America is an imperialistic, warmongering, racist country that puts self-interest above all else. And that's our ally speaking.
"Vulgar," "uncultured," "ignorant" and "greedy" are some of the more common adjectives that Britons use when describing Americans, according to the findings of a new poll published today in the Daily Telegraph. Ironically, those same adjectives can be used to describe the Telegraph's editorial board that thought it necessary to conduct the poll — with the help of YouGov — just in time for the 4th of July. Perhaps the better story, which the Telegraph chose not to report, is that after 230 years, Britons continue to begrudge the United States for that pesky revolution.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Christopher Rose
Nancy, Dave's mindset is out of date and hasn't allowed for the extremely rapid social, cultural and political changes currently going on in both the new Europe and the wider world. I can barely keep up myself!
77 - Christopher Rose
ZingZing: I'm not saying Europe is superior to the USA, I'll leave that kind of mental farting to others, but let's just say things ain't what they used to be. The game is changing, rapidly.
78 - zingzing
chris and dave... how long have you two been battling over this little question? a year? two? do you ever get anywhere? i think you're both being foolish and partisan. chris likes europe. dave likes america. it's painfully obvious. can't you see that you are going around in circles? that neither of you will ever convince the other and that your arguments are getting progessively weaker and full of shit? it's getting redundant. has been for a while actually.
america and europe are different. both have their good sides. both have their faults. both have legitimate complaints against the other. live with it. chris, just because europe is older DOES NOT make it better, and just because america doesn't pay you any mind doesn't make it wrong (sometimes foolish, but not automatically so). dave, you obviously have a chip on your shoulder concerning europe and it is skewing your view; is it because the are more leftist than you?
oh dear, get over it. most of us are damn near sick of you two blathering on as if you are gods or something. you have your points. we have heard them. you have heard them. memorize them. write them down. let us never speak of it again.
79 - zingzing
chris, you are saying europe is superior. unless you want to say that europe sucks, that makes europe better than america, because basically, you can cut your arguments down to the u.s.a. sucks.
80 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, Dave's mindset is out of date and hasn't allowed for the extremely rapid social, cultural and political changes currently going on in both the new Europe and the wider world. I can barely keep up myself!
Chris, I'm just passing on the opinions of relatives living in Europe when it comes to this aspect of the discussion. Yes, there are rapid changes, but from what I've been told there's large and growing resentment of those changes in a lot of the population, especially those over the age of 30 or so. This may be something limited to Germany and the UK where my relatives are, but from everything I read in the news and elsewhere seems to bear out what I've been told.
And Zing, I'm sorry if our ongoing discussion of this topic irritates you, but I'm glad you do admit that Chris's position largely comes down to 'the usa sucks' with no real evidence to back his position up.
Dave
81 - methuselah
"What actually sets the US apart from the European nations is that our society remains somewhat more dynamic and flexible, with more acceptance of individual initiative and social and economic mobility."
True. My wife (who is European, living in the US, and now a citizen), decided to start painting a few years ago. All her US friends were enthusiastic, encouraged her, were glad to see her pictures, and told her she should sell them, which she did for about $300-$600 each, even on the internet to strangers. By contrast her European family and friends sneered at her, told her she had no training, that she would fail. Where do you suppose she prefers to live? She speaks several languages, and Spanish good enough to work in Spanish. She has properties in Europe, even in Paris, and she prefers to live in California.
82 - zingzing
dave: "Zing, I'm sorry if our ongoing discussion of this topic irritates you."
it's not the discussion itself that bothers me, it's the fact that it hasn't progressed at all in several months. you are at an impasse.
i think that both of you are using a few facts that you only choose to use because they fit your skewed views.
83 - gonzo marx
ok....just a couple of things here...
folks are talking abotu "europe" as if it were a single mass culture
nothing could be further from the Truth
myself, personally...i have always enjoyed the open friendliness fo the scandanavian countries (including Holland) whereas i wasn't thrilled with Spain, Italy or France...just my personal take on the places as a visitor...
bu tthe big thing is the very Title fo this article
where the fuck does any American get off on the Idea that we, as a Nation, shoudl be either an Empire or a "Ruler" ? of anything???
dopey fucking me, here i had thought that part of our Ethic as a Nation was all about Liberty..and that we fought our Revoloution to toss aside the yoke of Imperialism
so..i Reject the entire premise as fallacious from the sheer title...and the audacity to type such drivel clearly gives a glimpse into a certain mentality
a fucking shame that such mentalities exist in our Nation
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
84 - Dave Nalle
where the fuck does any American get off on the Idea that we, as a Nation, shoudl be either an Empire or a "Ruler" ? of anything???
I wanted to bring that up myself, but by the time I'd discovered this article the discussion had already moved pretty far away from the silly premise in the title.
The truth, of course, is that America is neither an Evil Empire or a Benevolent Ruler. We're more like the shop on the corner which is looking for a way to branch out into franchises.
Dave
85 - Clavos
We're more like the shop on the corner which is looking for a way to branch out into franchises.
Hell of a fine analogy. I like that.
86 - Dave Nalle
I left out the part where the people in the neighborhood think we're turning into MacDonalds and start picketing us.
Dave
87 - Patrick
Nancy, re # 70
You are quite wrong about Muslim contributions to the tsunami. Several Muslim countries immediately pledged large amounts and the agency Muslim Aid was on the ground immediately (from regional centers in Malaysia initially. Where the U.S. is outstanding (quite ironically) is not in sending food aid but in flying in complete military field hospitals. For which, in Yogya last month, many thanks. In terms of proportionate response to food aid emergencies, the Scandinavian countries easily top the list. Not the United States. And to your question: "Can we be so absolutely corrupt on the one hand, and so absolutely generous on the other?" The answer is yes because the two behaviors are not ipso facto linked. I'm not making a direct comparison here but Machiavelli was actually quite a generous chap to those he favored!
88 - Patrick
A PS: The reason you didn't see Muslim aid agencies at work is because the United States media predominantly features U.S. efforts. But then, the media in other countries (UK, Australia, etc.) quite naturally give prominence to their own nationals at work. I can assure you from personal experience that Muslim aid agencies (religious and secular)have been working flat out in the Yogya situation and in Aceh before that.
89 - Christopher Rose
Sorry for the late update but a boy has to sleep sometime. I don't know where ZingZing or Dave get the idea that I think the USA sucks. I've never said that and don't think that. I do think many US citizens can't think their way out of a paper bag and you two seem to be part of that group as you both keep making stuff up.
90 - Christopher Rose
I suppose I should counter-balance that statement by adding that a modest majority of the smartest/most interesting people I know or read are from the USA.
91 - gonzo marx
..::: slowly takes the muzzle from Christopher's temple:::..
there there...much better now...
off with ya, go and enjoy yer tea...
balance, me boyo...the most vocal are usually not representative of the most numbers, they just have the megaphones and the hubris ta use 'em
------------------------------------------------
we now return you to your regularily scheduled program...the Management wishes to ensure you that no Editors were harmed in the making of this snark-attack
Excelsior?
92 - Bliffle
"where the fuck does any American get off on the Idea that we, as a Nation, shoudl be either an Empire or a "Ruler" ? of anything???"
I think the idea comes from having watched the International Community completely screw things up in the first half of the 20th century, partly through neglect, bitter nationalism and greed. The US didn't want to watch another episode of fumbling toward WW3, which would have been worldwide and nuclear. The UN is a failed hope that something outside our private world would be able to do it. And the European states we sheltered have failed to develop the statesmanship to unite and arm themselves so they could handle local messes like Yugoslavia: they were simply too complacent to enjoy their increasing wealth and let the US provide international police work while they took cheap shots from the sidelines. The Europeans failed to shoulder their responsibilities. We had to invent NATO to even get them involved at all.
IMO, most US citizens would be glad to see Europe develop enough military muscle and statesmanship to deal with European problems, but we wait in vain.
93 - gonzo marx
well Bliffle, my Thinking is that with the Eu, the end of the USSR and the quelling of the eternal Balkan conflict due to the arrest and trial of Milosovic and his cronies...
the US can just keep NATO and leave Europe to be Europe...perhaps our closest Partner on the world stage
my Point stands, neither Empire nor Ruler should the U.S. be
lead by Example...show what Liberty can do, and live up to the highest possible standards of Ethical conduct to show that not only CAN it be done in such a Way...
but that by doing so, it can increase both individual freedoms as well as standard of Living
in the EU, the scandanavian nations seem to "get it" and have developed their own Way which appears to be working for them, and continuously evolving
"we don't know how to mind our own Business,
cuz the whole world's got to be
just like us...
now, we are fighting a War , over there...
no matter who's the winner, we can't pay the Cost..."
Monster by Steppenwolf
funny how some Things go full Circle...
Excelsior?
94 - Christopher Rose
Bliffle, I would agree with you if it wasn't for two facts:-
1. The UN was formed in large part thanks to the efforts of the USA in alliance with what are now the four other permanent Security Council members of China, France, Great Britain and Russia.
2. The UN is crippled by the fact that one of those countries not only owes hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid contributions but also constantly undermines it by complaining how ineffective it is.
To save the anti-UN crowd the trouble of bothering, this is not an attack on that country, but it is FACT.
95 - Clavos
To save the anti-UN crowd the trouble of bothering, this is not an attack on that country, but it is FACT.
Undeniably. As is this:
The UN is crippled by the fact that one of those countries...constantly undermines it by complaining how ineffective it is.
Also undeniable. Because it is, from our POV.
96 - Dave Nalle
2. The UN is crippled by the fact that one of those countries not only owes hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid contributions but also constantly undermines it by complaining how ineffective it is.
Christopher, which came first, the chicken or the egg? The UN was ineffective and corrupt long before the US began withholding money. Lack of money doesn't cause corruption, very much the opposite in fact. That money is the only leverage we have to try to force reform on the UN short of pulling out and starting all over again. Would you prefer that?
Dave
97 - Dave Nalle
And let me add, Christopher, that the total the US is withholding from the UN is $34 million. That's about 1/400th of the total UN budget. I'm sure that's crippling. I know that when I accidentally lose ten dollars it throws my entire month's finances off.
Give me a break.
Dave
98 - Mark Edward Manning
Bliffle - I agree with you so much about what you say, but I am confused by your antipathy toward Archie.
By your reasoning, is some liberal who spends 99.9% of his time bashing conservatives simply a conservative-basher and not a true liberal?
99 - SonnyD
Dave: #97 Is that figure current? I thought I heard, when the US went to the UN before the invasion of Iraq, it was said that we paid up all the back dues or whatever it was we were withholding. Did that ever happen or am I just dreaming that I heard that at least twice on the news?
100 - Bliffle
"... I am confused by your antipathy toward Archie.
By your reasoning, is some liberal who spends 99.9% of his time bashing conservatives simply a conservative-basher and not a true liberal?"
I don't care about liberals. And a person who is motivated only by liberal-bashing is not worth reading because he makes no cogent points. Just as a conservative-hating liberal. Or a jew-hating palestinian. Etc. They are people molded by what they hate.
101 - Dave Nalle
Dave: #97 Is that figure current? I thought I heard, when the US went to the UN before the invasion of Iraq, it was said that we paid up all the back dues or whatever it was we were withholding. Did that ever happen or am I just dreaming that I heard that at least twice on the news?
At one point we owed $127 million which had built up over a number of years. The smaller $34 million figure appears to be for just the last couple of years.
Dave
102 - Christopher Rose
Dave, when the USA accepts that it is just another voice in the crowd and conducts itself accordingly rather than somehow thinking it is better than all the rest, then your country would be a fit member of the UN and possibly more appropriate to be considered as a world citizen or leader. As it is, it's current juvenile pretention that it is somehow more deserving than any other country and doesn't need to follow the customs and manners of the entire rest of the planet disbar it from that role or status.
In the meantime, you might want to consider the profound stupidity of remarks like "lack of money doesn't cause corruption".
I'd also invite you to consider the pros and cons of trying to bully other nations into doing your bidding and riding roughshod over everybody else's opinions, based on precious little more than the attitude you espouse so dearly, that the USA is somehow "better" than everywhere else. That is truly juvenile and offensive to people of goodwill everywhere. Who knows what real extremists who actually have a very different agenda make of it, but I doubt it's anything good.
One classic example is the so-called war on terror. If the USA gave one moral damn about these issues in any meaningful way, it would be addresing the regimes currently ruling in countries like Burma, Zimbabwe and half a dozen or more other nations around the world where real human rights abuses are practised on a systemic level. It would not be wasting vast fortunes on pounding countries like Afghanistan or Iraq back into the Stone Age and then another huge fortune on rebuilding the infrastrucure it just destroyed.
Of course, that would take some real moral authority and leadership, qualities that are noticeably absent both in the current controversial leadership of your adopted country or indeed in any of your own writings, which I have long ago categorised as mindless "USA first" propoganda rather than any serious attempt to engage with the profound challenges we face on this planet. That is a tragedy for both the world and your good self, in my opinion.
I take it I am still entitled to an opinion in your imagined new world order?
103 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
You wrote,
"...when the USA accepts that it is just another voice in the crowd and conducts itself accordingly rather than somehow thinking it is better than all the rest, then your country would be a fit member of the UN and possibly more appropriate to be considered as a world citizen or leader."
You make some good points, but there are two things missing from your ruminations/ranting (depends on how one views what you say - they fall in the middle IMHO - "a ranting ruminator" ;o))).
The first is that America has not yet undergone the "Little England" experience of being forced to shed an empire out of lack of money or energy to run it. This understanding informs those first few words of yours.
The second is that America and Americans view themselves as a "city on a hill," the last best hope of mankind that can do no wrong. This sense underlies both the seeming super-patriotism of some on BC (affirming the vision of the "city on a hill"), and the terrible sense of outrage of other Americans (seeing "the city on the hill" disappoint their expectations of it). Both are patriots in the best and deepest sense of the word.
So your comments that the USA seem somewhat juvenile could be seen as correct.
The fact remains that the UN is largely America's vision, like it or not. So is the World Bank, and the IMF. And the UN, the mechanism through which the US was to be the "benevolent" primus inter pares running the world, has been hijacked by a pack of second rate tyrants and fools. What other name can you give the rulers of such beknighted places like Sudan and Libya?
Looking at the big red-white-and-blue dog that is America, it is an empire that is not really benevolent - but its people are a first rate crowd who give its government international good will - which the government then wastes.
Ruvy,
Writing from the real "city on a hill"
104 - Dave Nalle
Dave, when the USA accepts that it is just another voice in the crowd and conducts itself accordingly rather than somehow thinking it is better than all the rest, then your country would be a fit member of the UN and possibly more appropriate to be considered as a world citizen or leader.
Sorry not to have responded sooner, but it took about 3 hours for me to recover from my fit of laughter. This is exactly why the UN us a failure. People like you and people in the UN actually believe ridiculous statements like this. Until they can come to terms with the political and economic realities of the world they will never be an effective organization. If they are mired in the kind of provincial and unrealistic wishful thinking you display then their efforts are meaningless.
As it is, it's current juvenile pretention that it is somehow more deserving than any other country and doesn't need to follow the customs and manners of the entire rest of the planet disbar it from that role or status.
This isn't a 'juvenile pretention', it's a fact. The US has the economic and military power as well as a moral legitimacy which sets it apart from smaller, weaker and poorer countries. The founding principle of the UN that all nations should be treated equally is at the heart of why the UN just doesn't work.
In the meantime, you might want to consider the profound stupidity of remarks like "lack of money doesn't cause corruption".
Or you might want to consider what I was saying rather than resorting to your usual dismissiveness towards things you don't want to understand.
I'd also invite you to consider the pros and cons of trying to bully other nations into doing your bidding and riding roughshod over everybody else's opinions, based on precious little more than the attitude you espouse so dearly, that the USA is somehow "better" than everywhere else. That is truly juvenile and offensive to people of goodwill everywhere. Who knows what real extremists who actually have a very different agenda make of it, but I doubt it's anything good.
Christopher, people of good will agree with other people of good will. So if they ARE of good will as you suggest then they will tend to agree with the US. If they do not fall in with the US and our good intentions then their intentions are inherently suspect. It's pretty simple.
One classic example is the so-called war on terror. If the USA gave one moral damn about these issues in any meaningful way, it would be addresing the regimes currently ruling in countries like Burma, Zimbabwe and half a dozen or more other nations around the world where real human rights abuses are practised on a systemic level.
These countries certainly have problems, but it's a War on Terror, not a war on corruption and poor government. Because these countries don't present a threat to the rest of the world you can't realistically expect their problems to be addressed as part of the War on Terror.
It would not be wasting vast fortunes on pounding countries like Afghanistan or Iraq back into the Stone Age and then another huge fortune on rebuilding the infrastrucure it just destroyed.
The key difference here is that Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorist sponsoring nations. Pretty damned obvious difference, really.
Of course, that would take some real moral authority and leadership, qualities that are noticeably absent both in the current controversial leadership of your adopted country or indeed in any of your own writings, which I have long ago categorised as mindless "USA first" propoganda rather than any serious attempt to engage with the profound challenges we face on this planet. That is a tragedy for both the world and your good self, in my opinion.
We get it. You don't understand the US or the principles on which it operates. You fear and hate what you don't understand. You resent me because I challenge your misconceived assumptions. You understand so little that you repeatedly mischaracterize the US and my own beliefs to attempt to legitimize your own desperately mistaken beliefs, but as you continue to rant in direct contradiction of obvious reality you just look more and more ridiculous.
I take it I am still entitled to an opinion in your imagined new world order?
Since my 'world order' as you call it is based on basic principles of freedom and natural law your right to hold an opinion would be fundamental and protected if I ever had a world order to promote, no matter how ill-informed and bigoted those opinions happen to be.
Dave
105 - Patrick
America: Evil Empire Or Benevolent Ruler?
Her name was Abeer. She was 14. Her sister was 5.
Their parents and the little girl were murdered after Abeer was raped in the next room and killed.
Thank you America for bringing democracy to Iraq. Oh, and thanks for not raping the 5-year-old.
106 - troll
so...does one have to accept the premiss that there is an objective relationship between human nature morality and law to be a 'good' american - ?
the founding documents which rely on 'self evidence' imply that this is the case
perhaps subjectivists and inter-subjectivists should carry brands on their foreheads and be banned from voting booths
troll
107 - Dave Nalle
So Patrick, your theory is that the entire plan behind the Iraq war was to give one psychopath the opportunity to do his raping and murdering in Iraq instead of here in the US? You think that (as yet unconvicted) Pvt. Green did what he is accused of under orders from the government, perhaps? That doesn't fit well with the plans to have him tried and executed. How ungrateful of the government which sent him there to rape and murder people.
Dave
108 - Amanda
Wow! Not one but five "psychopaths" in the same unit. I wonder what the odds are against that?
109 - corporation slave
Yeah Amerika really sorted out Yugoslavia, by launching an illegal war, by arming Muslim fundamentalists and Croatian nationalists and bombing the hell out of the place to create several "ethnically pure" mini states ran by puppet governments and then writing into the "peace deal" that Amerika can then have troops stationed there on a permanent basis oh and lets not forget the Amerikan death squads in South America.
110 - Nigel Biles
This is an absurd notion that the U.S. is a benevolent ruler. I live in America and I know that our country may not be an evil empire, but we are by no means good, benevolent, or giving. Most of what we do is done for our own menetary or political gain. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq over oil and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people to do it. I do not know as much about the complications in Asia or Europe, being a juvenile myself, but our press makes no effort to make our ignorant sheeple to turn away from American Idol and pop culture long enough so they will see our country falling down around their ears, or to realize how screwed up and innefective our Great Nation is at "helping" the world around them. The United States of America may not be Nazi Germany, but we are not at all benevolent rulers that only stand for liberty, justice, and freedom. Those principles died before I was born in '94. But even I can realize what's going on in the world, even though I'm in the middle of the "States" and 13.
Nigel
111 - Dave Nalle
The absurd notion is that America is the 'ruler' of anything outside of our geographic borders and a few far-flung island territories.
dave
112 - Les Slater
Nigel,
Don't worry too much about Dave, he is a defender of US imperialism while denying it exists. He may or may not believe his own rhetoric but statements like his #111 can be safely dismissed.
Les
113 - Clavos
"He may or may not believe his own rhetoric but statements like his #111 can be safely dismissed."
...Along with pretty much anything Les will say to counter Dave...
In fact, Nigel, as you travel through life, disbelieve all of what you hear and most of what you read, until you have a chance to verify it for yourself.
Especially if it comes from professors, philosophers, preachers, priests, politicians or prophets.
Everyone has an agenda, Nigel.
114 - STM
I'm just re-reading this story and comment thread and just HAVE to pass comment, particularly in regard to Dr Politico's view, backed up by that of Mark Edward Manning, that Brits resent the US for a revolution 200 years ago.
Having lived there for many years, and having worked there as an adult, I have never heard that opinion expressed, nor even implied. Not once. Americans might like to believe that is the case for some bizarre reason, but it just isn't.
My experience is that most brits like americans, and while they might have issues with the conduct of various US administrations, they are also not averse to having issues with various British governments.
I would suggest that if they don't like that stuff, as a free country, they just don't have to. What Americans DO suffer from in my experience is a very thin skin.
In the national psyche of the US, there is no room for anyone not American to criticise, and if they do the reason is that they're resentful etc. Which is a laughable thing in a country that says it bases its whole reason for being on free speech.
Australians like Americans, but are also not averse to criticising the actions of US administrations.
If you are going to find any reason for it, find the reason in this: the UK and Australia are democracies.
Their people are used to criticising the actions of their own governments.
It is therefore logical also to feel free to ctiticise the actions of the US. But what so worried about what others think anyway? You are big enough surely not to worry about it.
And on the BBC. It's platform may not be leftist at all.
But the truth is, because it is a state-spopnsored broadcaster, many people of a leftist bent gravitate towards it - just like they do in Australia at the ABC.
Which means that many BBC reports ARE skewed by the political opinions of the staff. They are always carefully couched however, just so they don't totally cross the line. Part of the BBC charter is about editorial independence, so the management can't just come rushing down and pull stories because Tony Blair has just phoned and doesn't like the story about him and Bush. It doesn't happen.
But as Manning misses completely, it's actually good to have another viewpoint from a media outlet not driven by the bottom line.
Somewhere between the two, you'll usually find the truth.
This is one of the reasons why I believe, contrary
to the view of many Americans, that Britain is actually a society that offers far more genuine freedoms to its citizens than does the US. It might not always seem that way, but you have to have lived there to appreciate it.
Certainly, British governments of all flavours and their bureacrats, while often mired in red tape, and particularly their independent judiciary, do operate with a deghree of compassion that is often perceptibly lacking on the other side of the pond.
And at least Britons are well informed as a rule on world issues and happenings. As a rule, Americans aren't - and right now, they really do need to be given their current place at the head of the global table.
Which is perhaps what this story is really all about.
And if America isn't an imperial power, I'll eat my hat. Have a look at the history books guys. It's ALWAYS been an imperial power.
Not planting the stars and stripes isn't the issue here. Corporate HQs will do the job just as well and aren't that different from Union Jacks at every corner of the globe. Actually, atelling factor is the number of US military bases across the world - and there are plenty of those.
In the end, these factors have EXACTLY the same result: the benefit of the US arguably at the expense of others (to whatever degree, but there's no doubt the interests of the US are the paramount ones in this). So I ask this, the British were exporting imperialism, but Americans are now just exporting free enterprise and democracy and the American way of life?
Take a good honest look at yourselves and stop bullsh.tting. America is the new Britain, pure and simple, and probably could learn a lot from them in terms of what not to do.
But being Americans, it's a given the US won't even bother asking, or look at the history books.
Iraq's the classic example.
115 - Dr Dreadful
My experience is that most brits like americans, and while they might have issues with the conduct of various US administrations, they are also not averse to having issues with various British governments.
Well, true, but it's the we're-better-than-all-of-you attitude Americans often exhibit that galls a lot of people. It's not personal. We're almost as fascinated by Yanks as they are by Brits, and will generally get on famously with them on an individual basis. Note that the ones we meet are the ones who actually bother to get a passport and take a peep at the world beyond 'America the Beautiful', and who therefore have shown at least a willingness to expand their horizons.
116 - STM
Yeah, you're right. But you know what's sad about all this Doc.
I've met, what? hundreds of Yanks over the years and loved 'em all - except one (I won't go there except to wonder whether he's got used to the instant remodelling of his nose).
One of 'em was my best mate for years here, and when he moved back to the States to spend time with his mum, I even went over there and we went tripping around the US briefly.
Which is a pretty good track record. But they ARE thin-skinned sometimes.
Australians are too. And I reckon I know why in both cases.
Both, in the early days of their nationhood, suffered a bit of cultural cringe when comparing themselves to the old country.
We got our own back by beating you bastards at sport all (and bragging about it).
Americans got their own back by overtaking Britain as the most powerful country in the world (and bragging about it).
That we're better than everyone attitude you only find among Americans who aren't very well educated, in my experience. But they are the ones I find galling and that stick in my mind.
The others ... pretty cool folks. Same goes for Poms, and probably Australians too if the truth be known.
Aussies are known for their big mouths as well.
So there's something in my theory for sure.
And Canadians. They don;t like Americans because Canadians KNOW they won the war of 1812 and Americans still deludely think the US did.
How it must gall to hear it called the second war of independence, when America started it.
117 - Dave Nalle
Don't worry too much about Dave, he is a defender of US imperialism while denying it exists.
We can always count on you to oversimplify, Les. And one would think that as a marxist you'd at leat know the difference between capitalism and imperialism.
n
Especially if it comes from professors, philosophers, preachers, priests, politicians or prophets.
Or anyone else who starts with a 'p'?
I'm just re-reading this story and comment thread and just HAVE to pass comment, particularly in regard to Dr Politico's view, backed up by that of Mark Edward Manning, that Brits resent the US for a revolution 200 years ago.
The American Revolution was one of the best things to ever happen to Britain. It made them realize that the value of colonies came not from direct domination with all the risks and costs it entails, but rather from creating markets for their goods and sources for importing resources. It changed the course of their imperial efforts and led to the philosophy of international capitalism which the US eventually embraced as well.
Britain is actually a society that offers far more genuine freedoms to its citizens than does the US. It might not always seem that way, but you have to have lived there to appreciate it.
How does their new nationwide network of surveillance cameras watching everyone fit into that 'freedom'? IMO it's easy to be free if you lower the standards by which you define freedom.
Dave
118 - Christopher Rose
Cameras don't reduce people's freedom Dave, they simply create a record of events.
If you want to address issues that reduce freedom, you'd be better off focusing on the US Patriot Act...
119 - STM
Dave asks: "How does their new nationwide network of surveillance cameras watching everyone fit into that 'freedom'? IMO it's easy to be free if you lower the standards by which you define freedom."
Freedom isn't about a couple cops tracking the movements of binge drinking idiots in a few notorious town centres on Friday and Saturday nights.
The other cameras are for traffic (and I know you've got 'em too).
I'd like to think at least one of my rights is to walk down the street at night WITHOUT those idiots trying to bash me.
We have them in a couple of areas of Sydney too.
And you know what Dave? I don't know anyone who's been arrested who didn't deserve to be.
The notion of more freedom in America is a myth and a delusion.
120 - STM
Rosey's right.
Habeas Corpus is always a good place to start when you're talking about rights, freedoms and liberty.
121 - STM
Having said all this however, I still don't think the US is an evil empire.
Far from it. There are plenty of other countries I'd put WAAAAAY ahead of the US as candidates for that title.
Empire maybe, but intrinsically evil, no way.
122 - Clavos
"Empire maybe, but intrinsically evil, no way."
Unless, of course, you consider (as does much of the world) that the very state of being "empire" is intrinsically evil...
Which it often is.
Whether or not America is an "evil" empire is a consequence of the POV of the beholder; as a half American, I'm not objective enough to take a stand on the issue. As a half Mexican, I see evil aspects to America's imperialism.
"Poor Mexico. So far from God; so close to the USA."
123 - Les Slater
Dave,
“And one would think that as a marxist you'd at leat know the difference between capitalism and imperialism.”
Only if you stubbornly refuse to give up your mid-19th century mindset. I find Lenin’s ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ quite convincing. I’m sure you don’t, but to suggest Lenin was not a Marxist is beyond any credibility.
Les
124 - Silver Surfer
My, we have revived this old thread nicely haven't we?
125 - Dave Nalle
So privacy is not one of the rights which you consider important in Britain or Australia? I guess that's fine.
As I said before, it's easy to think you're free when you redefine what freedom means to a lower standard.
Dave