Sure. But “acting accordingly” doesn’t mean “refrain from doing everything Canadians do”.
And if I ever bow to somebody -which I might do, even if they’re not royalty- you can be quite certain that there is no chance in hell that that bow implies obsiance or that I am subject to that person. The bow might imply that I respect them - or, more likely, that I respect myself and am demonstrating that I am the polite and thus, better man.
Presuming that bowing = servitute is ridiculous codswallop. Now, if Obama gets down on his knees, page me. And if from there he bends down to touch his forehead to the ground, I’ll concede immidiately. But just brielfy bowing from the waist? Give me a break and get out of the 16th century.
So, what you are saying is that Bush did it wrong (shocking), and this somehow should make it perfectly OK that Obama, in a completely different situation, to bow? To paraphrase from the Princess Bride…truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Um…well, no. They wouldn’t have. Especially considering the lack of a parallel between the two actions. Also, they wouldn’t have because left wingers were nit picking every Bush speech or action using, as their meter stick if he looked like a chimp or if it stumbled in a speech or mispronounced ‘nuclear’. Since they were bringing up all number of OTHER inane criticisms about Bush, and since (seemingly) they don’t care about the whole bowing thing (big shock there), it’s fairly obvious that it wasn’t a big deal to them.
Yes…I get that you believe this. Belief, however, does not make it true.
No. What I’m saying, since your own dizzying intellect seems to have considerable trouble grasping it despite several repetitions, is that neither bow is something for a sensible American to be concerned about, because neither one was anything more than a trivial formality of protocol.
Okay, in one, you bend the knees. In the other, you bend the waist. The knees are the bendy place in the middle of each leg - you have two of them. The waist is the bendy place midway between toes and topknot - it rotates too. You only have one of them.
See? Not the same thing at all.
On preview, seeing the ring kissing thing: are you actually a shill for the other side, deliberately trying to make the RW RO over this look even more absurd? 'Cause really, that’s not necessary.
Oh, I definitely grasp that you would like me to call it a mistake, just as you would like to argue that Bush’s bow to King Abdullah doesn’t count as a bow, but in both cases I think you’re indulging in some desperate attempts at hairsplitting.
You know what, it would be OK if he said, while prostrate, “As the representative of the United States, I pledge the eternal fealty and servitude of myself and the entire American people.”
Why? Because diplomacy is about coldly calculating national interest, not who gets to take a macaroon off the dessert cart first. Bows and other salutations do not replace our treaties governing military, technological, tariff, commercial, environmental, or law enforcement and legal cooperation, nor does it affect the negotiation or enforcement.
Frankly, this kind of manufactured outrage really only plays to the cheap seats. Your typical provincial rube might get snookered by this machismo of who America bows to; anybody who has the first idea of how foreign policy is made couldn’t care less.
Nonsense; a smile is a one-way gesture. A wave is a one-way gesture. A raised middle finger is a one-way gesture.
Believe it or not, these gestures have meanings. Each of them. Separate ones. The bow, specifically, has multiple meanings based on context. And I’m beginning to have serious doubts about anyone who honestly believes that a brief bow from the PotUS to a foreign king of a smaller, weaker country is a gesture demonstrating fealty.
Why would that be OK? I agree with you that it wouldn’t formally supersede actual foreign policy instruments like treaties, but it would nonetheless be an explicit declaration of fealty on behalf of our nation, which would be the wrong thing for a head of state to do in a situation where his nation doesn’t actually owe fealty.
A bow (while shaking hands) to foreign royalty in polite greeting, on the other hand, is not an explicit declaration of fealty, and isn’t even a symbolic manifestation of fealty. The only reason people are as excited about it as they are is because of the “Obama secret Muslim” paranoia.
Actually, this thread has caused me to think about it and realise that a bow from the waist is never a gesture of submission. It’s a gesture that, depending on the circumstance, conveys respect, aknowledgement, or appreciation (note the ‘or’) - or alternatively is just a way of calling attention to yourself.
I mean, think about it. Performers on a stage bow to an audience after a show. Why do they bow? Acknowledgment and appreciation for the people who came to see them, somewhat - but mostly to call attention to themselves. A person steps before a king and bows briefly - they’re registering themselves as there to be addressed, in a respectful manner. A person departing the presence of the king - acknowledging what he has said, and their own dismissal, in a respectful manner. I seriously can’t think of an example that doesn’t fit this paradigm.
If you want to show submission, either the bow needs to be held for a prolonged period of time (a perpetually bowed head will do this too) or one or both knees needs to touch the floor.
Well, wrong in what sense? Factually wrong, sure, because Obama can’t do any such thing as pledge our eternal fealty and servitude. But it is exactly that that makes it politically OK, it doesn’t do anything at all. All right, I will confess I would find it a very strange thing to do, on its own and because of the fallout domestically it would cause; but it wouldn’t keep me up at night.
Obama’s actual gesture was much more restrained, and whether Abdullah wants to flatter himself the suzerain of the United States because of it or not (I suspect he does not), I prefer to judge Obama’s foreign policy performance from a realpolitik POV and not as if international diplomacy were just the petty dramas of Real World Leaders of the G20.
