NationStates Jolt Archive

i watched an interview with cultural anthropologist on TV about american patriotism yesterday. Luckily it's also available on the net. She was lecturing to marines (students) in Hawaii and has just returned from the USA. This is what she said.

Problem with american patriotism is that we (europeans) do not understand it.
American deportment is based on evolutionism of19th century. They see the world as our big metropolises saw it in 19th century. Americans feel moral duty to go out from USA and americanise ("civilise") the worlds which are not enough americanised or civilised. For us is that problematic but for them is that a moral duty to die for.
She talked also to liberal intelectuals and when she asked them did you think that USA is more developed from Iraq they would all say yes. if you ask them is it american political system better than iraqi they would all say yes. Other option is what cultural anthropology presume that there is no one pattern of development and you can't say one is more or less developed but they are differently devloped so there are big differences in the directions where these cultures are developing. You cannot measure cultures with one measure tool but americans measure all with american democracy, iraq, us and all other countries in the world convinced that that is topmost achievement of historic evolution.

Their moral is based on european logic of 19th century what makes a problem. Europe at that time was civilising barbaric nations as to what americans are doing now. Even the liberal intelectuals see the war in Iraq as acceleration of evolution. From bush supporters they differ only in way how to do that. They are doing it with bombs, liberals would do it in some other way. But the idea that the world must be americanised is universal among all of them. It's just a difference between soft and hard colonialism.
Core of american patriotism is that US is better.

We europeans weren't asking what is wrong with american patriotism in days of Clinton. Bush has revealed directly what US is. He made it visible and we weren't prepared for that because us separate a totaly different experience from 20th century what can be seen immensely today.

Karl Marx once wrote that history repeated itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. Nowadays happening is a farce and something else probaly also.

i did my best to translate it. i how a question. Is here any american who doesn't think like all other americans she talked to?

Plenty of them. The thing that disturbs me about "cultural anthropologists" is that they make sweeping generalizations based on a very limited number of case studies and, at least in this one's situation, have tried to encapsulate a myriad of ideas into one easily "sound bitable" theory.

but its reality. Atleast in the heads of politicians. They think they have to americanize the world. That's what globalisation is about. Bush was talking yesterday how they need to reform middle east. to democratize it. now tell me she's not right.

but its reality. Atleast in the heads of politicians. They think they have to americanize the world. That's what globalisation is about. Bush was talking yesterday how they need to reform middle east. to democratize it. now tell me she's not right.


Are you saying that we should not bring democracy to the Middle East? Since when is that an American thing?

No, I'm sure all of us 290,000,000 Americans think that way.

If she made a comparision to what america is doing now to what the Colonials did in the past and only had positive things to say then id be weary of her.

I wish you could give us a link, this would be a very interesting read.

DEMOCRACY IS EVIL!
UP WITH FASCISM!!!
^Alaywhatsit Eurasia

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

She has a point. But what about those millions of Americans that don't give a sod for the rest of the world? The ones that would be quite happy for the US to return to 'isolationiasm'? Maybe it only applies to an elite.
I can't see anything wrong with promoting democracy anywhere, as long as it's not at the end of a gun barrel. But it has to be admitted that some Americans do see their way of life as 'the only way' and that's plainly wrong.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

She has a point. But what about those millions of Americans that don't give a sod for the rest of the world? The ones that would be quite happy for the US to return to 'isolationiasm'? Maybe it only applies to an elite.
I can't see anything wrong with promoting democracy anywhere, as long as it's not at the end of a gun barrel. But it has to be admitted that some Americans do see their way of life as 'the only way' and that's plainly wrong.
Isolationists are a rapidly dying breed, here. They always experience a brief revival whenever the US or its interests are attacked by foreigners, but they soon peeter out. That's because even the most foolish of Americans know that, no matter how hard we try, we can't stay away from the rest of the world. We tried that before WWII, but it didn't work. Isolationism merely delays the inevitable, and Americans know that.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

She has a point. But what about those millions of Americans that don't give a sod for the rest of the world? The ones that would be quite happy for the US to return to 'isolationiasm'? Maybe it only applies to an elite.
I can't see anything wrong with promoting democracy anywhere, as long as it's not at the end of a gun barrel. But it has to be admitted that some Americans do see their way of life as 'the only way' and that's plainly wrong.
Isolationists are a rapidly dying breed, here. They always experience a brief revival whenever the US or its interests are attacked by foreigners, but they soon peeter out. That's because even the most foolish of Americans know that, no matter how hard we try, we can't stay away from the rest of the world. We tried that before WWII, but it didn't work. Isolationism merely delays the inevitable, and Americans know that.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And very pleased I am to hear it.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

She has a point. But what about those millions of Americans that don't give a sod for the rest of the world? The ones that would be quite happy for the US to return to 'isolationiasm'? Maybe it only applies to an elite.
I can't see anything wrong with promoting democracy anywhere, as long as it's not at the end of a gun barrel. But it has to be admitted that some Americans do see their way of life as 'the only way' and that's plainly wrong.
Isolationists are a rapidly dying breed, here. They always experience a brief revival whenever the US or its interests are attacked by foreigners, but they soon peeter out. That's because even the most foolish of Americans know that, no matter how hard we try, we can't stay away from the rest of the world. We tried that before WWII, but it didn't work. Isolationism merely delays the inevitable, and Americans know that.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And very pleased I am to hear it.

i watched an interview with cultural anthropologist on TV about american patriotism yesterday. Luckily it's also available on the net. She was lecturing to marines (students) in Hawaii and has just returned from the USA. This is what she said.

Problem with american patriotism is that we (europeans) do not understand it.
American deportment is based on evolutionism of19th century. They see the world as our big metropolises saw it in 19th century. Americans feel moral duty to go out from USA and americanise ("civilise") the worlds which are not enough americanised or civilised. For us is that problematic but for them is that a moral duty to die for.
She talked also to liberal intelectuals and when she asked them did you think that USA is more developed from Iraq they would all say yes. if you ask them is it american political system better than iraqi they would all say yes. Other option is what cultural anthropology presume that there is no one pattern of development and you can't say one is more or less developed but they are differently devloped so there are big differences in the directions where these cultures are developing. You cannot measure cultures with one measure tool but americans measure all with american democracy, iraq, us and all other countries in the world convinced that that is topmost achievement of historic evolution.

Their moral is based on european logic of 19th century what makes a problem. Europe at that time was civilising barbaric nations as to what americans are doing now. Even the liberal intelectuals see the war in Iraq as acceleration of evolution. From bush supporters they differ only in way how to do that. They are doing it with bombs, liberals would do it in some other way. But the idea that the world must be americanised is universal among all of them. It's just a difference between soft and hard colonialism.
Core of american patriotism is that US is better.

We europeans weren't asking what is wrong with american patriotism in days of Clinton. Bush has revealed directly what US is. He made it visible and we weren't prepared for that because us separate a totaly different experience from 20th century what can be seen immensely today.

Karl Marx once wrote that history repeated itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. Nowadays happening is a farce and something else probaly also.

i did my best to translate it. i how a question. Is here any american who doesn't think like all other americans she talked to?

Um, I highly doubt that you will find any americans that think Saddam Hussein is a better government than the US. I also doubt that you will find anyone anywhere that thinks Iraq is more 'developed' than the US, considering that Iraq's development was frozen at 1990 at best, and utilities are very unreliable there. If bringing people acceptable living conditions and removing abusive dictators is 'Americanization', then yes, pretty much all americans support Americanizing the world.

American patriotism can be sumed down to one phrase.
"USA! USA! USA!"

As can any other country's.

"Kyrgistan! Kyrgistan! Kyrgistan!"

Why is it that just because Americans believe that Arab women would prefer not to be treated as animals who are raped and then executed for "adultry" and that North Korean families (including children as young as 10) would prefer not to be forced into Kim Jong Il's labor camps for "dissent," the rest of the world always associates the USA with such terms as colonialism, globalization, and imperialism?

If the people suffering under dictatorial repression didn't want to be "Americanized" then why do refugees from N. Korea, Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Latin America, etc, continue to storm our borders and attempt to live here illegally?


______________________
www.StudentsForWar.com

Note that the article says that such Patriotism wasn't noticed under Clinton (paraphrase). Well, maybe she's right--up to a point, of course--about something: Bush has sent us back to the 19th century in our dealings with the outside world.
Hmmmm....

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

She has a point. But what about those millions of Americans that don't give a sod for the rest of the world? The ones that would be quite happy for the US to return to 'isolationiasm'? Maybe it only applies to an elite.
I can't see anything wrong with promoting democracy anywhere, as long as it's not at the end of a gun barrel. But it has to be admitted that some Americans do see their way of life as 'the only way' and that's plainly wrong.
Isolationists are a rapidly dying breed, here. They always experience a brief revival whenever the US or its interests are attacked by foreigners, but they soon peeter out. That's because even the most foolish of Americans know that, no matter how hard we try, we can't stay away from the rest of the world. We tried that before WWII, but it didn't work. Isolationism merely delays the inevitable, and Americans know that.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And very pleased I am to hear it.
Really? I've always thought you were the type of person that prefers an isolationist America.

@CWP

I pretty much agree with you.
However you have to understand that anti-americanism has different routes. One important one is ENVY. People from other nations are jealous because the US is the most powerful country in the world and is going to remain in that position at least for several decades to come. We see that as VERY POSITIVE.
America is in an unique position. It is the only remaining super-power of the world. And it is a democracy with democratic values.
We can not realisticly imagine a better order of the world than one which is under american leadership.
That gives the US a hard burden: a burden of resposibility which other nations don´t have to bear. On the other side: allies can be very useful for the US: for burden-sharing.
Therefore the US always has to balance its policies. It needs allies -- the more the better. It should not be forgotten that the US has built a broad coalition for the war in Iraq - not as broad as 1991 but still broad. The US went to the UN and tried its way. The critics of the US have indeed taken the UN hostage, trying to use it to veto american policy.
A more realistic approach would be better for those countries. They (especially France) have harmed the UN because of their actions.
Furthernmore it needs to be said: the coaliton of the willing acted on a legal basis (resolution 1441 and previous resolution). The argument of unilateralism and violation of international law is FLAGRANTLY FALSE. The legal basis was bigger than that of the Kosovo war.
Furthernmore the US and its allies tried to achieve a peaceful solution (exil for Saddam).
We condone this policy because it doesn´t rule out force but it is only using it as a last resort.

Most Americans believe (as Bush has said many times) that freedom is a God-given right (or a right that every human being should have for you athiests/agnostics :wink: ) and we have a moral obligation to spread it everywhere because it allows people to govern themselves, not be told what to do....

Now as to bringing democracy to the worl with a gun barrel, you need to realize who that gun barrel is being pointed at.... people who want to be in power under a tyranical gov't (like Hussein or the Taliban or some other dictator/aristocrat). No naiton can IMPOSE freedom on anyone, not the US or anybody. And when you refer to globalization, that's just an effect of a free world economy and I bet you socialists hate they huh? hehehe.

Kybernetia summed it up very nicely. Many countries' problems with us Americans is that they are on some level jealous that we are the last remaining superpower. Being the last superpower means that you do have a moral obligation to police the world and flex your muscles when you've got to stomp out dictatorships (Saddam). Once again, Kybernetia got it right that we need allies to share the burden because it's not only for our benefit, it's for theirs as well.

Oh and if America isn't there to police the world or step up to those who oppose freedom, who will? The French? They'd indict terrorists to the UN for an "international" trial that would go nowhere because the terrorists aren't going to say, "Oh, France and the UN say that we should stop. Let's stop, guys." France has a history of thumbing their nose at the US, we shouldn't be suprised when they do...toadsuckers :twisted:

Note that the article says that such Patriotism wasn't noticed under Clinton (paraphrase). Well, maybe she's right--up to a point, of course--about something: Bush has sent us back to the 19th century in our dealings with the outside world.
Hmmmm....

I find it amusing that America is at fault if it doesn't exert influence while pursuing it's interests or if it exerts influence while pursuing it's interests.

On a separate note; am I the only one to think it's a bit of a tell that the "cultural anthropologist" expressed the palatable variance in patriotism in political terms rather than as a result of the 9-11 attacks?

Politics aside for a moment, in deference to her stated credentials, I don't think she is worth her salt if she doesn't see the spike in nationalism as a result of those attacks. It was an iconic event for Americans that will resound in the American psyche and be a major filter through which incoming data will be filtered for decades.

SO is on to something here; She has a point. But what about those millions of Americans that don't give a sod for the rest of the world? The ones that would be quite happy for the US to return to 'isolationiasm'? Maybe it only applies to an elite.
I can't see anything wrong with promoting democracy anywhere, as long as it's not at the end of a gun barrel. But it has to be admitted that some Americans do see their way of life as 'the only way' and that's plainly wrong.

Most Americans didn't give it a thought before 9-11. Bush was not wildly popular. He came, some say stole his way, into office with no mandate. American's were in the midst of losing their life savings to the dot com bust and the upcoming corporate scandals. The majority was far from madly patriotic. Pissed and disillusioned perhaps: but not wildly patriotic. 9-11, not Bush, brought that about.

SHL