must have been sarcastic. I mean, he says “men who are guided by high purpose and truth”. I’m not sure if he’s referring to the US politicians, or US people, but whichever it is - its so silly it can’t be serious…

I wish he’d come back to check this thread, so we could know for sure…

[yojimbo]

Just out of interest how free where Blacks in 1776?

I’m sure they were over joyed with the amount of freedom the US gave them.

[Milum]

** Mooka: Free speech exists unless there are laws banning it. So i’m afraid the onus is on you to provide a cite for the law that significantly curtails free speech that was enforced in Britain in 1776. I don’t think there was one.
**

Call me naive. I had hopes that we could all agree. Sigh. Oh well here I go like a fool, trying to explain the obvious…

Case in point -*** England.***
Reference - Deterring Demoracy ~ Noam Chomsky

"The struggle for freedom of speech is an interesting case, and a crucial one, since it lies at the heart of a whole array of freedoms and rights. A central question of the modern era is when, if ever, the state may act to interdict the content of communications. As noted earlier, even those regarded as leading libertarians have adopted restrictive and qualified views on this matter.88 One critical element is seditious libel, the idea that the state can be criminally assaulted by speech, “the hallmark of closed societies throughout the world,” legal historian Harry Kalven observes. A society that tolerates laws against seditious libel is not free, whatever its other virtues. In late 17th century England, men were castrated, disemboweled, quartered and beheaded for the crime. Through the 18th century, there was a general consensus that established authority could be maintained only by silencing subversive discussion, and “any threat, whether real or imagined, to the good reputation of the government” must be barred by force (Leonard Levy). “Private men are not judges of their superiors… [for] This wou’d confound all government,” one editor wrote. Truth was no defense: true charges are even more criminal than false ones, because they tend even more to bring authority into disrepute.

*I’m waiting…next country?..next?..**NEXT? ***

[McDuff]

Hang on…

You’re citing “Deterring Democracy” to say that the US is a pinnacle of Free Speech and Freedom For All?

Selectively read much? Why not quote the Howard Zinn to prove America gave the world the Labour movement as well?

[jjimm]

OK Milum, an expert on American history I am definitely not, but I can tell you that the First Amendment wasn’t passed in 1776 - it came in when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Furthermore, the First Amendment was effectively kaiboshed by the Sedition Act, passed seven years later. And that said:

if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Sounds a little like your “cuss the King” to me.

Granted, this was repealed three years after, but, according to Dr. Donna Dickerson at the University of Tyler, TX:

Sedition may have been dead at the federal level, but continued many years at the state level. Many states had sedition laws and government officers from governors down to mayors used it to protect themselves from criticism. In fact, Jefferson even brought charges of sedition against some of his attackers–but always in state court. Jefferson didn’t have a problem with sedition per se, only with the idea of a federal sedition law. By the 1830s, however, sedition cases were beginning to be replaced with civil libel–it seemed more attractive to try to get money from someone rather than to send them to jail. So, during the 19th Century, the American law of libel began to develop–built upon the common law of England and modified by the American experience.

Furthermore:

The United States Supreme Court did not hear a First Amendment case until the end of the [19th] Century. The reason was that the Court was spending most of its time dealing with cases that defined the constitutional boundaries of government as well as the economic interests of the country. Civil and personal rights were not a hot topic in the 19th Century. Nevertheless, there were certainly plenty of free expression issues that developed during the century. Mail censorship began in the 1830s when materials sent by Abolitionists into the South were censored by postmasters and burned by citizens; laws were passed in the South prohibiting anyone from possessing Abolitionist materials; and many Southern states had laws that prohibited slaves from learning to read or write.

The first testing of the Frist Amendment in the courts did not actually happen until 1896:

The first time the Supreme Court would hear a First Amendment case would be in 1896 when it heard an obscenity case. After the Civil War, the urge to censor obscenity (or improper and lascivious) materials) became the hot topic of the day. The war on obscenity was waged by a New York salesman named Anthony Comstock, who managed to get Congress to pass the Comstock Law in 1870, which prohibited obscene materials from being sent through the U.S. mails–a law that is still on the books. The 1896 case–not an important one–held that the definition of obscenity would be the same as it was in England.

My emphasis.

Whereas in England, the restoration of the monarchy brought with it an overthrow of Cromwell’s repressive censorship laws, and the “license” that a publisher had to be granted from the crown in order to publish, was repealed in 1694. Granted English treatment of the colonies was very different from that at home, but it seems that the English version of the sedition laws were effectively overturned more than a century before the Bill of Rights was passed in the US. The UK doesn’t have a written constitution, so there’s no paper that I can wave in your face, but in Commentaries on the laws of England, by Sir William Blackstone, 1765-1769:

The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state

provided it doesn’t print libel (he goes on to say):

Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.

As Dickerson says:

People and Kings alike were beginning to understand and accept that most people were rational, that the people were sovereign and that freedom of expression advanced and nurtured society and culture.

Since these ideas and the interpretation of Common Law were therefore floating around England a century before the Bill of Rights, would you claim that it was actually England that gave free speech to America?

Actually, I personally wouldn’t claim that England “gave” anyone free speech, either - it’s a concept that has been growing and developing in different ways in different cultures and countries since Classical Greek times, and subsequently Roman ones. These ‘modern’ ideas did indeed come from way back then.

I think what you might have been saying is “Remember it was we who gave the modern world the American version of free speech”. With this I have no quibble.

[jjimm]

Returns to the thread a few days later

Looks for Milum’s response and proof of assertions

Finds none

Leaves again