NationStates Jolt Archive

America as a nation is extremely young. 225 years is not very much in terms of history. Where I live now, Croydon was founded by the Vikings in the late 900's. Can the American position in history now and indeed in the past be explained in somecases to a simple lack of experiance. One issue is the lack of war on their homeland. All I can think of are five or six wars that were fought on the American homeland. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe there have been historically many conflicts on their home soil and so those countrys now more about the horror of war or somehow the political expericance teaches somehting. Is experiance as a country nessecary to develop sucessfully? Or is something else the problem here?

America as a nation is extremely young. 225 years is not very much in terms of history. Where I live now, Croydon was founded by the Vikings in the late 900's. Can the American position in history now and indeed in the past be explained in somecases to a simple lack of experiance. One issue is the lack of war on their homeland. All I can think of are five or six wars that were fought on the American homeland. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe there have been historically many conflicts on their home soil and so those countrys now more about the horror of war or somehow the political expericance teaches somehting. Is experiance as a country nessecary to develop sucessfully? Or is something else the problem here?
is a country a conscious entity with a memory? i was under the impression that the humans populating the rest of the world did not have life spans radically different from the life spans in America, certainly not on the order of centuries, so is there a reason why people in other countries would "remember" history more clearly than Americans who study it?

Yes, I think so. American foreign policy is much more guided by confident ideology as opposed to cautious realism which is more a guide for European foreign policy.

Britain was in a similar situation 150 years ago. European powers were uncomfortable with their idealistic quest to bring freedom and prosperity to "the barbarians of the world".

It's an interesting point, but on the whole I would say no.

I beleive that many many americans know the face of war much better than the majority of Europeans today. In recent history (the last 50 years) the US has been involved in more armed conflicts where conscription was involved as compared to say the UK. Vietnam being the prime example.

It's also true that many of the men that took part in the vietnam war are now of politically powerful age - Bush, if he'd actually gone to vietnam would've been there, and although he was not drafted, we must concede that men from his administration most likely did go.

It's important to the remember that "the nation" doesn't make its own foreign policy decisions, they're made by the men elected for their term in office.

America as a nation is one of the oldest continuing Nations on Earth. France has been in its current state since? Germany since? Austria Since? Russia since? England since? When it comes down to it no body has much more experience or history in their current form than anyone else. And much of the older history England/France/Germany can claim America can claim as its own as well. Seeing as we are to some extent the result of a mixing of Europe.

Yes, I think so. American foreign policy is much more guided by confident ideology as opposed to cautious realism which is more a guide for European foreign policy.

Britain was in a similar situation 150 years ago. European powers were uncomfortable with their idealistic quest to bring freedom and prosperity to "the barbarians of the world".

Whatever condition Britain was in 150 years ago isn't the reason for Europe's current "cautios realism." Something far more recent is. WWII and being the focal point of "if the shit hits the fan, we're the ones who get bombed first" Cold War.

Yes, I think the direct result of all out war on their homeland, would change the Americans for the positive. Until this has happened, they'll continue acting all self-confident and disregard the views of the rest of the world as irrelevant.

America as a nation is one of the oldest continuing Nations on Earth. France has been in its current state since? Germany since? Austria Since? Russia since? England since? When it comes down to it no body has much more experience or history in their current form than anyone else. And much of the older history England/France/Germany can claim America can claim as its own as well. Seeing as we are to some extent the result of a mixing of Europe.

Britain has maintained its current national identity and general form of government since 1651. This is only because of the Interim period of the english civil war, which might not even be regarded as a great change of national identity as much as a different form of government. Eitherway this period only lasted for approximately 5 years.

America as a nation is one of the oldest continuing Nations on Earth. France has been in its current state since? Germany since? Austria Since? Russia since? England since? When it comes down to it no body has much more experience or history in their current form than anyone else. And much of the older history England/France/Germany can claim America can claim as its own as well. Seeing as we are to some extent the result of a mixing of Europe.

America changed rapidly from when the settlers arrived. Britian has been in a state of self development. America has not developed itself. The Native Americans did not slowly advance technologialy and sociologicaly towards becoming any kind of modern nation as we know it today. Instead European powers moved into it and advanced it for it. America was not a nation developing itself, but a nation developed.

It's not just the specific nations that have a long history. The city I live in got it's "city rights" in 1206. The German nation exists as it does today since the late 1800s or so. Before this time however it was a mix of German kingdoms and states without the overall name "Germany", but these kingdoms also had the common identity of Germanhood. The Germanic "race" exists since the time of the Romans (so since over 2.000 years). Before Columbus "explored" beyond the Atlantic, America was inhabited by native Americans - the Indians (silly name, but that's what you get when an explorer thinks he's somewhere else). At that time, Europe was just out of the Middle age and on the way to "Enlightenment" with an increase in science and culture. The two world wars destroyed a lot of it, so the people here want to avoid that this happens again - it brings nothing than human suffering. And that applies to all wars.

I wouldn't say it has anything to do with it. Australia's 217 years old as a colony and only 104 years old as a nation and we dont have the same foreign policy as america, the age of the country doesn't have anything to do with what the country does, it's the people living in it and the people in charge.

I wouldn't say it has anything to do with it. Australia's 217 years old as a colony and only 104 years old as a nation and we dont have the same foreign policy as america
[snip]


But neither was US foreign policy as bad 104 years after its founding (which would be 1880).

America changed rapidly from when the settlers arrived. Britian has been in a state of self development. America has not developed itself. The Native Americans did not slowly advance technologialy and sociologicaly towards becoming any kind of modern nation as we know it today. Instead European powers moved into it and advanced it for it. America was not a nation developing itself, but a nation developed.

Thanks for repeating what I said using different words. :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']It's not just the specific nations that have a long history. The city I live in got it's "city rights" in 1206. The German nation exists as it does today since the late 1800s or so. Before this time however it was a mix of German kingdoms and states without the overall name "Germany", but these kingdoms also had the common identity of Germanhood. The Germanic "race" exists since the time of the Romans (so since over 2.000 years). Before Columbus "explored" beyond the Atlantic, America was inhabited by native Americans - the Indians (silly name, but that's what you get when an explorer thinks he's somewhere else). At that time, Europe was just out of the Middle age and on the way to "Enlightenment" with an increase in science and culture. The two world wars destroyed a lot of it, so the people here want to avoid that this happens again - it brings nothing than human suffering. And that applies to all wars.
Tying your identity to Germanic tribes running around during the time of the Romans doesn't do much for your experience dealing with modern foreign policy. Though it does provide for some cool ruins to look at when visiting.

And exactly my point, Germany has been around in its semi-modern existence since Bismarck was appointed chancellor and Wilhelm was crowned Kaiser in 1871. Or roughly a century after America came into its modern existence. Though it wouldn't be hard to argue that Bismarck's Germany isn't the same Germany of today. But lets go with 1871. Germany and America have changed extensively since 1871 and aren't really the same country that existed back then.

No Nation's experience in foreign affairs really outlasts anyone else’s because foreign policy is a sea that can never be chartered with tides that are always changing.

Canada's a lot younger than the U.S. and we're not assholes when it comes to foreign policy...

I don't think it's a lack of experience.

America as a nation is one of the oldest continuing Nations on Earth. France has been in its current state since? Germany since? Austria Since? Russia since? England since? When it comes down to it no body has much more experience or history in their current form than anyone else. And much of the older history England/France/Germany can claim America can claim as its own as well. Seeing as we are to some extent the result of a mixing of Europe.
I call bullshit!

France, The UK and Germany are far older than the States. Yes, their territory may have changed a bit since the states were formed but so is yours. When did the States acquire Alaska?

Besides, you're forgetting Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, China, and many others that are older than the States.

i think it is to do with experience but in a different way. 90% of americans don't even have passports and less than half of america's senators have one. this means that more than half of the people who make important decisions regarding america's *foreign policy* have never been abroad and have never seen their work in action. they don't know how foreigners really think and they base everything on what they see at home.

There may be a point in the political maturity of the country. It is possible to see the USA as being a teenager (metaphorically) with all the subtlety and finesse that the average 16 year old has. Europe, politically, is more like a middle aged man. World weary and cynical. Both personalities are needed, but to achieve anything much one needs to take the energy of the teenagere and temper it with the experience of time.

By political maturity, I do not mean the length of time the current form of Government or definition of the National boundaries have existed. I mean the length of time that a culture of being a memeber of that cultural group has existed. Being American is something that has only been there for 250 years. Being French is something that has existed for more than 2000 years. English for more than 1000, German for 2000+ again etc. The relationships between these older identities is well established. The relationship between them and the newer identities of American, Australian, Mexican, Canadian etc is not, nor are the relationships between these newer identities.

The person that lives in the USA today may well be descended from one or more of these European identities, but that is not relevant. They are an American, not an ex patriot Italian or Englishman.

There is nothing wrong with being younger. It is just a diferent way of doing things. More direct, more immediate, less conciliatory. This is something thet the USA citizens seem to hold as a positive whilst the Europeans seem to see as a negative. (A similar statement can be made in reverse).

France, The UK and Germany are far older than the States. Yes, their territory may have changed a bit since the states were formed but so is yours. When did the States acquire Alaska?

You seem to be imagining that I'm making these distinctions based on territory.

French Revolution, 1789. However France entered its modern age with Napoleon, 1821. Younger than the US.
Germany as noted already entered its modern state in 1871, about a century younger than the US.
The UK has been roughly the same since 1651. About a century older.

Besides, you're forgetting Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, China, and many others that are older than the States.

Ignoring, not forgetting. Japan entered its modern age in the 1900s. China entered its modern age mid 1900s. Spain, probably since the Spanish civil war. Switzerland isn't involved much in foreign policy. The rest of the countries you mention all likely fall into the 1700-1899 range.

There may be a point in the political maturity of the country. It is possible to see the USA as being a teenager (metaphorically) with all the subtlety and finesse that the average 16 year old has. Europe, politically, is more like a middle aged man. World weary and cynical. Both personalities are needed, but to achieve anything much one needs to take the energy of the teenagere and temper it with the experience of time.

Its rather hard to see America as being a teenager when the Englishmen who founded America were of the exact same stock with the same history as the Englishmen in England. Countries are not people and they do not ‘mature’

By political maturity, I do not mean the length of time the current form of Government or definition of the National boundaries have existed. I mean the length of time that a culture of being a memeber of that cultural group has existed. Being American is something that has only been there for 250 years. Being French is something that has existed for more than 2000 years. English for more than 1000, German for 2000+ again etc. The relationships between these older identities is well established. The relationship between them and the newer identities of American, Australian, Mexican, Canadian etc is not, nor are the relationships between these newer identities.

The person that lives in the USA today may well be descended from one or more of these European identities, but that is not relevant. They are an American, not an ex patriot Italian or Englishman.


More direct? More immediate? Less conciliatory? The past 50 years have just about been the longest period of peace in European history Since Rome. And that could hardly be termed Peace. Sorry but Europe has little to claim for its long history when it comes to being subtle.

Europe's "less direct, less immediate, more conciliatory" is a direct result of WWII. Not the result of some fictional 2000 year old German identity.

the 2000 year old german identity isn't fictional, if your going to make up lies in your statements people won't read them ;). countries and territorial borders aren't important when talking about identities. up until about 150 years ago the greeks still called themselves romans with meaning.

and that fact is... america is a younger state than all the others mentioned, accept it. if you disagree with what has been said thats fine. but you can't argue with obvious facts, america *is* younger. england was invaded a few times through it's history but the identity of the english people began as way back as 500ad, when vortigern invited all the saxons over and they beat the remaining romans into submission. the *chinese* identity has been around for a very long time.

the 2000 year old german identity isn't fictional, if your going to make up lies in your statements people won't read them ;). countries and territorial borders aren't important when talking about identities. up until about 150 years ago the greeks still called themselves romans with meaning.

Its fictional. The German Identity of 5AD has nothing in common with the German identity of 2005AD outside of the land inhabited. The German Identity of 1500AD has just as little in common with the German Identity of 2005AD.

:shrug: Fictional here means imaginary. The Imagined identity can certainly exist, but it has little bearing on the real identities that existed throughout history.

and that fact is... america is a younger state than all the others mentioned, accept it. if you disagree with what has been said thats fine. but you can't argue with obvious facts, america *is* younger. england was invaded a few times through it's history but the identity of the english people began as way back as 500ad, when vortigern invited all the saxons over and they beat the remaining romans into submission. the *chinese* identity has been around for a very long time.

Imagined national identities and their imagined timelines don't have much to do with the age of the current state. Unless you intend on telling me that the current British identity is that of Serfs and Barons. Besides which America could be 20 years since its founding and it wouldn't make a whit of difference to my argument in the end. There is no such thing as long-term experience in foreign policy. It is always changing, its rules are always in flux and history gets thrown out the window every month.

You seem to be imagining that I'm making these distinctions based on territory.

French Revolution, 1789. However France entered its modern age with Napoleon, 1821. Younger than the US.
Germany as noted already entered its modern state in 1871, about a century younger than the US. The UK has been roughly the same since 1651. About a century older.



Ignoring, not forgetting. Japan entered its modern age in the 1900s. China entered its modern age mid 1900s. Spain, probably since the Spanish civil war. Switzerland isn't involved much in foreign policy. The rest of the countries you mention all likely fall into the 1700-1899 range.

I'm sorry, but how do you equal what I put in bold with

America as a nation is one of the oldest continuing Nations on Earth. France has been in its current state since? Germany since? Austria Since? Russia since? England since? When it comes down to it no body has much more experience or history in their current form than anyone else. And much of the older history England/France/Germany can claim America can claim as its own as well. Seeing as we are to some extent the result of a mixing of Europe.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your argument. Surely France, as a nation is far older than the US. Even if changed throughout the years, it was still the nation called "France". All the european nations are older continuing nations thatn the States.

I'm sorry, but how do you equal what I put in bold with

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your argument. Surely France, as a nation is far older than the US. Even if changed throughout the years, it was still the nation called "France". All the european nations are older continuing nations thatn the States.

The Monarchy of France is a very different nation than the Republic of France which is a rather different nation than France under Napoleon. A People and a Nation are not the same thing. And for that matter the People that call themselves 'French' have been called 'French' for a rather long time. Doesn't make a Frenchmen from 1000AD anything at all like a Frenchmen from 2005AD.

China as a 'people' could be considered several thousand years old. The Peoples Republic of China is ~56 years old.

Indeed considering we're talking about Foriegn policy, the Foriegn policy tendencies of France for the past 50-70 years stands in stark contrast to its previous Foriegn policy tendencies before that period. Result of 'age'/'experience' of the nation or merely the result of the most recent of events in history? Most recent of events surely.

The Monarchy of France is a very different nation than the Republic of France which is a rather different nation than France under Napoleon. A People and a Nation are not the same thing. And for that matter the People that call themselves 'French' have been called 'French' for a rather long time. Doesn't make a Frenchmen from 1000AD anything at all like a Frenchmen from 2005AD.

China as a 'people' could be considered several thousand years old. The Peoples Republic of China is ~56 years old.

Indeed considering we're talking about Foriegn policy, the Foriegn policy tendencies of France for the past 50-70 years stands in stark contrast to its previous Foriegn policy tendencies before that period. Result of 'age'/'experience' of the nation or merely the result of the most recent of events in history? Most recent of events surely.
Ah but your assertation is that France is younger as a continuing country than the states. It is patently false.

Besides, the americans who were conquering the far west was a rather different nation than the one who claimed independance from England who is a different nation than the one who had a civil war and is a different nation than it is today.

Even if we go by foreign policy, the states had a vastly different foreign policy during the second world war than they have today so, again your assertion is false.

Just admit that you misspoke and leave it at that. The US is a young nation in the relative state of history.

You seem to be imagining that I'm making these distinctions based on territory.

French Revolution, 1789. However France entered its modern age with Napoleon, 1821. Younger than the US.
Germany as noted already entered its modern state in 1871, about a century younger than the US.
The UK has been roughly the same since 1651. About a century older.


But unlike America, European nations developed of their own volition. America became like it was today not through self development but because Europe discovered it and used its ideas to create it.

I call bullshit!

France, The UK and Germany are far older than the States. Yes, their territory may have changed a bit since the states were formed but so is yours. When did the States acquire Alaska?

Besides, you're forgetting Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, China, and many others that are older than the States.

I'll give you the last paragraph but in the grand scheme of things, a United Germany isn't as old as the United States. You had Germanic states but they weren't Germany. Germany was united under Bismarck well after the United States was established.

We acquired Alaska in 1867 from Russia.

I'll give you the last paragraph but in the grand scheme of things, a United Germany isn't as old as the United States. You had Germanic states but they weren't Germany. Germany was united under Bismarck well after the United States was established.

We acquired Alaska in 1867 from Russia.
Depends on how you view Germany, I guess. It was united for a good long while before WW2 broke it in two.

Even if we remove Germany from the equasion, it still goes to show that the States is not "one of the oldest" country in the world. Far from it.

Depends on how you view Germany, I guess. It was united for a good long while before WW2 broke it in two.

Agreed.

Even if we remove Germany from the equasion, it still goes to show that the States is not "one of the oldest" country in the world. Far from it.

I'm not going to dispute it. I know that's true.

The we are in an agreement.

As for foreign policy, I believe it comes from the economic, military and social situation that the States are in now. They are the dominant military on the planet so they go whereever they please, feeling secure in their dominance. With that, they expand their economic might and try to bring their culture where they go as another way to gain dominance.

Every nation that was in this situation did the same, whether it was Rome, Napoleonic France, Great Britain, etc... Note, Us citizens, that all these civilisations were eventually defeated when the nation fell into complacency and apathy. Let's hope for the US thay they will fall to the level of the UK and not be razed to the ground like Babylonia or Rome.

I disagree. There’s a lack of experience, and there’s a lack of common sense. Our current leaders posses not enough common sense when it comes to foreign policy. Experience is essentially an extension of power. Think about it. All you need experience for is so nations will take you more seriously, and when you have as much power as America does, experience is no longer needed. Also, experience is not as simple as time. China stayed isolated for hundreds of years, and didn’t gain much experience in dealing with many foreign powers.

The US is a young state, but I'm not sure whether that is the direct cause of a more aggressive foreign policy. However, they may be some truth in the idea that a country's present character is shaped by its past. We are all more familiar with our own history than that of other countries, and to some degree we use that history as a guide to what we should do in the present.

The history of the US, as told in the US (the key point), is about the growth of free, democratic society to a position of dominance in the world. It began with a fight against oppressive monarchy, and took up again in the 20th century (after lots of immigrants escaping the corrupt old world to find a land of freedom etc), with a fight against Imperialist Germany, then fascism, and then communism. Americans, unlike Europeans, are therefore quite likely to see their country as one with a noble mission.

In Britain we look back to our Empire and see, among many other things, some very well-intentioned people in the later Victorian era trying to spread Christian values across the globe, but being eventually rebuffed by nationalist movements who would frankly just rather have control over their own destinies. As far as the British are concerned the spread of what were seen as fundamental human values at the time was an arrogant error, and therefore the American project to reform the Middle East is treated with a sizeable dose of scepticism.

The French spent two-hundred years or so being outclassed by Britain in terms of empire, language, wealth, industry, science and lots of other things. They therefore naturally oppose any 'Anglo-Saxon' venture, particularly in the one field where they weren't outclassed, which was culture, but also in terms of anything that would increase 'Anglo-Saxon' global influence.

The Germans just feel guilty about everything.

The we are in an agreement.

As for foreign policy, I believe it comes from the economic, military and social situation that the States are in now. They are the dominant military on the planet so they go whereever they please, feeling secure in their dominance. With that, they expand their economic might and try to bring their culture where they go as another way to gain dominance.

Every nation that was in this situation did the same, whether it was Rome, Napoleonic France, Great Britain, etc... Note, Us citizens, that all these civilisations were eventually defeated when the nation fell into complacency and apathy. Let's hope for the US thay they will fall to the level of the UK and not be razed to the ground like Babylonia or Rome.

I believe that 9/11 brought us out of our complacency. Hopefully we don't fall back into it. Of course, I'm a realist so it'll happen and we'll get whacked again. Pearl Harbor should've taught us not to be compacent but alwell. Such is life.

I beleive that many many americans know the face of war much better than the majority of Europeans today. In recent history (the last 50 years) the US has been involved in more armed conflicts where conscription was involved as compared to say the UK. Vietnam being the prime example.
No. Until the American homeland is destroyed by foreign enemies, you cannot make this claim. You may say that few Europeans living now personally saw their homelands destroyed, but we all have friends and relations who did, and a large proportion of the currently living population grew up witnessing the difficult reconstruction of the continent.

The United States of America just prides itself on a more idealistic approach, which says that there is a good and evil in this world, and it is every nation's duty to confront evil with overwhelming force.
Nothing to do with age.

The United States of America just prides itself on a more idealistic approach, which says that there is a good and evil in this world, and it is every nation's duty to confront evil with overwhelming force.
Nothing to do with age.

I agree.

Ein Deutscher']Yes, I think the direct result of all out war on their homeland, would change the Americans for the positive. Until this has happened, they'll continue acting all self-confident and disregard the views of the rest of the world as irrelevant.
you say that now, but if your country needs assistance, guess who they will come scampering to? we have our own, on our own turf, war, between different political, racial, idealogical, socio-economic, etc etc, factions right now. and dont say "oh- there is no one dying, nobody shooting, it is not a war..." . you will be wrong. we are a civilized country, and we fight in a very different way than most of the world.