shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2016 8:45:34 GMT -5
I actually was aware of this. My point about America, though, is that it actively tried to transform the world around it by setting high ideals for itself and the nations around it -- representative government, deterring war, promoting peace and mutual cooperation. It screwed up epically in many instances, but at least it tried to make the world better through its example. Australia may have gotten it right in many respects, but it never tried to be a global leader and to convey its example to others. It's easy for citizens of other nations to sit back and armchair referee global politics. You can call the US out on a million things and be right about each of them, but at least the US actively tried -- committed serious resources and attention to trying to make a better world. No one has ever succeeded at that, and the US was the first to make serious efforts to try. I think it deserves respect for that, even if it largely failed, and even if, many times, individual politicians put their own self interests and ignorant biases ahead of the greater good in the process. Can any nation truly say it would have done a better job? And can any nation truly say that the US shouldn't have tried? Can any other nation, suddenly finding itself to be a world power among a community of war-battered nations, be so sure that their country would have acted with as much selflessness in trying to make the world around it a safer place for all? I'm not saying the US is better. I'm saying the US was placed in a unique situation that no other nation was in, and tried things no other nation tried. Thus, any judgment or comparison is innately unfair. The thing is, while you may not believe it, I think that yes, a lot of people in other countries can and do say that America frequently shouldn't have tried, because what you see as America trying to make a better world, many others see as America rather arrogantly interfering in the affairs of other nations which don't concern them without anybody actually having asked them to. Sorry, but that is basically how a lot of people in other nations see it, and they're quite vocal about it. They don't want or need America or anyone else trying to be a "global leader"; they'd rather pick their own leaders. People do not generally appreciate other countries meddling in their nation's affairs, however well meaning they are. It always leads to resentment, and frequently to violence. The best way any country can try to set an example to others is to solve all its own problems first and let the rest of the world see that it's done it. Sadly, nobody seems ever to have succeeded in doing this. That's easy to say, but I think the UK needed America after WWII. And, again, I agree that many of the things the US tried did more damage than good, but it's not like the US just railroaded over Europe and said "our way or the highway." We didn't start taking that approach until far more recently. The European leaders were at the table, talking to the US, as it made most of its global decisions -- the good and the bad. Some of the time, the US took the lead because we could, and some of the time we took the lead because no one else wanted to. We treated our status as a world power with far more respect and caution than Britain, Spain, Rome, or any other world power before us. It wasn't until George Bush Jr. that we started acting on our own accord with little concern for what other European nations felt. Do note that I've emphasized "European" nations all this time. We had little to no regard for anyone else, but we absolutely empowered our European neighbors. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 7, 2016 8:47:05 GMT -5
I can only "drop in" for a while because of some pressing work, but I hope to be able to contribute later to what had been one of the most interesting threads yet.
As someone who often taught US history, I will simply offer the observation that nations, cultures, peoples are like individuals. We repress, we compartmentalize, we forget conveniently, we cultivate selective amnesia. To our great discredit we often refuse to acknowledge truth. The old saying, "When everyone is telling you that you're drunk, you are" doesn't just apply to college kids.
We all believe in Platonic versions of ourselves, of those we love, of whatever groups we identify ourselves with. Then there's the reality. Acknowledging that gap between the perfect, the ideal and the very very flawed is difficult for us all at times; when it has proved impossible, our world has suffered for it.
Many times I have had German exchange students in my class for up to a full year. They spoke of the Hitler years with astonishing honesty. Others might argue about the means by which the German people and state have
confronted that period of their history, but I wonder if here in the United States we could confront our past with such honesty, littered as it is with the excesses of empire-building.
The systematic destruction of the native peoples and their cultures, the buying and selling of human beings, the expansion of our economic and military power throughout the world by violent means, and the belief (admittedly not a consensus of belief) in the notion of American exceptionalism, have all served an economy that has long regarded workers, human beings, as just one more commodity.
Ask that this be taught as a key part of our history: you're being"politically correct." Not "honest," not "fair," but "politically correct." Inevitably spoken as a sneering, smirking dismissal of your namby-pamby, candy-ass liberalism.
On the other hand, Shax is right about the wake-up call that the American Revolution (as we call it) sent to the monarchies of Europe.
Like every other political movement, the rebellion (as the British regarded it) had many causes, ranging from philosophical to economic, and it transformed over many decades into what it became, but like the labor movement, progressivism and the civil rights movement, it changed the way we regarded ourselves as Americans, but even more profoundly, as human beings.
Not that we always applied these lessons to those who didn’t resemble the ruling class in color, sex or religion.
But it was a step.
To be honest, the roots of the Revolution are at the heart of most of our cultural conflicts in our country today. It was science and the Enlightenment, with their emphasis on logic and reason, that led to the discussion of the rights of the individual and a questioning of the way things were. Such questioning was as threatening to the ruling class in its royal apple cart as Galileo’s observations were to the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. Now we have far too many Americans who find science a threat to their most cherished beliefs; evolution, climate change, and the latest furor, gender identification, overturn their comfortable apple carts.
Sorry to range far and wide. Must get to work. Hope to return ASAP to a fascinating thread.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2016 8:53:29 GMT -5
I can only "drop in" for a while because of some pressing work, but I hope to be able to contribute later to what had been one of the most interesting threads yet. As someone who often taught US history, I will simply offer the observation that nations, cultures, peoples are like individuals. We repress, we compartmentalize, we forget conveniently, we cultivate selective amnesia. To our great discredit we often refuse to acknowledge truth. The old saying, "When everyone is telling you that you're drunk, you are" doesn't just apply to college kids. We all believe in Platonic versions of ourselves, of those we love, of whatever groups we identify ourselves with. Then there's the reality. Acknowledging that gap between the perfect, the ideal and the very very flawed is difficult for us all at times; when it has proved impossible, our world has suffered for it. Many times I have had German exchange students in my class for up to a full year. They spoke of the Hitler years with astonishing honesty. Others might argue about the means by which the German people and state have confronted that period of their history, but I wonder if here in the United States we could confront our past with such honesty, littered as it is with the excesses of empire-building. The systematic destruction of the native peoples and their cultures, the buying and selling of human beings, the expansion of our economic and military power throughout the world by violent means, and the belief (admittedly not a consensus of belief) in the notion of American exceptionalism, have all served an economy that has long regarded workers, human beings, as just one more commodity. Ask that this be taught as a key part of our history: you're being"politically correct." Not "honest," not "fair," but "politically correct." Inevitably spoken as a sneering, smirking dismissal of your namby-pamby, candy-ass liberalism. On the other hand, Shax is right about the wake-up call that the American Revolution (as we call it) sent to the monarchies of Europe. Like every other political movement, the rebellion (as the British regarded it) had many causes, ranging from philosophical to economic, and it transformed over many decades into what it became, but like the labor movement, progressivism and the civil rights movement, it changed the way we regarded ourselves as Americans, but even more profoundly, as human beings. Not that we always applied these lessons to those who didn’t resemble the ruling class in color, sex or religion. But it was a step. To be honest, the roots of the Revolution are at the heart of most of our cultural conflicts in our country today. It was science and the Enlightenment, with their emphasis on logic and reason, that led to the discussion of the rights of the individual and a questioning of the way things were. Such questioning was as threatening to the ruling class in its royal apple cart as Galileo’s observations were to the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. Now we have far too many Americans who find science a threat to their most cherished beliefs; evolution, climate change, and the latest furor, gender identification, overturn their comfortable apple carts. Sorry to range far and wide. Must get to work. Hope to return ASAP to a fascinating thread. Somehow, someday, you and I are going our for a beer together. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 7, 2016 8:58:38 GMT -5
I can only "drop in" for a while because of some pressing work, but I hope to be able to contribute later to what had been one of the most interesting threads yet. As someone who often taught US history, I will simply offer the observation that nations, cultures, peoples are like individuals. We repress, we compartmentalize, we forget conveniently, we cultivate selective amnesia. To our great discredit we often refuse to acknowledge truth. The old saying, "When everyone is telling you that you're drunk, you are" doesn't just apply to college kids. We all believe in Platonic versions of ourselves, of those we love, of whatever groups we identify ourselves with. Then there's the reality. Acknowledging that gap between the perfect, the ideal and the very very flawed is difficult for us all at times; when it has proved impossible, our world has suffered for it. Many times I have had German exchange students in my class for up to a full year. They spoke of the Hitler years with astonishing honesty. Others might argue about the means by which the German people and state have confronted that period of their history, but I wonder if here in the United States we could confront our past with such honesty, littered as it is with the excesses of empire-building. The systematic destruction of the native peoples and their cultures, the buying and selling of human beings, the expansion of our economic and military power throughout the world by violent means, and the belief (admittedly not a consensus of belief) in the notion of American exceptionalism, have all served an economy that has long regarded workers, human beings, as just one more commodity. Ask that this be taught as a key part of our history: you're being"politically correct." Not "honest," not "fair," but "politically correct." Inevitably spoken as a sneering, smirking dismissal of your namby-pamby, candy-ass liberalism. On the other hand, Shax is right about the wake-up call that the American Revolution (as we call it) sent to the monarchies of Europe. Like every other political movement, the rebellion (as the British regarded it) had many causes, ranging from philosophical to economic, and it transformed over many decades into what it became, but like the labor movement, progressivism and the civil rights movement, it changed the way we regarded ourselves as Americans, but even more profoundly, as human beings. Not that we always applied these lessons to those who didn’t resemble the ruling class in color, sex or religion. But it was a step. To be honest, the roots of the Revolution are at the heart of most of our cultural conflicts in our country today. It was science and the Enlightenment, with their emphasis on logic and reason, that led to the discussion of the rights of the individual and a questioning of the way things were. Such questioning was as threatening to the ruling class in its royal apple cart as Galileo’s observations were to the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. Now we have far too many Americans who find science a threat to their most cherished beliefs; evolution, climate change, and the latest furor, gender identification, overturn their comfortable apple carts. Sorry to range far and wide. Must get to work. Hope to return ASAP to a fascinating thread. Somehow, someday, you and I are going our for a beer together. Deal! First sixie is on me! |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 7, 2016 9:25:31 GMT -5
The thing is, while you may not believe it, I think that yes, a lot of people in other countries can and do say that America frequently shouldn't have tried, because what you see as America trying to make a better world, many others see as America rather arrogantly interfering in the affairs of other nations which don't concern them without anybody actually having asked them to. Sorry, but that is basically how a lot of people in other nations see it, and they're quite vocal about it. They don't want or need America or anyone else trying to be a "global leader"; they'd rather pick their own leaders. People do not generally appreciate other countries meddling in their nation's affairs, however well meaning they are. It always leads to resentment, and frequently to violence. The best way any country can try to set an example to others is to solve all its own problems first and let the rest of the world see that it's done it. Sadly, nobody seems ever to have succeeded in doing this. That's easy to say, but I think the UK needed America after WWII. And, again, I agree that many of the things the US tried did more damage than good, but it's not like the US just railroaded over Europe and said "our way or the highway." We didn't start taking that approach until far more recently. The European leaders were at the table, talking to the US, as it made most of its global decisions -- the good and the bad. Some of the time, the US took the lead because we could, and some of the time we took the lead because no one else wanted to. We treated our status as a world power with far more respect and caution than Britain, Spain, Rome, or any other world power before us. It wasn't until George Bush Jr. that we started acting on our own accord with little concern for what other European nations felt. Do note that I've emphasized "European" nations all this time. We had little to no regard for anyone else, but we absolutely empowered our European neighbors. I was a child in the 1970s, a teenager in the 1980s, in a Britain continually aware of the impending threat of nucear armageddon, a Britain where our peace of mind was shaken by terrifying "protect & Survive" leaflets and televised public information films about what to do in the event of an attack, a country which seemed to us to be full of American missiles (the most infamous example being the base at Greenham Common) which, far from protecting us, were seen as making us a target! We in the UK, and our neighbours in Europe, did not feel empowered by their presence. I think many simply felt a sense of utter helplessness, that two world powers engaged in an ideological conflict which much of the rest of the world, or at least the man in the street, simply didn't care about all that much were nonetheless seemingly quite capable of destroying us all at a moment's notice for reasons that had nothing to do with us and which we could do nothing to affect. That was certainly my feeling, when I became old enough to understand what was going on and what those female peace protesters at Greenham Common were actually there for. In 1984, the Doomsday Clock was at three minutes to midnight. We did not set the time. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2016 9:29:01 GMT -5
That's easy to say, but I think the UK needed America after WWII. And, again, I agree that many of the things the US tried did more damage than good, but it's not like the US just railroaded over Europe and said "our way or the highway." We didn't start taking that approach until far more recently. The European leaders were at the table, talking to the US, as it made most of its global decisions -- the good and the bad. Some of the time, the US took the lead because we could, and some of the time we took the lead because no one else wanted to. We treated our status as a world power with far more respect and caution than Britain, Spain, Rome, or any other world power before us. It wasn't until George Bush Jr. that we started acting on our own accord with little concern for what other European nations felt. Do note that I've emphasized "European" nations all this time. We had little to no regard for anyone else, but we absolutely empowered our European neighbors. I was a child in the 1970s, a teenager in the 1980s, in a Britain continually aware of the impending threat of nucear armageddon, a Britain where our peace of mind was shaken by terrifying "protect & Survive" leaflets and televised public information films about what to do in the event of an attack, a country which seemed to us to be full of American missiles (the most infamous example being the base at Greenham Common) which, far from protecting us, were seen as making us a target! We in the UK, and our neighbours in Europe, did not feel empowered by their presence. I think many simply felt a sense of utter helplessness, that two world powers engaged in an ideological conflict which much of the rest of the world, or at least the man in the street, simply didn't care about all that much were nonetheless seemingly quite capable of destroying us all at a moment's notice for reasons that had nothing to do with us and which we could do nothing to affect. That was certainly my feeling, when I became old enough to understand what was going on and what those female peace protesters at Greenham Common were actually there for. In 1984, the Doomsday Clock was at three minutes to midnight. We did not set the time. Your anecdotal experience is no different than that of anyone living in America at the time. We didn't choose that war or that circumstance and neither did you, but our government did with your government's help and consent. To return to the point you raised, while it may have felt like America was imposing itself upon your way of life, that was your government's decision -- both in informing America's course of action and in actively supporting it. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 7, 2016 9:31:31 GMT -5
I can only "drop in" for a while because of some pressing work, but I hope to be able to contribute later to what had been one of the most interesting threads yet. As someone who often taught US history, I will simply offer the observation that nations, cultures, peoples are like individuals. We repress, we compartmentalize, we forget conveniently, we cultivate selective amnesia. To our great discredit we often refuse to acknowledge truth. The old saying, "When everyone is telling you that you're drunk, you are" doesn't just apply to college kids. We all believe in Platonic versions of ourselves, of those we love, of whatever groups we identify ourselves with. Then there's the reality. Acknowledging that gap between the perfect, the ideal and the very very flawed is difficult for us all at times; when it has proved impossible, our world has suffered for it. Many times I have had German exchange students in my class for up to a full year. They spoke of the Hitler years with astonishing honesty. Others might argue about the means by which the German people and state have confronted that period of their history, but I wonder if here in the United States we could confront our past with such honesty, littered as it is with the excesses of empire-building. The systematic destruction of the native peoples and their cultures, the buying and selling of human beings, the expansion of our economic and military power throughout the world by violent means, and the belief (admittedly not a consensus of belief) in the notion of American exceptionalism, have all served an economy that has long regarded workers, human beings, as just one more commodity. Ask that this be taught as a key part of our history: you're being"politically correct." Not "honest," not "fair," but "politically correct." Inevitably spoken as a sneering, smirking dismissal of your namby-pamby, candy-ass liberalism. On the other hand, Shax is right about the wake-up call that the American Revolution (as we call it) sent to the monarchies of Europe. Like every other political movement, the rebellion (as the British regarded it) had many causes, ranging from philosophical to economic, and it transformed over many decades into what it became, but like the labor movement, progressivism and the civil rights movement, it changed the way we regarded ourselves as Americans, but even more profoundly, as human beings. Not that we always applied these lessons to those who didn’t resemble the ruling class in color, sex or religion. But it was a step. To be honest, the roots of the Revolution are at the heart of most of our cultural conflicts in our country today. It was science and the Enlightenment, with their emphasis on logic and reason, that led to the discussion of the rights of the individual and a questioning of the way things were. Such questioning was as threatening to the ruling class in its royal apple cart as Galileo’s observations were to the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. Now we have far too many Americans who find science a threat to their most cherished beliefs; evolution, climate change, and the latest furor, gender identification, overturn their comfortable apple carts. Sorry to range far and wide. Must get to work. Hope to return ASAP to a fascinating thread. It certainly has been fascinating, one of the most interesting debates I can recall having in awhile. And while I've found myself becoming quite impassioned by it, I now hope I've not seemed to become overly aggressive (having just looked at my own last post, it was perhaps a little more forthright than I'd intended; it wasn't intended to be hostile, but I've found some disturbing childhood memories being awakened by this topic. When I think back to the eighties now with the benefit of hindsight, I'm amazed we weren't all gibbering wrecks a lot of the time). |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 7, 2016 9:36:44 GMT -5
I was a child in the 1970s, a teenager in the 1980s, in a Britain continually aware of the impending threat of nucear armageddon, a Britain where our peace of mind was shaken by terrifying "protect & Survive" leaflets and televised public information films about what to do in the event of an attack, a country which seemed to us to be full of American missiles (the most infamous example being the base at Greenham Common) which, far from protecting us, were seen as making us a target! We in the UK, and our neighbours in Europe, did not feel empowered by their presence. I think many simply felt a sense of utter helplessness, that two world powers engaged in an ideological conflict which much of the rest of the world, or at least the man in the street, simply didn't care about all that much were nonetheless seemingly quite capable of destroying us all at a moment's notice for reasons that had nothing to do with us and which we could do nothing to affect. That was certainly my feeling, when I became old enough to understand what was going on and what those female peace protesters at Greenham Common were actually there for. In 1984, the Doomsday Clock was at three minutes to midnight. We did not set the time. Your anecdotal experience is no different than that of anyone living in America at the time. We didn't choose that war or that circumstance and neither did you, but our government did with your government's help and consent. To return to the point you raised, while it may have felt like America was imposing itself upon your way of life, that was your government's decision -- both in informing America's course of action and in actively supporting it. Accepted. But it was very definitely not the decision of the people. Which rather brings us back to something raised earlier, the often less than harmonious relationships between governments and those governed by them. Did either our government or yours have any moral right to put any of us in that situation? If they did, I can't see it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2016 9:41:51 GMT -5
Your anecdotal experience is no different than that of anyone living in America at the time. We didn't choose that war or that circumstance and neither did you, but our government did with your government's help and consent. To return to the point you raised, while it may have felt like America was imposing itself upon your way of life, that was your government's decision -- both in informing America's course of action and in actively supporting it. Accepted. But it was very definitely not the decision of the people. Which rather brings us back to something raised earlier, the often less than harmonious relationships between governments and those governed by them. Did either our government or yours have any moral right to put any of us in that situation? If they did, I can't see it. They believed the moral right was to prevent the Soviet Union from becoming the dominant world power. I think they were right in their goal, but (as always) disastrously wrong in their execution. But to return to the point -- the US wasn't just stomping over other nations to get what it wanted. Thus I reiterate my claim: |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 7, 2016 9:45:36 GMT -5
And I can see why you personally feel that way. I'm just saying that those in other countries may, and often do, have a very different perspective on America's actions and motives. That's something I think a lot of your countrymen fail to really understand a lot of the time.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2016 9:57:06 GMT -5
And I can see why you personally feel that way. It's not an emotion I'm espousing -- it's an argument that it's unfair to judge. First time you've managed to offend me in this debate. I think nearly all Americans are better informed than that. Even the ignorant "America rules and everyone else sucks" folk know how other nations feel; they just vehemently disagree. As I've said before, you can criticize America for any number of reasons and often be right, but the reason America is such a target, the reason virtually everyone in the world has an opinion about America, is because it put itself out there as a world power and tried to do more than just conquer, occupy, and colonize. It has people who don't like it because it didn't go and kick other nations' butts whenever they disagreed with or opposed it. Most of the messes it left behind in the world happened because America didn't just kill and conquer. We could have "fixed" Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, South Africa, Israel/Palestine, and even Russia itself if we went in with a Spanish or Roman mentality and simply conquered. We didn't. We screwed up a lot by trying to hold ourselves to a higher ideal. As the first world power in an age of technological mass destruction, we could have led the world to ruin a lot faster and a lot worse than we did. Instead, we exercised restraint and tried to promote mutual cooperation most of the time. It's easy to judge, and it's also unfair to judge. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 7, 2016 10:03:43 GMT -5
And I can see why you personally feel that way. It's not an emotion I'm espousing -- it's an argument that it's unfair to judge. First time you've managed to offend me in this debate. I think nearly all Americans are better informed than that. Even the ignorant "America rules and everyone else sucks" folk know how other nations feel; they just vehemently disagree. As I've said before, you can criticize America for any number of reasons and often be right, but the reason America is such a target, the reason virtually everyone in the world has an opinion about America, is because it put itself out there as a world power and tried to do more than just conquer, occupy, and colonize. It has people who don't like it because it didn't go and kick other nations' butts whenever they disagreed with or opposed it. Most of the messes it left behind in the world happened because America didn't just kill and conquer. We could have "fixed" Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, South Africa, Israel/Palestine, and even Russia itself if we went in with a Spanish or Roman mentality and simply conquered. We didn't. We screwed up a lot. It's easy to judge, and it's also unfair to judge. Believe me, it wasn't my intention to offend you, Shax. It's simply the impression I've been left with quite frequently over the years. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2016 10:05:21 GMT -5
It's not an emotion I'm espousing -- it's an argument that it's unfair to judge. First time you've managed to offend me in this debate. I think nearly all Americans are better informed than that. Even the ignorant "America rules and everyone else sucks" folk know how other nations feel; they just vehemently disagree. As I've said before, you can criticize America for any number of reasons and often be right, but the reason America is such a target, the reason virtually everyone in the world has an opinion about America, is because it put itself out there as a world power and tried to do more than just conquer, occupy, and colonize. It has people who don't like it because it didn't go and kick other nations' butts whenever they disagreed with or opposed it. Most of the messes it left behind in the world happened because America didn't just kill and conquer. We could have "fixed" Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, South Africa, Israel/Palestine, and even Russia itself if we went in with a Spanish or Roman mentality and simply conquered. We didn't. We screwed up a lot. It's easy to judge, and it's also unfair to judge. Believe me, it wasn't my intention to offend you, Shax. It's simply the impression I've been left with quite frequently over the years. I realize you meant no offense, but when you judge an entire group of people based upon an impression some have given you, you have stumbled into prejudice. Don't worry, we're good  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 7, 2016 11:12:15 GMT -5
Back in 1978 I was 17 years old and "Truth, Justice, & the American Way" meant you try you best and you have an opportunity to succeed if you work hard and never give up. To me that's pretty much it, with such opportunity being offered to everyone in America, irrespective of who they are, all citizens being equal. Yes, I know, in real life it doesn't quite work that way, but that's the dream as I perceive it. I remember Jack Kirby having Captain America explain to Mr. Buddha what the American Dream was back in the Bicentennial Treasury Edition. There was a boy living in a slum, working on his homework late at night, and Cap was waxing eloquent about how this kid was living the dream, not whining about his fate but working hard at bettering his lot. At the time, I was shocked that this could be seen as good thing; living in a country with free medical care and a solid social net, I couldn't believe that a hero like Cap would see nothing wrong in the idea that misery was acceptable as long as people had a chance to work their way out of it. Later, becoming more familiar with how life really works, I came to appreciate that aspect of the American dream : self-reliance and initiative being encouraged and rewarded. One thing that really struck me when I lived in the U.S. was the amazing work ethics of my neighbours; they'd work two jobs while earning a degree, and never complain about their lot. Not that I think this vision of the American Dream is a practical model (not even for American Citizens). In the real world, it is certainly easier to make your dreams happen if you're born in the right family, with a high IQ, the right skin color, the right looks and the right neighbourhood. It's just not true that chances are equal for everyone. But the dream itself, yeah, it's a beautiful thing. And I can see someone like Superman want to help make it happen for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by sabongero on Jun 7, 2016 14:28:28 GMT -5
I'm just doing some backreading, and it's some great thought-provoking posts here over the last several hours alone. I just wanted to add a little to the discussion. I suppose the gist of "The American Way" is adhering to the principles of the most famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Although "the pursuit of happiness" was changed by Thomas Jefferson which he took from John Locke's "life, liberty, and property." Perhaps he should have just left John Locke's original trinity, and left "property" there instead of "pursuit of happiness." I'm joust going out on a limb here, as the majority and almost all Americans would partially consider in their belief that the "pursuit of happiness" also includes the pursuit of wealth and status, like having a luxury car, a luxurious house, etc. Of course the "pursuit of happiness" can mean many things to different people. But if "property" was left in place in that trinity, then Thomas Jefferson was also exercising his right to "life, liberty, and property" as he owned 200+ human beings who themselves were not allowed by Thomas Jefferson to pursue their own happiness.
Hmmmm... I'm getting a migraine. I suppose needless to say, "The American Way" is left to each individual's interpretation and would also depend heavily on that person's status in society and timeline in history. I daresay it can also be interpreted cynically in the modern age especially for non-Americans as of course, America is viewed differently from the outside than how Americans perceive themselves.
|
|
