What is an American

[sid guttridge]

Hi Tom,

"When in Rome do as the Romans do" has been a widely held maxim for 2,000 years. American citizens are not been asked to do any more than any others have been expected to do for millenia. It is integral to western culture, even if not always adhered to.

I think you were told quite reasonably not to be too in-your-face American in foreign countries. After all, they are FOREIGN countries. However, I am quite sure that nobody told you not to be proud of your country. They were simply advising you that it was courteous and sensitive not to be too loud and brash on other people's turf. This is common courtesy.

I can give you one example from personal experience of the sort of frictions that failure to follow this diplomatic approach can cause. In 1980 or 1981 the US Marines guarding the new US Embassy in Harare took to going for early morning runs through the city singing as they went. One of the lyrics I recall had something about eating babies. After a public outcry, largely from whites who lived in the "Avenues", they had to stop.

However, sometimes this suppression of US pride can be carried too far. I was visiting an ex-Marine friend in Baltimore and Boston during a round the world trip in my youth (1984). A friend in London had asked me to collect a military cap badge from every country. I had them from Pakistan, India, Bangla Desh, Hongkong, China, Japan, Fiji and New Zealand. I could have bought a US Marine Corps badge in a shop in down-town Baltimore or Boston, but Bill (my ex-Marine friend) said I would have more to choose from when we visited the Aberdeen Proving ground tank museum. We duly went into a PX there and Bill, being in a formal miltary environment, asked if he could buy one of the dozens of army and marine corps cap badges on sale for me. The answer was no, because it was a security risk!

Pride in one's country isn't something that has to be advertised, it should be an inner moral strength not necessarily visible to the rest of the world.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Charlie-Don't-Surf,

I think it is important to differentiate between "Patriotism" and "Nationalism".

For me Patriotism is a defensive concept implying pride in one's own country and its national culture.

However, Nationalism not only implies pride in one's own country and national culture, but a desire to impress it upon others.

I would be quite flattered to be thought of as a patriot, but rather insulted to be branded a nationalist.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Commissar D,

I think you have hit upon a couple of important contradictions.

Is it suprising if outsiders lack faith in the international interventions of a super power in which the bulk of the population is isolationist and has little understanding of what lies beyond its borders?

The Mexican example is very apt. I remember when the Falkands war broke out my Texan friend Terry, who is currently an Assistant DA, remarked, "Well what do you expect from a bunch of Mexicans?" He was an educated man, but he was unwilling to differentiate between any of the Latin American countries between the Rio Grande and Tierra del Fuego.

In 1986-7 I was in Mexico. I visited an archaeological site two hours north of Mexico city called Tulum or Tula (I always forget which is which). The Mexican tourist board had posted the annual vistor numbers by nationality by the entrance. First were the Germans. Second were the French. Third, and a long way behind, were the British and US visitors. Even though Tulum/Tula lies only a day's drive south of the US border, visitors from smaller countries on different continents were showing more interest in Mexican cultural antiquities than were Mexico's immediate neighbour.

I also think there is an inherent contradiction if the US ever takes unilateral action on the part of the "Free Nations of the World". If the US wants to take unilateral action on its own behalf, that is one thing, but to do so on behalf of the "Free Nations of the World" without their support is effectively to deny that they are free at all, at least of US dominance.

I also think that the US is not very distant from outside cultural influences. There is very little in US political and economic culture that does not have strong roots in Britain, England in particular. For this reason, to talk of the US as a young nation is right, but to talk of it as a young culture is wrong.

It is worth bearing in mind that 98% of the inhabited buildings in Britain were built AFTER the US was founded, so in some ways even the US's local roots are almost as deep as Europe's. American English words are sometimes of older English origin than Queen's English words: "Fall" is an old English word that has been lost in Britain and replaced by the French "autumn". There is no need to for the US to feel culturally isolated. It was founded in equal possession of England's cultural heritage and has since grafted on other European and global cultures. There is nowhere less culturally isolated.

Cheers,

Sid.

[charlie don't surf]

Hi Sid, you are correct in your definitions and I'm sorry if I used the terms in the sam meaning. However, to me American patriotism differs from others in the sense that Henrik described.

regards

[ReconPAL]

I found Sid Guttridge's post ,12/9, very perceptive. His illustration of language changes and I suppose you could say anthropological changes vis Britain and the US are most apt. Along with earlier views posted referring to the media's influence on US "thought" the Commissioner initiated are prodigious. In daily discussions in the the give and take of ordinary life I rarely ever hear (I could have typed never but relented) serious discussions of anything. Maybe the latest unnecessary addition of the thirteenth playing field to be built on a wetlands area because its needed (?) wanted (?) at the school Board Meeting or small talk at a luncheon with business acquaintances about a murder reported on the Evening News. Even Brokau's, whom I basically like, why I don't know, lead in on his 6 o'clock News sounds like a list of solutions of personal problems so meshed with the advertising that if you're not looking at the screen you rarely pick up the transition. But the real goad operating in the States today is "Talk Radio" All the rest, the stupid People type magazines that encapsulate the "news" and the analysts on line or cable who sift everything to a powdery insubstantial dust seem to drone on and on. Talk Radio is angry, opinuated, narrowfocused, radical, and disestablishmentarian in the way Daniel Bell warned two generations ago the media would become. Your discussion would not be understood in the States except by a small few and surprizingly probably not at all in the schools. An ominous situation and a sad one. Paul

[Landser]

Here is an interesting quote from a worldwide survey:

<<<Only 20% of Americans think the US doesn't consider other countries much or at all. Eighty per cent of Americans believe it's good to see US ideas and customs spreading round the globe.>>>

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Not such a super power after all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 82,00.html

[Commissar D, the Evil]

ReconPal wrote:

Talk Radio is angry, opinuated, narrowfocused, radical, and disestablishmentarian in the way Daniel Bell warned two generations ago the media would become

This is absolutely true!!!!!
I think the terrible thing is that it reaches so many Americans, who either listen to Talk Radio on the commute to and from work or listen to it at work.
Any caller who disagrees with the host of the show either gets insulted or hung up on. Now that's the way to have a meaningfull discussion!
You're actually being TOLD what the correct attitude is to have towards
an event or policy and if you don't agree--well F* you! You're an idiot (or worse)!
Free speech just isn't as free as it used to be.
Best Regards, David

[sid guttridge]

Hi,

Talk Radio is one of the contradictions of the US. It can only exist in an environment of relative freedom of speech, but it exercises a ruthless control of freedom of speech itself.

As a Brit I don't see much US TV. However, we have long had CNN. I have to say that Larry King is the poorest major interviewer I have ever seen. He is living proof that no one can have the range of expertise to perceptively interview Gerry Adams one day and Martha Stewart the next, no matter how good their researchers. Unfortunately Larry King is really a breakfast TV host masquerading as a heavyweight interviewer. He treated Gerry Adams as if he were a life-style guru. As we now know, he would have been better advised to treat Martha Stewart like a financial fraudster. Anyone can go on Larry King Live and expect an easy run. It is more like a PR platform. Pathetic. And as for his interview with Marlon Brando.............

I hope Larry King is not typical of domestic US tlevision.

Phew! I feel better for getting that off my chest.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

I am not fond of Larry King either. He does have some interesting guests, however. One time he had lead counsel of Pat Robertson's ACLJ-- the American Center for Law and Justice, which has fought unsuccessful lawsuits to allow schools in prayer among other things--with Penthouse magazine founder, Bob Guccione. It could have been a very intersting exchange, far more interesting than it actually was. That was one of the more memorable times when I had a sudden compulsion for hardline, fascist rule. I try hard not to be a Nazi, but I like thinking about what a few batallions of stormtroopers would do to the likes of Guccione, Heffner, Larry Flint, not to mention songwriters and producers behind vulgar "gangsta rap 'music,'" to name just a few of the more dissolute elements in the culture that need to be eradicated from our midst. Don't forget to include Jerry Springer in the horror and brutality either! Sadly, that was one reason why National Socialism failed: a number of Nazi officials were just as shady, with Himmler and Horst Wessel, a drug addict and pornographer himself, coming to mind. If only the less "political," and far more honorable figures from the German Armed Forces, like ROmmel, von Manstein, Guderian, Doenitz, some of the others had taken the helm!
Unfortunately, the Culture War has been lost for some time now, even with a much less brazen and less severe Republican control of the House, Senate, and white house. And Larry King is definitely one of the more benign elements. He is one of the more respectabel figures in terms of substance, though this does not render him desirable in absolute terms. Anyone who has ever watched MSNBC knows it is a pathetic joke. Half of it is just unsightful opinion. The rest just barely outlines the more sensational national headlines, all too often harboring on some kidnapped girl or other inconsequential, tabloidish development, while totally neglecting more profound matters not only here in the States, but especially abroad. And who amongst us is not utterly exasperated by the viewer call ins, listening to half-witted lemlings attempt--but fail!--to articulate a meaningful thought--within the twenty second time limit of course. Then there is Dan Abrams. How in the world such a punky little toolbox could ever be anything other than a copy boy confounds me terribly. Fox news is a little better, and admittedly I am drawn to their Republican, right-wing bias. But they too have a tabloid ambience about them that leaves much to be desired. If anyone wants to be informed about anything, best bet, as always, are printed publications. New York TImes and Washington Post are infiinitely more insightful, though, ostensibily because of their liberal bias, they fail to report some stories altogether, or report only selective facts in the stories they do report. That is why Washington Times is better. Also good are the Economist, and, my favorite, William Buckley's own National Review. Unfortunately, Signal magazine, whose Weltanschaaung is becoming increasingly sympathetic to me, has been out of circulation for some time!
I will close this predictably lengthy reply by questioning how democracy and freedom can work when the media is concentrated in onyl a few interests, and, for the most part, remains so utterly devoid of real substance as to ensure an educated and informed citizenry. That question must remain unanswered, because at this point in the game none of us are equipped with even the most rudimentary means to remedy the situation. As far as I know, the only solution is for one to shelter his own private life with the amenities and comforts that allow him to cease to care. That path is the one I have now undertaken for some time.

Best Wishes,

Einsamer Wolf

[sid guttridge]

Hi Einsamer,

Wow! And I thought I had something to get off my chest!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Rob S.]

Limiting the press isn't an option, but if it were done, it would mean huge changes; probably for the better.

The press is probably the most powerful and influencive force in Democracy because it has limitless bounds. There is no system of "checks and balances" and the news columnists aren't elected.

"Mr. President, are we going to war with Iraq?"
"Why don't you ask CNN?"

[Skorzeny]

Good Post Rudi. I for one am proud to be a German-American. God Bless you Rudi and I hope you and your family have a great Christmas.

[Deutscher]

Hello you all,
I thought that the following would be worth posting:

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan published an ad in a newspaper, offering a reward to anyone who killed an American---any American. So, an Australian dentist wrote the following to let everyone know just what an American is, so they would know when they found one.
An "American" is English or French or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or maybe Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab or Pakistani or Afghan.
An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, or one of the many other tribes known as Native Americans. So, the color of the skin and the shape of the eyes and cheekbones won't be the defining clue.
An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America, they are free to worship as each of
them chooses. An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that, we will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs, claiming to speak for the government and for God.
An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God-given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was Overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.
Americans welcome the best; the best products, the best books, the bst music, the best food, the best athletes. But they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless,
tempest tossed. These in fact, are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families and sending their money back to family members in their foreign homelands. I've been told that the World Trade Center victims were from cultures and first-languages [including those that aided and abetted the terrorists] from at least 30 countries.
So, you can try to kill an "American" if you must. Hitler did and so did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and every other blood-thirsty tyrant in the history of the world, all over the world. But, in doing
so, you would just be killing yourself because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, anywhere and everywhere, is an American, no matter what language you speak, no matter what blood
Rudi S.

bullshit

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Deutscher wrote;

bullshit

Heh Heh! That's what we're missing on Soldatenheim, good solid intellectual analysis and commentary!!! Regards, D, the EviL

[Deutscher]

An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, or one of the many other tribes known as Native Americans. So, the color of the skin and the shape of the eyes and cheekbones won't be the defining clue.

Yes, they are all americans - on the paper! But have they all the same "positon" in the society? (They must live in reservats)

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need

But only there who they can make profit... They dont done it for the people or compassion.

Americans welcome the best; the best products, the best books, the bst music, the best food, the best athletes

Hamburgers.. U have nothing special. What music can hear which we can not hear in europe? What product do u have which we dont have....

earning a better life for their families and sending their money back to family members in their foreign homelands.

Why is this something special? Thats normal.

I think the Hollywood propaganda works very well! The americans want to believe that what they see in his illusion factory hollywood.
The americans think from themselves that their are the greatest.
The usa is only a big show. The worship their filmstars as gods.


"They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom"

They american way of live can only dream with the oil of the iraq and therefore it will give war!
Bush is only a muppet of the jews. The jews controll the land and all will we done like them say.

Why have the Usa mass destruction weapons? Why dont allow them to the irakis to have such weapons (its israels fear). Why have the Usa the right to say u can have this weapons and u not?


What do the americans for the environmental protection ? They are driving cars which needs 25 liters of 100 kilometer (and therefore they want to make war , that can do this in the future ), it doesnt interested them how many they destroy their environmental!! That is an American ,too.

Certainly i know that not americans are all the same. But u must seen the negative sides, too.