NationStates Jolt Archive

After being on this board for a while, a number of general opinions have become apparent to me, especially regarding the way Americans view their country and the world in general.

It seems to me that Americans are, on the whole, heavily isolationist, or at least feel isolated from the rest of the world. I think this quote illustrates this fantastically (perhaps the most extreme and to the point of these opinions):

… i think the whole point of our right to bear arms is so that should our country be invaded and the military overrun the average joe could rise up in a regulated militia. thats why we have that right so we can fight in combat if we have to against an enemy nation. …

There are, in my opinion, relatively few developed countries whose populations still fear military invasion in the contemporary world. That is an especially surprising attitude from an American seeing as the USA takes up most of a continent, and their only neighbouring states are Mexico and Canada. (Note to Penis Pump; this is not a dig at you or your opinion, I was just quite surprised!)

This one also surprised me:

To me, life is a universal right, unabridgeable and unalienable. The right to bear arms is a right granted to us by the government primarily to reassure citizens that they will not be asked to disarm and unilaterally submit to the government.

“unilaterally submit to the government” is the phrase that got my attention (I agreed wholeheartedly with the rest of your post btw All The Pretty Colors). It seemed to me, and I am not basing this solely on this post but on general observations since I came to this board, that Americans distrust their Government immensely. Not just the Bush administration, but the whole system of government. From what I can tell the attitude is almost like they dislike their government, that it is something to be feared and wholly restricted.

The reason why this interests me is because this seems so different from the European attitude. I live in the UK and here, generally, the attitude towards government is very different – we are distrusting, but in a different way. We don’t necessarily question the government’s authority over us, but question its decisions as to whether they are best for us. It only seems to be the far-right in this country that wish to see the state and government restricted in a similar way to above; and in continental Europe this attitude is almost non-existent (from what we hear here in the UK).
I understand that this attitude of “small state, big individual” is a universal right-wing paradigm, but from my observations it seems to predicate the general opinion in the US. Maybe the US is generally shifted more to the right of the political spectrum? I certainly have heard this before.

And as for the issue of being invaded, well this, I am sure, doesn’t even cross the minds of most Europeans; although I may be biased as the UK hasn’t been invaded in 938 years lol. That said the USA has never been invaded to my knowledge, and in today’s modern internationalist political society this is increasingly unlikely.

So, to anyone, but especially Americans, what is your view on this? Am I profoundly wrong on my observations, or is this a fairly accurate cross-section of American opinion on these matters? Also, is my generalisation of continental European political attitudes anywhere near accurate?
Please, no flaming – I am merely asking an intellectual question, not making any broad-sweeping derogatory generalisations about your (particularly cool) country (that I hope to live in one day) or its people.

Thanks

Well, you seem to hit the idea dead on. Americans in general are isolationists (Which is why they kept out of both World Wars until they were directly attacked).

But as for a reason why they are like this. It's simple, America is founded upon the most Conservatist Christian (The infamous "Pilgrims" who restricted everything in their lives and were more conservative then Catholics generally are) peoples. America is made up of immegrants from Europe who went to America so they could practise their beliefs and restrict their lives all they like without fear of persecution of more liberal peoples.
Personally, I think it's kinda funny. But I'm a Canadian.
Also, ever notice Canadians generally share the same opnion as Europeans?

It does seem kind of anarchist on the part of the Americans, disliking and distrusting the whole idea of government. As you observe, to the Europeans the desirability of government goes without saying, the points of contention are always the details of government policy, rather than the fact of its existence.

I sometimes get the impression that many americans are unaware that the war of independence ended in 1783.

to the Europeans the desirability of government goes without saying, the points of contention are always the details of government policy, rather than the fact of its existence.

indeed.

without fear of persecution of more liberal peoples.

that statement deeply confuses me :confused:

Also, ever notice Canadians generally share the same opnion as Europeans?
yeah, great aint it?

I sometimes get the impression that many americans are unaware that the war of independence ended in 1783.
lol :D

And as for the issue of being invaded, well this, I am sure, doesn’t even cross the minds of most Europeans; although I may be biased as the UK hasn’t been invaded in 938 years lol.You might be slightly biased -- I live in an European country which has been invaded at least twice militarily in the last 65 years, and at least once/100-150 years before that. The idea that we might be invaded again does every now and then cross the mind of people, but we get to release those tensions in the military, what with having a conscription-based army. Nearly all males (85-90%) go and blow apart a bunch of cardboard targets and feel better about being ready to defend this country if the need arises.

If we're about to be invaded, up to ~400,000 of us (8% of the population) will be called in, handed weapons, briefly re-trained. We don't need to have our own guns to deal with it, nor do we really have to bother with it in our civilian lives -- except when we are called to take part in training every few years.

Also, is my generalisation of continental European political attitudes anywhere near accurate?I would say so, yes. At least here only nutcases with tin-foil hats question the authority of the government. It's very much like you said: we distrust the government because we don't think it's making the right decisions all the time (and how could it, really), but we appreciate the fact that it is our government, more or less.

I also happen to live in a country where government keeps track of your address, and your social security number is asked when doing most things. Types of things that make many Americans cringe, apparently. There are security cameras in city centers. The government has not, to my knowledge, ever abused that information, nor is it really clear to me or any other Finns how, exactly, they could abuse such information. The Patriot Acts and Total Information Awareness still scare the crap out of me, though.

I wonder if the US system of democracy is more alienating? On the whole European democracy is directly elected parliamentary democracy as opposed to directly elected presidential democracy. The former encourages the idea that your vote, even if in the minority, counts whereas the later seems to make people (particularly going by the anti-Bush Americans posts here) feel very disenfranchised if their preference loses. This seems to be reflected in the lower voter turn outs in US elections compared to European countries where voting is also voluntary.

I wonder if the US system of democracy is more alienating? On the whole European democracy is directly elected parliamentary democracy as opposed to directly elected presidential democracy. The former encourages the idea that your vote, even if in the minority, counts whereas the later seems to make people (particularly going by the anti-Bush Americans posts here) feel very disenfranchised if their preference loses. This seems to be reflected in the lower voter turn outs in US elections compared to European countries where voting is also voluntary.

hmm might be onto something there...
i would think the (almost strictly) two party system they have in the states does not help matters. In the UK at least we have a similar thing where there are two main parties who between them get the majority of the vote, but smaller "indipendent" parties are not seen as a 'waste of a vote' as you so often hear in american politics. You vote for what you believe and not believe what you vote for, if you get what i mean. Perhaps this too has some alienating effect?

I think that Clonetopia might have hit it closer than you might think...lol

On a historical scale, especially compared to most European nations, this country is still really young... So our roots are still far more ingrained in our society and its values than those of most other countries... I'm sure most older nations hold to their heritages very dearly, but as of this point, they're such ancient history, that they're no longer anything more than just that...history...

But our beginnings were much more recent (relatively speaking), and while, yes, they are pretty much only history, they're still a major influence on our collective consciousness...

So, since we began as a country of rebels (basically), and we haven't been around long enough for that spirit to have faded, we still hold onto the same sentiments...

We're basically the "young upstarts" of the world, and we haven't grown out of it yet...

Now, with that said, it is very much just a generalization... Personally, I'm not distrusting of our government... I disagree with the current administration on many aspects, and I'll likely disagree on many things in the future (from either of the major parties)... But for the most part, I am an optimist, and a trusting soul that really does believe that they are trying to look out for our best interests, and just happen to be going about it wrong sometimes...

Also, to address another point brought up, I don't think any rational American fears invasion... In fact, I'd say the majority of us are in fact too secure, rather than paranoid... At least, I know I feel that way... I'm of the firm mindset that as an American, I'm virtually untouchable... Even in the face of 9/11 and everything thats happened since, I still feel entirely secure... I realize that I'm living in the strongest nation in the world (militarily speaking), and that nothing other than a terrorist attack (which, by its nature, sneaks in unannounced) can get at us... Direct military invasion? Absolutely not... No country in the world could muster the power it would take to breach our borders in any significant force... Sure, they might get lucky and get something over here, but it too would soon be wiped out... And like I said, the only thing that would be successful is a terrorist sneak-attack... But I'm not even afraid of that (regardless of the fact that it's been proven possible)...

As for the isolationist attitude, I'd have to agree...

Again, personally speaking, I've never paid much attention to the "outside world"... I've been content to live in my country, and ignore what goes on outside of it... And my media helps me in that regard very much... For the average American citizen to become informed about what's going on out there, we usually have to actively seek that information (it's not just handed to us with our own news... it takes a major backseat to it)... Most of us are too lazy to do so...lol That aspect probably isn't represented very well around here, in a crowd of politically minded individuals (which, by nature, would be the ones that actively seek out such info)... But for the rest of us, our news is the only news...

If it doesn't have some direct and immediately measurable impact on our lives, we just don't bother with it... Our news doesn't report it... Well, it does, but it's usually like: "And in international news, Canada is suffering from a terrible forest fire... And here's Tom with Sports!"

Hell, even in our High School World History classes, the coursework somehow finds a way to focus on the United States... It's like the first two chapters of the book cover everything from the beginning of time until our revolution, and the rest of the book covers our involvement in World History... (heh, this is an exaggeration... but not by much...lol)

Call it arrogance, call it ignorance, call it whatever... But yeah, it's pretty much the way it is over here... One gets the distinct impression that we really don't care about the rest of you...lol

Again, the above is all speaking in generalities and stereotypes... My entire country does not fall under the above statements... I don't even fall under all of them... But stereotypes do have a basis in reality...

the UK hasn’t been invaded in 938 years lol.

Successfully invaded, I think you mean. England has a long history of fearing invasion, from the castles built to protect us from the French during the Hundred Years War (some south coast towns did actually get taken by the way but not many and not for long), the Spanish Armada right up to Napoleon (Trafalgar anyone) and the Battle of Britain 1940.

We have been invaded many times since 1066, with the last taking place in 1797 at Fishguard by an army of the First Republic of France. They were attempting, as they had in Ireland a year previously, to stir up an anti-monarchical rebellion. In Ireland, this rebellion had taken place and many lost their lives before it was eventually crushed. At Fishguard however, the small french force, gained almost no support and their surrender was swift and bloodless. [NOTE:] This invasion was not orchestrated by Napoleon, who was still two years away from seizing power in France.

There is a pub, wherein the invaders spent a night, in Fishguard with a monument marking it as the last part of the British mainland touched by an invading army.

Of course, the channel islands were conquered in 1940 by the Nazi regime.

Sorry it's off topic but just thought I'd clear that up.

Another point is that the US is essentially a rural society. The average size of a city is under 30,000 - in Europe that would just about qualify as a town - and the distance between cities is much higher too.

That is an especially surprising attitude from an American seeing as the USA takes up most of a continent, and their only neighbouring states are Mexico and Canada.

wow, im american, but even this one stuck out to me. We do NOT take up most of a continent... we are the 2nd largest country in north america... Canada's #1..

That said the USA has never been invaded to my knowledge, and in today’s modern internationalist political society this is increasingly unlikely.

Again, give the Canadiens their due... those guys marched all the way to DC and burned down the White House, and the Mexicans have at varying times and with varying effectiveness tried to take back much of the South West by force... Ill be the first to admit i dont know much about british history... the PM's from ww1 up, and before that just your general bullet points.... the monarchs, Cromwell, and the Guy Fawke's.... why did you guys give the crazy guy his own holiday, anyway... thats like us have a John Wilkes Booth day.

Guy Fawke's.... why did you guys give the crazy guy his own holiday, anyway... thats like us have a John Wilkes Booth day.

I think we actually celebrate stopping him.

I think we actually celebrate stopping him.

ahh, see, that should've occurred to me, but its 4:23 am here, and i havent really slept in a couple days (road trip back from virginia for thanksgiving to home in oregon, catnaps in the car). So its safe to ignore me :)

So its safe to ignore me :)

Shall do.

...And my media helps me in that regard very much... For the average American citizen to become informed about what's going on out there, we usually have to actively seek that information (it's not just handed to us with our own news... it takes a major backseat to it)...

...

If it doesn't have some direct and immediately measurable impact on our lives, we just don't bother with it... Our news doesn't report it... Well, it does, but it's usually like: "And in international news, Canada is suffering from a terrible forest fire... And here's Tom with Sports!"

Hell, even in our High School World History classes, the coursework somehow finds a way to focus on the United States... It's like the first two chapters of the book cover everything from the beginning of time until our revolution, and the rest of the book covers our involvement in World History... (heh, this is an exaggeration... but not by much...lol)
good points, especially on the media - the UK's media is very much internationalist; national news is often the headline, at least when something to do with politics happens, but other than that the news does look abroad a fair amount. At least more than american news (which i have watched a fair bit of in my 4 trips there). Thats quite interesting cos the BBC is the most indipendent (in spirit) and internationalist of the channels in the UK, when it comes to news, and yet it is government funded! odd that...

Education-wize thats interesting, but im now eating me lunch and cant be arsed to type any more ;)

As for the fear of being invaded: Personally, I'm have no such fear. But you have to understand, here in the United States for the past couple of years we have had the idiotic "color code" warning system. And every so often - usually to cover up some unpopular piece of legislation or unflattering news about what was going on in Iraq- the warning leve has been raised to "orange" which means a "high probability of a terrorists attack happening on American soil within week or so." High government officials have stated that in order to be "safe" Americans should buy gas masks and heavy-duty plastic wrap to seal off their doors and windows in case of biological agents being released.

As for not trusting the government: Start with everything written above. Then consider that the United States is one of the few (if not only) "developed" nations without nationalized health care. The programs that were put in place to provide a social safety net keep getting cut. Education funding is at horrendously low levels. The government can't even be bothered to take care of its citizens. Our CIA was caught supporting terrorists and drug traffickers (the Contras in Argentina) during the very same years that the government started it all-out "War on Drugs" and filled our prisons with non-violent criminals, while the rates of violent crime continued to sky rocket. The government officials caught who authorized the CIA were not even punished. What's to trust?

Successfully invaded, I think you mean. England has a long history of fearing invasion, from the castles built to protect us from the French during the Hundred Years War (some south coast towns did actually get taken by the way but not many and not for long), the Spanish Armada right up to Napoleon (Trafalgar anyone) and the Battle of Britain 1940.
...
Sorry it's off topic but just thought I'd clear that up.
while i was talking about successful invasion, that invasion of Fishguard by an army of the First Republic of France thing was news to me! cheers :)

Personally, I think it's kinda funny. But I'm a Canadian.
Also, ever notice Canadians generally share the same opnion as Europeans?

Could it be because the Queen of England still had some power until just recently?

As for not trusting the government: Start with everything written above. Then consider that the United States is one of the few (if not only) "developed" nations without nationalized health care. The programs that were put in place to provide a social safety net keep getting cut. Education funding is at horrendously low levels. The government can't even be bothered to take care of its citizens.
thats a conservative government for you. we almost had the same thing here during the Thatcher years of the 80s, when distrust and distain of the state/government ran high as well (when inflation and unemployment ran in double figures btw), but thankfully things are looking up on the social security front now.

Our CIA was caught supporting terrorists and drug traffickers (the Contras in Argentina) during the very same years that the government started it all-out "War on Drugs" and filled our prisons with non-violent criminals, while the rates of violent crime continued to sky rocket. The government officials caught who authorized the CIA were not even punished. What's to trust?
horrific corruption (and obviously ineffective crime & punishment policies). that is awful - as you say whos to trust?
corruption must be another reason for the attitude then?

Could it be because the Queen of England still had some power until just recently?

What do you mean until recently? She’s still the commander in chief and head of state. While we’d probably whip her out of there fast her governor general has veto rights in parliament. The governor general also picks the PM (albeit a formality) and holds the right of reservation and disallowance over the provinces.

What do you mean until recently? She’s still the commander in chief and head of state. While we’d probably whip her out of there fast her governor general has veto rights in parliament. The governor general also picks the PM (albeit a formality) and holds the right of reservation and disallowance over the provinces.
Its one of those things, theoretically she has power but if she used it it would be taken away, same as it would be in Australia or even the UK.

Its one of those things, theoretically she has power but if she used it it would be taken away, same as it would be in Australia or even the UK.

It’d be funny though,..

“I legislate X”
“I veto X”
“You can’t do that!”
“Yes I can I am the representative for her majesty the Queen.”
“Fine I legislate that the Governor General Has no power.”
“I veto that.”
“You can do that!”
“Yes I can I am the rep…

Snip.
Thats quite interesting cos the BBC is the most indipendent (in spirit) and internationalist of the channels in the UK, when it comes to news, and yet it is government funded! odd that...

Education-wize thats interesting, but im now eating me lunch and cant be arsed to type any more ;)
actualy that is a great way to do it

it means that the peoples intrests do not influence programming


In the us with most things being corporate if people are a litte isolationist and dont find world news the absolutly most intresting thing on... slowly sponsors figure this out ... and they put their money on what IS the most intresting to the people

so world news is cut back

well after being cut back people learn less about it ... and are less intrested in starting to learn more

so it gets even lower ratings

so it is cut back even more ...

Basicaly the bbc has the advantage of not having to fight for ratings with entertainment shows to get sponsors.

PBS was like that around here but they had a bad run of horrible shows that really caused it to take a nose dive lol (got to at least be a little intresting or the channel will get change all togeater) and I like learning about world news but damn they had some horrible people on there (and a lot less news ... more like painting shows and childrens programming)

It’d be funny though,..
Yup :D

PBS was like that around here but they had a bad run of horrible shows that really caused it to take a nose dive lol (got to at least be a little intresting or the channel will get change all togeater) and I like learning about world news but damn they had some horrible people on there (and a lot less news ... more like painting shows and childrens programming)
shame about that. but then if it is a cyle like you say, maybe the only way to stop it and actually get the general public interested in world affairs is to start early - education. But going on what SSGX said it looks like we're stuck with another 20 years or so of this attitude to foreign affairs

shame about that. but then if it is a cyle like you say, maybe the only way to stop it and actually get the general public interested in world affairs is to start early - education. But going on what SSGX said it looks like we're stuck with another 20 years or so of this attitude to foreign affairs
Oh I agree … I was just saying we need something like that … non viewer interest driven in order for us to have a good resource to look at to learn some … I found once I learned more about other places it interested me more to keep learning

We need the option

(with satellite at least I get BBC but I don’t know about cable…)

Oh I agree … I was just saying we need something like that … non viewer interest driven in order for us to have a good resource to look at to learn some … I found once I learned more about other places it interested me more to keep learning

We need the option

(with satellite at least I get BBC but I don’t know about cable…)
you do need the option, agreed; but i suppose the 'restricted' government wouldnt be allowed to start a state-funded & -produced national TV station. People might see it as some kind of crazy invasion of their right to choose what to watch, or something. Besides the Bush, or any right-wing government wouldn't do something like that out of principle...shame.

tell ya what, the BBC should broadcast accross america! We got the the best comedies anyway... especially cos Whose Line Is It Anyway started over here;)

you do need the option, agreed; but i suppose the 'restricted' government wouldnt be allowed to start a state-funded & -produced national TV station. People might see it as some kind of crazy invasion of their right to choose what to watch, or something. Besides the Bush, or any right-wing government wouldn't do something like that out of principle...shame.

tell ya what, the BBC should broadcast accross america! We got the the best comedies anyway... especially cos Whose Line Is It Anyway started over here;)
Lot better then PBS's cooking shows and painting shows!

tell ya what, the BBC should broadcast accross america! We got the the best comedies anyway... especially cos Whose Line Is It Anyway started over here;)
I think it does - BBC World, or did they have to close that down to save money?

while i was talking about successful invasion, that invasion of Fishguard by an army of the First Republic of France thing was news to me! cheers :)

Glad to be of assistance.

I think it does - BBC World, or did they have to close that down to save money?

no idea - never heard of it :confused:
They still have BBC World Service on the radio globally

Well, you seem to hit the idea dead on. Americans in general are isolationists (Which is why they kept out of both World Wars until they were directly attacked).

How where they directly attacked in WW1?

It seems to me that Americans are, on the whole, heavily isolationist, or at least feel isolated from the rest of the world. I think this quote illustrates this fantastically (perhaps the most extreme and to the point of these opinions):

Some are, but a very large number of us are not isolationists. We can look at history and see that trying to be strict isolationists simply doesn't work.

“unilaterally submit to the government” is the phrase that got my attention (I agreed wholeheartedly with the rest of your post btw All The Pretty Colors). It seemed to me, and I am not basing this solely on this post but on general observations since I came to this board, that Americans distrust their Government immensely. Not just the Bush administration, but the whole system of government. From what I can tell the attitude is almost like they dislike their government, that it is something to be feared and wholly restricted.

You have to remember the history of the US. The US was formed because the colonies were tired of having a government with absolute power that didn't acurately represent the people. They were tired of having a government with the right to come and kill them for printing something bad about it.

We are a country formed in a revolution, and as such, the founders of the country realized that any government can become corrupt enough that it no longer represents its people properly. At this point, the people should have the recourse to overturn said government and replace it.

The reason why this interests me is because this seems so different from the European attitude. I live in the UK and here, generally, the attitude towards government is very different – we are distrusting, but in a different way. We don’t necessarily question the government’s authority over us, but question its decisions as to whether they are best for us. It only seems to be the far-right in this country that wish to see the state and government restricted in a similar way to above; and in continental Europe this attitude is almost non-existent (from what we hear here in the UK).

Again, comes the history of the US vs. the history of most European countries. Most European countries developed out of monarchies - governments with absolute rule. The US has always been a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The government has no authority over us that we do not grant it (although many people have begun to think the other way). Our country is built on the idea that government is a necessary evil that must be limited.

I understand that this attitude of “small state, big individual” is a universal right-wing paradigm, but from my observations it seems to predicate the general opinion in the US. Maybe the US is generally shifted more to the right of the political spectrum? I certainly have heard this before.

Actually, if you are referring to the idea that the individual takes precedence over the government, that is more of a liberal idea than a right-wing one.

How where they directly attacked in WW1?

German torpedoing of the passenger liner,... crap names escape me.

The US felt it had neutral rights and traded with both sides. This favorered Britian as the Brits had cut off all shipingwith the fatherland. So the yanks traded with the brits claiming impartiality. The Germans saw this as a supply line as any other and engaged in full submarine warfare. (This was seen as more dasterdly than surface blockades.) So Wilson rallied his yanks and managed to assist, better late than never right? ;)

It's part of the Jeffersonian Ideals that are a part of American culture. We are raised in a highly individualistic (for the most part) culture. We sometimes live in smaller and more dispersed population centers. In fact, our nation was founded with the ideal citizen being the self made farmer.

Another thought is the fact that the US had a "safety valve" during the 1800's when a lot of the radical stuff was occuring in Europe. The "safety valve" being the ability to move west, and in fact, in the latter part of that century, to get free land to move to.

The "Puritan Work Ethic" (you can have as much money as you want, just so long as you work for it) is a part of this "rugged individualism." We (ftmp) believe that someone should be able to pull oneself up by their own bootstraps.

Another thing is our huge moats. We feel isolated and removed from the rest of the world. Over the past century everything has occured "over there." It's always remote, we don't see the direct effects "over here."

We have not been invaded by a foreign power on the US proper since we tangled with the Brits in the War of 1812. When British/Canadian troops from Canada messed up New York, and British troops from the Caribbean burned Washington D.C. The last time active warfare occured inside the US proper was the American Civil War. And that was fought between Americans.

It's really a complex set of reasons, and there's a lot of them.

How where they directly attacked in WW1?
There were instances when American transports were attacked, as well as an American destroyer I believe. What really pushed the US over the edge was the Zimmerman Telegram. Unrestricted submarine warfare wasn't very nice.

There were instances when American transports were attacked, as well as an American destroyer I believe. What really pushed the US over the edge was the Zimmerman Telegram. Unrestricted submarine warfare wasn't very nice.
A telegram is hardly an outright attack. And it's not like USW was a secret. Any American ships sunk have no one to blame but their own captains and their superiors. For steering their ships into the middle of a warzone. Did they believe USW didn't apply to them?

A telegram is hardly an outright attack. And it's not like USW was a secret. Any American ships sunk have no one to blame but their own captains and their superiors. For steering their ships into the middle of a warzone. Did they believe USW didn't apply to them?
Though if I remember right they meant to be there (so remove captain blame)
Whole trying to economically support England thing … but yes it did have acceptable risk

German torpedoing of the passenger liner,... crap names escape me.
If your talking about the Lusitania, that was a British ship. An armed one at that. Registered as as an armed auxiliary cruiser with the Admirality. With more of a broadside then Royal Navy cruisers patrolling the Channel.

The US felt it had neutral rights and traded with both sides.
Uum..not to my knowledge.
The Germans saw this as a supply line as any other and engaged in full submarine warfare. (This was seen as more dasterdly than surface blockades.)
Yes. Very strange.

It's part of the Jeffersonian Ideals that are a part of American culture. We are raised in a highly individualistic (for the most part) culture. We sometimes live in smaller and more dispersed population centers. In fact, our nation was founded with the ideal citizen being the self made farmer.

Another thought is the fact that the US had a "safety valve" during the 1800's when a lot of the radical stuff was occuring in Europe. The "safety valve" being the ability to move west, and in fact, in the latter part of that century, to get free land to move to.

The "Puritan Work Ethic" (you can have as much money as you want, just so long as you work for it) is a part of this "rugged individualism." We (ftmp) believe that someone should be able to pull oneself up by their own bootstraps.

Another thing is our huge moats. We feel isolated and removed from the rest of the world. Over the past century everything has occured "over there." It's always remote, we don't see the direct effects "over here."

We have not been invaded by a foreign power on the US proper since we tangled with the Brits in the War of 1812. When British/Canadian troops from Canada messed up New York, and British troops from the Caribbean burned Washington D.C. The last time active warfare occured inside the US proper was the American Civil War. And that was fought between Americans.

It's really a complex set of reasons, and there's a lot of them.


I feel the need to point out two things.
-The Japanese made a play for an Alaskan Island. (WWII)
- The Caribbean Forces made a stop in Saint John because they were not full up. So some (albeit a small number) of those forces were Canadians. [I just like to bring it up so I can say the Canadians burned the white house ? See: The war of 1812 by Arrogant Worms]

If your talking about the Lusitania, that was a British ship. An armed one at that. Registered as as an armed auxiliary cruiser with the Admirality. With more of a broadside then Royal Navy cruisers patrolling the Channel.


True it was British but it held many wealthy Americans as passengers (128 to be exact), and it was being used as a cruise ship. It may have been a valid military target but the American populace was still whipped into a frenzy by its sinking.

Reason does not console an angered constituency. Politicians (in New England at least) merely rode the wave of fervor to the open conflict conclusion.


Uum..not to my knowledge.
There was a certain expectation. Why else would the Germans have issued the Sussex Pledge to curtail the attacks on civilian ships. Again, justification is scant but the Americans felt they could, and should, trade with France and England despite the war with Germany.

After being on this board for a while, a number of general opinions have become apparent to me, especially regarding the way Americans view their country and the world in general.

It seems to me that Americans are, on the whole, heavily isolationist, or at least feel isolated from the rest of the world. I think this quote illustrates this fantastically (perhaps the most extreme and to the point of these opinions):



There are, in my opinion, relatively few developed countries whose populations still fear military invasion in the contemporary world. That is an especially surprising attitude from an American seeing as the USA takes up most of a continent, and their only neighbouring states are Mexico and Canada. (Note to Penis Pump; this is not a dig at you or your opinion, I was just quite surprised!)

This one also surprised me:



“unilaterally submit to the government” is the phrase that got my attention (I agreed wholeheartedly with the rest of your post btw All The Pretty Colors). It seemed to me, and I am not basing this solely on this post but on general observations since I came to this board, that Americans distrust their Government immensely. Not just the Bush administration, but the whole system of government. From what I can tell the attitude is almost like they dislike their government, that it is something to be feared and wholly restricted.

The reason why this interests me is because this seems so different from the European attitude. I live in the UK and here, generally, the attitude towards government is very different – we are distrusting, but in a different way. We don’t necessarily question the government’s authority over us, but question its decisions as to whether they are best for us. It only seems to be the far-right in this country that wish to see the state and government restricted in a similar way to above; and in continental Europe this attitude is almost non-existent (from what we hear here in the UK).
I understand that this attitude of “small state, big individual” is a universal right-wing paradigm, but from my observations it seems to predicate the general opinion in the US. Maybe the US is generally shifted more to the right of the political spectrum? I certainly have heard this before.

And as for the issue of being invaded, well this, I am sure, doesn’t even cross the minds of most Europeans; although I may be biased as the UK hasn’t been invaded in 938 years lol. That said the USA has never been invaded to my knowledge, and in today’s modern internationalist political society this is increasingly unlikely.

So, to anyone, but especially Americans, what is your view on this? Am I profoundly wrong on my observations, or is this a fairly accurate cross-section of American opinion on these matters? Also, is my generalisation of continental European political attitudes anywhere near accurate?
Please, no flaming – I am merely asking an intellectual question, not making any broad-sweeping derogatory generalisations about your (particularly cool) country (that I hope to live in one day) or its people.

Thanks

Well, I think you are right in some ways. A lot of Americans (but certainly not all) are like that. I really don't know about Europeans, I don't know much about how they feel about government.

I feel the need to point out two things.
-The Japanese made a play for an Alaskan Island. (WWII)
- The Caribbean Forces made a stop in Saint John because they were not full up. So some (albeit a small number) of those forces were Canadians. [I just like to bring it up so I can say the Canadians burned the white house ? See: The war of 1812 by Arrogant Worms]

Alaska was a territory at the time of the Japanese attack, just like Guam and the Phillipines and whatnot. That's why I said there hasn't been an attack on the US proper.

I mainly wanted to point out that the British/Canadian force didn't march down to Washington from Canada as had been stated previously somewhere, but was actually a naval invasion.

Another point is that the US is essentially a rural society. The average size of a city is under 30,000 - in Europe that would just about qualify as a town - and the distance between cities is much higher too.

yeah but there's a lot of them

oh and this distrust of the government has to at least partly come from southeners distrusting the north. you guys all know about the american civil war, right?

oh and this distrust of the government has to at least partly come from southeners distrusting the north. you guys all know about the american civil war, right?
the southern distrust is a descendant of the previous existing distrust from the revolutionary years.

True it was British but it held many wealthy Americans as passengers (128 to be exact), and it was being used as a cruise ship.
Completely their own fault. The German embassy in NY posted warnings in the shipping pages next to the schedule of the Lusitania that the waters around Britain were considerd a warzone.
It may have been a valid military target but the American populace was still whipped into a frenzy by its sinking.

Reason does not console an angered constituency. Politicians (in New England at least) merely rode the wave of fervor to the open conflict conclusion.
Hmmm I guess the news travelled realy slow then. Or was it the public that was so slow? Considering the Lusitania was sunk in 1915 and the US entered the war in 1917.

Completely their own fault. The German embassy in NY posted warnings in the shipping pages next to the schedule of the Lusitania that the waters around Britain were considerd a warzone.

Hmmm I guess the news travelled realy slow then. Or was it the public that was so slow? Considering the Lusitania was sunk in 1915 and the US entered the war in 1917.

So as long as I send out a memo that I'm going to shoot at any cars going past my house, it's ok to do so?

The Z telegram got the US involved, not the Lusitania.

So as long as I send out a memo that I'm going to shoot at any cars going past my house, it's ok to do so?
Thats not the same. Theres somewhat of a difference about randomly shooting at bystanders and torpedoing heavily armed ships under enemy flag, who despite warning, enter a warzone with passengers aboard.

Thats not the same. Theres somewhat of a difference about randomly shooting at bystanders and torpedoing heavily armed ships under enemy flag, who despite warning, enter a warzone with passengers aboard.

I know...I agree with you, actually. Something inside me just couldn't admit it.

But as for a reason why they are like this. It's simple, America is founded upon the most Conservatist Christian (The infamous "Pilgrims" who restricted everything in their lives and were more conservative then Catholics generally are) peoples. America is made up of immegrants from Europe who went to America so they could practise their beliefs and restrict their lives all they like without fear of persecution of more liberal peoples.
Personally, I think it's kinda funny. But I'm a Canadian.
Also, ever notice Canadians generally share the same opnion as Europeans?
Actually the Founding Fathers were almost all deists and many were Masons as well. I wouldn't expect a Canadian to know this of course, but I would expect said Canadian to refrain from making value judgements on a part of history he is not really familiar with.

ok this thread has evolved into a debate about WW2, but hey, whatever... its cool :)
i sadly have nothing to add cos this has already gone beyond my limited knowledge of this aspect of the war :(

Well, Germany was a little pushy against the US in WW1. And considering that the UK owed alot more money to the US, than Germany, it would be financially disastrous to the US if the UK should lose the war, so they gave the Brits a good support :)

Actually the Founding Fathers were almost all deists and many were Masons as well. I wouldn't expect a Canadian to know this of course, but I would expect said Canadian to refrain from making value judgements on a part of history he is not really familiar with.


Actually, here in Canada, we're taught your American history as good as you are. S don't jump to the idea that we know nothing, Americans know nothing of Canada.
And as I stated, America as a NATION, not a country, was founded by the most conservative Christian sects leaving Europe to escape religious persecution.
America as a country, was founded on better ideas, I grant that (And the few US presedents I like all come from that era).
Unfortunatly, what a few governmental officials, and what the prevailing population believes, are two different things.
I suggest you look a little more into your pre-revolutionary history, when America as a nation came to be, and then decided it wanted a country independant from Great Britian.

By the way, a Nation is a group of people sharing simmilar culture and beliefs. A Country, is an area of land defined by borders.

Guy Fawke's.... why did you guys give the crazy guy his own holiday, anyway... thats like us have a John Wilkes Booth day.

Simple: because he was the last man to enter parliament with honest intentions.

Hmmm I guess the news travelled realy slow then. Or was it the public that was so slow? Considering the Lusitania was sunk in 1915 and the US entered the war in 1917.
More ships were sunk than just the Lusitania. Like I said, I believe that German subs attacked American warships NOT heading anywhere near Britain.

Wasn't the Zimmerlein(sp) letter suposedly a message to Mexico saying if they helped Germany they could have the lands they lost to the US back?

Of course, the channel islands were conquered in 1940 by the Nazi regime.

The Channel Isles aren't actually British. They are run by seperate governments, have their own seperate laws and taxation systems. If British people want to visit these places they have to show their passports. I believe they also have their own flags but I do think they call the Queen head of state. The whole issue is a grey area. However it does explain why Britain didn't got to the rescue of the Isles after they were invaded.

Again, comes the history of the US vs. the history of most European countries. Most European countries developed out of monarchies - governments with absolute rule. The US has always been a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The government has no authority over us that we do not grant it (although many people have begun to think the other way). Our country is built on the idea that government is a necessary evil that must be limited.

What an absolutely bizaare theory.

The US has not always been a government for the people: I believe your franchise was far more limited than any European democracy right through the Victorian era. Of course you endorsed slavery far longer than most European nations too and had to have a civil war over it, so entrenched was its stigma. And before that you were a colony with absolutely no democratic rights whatsover - you listened to the British governor who got his commands from the government in London. You didn't even get your own MPs. So I hardly think the US has always had a government for the people, of the people and by the people. Such an idea is almost socialist.

If a government has no authority over its people, then why is it there? Governments have to have authority over their people to enforce government policy: otherwise the entire process of government would be pointless. I'm sure there are a huge bundle of government approved laws you don't like but you can't simply deny the authority of the government on those flimsy grounds. I sincerly doubt if Congress (or whatever your legislative body is called) banned guns, there would be much resistance. Most people tend to be law abiding, even Americans.

One issue has arisen here: America is simply too young a nation to be a super power. Its isolationist policies and attitudes are highly akin to the xenophobia of Tudor England. It cannot admit it has an imperial status and so shirks responsbility for its dominion states. The USA is like a small child given a gun: dangerous and reckless. You may say to the child in a calm voice "Put the gun down, come on, put it down" and they will sitll petuantly say no and end up firing it at someone, causing unforeseen damage. Americans have to learn that the rest of the world matters: its opinions might stop the gun from going off (i.e. preventing cock ups like Vietnam). I don't think the world should become Americanised: I think its about time America accepted its bitter medicine and came down from its high horse. Your power may be strong but its not unlimited: I am afraid you need allies, like it or lump it, and we British aren't going to hold your hand and molly coddle you forever.

What an absolutely bizaare theory.

The US has not always been a government for the people: I believe your franchise was far more limited than any European democracy right through the Victorian era. Of course you endorsed slavery far longer than most European nations too and had to have a civil war over it, so entrenched was its stigma. And before that you were a colony with absolutely no democratic rights whatsover - you listened to the British governor who got his commands from the government in London. You didn't even get your own MPs. So I hardly think the US has always had a government for the people, of the people and by the people. Such an idea is almost socialist.

If a government has no authority over its people, then why is it there? Governments have to have authority over their people to enforce government policy: otherwise the entire process of government would be pointless. I'm sure there are a huge bundle of government approved laws you don't like but you can't simply deny the authority of the government on those flimsy grounds. I sincerly doubt if Congress (or whatever your legislative body is called) banned guns, there would be much resistance. Most people tend to be law abiding, even Americans.

One issue has arisen here: America is simply too young a nation to be a super power. Its isolationist policies and attitudes are highly akin to the xenophobia of Tudor England. It cannot admit it has an imperial status and so shirks responsbility for its dominion states. The USA is like a small child given a gun: dangerous and reckless. You may say to the child in a calm voice "Put the gun down, come on, put it down" and they will sitll petuantly say no and end up firing it at someone, causing unforeseen damage. Americans have to learn that the rest of the world matters: its opinions might stop the gun from going off (i.e. preventing cock ups like Vietnam). I don't think the world should become Americanised: I think its about time America accepted its bitter medicine and came down from its high horse. Your power may be strong but its not unlimited: I am afraid you need allies, like it or lump it, and we British aren't going to hold your hand and molly coddle you forever.


Now while I agree with a lot of what you say I love your statement about america's cockup in vietnam ... you know good ole countrys like lets say france couldent have possibly been there could they have? and even before america?

LOL :p

What an absolutely bizaare theory.

The US has not always been a government for the people: I believe your franchise was far more limited than any European democracy right through the Victorian era. Of course you endorsed slavery far longer than most European nations too and had to have a civil war over it, so entrenched was its stigma. And before that you were a colony with absolutely no democratic rights whatsover - you listened to the British governor who got his commands from the government in London. You didn't even get your own MPs. So I hardly think the US has always had a government for the people, of the people and by the people. Such an idea is almost socialist.




I'm gonna put some refutation into this.

The American colonies were, for the most part ignored by the British until the French-and-Indian-War (as American's know it) or the Seven Years War, as it is known in Britain, if I remember.

The colonial legislatures had most of the power.

Hell, the Central British Government didn't even try to enforce half the taxes and duties for the first hundred or so years of the American colonies.

Tecnically the US colonies were not represented by the British government, but the colonists had legislatures of their own that behaved as the de facto source of law in the colonies.

Hell, the Central British Government didn't even try to enforce half the taxes and duties for the first hundred or so years of the American colonies.
quite. the american colonies were the lest taxed place in the empire - including britain itself.
also, while im on the subject, the boston tea party wasnt a revolt or statement therin of any kind, it was that the british government lowered duties on tea and thus tea smugglers were faced with a shitload of tea that they would have to sell at a loss - thus they simply dumped it into the water. interesting, if slightly off topic ;)

Are you saying the revolutionaries were just a bunch of aristocratic, slave-owning white males who didn't want to pay their taxes?

Are you saying the revolutionaries were just a bunch of aristocratic, slave-owning white males who didn't want to pay their taxes?

Well done, I could hardly have put it better myself.

The main driving force behind the Revolution was not the common people: considering 1/3 of all Americans were loyalist during that war, it would be idiotic to say it was a people's revolution. Most of this 1/3 moved to Canada or to Britain after the war. Those that remained were viciously persecuted (so much for the land of liberty and free speech). The leaders of the revolt were all either a) the sons of slave ran plantation owners or b) they were the slave ran plantation owners. Their main gripe was the British taxes would damage their soaring profits. Also Britain refused to allow them to move into the west of the USA, so the rich magnates could not take advantage of the land there.

Well done, I could hardly have put it better myself.

The leaders of the revolt were all either a) the sons of slave ran plantation owners or b) they were the slave ran plantation owners. Their main gripe was the British taxes would damage their soaring profits. Also Britain refused to allow them to move into the west of the USA, so the rich magnates could not take advantage of the land there.

Not true. Only the ones from the south were. The ones from the north didn't have slaves.

Not true. Only the ones from the south were. The ones from the north didn't have slaves.
Most did, [EDIT] found a link for you about Washington owning slaves (http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq040202.htm) also the revolutionary army was tiny compared to the size of the population, most colonists at the time didn't care less who was in charge, they were too busy.

Most did, [EDIT] found a link for you about Washington owning slaves (http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq040202.htm) also the revolutionary army was tiny compared to the size of the population, most colonists at the time didn't care less who was in charge, they were too busy.

Yes washington has slaves. But anyone who was from the northern half of the country didn't. Benedict Arnold, Ethan Allen, John Paul Jones didn't for example.

Same with the political chaps, for every Jefferson there was a franklin.

To say most did, really is a gross overexageration.

(Not that many of them cared mind you, but nor did the anyone else at that point).

Edit: Washington was from the south, I was well aware that he had slaves.

Yes washington has slaves. But anyone who was from the northern half of the country didn't. Benedict Arnold, Ethan Allen, John Paul Jones didn't for example.

Same with the political chaps, for every Jefferson there was a franklin.

To say most did, really is a gross overexageration.

(Not that many of them cared mind you, but nor did the anyone else at that point).
OK. I think your last bit is the important point too.

I don't know whether it's because I'm an extremely paranoid person, but I for some reason always think that Europe would backstab the USA the first chance it got.

For instance, if there was ever an invasion of the USA and the USA was losing, I think Europe would "Ignore" the situation. For some reason I think they'd be secretly happy about it. And as far as Mexico...HA!

Mexico would help that said invasion force in an attempt to retake the South West. Mexico I do not trust...not at all. They're basically colonizing the South West as it is now. I fear of secession from of these states in the near future.

I don't know whether it's because I'm an extremely paranoid person, but I for some reason always think that Europe would backstab the USA the first chance it got.

For instance, if there was ever an invasion of the USA and the USA was losing, I think Europe would "Ignore" the situation. For some reason I think they'd be secretly happy about it. And as far as Mexico...HA!

Mexico would help that said invasion force in an attempt to retake the South West. Mexico I do not trust...not at all. They're basically colonizing the South West as it is now. I fear of secession from of these states in the near future.
No we Europeans would just wait until it directly affected us, turn up about half way through and then claim all the credit afterwards.

OK. I think your last bit is the important point too.

No one really gave a fuck about slavery in those days, except for a few quakers in PA.

Jefferson whined about it once in a while, but he did fuck all to change it. Moslty people who complained (both here and in Britain) were considered cranks.

Roscoe was the name of the british guy I think.

For instance, if there was ever an invasion of the USA and the USA was losing, I think Europe would "Ignore" the situation. For some reason I think they'd be secretly happy about it. And as far as Mexico...HA!

I for one wouldn't be secretly happy. I would express my happiness in public. While I lift a cold beer with a big smile on my face.

I for one wouldn't be secretly happy. I would express my happiness in public. While I lift a cold beer with a big smile on my face.

Well guess what? It won't ever happen. If somehow if fucking does, I hope the President turns Earth into a nuclear wasteland.

No we Europeans would just wait until it directly affected us, turn up about half way through and then claim all the credit afterwards.
Hell if ya did all the work of saving our asses AND made the real difference in the war my hat would be off to you

(I know you were making a wwII reference but my attitude would still hold true)

I would much rather give credit up then die

Well guess what? It won't ever happen. If somehow if fucking does, I hope the President turns Earth into a nuclear wasteland.
Great atitude ... if we cant survive nothing can ... that will make them like us more :rolleyes:

Great atitude ... if we cant survive nothing can ... that will make them like us more :rolleyes:

I don't give a rats ass.

If I were in Charge of America and we got invaded and were losing, I'd launch nukes all over the fucking globe. Europe, Asia, South America, everywhere, even In America itself.

I don't give a rats ass.

If I were in Charge of America and we got invaded and were losing, I'd launch nukes all over the fucking globe. Europe, Asia, South America, everywhere, even In America itself.

We can tell you dont give "a rats ass"
we cant win so lets kill billions (trilions if you want to count animals)
truly
pathetic

No, I have extreme love and passion for my Country. I'd rather see the entire globe destroyed then to see my Country destroyed.

No, I have extreme love and passion for my Country. I'd rather see the entire globe destroyed then to see my Country destroyed.
truly
jingoistic

a tad selfish?

We can tell you dont give "a rats ass"
we cant win so lets kill billions (trilions if you want to count animals)
truly
pathetic


It's a common theme. That is why other countries have independant nuclear deterence as well. (Like france and the UK).

No, I have extreme love and passion for my Country. I'd rather see the entire globe destroyed then to see my Country destroyed.
You said you were willing to nuke america too
dosent seem like something you do to a country you love

You might be slightly biased -- I live in an European country which has been invaded at least twice militarily in the last 65 years, and at least once/100-150 years before that. The idea that we might be invaded again does every now and then cross the mind of people, but we get to release those tensions in the military, what with having a conscription-based army. Nearly all males (85-90%) go and blow apart a bunch of cardboard targets and feel better about being ready to defend this country if the need arises.
sorry I'm so late :)
I live in an European country which has been invaded by countless armies and still, if someone today says we are going to be invaded, we all think he's a retard.

You said you were willing to nuke america too
dosent seem like something you do to a country you love

It's the "if I can't have it, no one can" mentality.

It's the "if I can't have it, no one can" mentality.
But he never really “had it” lol he was only in charge of protecting it anyway he can

Even in loosing a war the some Americans would have to be alive


Oh well whatever
Pathetic (him not the quoted)

But he never really “had it” lol he was only in charge of protecting it anyway he can

Even in loosing a war the some Americans would have to be alive


Oh well whatever
Pathetic (him not the quoted)

I didn't say it was correct, just that that's the attitude that spawns statements like the aforementioned.

It's a common theme. That is why other countries have independant nuclear deterence as well. (Like france and the UK).
We got em so we can keep a UN Security Council seat and because the French do. The French got em so they can keep a UN Security Council seat and because we do.

We got em so we can keep a UN Security Council seat and because the French do. The French got em so they can keep a UN Security Council seat and because we do.

Now be fair. no-one said you needed them for that. Especially not ones with limited first strike capability.

Now be fair. no-one said you needed them for that. Especially not ones with limited first strike capability.
True, but they are to a design that is 30 years out of date and are of no real use for anything except a submarine strike on Moscow so we haven't really got any decent reason to keep em except for the look of the thing. Which is a pretty weak reason for spending all that money on death dealing stuff.

Hmmm.... I think that Europeans, in their own way, are becoming just as isolationist as Americans. In that field, I see convergence, not divergence.

You might be slightly biased -- I live in an European country which has been invaded at least twice militarily in the last 65 years, and at least once/100-150 years before that. The idea that we might be invaded again does every now and then cross the mind of people, but we get to release those tensions in the military, what with having a conscription-based army.

Finland has been invaded only once ever. And that was the Winter War of 1939-40. The Continuation War 1941-44 was a Finnish invasion to the Soviet Union, linked with the German Operation Barbarossa. Before 1917 Finland did not exist, so 100-150 years before it couldn't have been invaded either. Sure, Sweden and Russia fought over the area, but they anyway only invaded each other.

Nearly all males (85-90%) go and blow apart a bunch of cardboard targets and feel better about being ready to defend this country if the need arises.

I personally feel no need for defending a country that forces me to the arms. Quite the opposite.

except when we are called to take part in training every few years.

In theory. In reality budget allows once ever per person (more or less good so), unless you volunteer for it.

Hmmm.... I think that Europeans, in their own way, are becoming just as isolationist as Americans. In that field, I see convergence, not divergence.

The expanding European Union is a sign of isolationism to you? I would say that the Europeans are instead becoming more involved again. And as Europeans, maybe the first time ever. Not just as Germans, Italians, Estonians...

Enlightenment thinkers such as the framers of the US Constitution trusted individual reason more than collective government.

The individual was to be the final arbiter of his own welfare.

Along with this went a mistrust not only of government regulation but even more so of military power. Four states provided that any military must be under the strict control of the civil power, and this was tied to the provision of the right of individuals to bear arms for self defence (Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont.)

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 (I think) gave protestants the rights to bear arms.

Here is an excerpt from a commentary by a noted American jurist on the 2nd Amendment (taken from the page of a UCLA law professor):

Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)
21

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}


The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

(Emphasis added. It all fits in with the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence: "...Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...

[Included in a list of King George's offensive actions was this notable one:]
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. "

America's political order is founded upon the right of citizens to revolt.

The expanding European Union is a sign of isolationism to you? I would say that the Europeans are instead becoming more involved again. And as Europeans, maybe the first time ever. Not just as Germans, Italians, Estonians...
Actually yes … he said Europeans not individual countries … I see a grouping of people that feel comfortable with each other to exclusion of others, seems to have isolationist tendencies to me

The Continuation War 1941-44 was a Finnish invasion to the Soviet Union, linked with the German Operation Barbarossa.At the end of the Continuation War, the Finnish line of defense was more or less the same as the official border of the Moscow peace treaty of 1940. Regardless of what started the war, Finns were defending their border by the end of it, against an invasion by the Soviet Union.

Before 1917 Finland did not exist, so 100-150 years before it couldn't have been invaded either. Sure, Sweden and Russia fought over the area, but they anyway only invaded each other.The area was (more or less) the same, the people was the same, with the same language and much of the same culture, going back easily a thousand years. I would call the Norman Conquest an invasion of England (and of Great Britain), for example. In the context of this discussion, the important thing is that the people and the culture have the history of being invaded. What the central government was like or what it was called has little if anything to do with it.

I personally feel no need for defending a country that forces me to the arms. Quite the opposite.To be fair, if a large-scale war erupted on our borders, you'd be drafted anyway. And while there certainly is a large number of people who end their military service less willing to defend their country than before being conscripted, there is an even greater number for whom it's the other way around. I'm not saying this is right or fair or anything else, it just happens that that part which is most, errm, "enthusiastic" about defending their homeland often gets to express that feeling through means other than stockpiling weapons and going paranoid.

In theory. In reality budget allows once ever per person (more or less good so), unless you volunteer for it.I know 3 people between 28 and 40 years of age who have been called to training at least 3 times. It might be that the rate is dropping and I won't get called too often, but from my (albeit limited) experience, "once ever per person" is way off.

The two quotes in the original post are the exact two reasons as to why the Right to Bear Arms was added into the Constitution's "Bill of Rights." Our founding fathers feared the government turning as corrupt as the British Parliament at the time as well as invasion from the European empires.

Yes, we continue this. Why? Yes, our War for Independence ended in 1783, however we fought for it again in 1812, we were threatened with invasion by Mexico multiple times (especially causing us to fear during WWI), We were constantly under threat of German attack in WW2, we had to fear an attack by the Soviet Union just like Europe did.

Americans will fight and die for their freedom and independence. Unlike some countries, we would never surrender to an invading nation.

Is America isolationist? Yes, to an extent. Why should we care about the other nations of the world? Personally, I'd favor forcing Europe to pay for the protection they received during the Cold War. Minus the UK, our closest allies, of course.

Is America isolationist? Yes, to an extent. Why should we care about the other nations of the world? Personally, I'd favor forcing Europe to pay for the protection they received during the Cold War. Minus the UK, our closest allies, of course.
Perhaps Russia as the former USSR should also be reimbursed for saving us in WWII then? If the US actual didn't care no one would mind, it is the fact that they selectively care that annoys everyone.

Perhaps Russia as the former USSR should also be reimbursed for saving us in WWII then? If the US actual didn't care no one would mind, it is the fact that they selectively care that annoys everyone.
Or we them … Hitler may not have had enough power to hold a two front war … but if we were removed from the equation … lol

Or we them … Hitler may not have had enough power to hold a two front war … but if we were removed from the equation … lol
Russia had already begun its counter attack before D-Day. It was recognised within the British and American governments that if a second front wasn't opened up in the west then we would have met the USSR on the beaches of France instead of Berlin. It wasn't publically made known that they worried about this as at the time (in the UK anyway) there was quite alot of sympathy for what was an ally. However moves to begin the cold war began before the end of WWII so there was already positioning going on for the end iof the war more than a year before the end of it. Right up until the end a large part of the German high command was hoping the US and UK forces would join with them and launch an invasion of the USSR.

America's political order is founded upon the right of citizens to revolt.
perhaps it is this fundamental understanding, engrained in american society, that leads to the attitude of distrusting (and fearing - see my original post) the government? You expect or anticipate the need to revolt at some point in the future (and as such own firearms), and this results in expecting the government to infringe on liberties, and thus a distrust of said government.
just a thought...

The two quotes in the original post are the exact two reasons as to why the Right to Bear Arms was added into the Constitution's "Bill of Rights." Our founding fathers feared the government turning as corrupt as the British Parliament at the time as well as invasion from the European empires.

Yes, we continue this. Why? Yes, our War for Independence ended in 1783, however we fought for it again in 1812, we were threatened with invasion by Mexico multiple times (especially causing us to fear during WWI), We were constantly under threat of German attack in WW2, we had to fear an attack by the Soviet Union just like Europe did.

Americans will fight and die for their freedom and independence. Unlike some countries, we would never surrender to an invading nation.

Is America isolationist? Yes, to an extent. Why should we care about the other nations of the world? Personally, I'd favor forcing Europe to pay for the protection they received during the Cold War. Minus the UK, our closest allies, of course.
this post also raises some interesting issues. like, Europeans fought the same battles - with European soil, not american, being invaded in the World Wars - and many wars more besides (with the exception of any with Mexico). And yet we in Europe have this fundamentally different opinion about being invaded. why is this? could the attitudes roots be down to the arguement above - that the population of america is more "jumpy" than the more laid-back Europeans?

The United States is a state the EU isn´t. It is an union of states.
One big difference between a federation and a confederation is the question who has the power to give the competence to give competences. Or in other words: Who has the right to give more power to Washington or Bruxelles.
In any Federal State it is the federal legislature who has the right to do so. In the United States it are the two houses of congress. In der Federal Republic of Germany it is the Bundestag and the Bundesrat (representatives of the states).
In the EU it is not the EU commission or the EU parliament which has the right to expand the authority of the EU into areas currently in the responsibility of the member states. It are the member states which are exercising the power of competence-competence. It lays in their disgracion whether they want to share sovereignity or not. Every change needs the agreement of the member states. They are the owners of the treaties, not the EU. That system would be the same as if any change of the US constituition would require the agreement of the parliaments of all 50 states. Thats not the case. It are not the states of the US who are the owners of the US constituition. It is the central level.
And finally in 1865 this principal was implemented.
When President Lincoln stated that no state has the right to leave the union he defined the US as a federation of states (without possibility for any state to leave it). Up until the Civil war that was not clear whether the US was a federal state or a confederation of states.
The EU is clearly the latter. Actually the constituition treaty (which was agreed by the member states and needs to be ratified now) explicitly states that every member state has the right to leave the EU.
Such a right doesn´t exist for a state in the US, or for a state in most other federal state - like Brazil or Germany.

perhaps it is this fundamental understanding, engrained in american society, that leads to the attitude of distrusting (and fearing - see my original post) the government? You expect or anticipate the need to revolt at some point in the future (and as such own firearms), and this results in expecting the government to infringe on liberties, and thus a distrust of said government.
just a thought...
A very interesting one. Several European countries, including Britain, had revolutions (ours is known as the Civil War) but these have been mainstreamed and sanitised in our histories. The american one is part of the founding myth (I don't mean it was made up, its a phrase) of that country so much harder to do this with.

[edit] re post above, very interesting comparison, thanks.

A very interesting one. Several European countries, including Britain, had revolutions (ours is known as the Civil War) but these have been mainstreamed and sanitised in our histories. The american one is part of the founding myth (I don't mean it was made up, its a phrase) of that country so much harder to do this with.
This leads to the “fresher in mind” type of argument

We haven’t had the time to work it out of our systems yet being a young country :p

Well, I know one thing sure that is different in attitudes between Americans and Europeans (or at least British people).

When I was in Japan in July, with my school, I was staying at the Olympic Village and me and my friends met some American kids our age from Washington. We went out at about 10pm and were talking and stuff, then we bought some alcohol to drink (obviously).

I'm not quite sure how it came up but we were talking about (me and my friends that is) we drink loads and get really drunk - binge drink (this is a big thing for people my age in Britain) and the two Americans were absolutely astonished that we do this. They told us that they don't do this in America, get drunk like we do (probably because they're are much more strict on alcohol in America).

So, attitudes to alcohol are different.

This leads to the “fresher in mind” type of argument

We haven’t had the time to work it out of our systems yet being a young country :p
True however the French Revolution is roughly contemporary with the US War of Independance but it has had a different effect on them. It is perhaps that they see it as a change of direction rather than an absolute break with the past?

True however the French Revolution is roughly contemporary with the US War of Independance but it has had a different effect on them. It is perhaps that they see it as a change of direction rather than an absolute break with the past?
Yeah change in internal politics rather then imposing non reprehensive government … so on and so forth

Combine that with the attitudes at the time and also with it being on the edge of wilderness

A very interesting one. Several European countries, including Britain, had revolutions (ours is known as the Civil War) but these have been mainstreamed and sanitised in our histories. The american one is part of the founding myth (I don't mean it was made up, its a phrase) of that country so much harder to do this with.

[edit] re post above, very interesting comparison, thanks.
indeed. The american war of indipendence and civil war is still very much taught in schools i understand, while the UK's civil war is not, or at least not much (from what i remember of GCSE and A-level). The american war of indipendence and civil war have become kinda folklore - myth, like you say - its history is still recent and the civil war is, i understand, still re-enacted all over the country. The british civil war has been somewhat lost in history and swept under the carpet - unsuprising seeing as the monarchy came back so shortly after the end of the war!
this difference must affect the american attitude

The British Civil War solved sod all.

At the end of it, we replaced King Charles with King Oliver, which he was in all but name. He ruled absolutely, he often dissolved Parliament. He was no more a democrat than I am a socialist (i.e. not at all). That is why it is greatly ironic that it his statue that stands outside of the House of Commons.

When the monarchy was restored in 1660, things reverted to their pre civil war way. The King was still supreme and the Parliament still very little more than a tax collecting body called when and if the King so desired. It was only in 1688 (the Glorious Revolution) where any real change occured and Parliament was finally established as the master.

Even then it was a very British revolution: there was no actual fighting except in Ireland. Violence was minimal and the transition occured quickly and with few flaws. Unlike the French and the Russian revolutions, British governments did not have to resort to terror to stabilise their positions.

This says a lot about Britain's national character. Britian does not rush change but neither do we overly resist it. Britain gradually developed towards liberty and democracy rather than rushing head first into it after centuries of unflinching totalitarian rule like France or Russia. And just look at the cock ups they made.

If I were in Charge of America and we got invaded and were losing, I'd launch nukes all over the fucking globe. Europe, Asia, South America, everywhere, even In America itself.

then it's a good job we don't allow 13-year-olds to hold the office.

I'd have to agree about the difference between the British Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution and the French and Russian Revolutions. The British and American Revolutions were both, for the most part, revolutions centered around Liberty in some form or another. They both were executed in the manner of a traditional war (the battles were fought in the fields, not in the streets.) The leaders typically had aristocratic-level ties of some sort, and they desired to preserve order.

In the French and Russian Revolutions, however stated goals went beyond liberty. The French Revolutionary slogan was Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Both revolutions were lacking in support of the moderates in the aristocracy, who could have helped stabilise a wracked nation. And in both cases the battles were fought on the streets.

Definately although all three were revolutions about the change from feudal to capitalist systems. The British one did appear to have no effect in that they couldn't solve the problem of having a strong central figurehead but it did mark a fundamental shift in power from the crown to Parliament. After no King (or Queen) was ever able to over rule Parliament again and power was firmly in the hands of the mercantile class. This early shift (compared to other countries) laid the ground for the later dismantling of the feudal system that was neccessary to the industrial revolution.
In both this and the French revolution there was a radicalising of the peasants that later had to be brutally quashed in order to prevent them aspiring to a different sort of society (e.g in Britain the Diggers and the Levellers who wanted to create agrarian utopias)

While I don’t mean to trivialize the conversation; I don’t think American European comparisons accomplish much.

Europe is in a much different place than the US. Whether it be population density, concentration of wars (through out history), age, governmental discrepancies what ever. The point is that it is too difficult to draw a straight apple to apple comparison with any European country to the US. The country that realistically makes the best comparison is my own; Canada.

The two countries faced similar roots, obstacles and similar values; however we took a very different route than our southern pals. While they fought to split with Britain we fought to be with them. We both expanded westward, we both have massive pieces of resource rich land that no European country can compare to.

There is something truly unique about the US, something that no other country has, and whether you’re pro or against you have to acknowledge its existence. Perhaps we will all be better off, and global tensions will drop, if we can just put our finger on it,…

we both have massive pieces of resource rich land that no European country can compare to.

What about Russia?

What about Russia? This is mildly out of context as I was trying to make reference to the Canadian US attempt to industrialize their wilds. Correct me if I’m wrong but with the exception of Vladivostok Russia has not done this.

(Also Russia, for what ever reason, has been very Eurocentric rather than self centric or Asiacentric. It’s almost as if Russia concentrates on its European holdings to the point of exclusion of the east.)

Successfully invaded, I think you mean.

Even then, he's wrong. 1688 and all that. [Edit: sounds a bit snotty, not meant to. It's actually a very common misconception. Very common in that almost no-one else is aware of it.]

Nice info in the rest of the post, BTW.


Oh yeah, and heading back to earlier in the thread whilst it's true that US television news is worse than that in the UK when it comes to reporting international affairs, in my experience anyway, don't forget that the reverse is true when it comes to the daily newspapers. Sample Sun contents:

Jordan reveals 1mm of left nipple front page, pages 6-27

Minor Royal reveals liking for cake page 2

Vapid popstar may, possibly, be having affair with washed up television actor page 3

Asylum seekers: do they cause traffic jams? page 4

Footballer in three in a blah blah bloody blah page 5

dictator gains power in somewhere or other. think its in africa, possibly asia can we get the tea boy to check? page 28, column 3, section 4

And BBC World is around, just not very interesting (all documentaries, all the time. Well, except for the news). Still, anything would be better than CNN. Well, except CCTV 9.

Jordan reveals 1mm of left nipple, front page, pages 6-27
Minor Royal reveals liking for cake, page 2
Vapid popstar may, possibly, be having affair with washed up television actor, page 3
Asylum seekers: do they cause traffic jams? page 4
Footballer in three in a blah blah bloody blah page 5

dictator gains power in somewhere or other. think its in africa, possibly asia can we get the tea boy to check? page 28, column 3, section 4

lol sooo true, sadly.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.


Meh, having a large number of privately owned guns in Germany after the 1st World War hardly helped much. Yes, I know Hitler later banned private arms but by then it was pretty much a moot point. And I notice there wasn't any mass uprising to stop him. In fact the only organisation to actively recruit those with privately owned arms was the SA. Lesson for future dictators of the USA: co-opt all the gun nuts by offering a suitably right wing platform, get them to do your dirty work then have them quietly liquidated by a better trained para-military organisation.


And on a completely unrelated note, isn't the internet wonderful? I came into this thread expecting all the usual arguments (see above) and managed to stumble across a breif insight into Finnish political debate.

Actually yes … he said Europeans not individual countries … I see a grouping of people that feel comfortable with each other to exclusion of others, seems to have isolationist tendencies to me

Not really, in fact given the limited foreign-policy clout of the EU it's doing rather a lot, Macedonia and Iran spring to mind. I think that those in charge of EU policy are trying to be do as much as possible they possibly can, given the novelty value and everything. And the fact that they can't do much isn't an isolationism issue, it's just an internal EU sovereignity thing.


And since I seem to be in the habit of posting two things at once on this thread, one possible difference between the US and European revolutions is that the US revolution managed the transition to a democracy relatively smoothly whilst in Europe revolutions were almost always soon followed by dictatorial regimes.

Sample Sun contents:

Jordan reveals 1mm of left nipple front page, pages 6-27

Minor Royal reveals liking for cake page 2

Vapid popstar may, possibly, be having affair with washed up television actor page 3

Asylum seekers: do they cause traffic jams? page 4

Footballer in three in a blah blah bloody blah page 5

dictator gains power in somewhere or other. think its in africa, possibly asia can we get the tea boy to check? page 28, column 3, section 4

And BBC World is around, just not very interesting (all documentaries, all the time. Well, except for the news). Still, anything would be better than CNN. Well, except CCTV 9.
ROFLMAO

*standing ovation*

Not really, in fact given the limited foreign-policy clout of the EU it's doing rather a lot, Macedonia and Iran spring to mind. I think that those in charge of EU policy are trying to be do as much as possible they possibly can, given the novelty value and everything. And the fact that they can't do much isn't an isolationism issue, it's just an internal EU sovereignity thing.

[devil’sadvocate] True, but the example of the EU and Turkey springs to mind as a counterpace to your example. [/devil’sadvocate]

What about Russia? This is mildly out of context as I was trying to make reference to the Canadian US attempt to industrialize their wilds. Correct me if I’m wrong but with the exception of Vladivostok Russia has not done this.

(Also Russia, for what ever reason, has been very Eurocentric rather than self centric or Asiacentric. It’s almost as if Russia concentrates on its European holdings to the point of exclusion of the east.)


Yeah, actually you are wrong about that. Siberia has a much denser population than equivalent areas in Canada. Under communism there was a massive push to develop it, it has isolated cities all over the place, as well as academic settlements, weapons facilities etc.

The soviets felt that not only was Siberia's mineral wealth worth exploting, but its isolation also made it an ideal place for scientific comunities and R&D facilities - away from prying eyes and all that.

Of course, the USSR was only able to do this because of the relative abundance of slave labor under the gulag system (most particualarly for mineral extraction and industry), and the ability of the government to centrally plan and intervene in the economy. (Thus transfering the cost of operating such settlements to other parts of the economy).

Unfortunately, now Russia has adopted a free market economy they are left with an overdevolped siberia, (not underdeveloped), in that the siberian settlements are not self sufficient and require many "imports", yet they do not generate enough goods or services to pay for them. Nor is the government really willing or able to subsidize them anymore, or set artificial prices for them.

Yeah, actually you are wrong about that. Siberia has a much denser population than equivalent areas in Canada. Under communism there was a massive push to develop it, it has isolated cities all over the place, as well as academic settlements, weapons facilities etc.

The soviets felt that not only was Siberia's mineral wealth worth exploting, but its isolation also made it an ideal place for scientific comunities and R&D facilities - away from prying eyes and all that.

Of course, the USSR was only able to do this because of the relative abundance of slave labor under the gulag system (most particualarly for mineral extraction and industry), and the ability of the government to centrally plan and intervene in the economy. (Thus transfering the cost of operating such settlements to other parts of the economy).

Unfortunately, now Russia has adopted a free market economy they are left with an overdevolped siberia, (not underdeveloped), in that the siberian settlements are not self sufficient and require many "imports", yet they do not generate enough goods or services to pay for them. Nor is the government really willing or able to subsidize them anymore, or set artificial prices for them.

Hmm. Learn something new everyday. Any links for more info? (not being facetious, I actually want to know.)

Meh, having a large number of privately owned guns in Germany after the 1st World War hardly helped much. Yes, I know Hitler later banned private arms but by then it was pretty much a moot point. And I notice there wasn't any mass uprising to stop him. In fact the only organisation to actively recruit those with privately owned arms was the SA. Lesson for future dictators of the USA: co-opt all the gun nuts by offering a suitably right wing platform, get them to do your dirty work then have them quietly liquidated by a better trained para-military organisation.


And on a completely unrelated note, isn't the internet wonderful? I came into this thread expecting all the usual arguments (see above) and managed to stumble across a breif insight into Finnish political debate.

Well only if you discount the freikorps that restored order and ovethrew the nascent bolsheviks in 1919-20.

Hmm. Learn something new everyday. Any links for more info? (not being facetious, I actually want to know.)

Hmm, well this is stuff I learned in real life, not from the internet, but I'm sure if you root around you'll find some.

There is a book by bobrich (sp-?) that covers this.

Hmm. Learn something new everyday. Any links for more info? (not being facetious, I actually want to know.)

That is quite interesting that the Soviets tried to develop siberia. I thought it was just a place for internal exiles. China is trying what sounds like a very similar experiment in western China which looks like a serious disaster in the making since they are rapidly using up much of the water for the rest of Central Asia and the area is not exactly habitable for human life with sandstorns and droughts and the like.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK24Ad02.html

That is quite interesting that the Soviets tried to develop siberia. I thought it was just a place for internal exiles. China is trying what sounds like a very similar experiment in western China which looks like a serious disaster in the making since they are rapidly using up much of the water for the rest of Central Asia and the area is not exactly habitable for human life with sandstorns and droughts and the like.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK24Ad02.html
A similar situation is developing in Nevada and other southern desert states of the US - ground water is being used faster (way faster) than it replenishes.

good points, especially on the media - the UK's media is very much internationalist; national news is often the headline, at least when something to do with politics happens, but other than that the news does look abroad a fair amount.

I disagree, I think British news is very Brit-centic, with a poor level of international news.

Thats quite interesting cos the BBC is the most indipendent (in spirit) and internationalist of the channels in the UK, when it comes to news, and yet it is government funded! odd that...
Yes, it is as you say, the BBC are best at reporting international news. This is probably due to the block grant the get from the foreign office.

I disagree, I think British news is very Brit-centic, with a poor level of international news.

Yes, it is as you say, the BBC are best at reporting international news. This is probably due to the block grant the get from the foreign office.

News of goings-on in the EU is still shown on the International News pages of all the newspapers, despite it affecting us directly.

But I have to disagree with your second statement - BBC are on equal terms with Channel 4 for reporting international news. So, equal best, not best all on their own.

News of goings-on in the EU is still shown on the International News pages of all the newspapers, despite it affecting us directly.

But I have to disagree with your second statement - BBC are on equal terms with Channel 4 for reporting international news. So, equal best, not best all on their own.
I think that is very true, also Channel 4 devote an hour to national and international news compared to the half hour on the other channels. I really like your comment on EU news and it is something that could make a real difference to public perception as they might then get to hear about the positive things it does and not just the negative.

China is trying what sounds like a very similar experiment in western China which looks like a serious disaster in the making since they are rapidly using up much of the water for the rest of Central Asia and the area is not exactly habitable for human life with sandstorns and droughts and the like

Not to mention it's a ethnic and religious powder keg awaiting a spark. Segregation? Check. Fundamentally different cultures? Check. Powerful non-locals coming in and taking jobs? Check. Islamic fundamentalism? Semi-check. Could possibly, maybe work. Could very well go horribly wrong.

[devil’sadvocate] True, but the example of the EU and Turkey springs to mind as a counterpace to your example. [/devil’sadvocate]

Point taken, but it's more of an internal EU issue than a foreign affairs issue. Besides, opinion over Turkey is divided with the EU itself.

I disagree, I think British news is very Brit-centic, with a poor level of international news.


Well, maybe. But I'm prepared to vouch that it's considerably better than that in the US.

I think that is very true, also Channel 4 devote an hour to national and international news compared to the half hour on the other channels.

It's pretty much equal with Newsnight (if it's still 45 mins), though, once advert breaks are factored in.

It's pretty much equal with Newsnight (if it's still 45 mins), though, once advert breaks are factored in.
although Newsnight covers topics in far more depth than Channel 4 News

although Newsnight covers topics in far more depth than Channel 4 News
We're back to the equally good but different point that set us off then. :)

In regard to American and European attitudes, I am an American and can only offer insight from my perspective -- given that this idea is accurate. Actually, my opinion differs from the original thought that people have attitudes based upon their location on the planet.

Just as Europe is comprised of many nations, the U.S.A. includes many states. Within each state are other political subdivisions, such as counties, provinces and cities. Within each of those are smaller communities called neighborhoods. Finally, this group includes families (which may cross various invisible geographic lines of cities and the like).

Early in this string (or "thread" as you young-uns like to call this forum), a person who alleged himself or herself to be a Canadian, noted that people from this country have an attitude more similar to Europeans than Americans.

It wasn't until that point that I waited to laugh. It was then that I remembered how each person is one individual. Even in the U.S.A., we have at least two major divergent political parties. There is no "American attitude," any more than there is a "French," "British," "Irish," "Spanish," or "European" attitude.

It was just last night that my wife mentioned to me that the people who claim to be Christians, but then go on to declare war, are not practicing what Jesus Christ preached. Likewise, the Muslims who kill themselves and others are not practicing what God wants.

Back on the subject of the right to bear arms in the U.S.A., this is relatively limited too. My proposal, nevertheless, is to allow all people on the planet to own as many guns as they want. Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Therefore, among my many mottos is this: Ban Bullets! Bingo, then there will be less deaths caused from them.

I would endorse banning knives, but I enjoy steak and other foods that require a knife.

I guess my best motto would be to ban violence. This, however, becomes a problem. Some people may interpret violence as including the statement of any opinion that is contrary to the current government line as being a violent statement.

Going back to the start of this bit of cotton (or "thread" as you young-uns like to call this forum), for a person to generalize (and I prefer American English spelling only because this is what I learned) such a point as to think America and the different countries known as Europe include two sets of people of like minds is -- ethnocentric. It reflects a high degree of bigotry by the original writer.

People in both regions of the world have similar attitudes about anything, even the possession of weapons. Some people in the U.S.A. and some people in Europe like the thought of owning guns. Some people here and there dislike the thought of owning guns.

As for the United States being filled with isolationists, this is also as true for the people who live in Europe. Some Europeans think of the world as a whole. Others think of it as America, Europe and everyone else. And still others think of their country "England," or "Scotland," or "Ireland," or "Germany" as being the only country in "Europe."

All people of this planet are of this planet.

Why do some people want to continue to speak or write divisive words? I don't know. Maybe it has to do with the war between God and Satan. It could be part of the big power struggle for souls. Back when, the people got together and spoke one language. They worked toward one goal -- to build a tower to heaven. For some reason, God chose to confound people by separating the languages. The inspired writer of Genesis notes that the Lord did so because if all people were united, then nothing would be retrained from them, that they could imagine to do.

My guess is that God knew that left to their own devices, men would kill each other by accident or with purpose. Humans had already proved their inability to live as He wanted them to live, given that He gave humans free will.

In any event, the thread here -- American versus European attitudes -- is flawed from its inception. People have different opinions in every community, big or small, and those opinions are not based on the location where they live. To promote such a thought is just another part of the actions that divide all people from being at peace with each other.

Back on the subject of the right to bear arms in the U.S.A., this is relatively limited too. My proposal, nevertheless, is to allow all people on the planet to own as many guns as they want. Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Therefore, among my many mottos is this: Ban Bullets! Bingo, then there will be less deaths caused from them.

I would endorse banning knives, but I enjoy steak and other foods that require a knife.

I guess my best motto would be to ban violence. This, however, becomes a problem. Some people may interpret violence as including the statement of any opinion that is contrary to the current government line as being a violent statement.
sarcasm?
either way, i disagree with your point:

It wasn't until that point that I waited to laugh. It was then that I remembered how each person is one individual. Even in the U.S.A., we have at least two major divergent political parties. There is no "American attitude," any more than there is a "French," "British," "Irish," "Spanish," or "European" attitude.
There are, imo, prevailing ingrained socio-political attitudes that cultures - nation states in the modern world - adopt and perpetuate through generations. Be the attitude taught through formal education or the family unit, or, in modern society, purely taught through culture like TV shows and the internet ;)
Sure, individuals' own attitudes can and do change within that culture, but i believe that the is still this uniform attitude to which the majority of the population will subscribe to; or at least adopt into their own ideas certain aspects of this prevailing cultural attitude.
For example I believe it to be quite evident that Americans are more right-wing than Europeans, as a whole. That's not saying that all americans are right wing, but that the overarching socio-political attitude is biased this way, and thus more americans follow this more conservative attitude, when forming their own opinions and political stance, than the, generally, more liberal 'European' one.

i hope that wasnt sarcasm btw cos it was actually a good point and quite a novel arguement :)

For example I believe it to be quite evident that Americans are more right-wing than Europeans, as a whole. That's not saying that all americans are right wing, but that the overarching socio-political attitude is biased this way, and thus more americans follow this more conservative attitude, when forming their own opinions and political stance, than the, generally, more liberal 'European' one.

i hope that wasnt sarcasm btw cos it was actually a good point and quite a novel arguement :)

So Americans are more up tight (Generally) than europeans.
That is what you seem to be saying.

I don't know if i agree with that.

So Americans are more up tight (Generally) than europeans.
That is what you seem to be saying.

I don't know if i agree with that.
No Pure Metal is saying that American society is in general more to the right politically than European societies.

No Pure Metal is saying that American society is in general more to the right politically than European societies.
And given the past performane of Europe, I want at least another 100 years of stability in the area before we begin to imitate them.

And given the past performane of Europe, I want at least another 100 years of stability in the area before we begin to imitate them.
Europe moved to the left after the second world war, since when there has been no major international conflicts or disagreements amongst the European nations.

No Pure Metal is saying that American society is in general more to the right politically than European societies.


Same Thing surely??

Same Thing surely??
I don't see it, I've known uptight lefties and chilled out conseratives. Depends whether we mean the same thing by uptight I suppose.

of course there are different attitudes, everything else is bs.

1. US has two parties, both right-wing enough to not be able to get major support in at least 50% of the european countries.
2. Some poeple arfor and some against personal arms? Ehhhm, ok, but there protionally more poeple for in US than in Europe...
3. Bush, can one call him anything but "The great divide"?
4. Religion, wasn't it so that 20% of the americans believed in a literal interpretation of the Genesis? I promise you, tell that to some randomly selected europeans and the majority will laugh...

I really hope that you don't believe that everyon's opinions are the same and people are 50/50 in everything, there is something called culture and there are more views than the ones present in the first world...

Well only if you discount the freikorps that restored order and ovethrew the nascent bolsheviks in 1919-20.

Well of course I discount them. I do so on a basis that should be obvious to anyone with even a half decent grasp of German history, namely that...

erm...

well...

y'know...

I forgot about them.

The Freikorps put down the Spartacist revolt with government support then attempted to seize power themselves, before being defeated by a government sponsored general strike.

What comes around goes around I suppose.

No Pure Metal is saying that American society is in general more to the right politically than European societies.
indeed. cheers Xenasia :)
that was only an example anyway. St Parky, for what im really getting at look at the 1st post in this thread.

I really hope that you don't believe that everyon's opinions are the same and people are 50/50 in everything, there is something called culture and there are more views than the ones present in the first world...
Ugh this is getting on my moobs… (^ is similar to what Jeff-O-Matica said)
I am not saying, and this thread is not debating, that people in America are of one mindset – that, as you put it, all their opinions are the same. It is about a coherent similarity between all those independent opinions that leads to a consensus of opinion that we can call a national attitude.

good call on the 'more views than those in the first world' thought though. However we are specifically discussing European and American attitudes :)

Ugh this is getting on my moobs… (^ is similar to what Jeff-O-Matica said)

good call on the 'more views than those in the first world' thought though. However we are specifically discussing European and American attitudes :)
I think we may be starting to go in circles a bit now.

Agree with that point too.

I think we may be starting to go in circles a bit now.
yeah. o well it was fun while it lasted

yeah. o well it was fun while it lasted
:D