Large Scale Central

America - an nation of 'exeptionalism' or smug sense of superior

General Discussion
#1

Something to get the right-wingers on their bikes. The website is the Australian national broadcaster and is not intended to be either critical or political. I am sure though that some hardliners will find something to crow or bitch about.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2427919.htm

I ask this question as there are some who represent the true meaning of exceptionalism, providing a shining beacon to the world and others who feel the warmth that smugness gives, preferring an isolationist policy, irrespective of America’s growing dependence on imported goods, services and technologies. Can they really afford to pass this smug sense of superiority onto future generations, in face of growing world globalisation?

#2

You are correct. We didn’t earn the moniker of Ugly Americans by chance.

In reading the article, it is obvious that the writer, like many in the world, do not understand our traditionalist mindset as a nation. In spite of all the rhetoric shown on our main stream media about our embracing immorality, the Joe Lunchbuckets among us, approximately 95% of us, eschew the direction our federation is being taken by a very vocal few.

We still are the center of the world when it comes to our universities and research. Much of the world uses the US Dollar as a measure of economy (which I am certain will soon change). We have, for better or worse, become the world’s police force, rescuing (not conquering) almost every nation on Earth at least once, asking, in most cases, only for only a place to bury our dead.

Our love of personal liberty and our willingness to fight to keep it may again soon become evident. And, rather than foisting our ideals of liberty on other nations at the point of a gun, we should be refining our self-reliance and freedoms as an example the other people of the world would want to imitate (or not).

#3

P.S. Well into the 1930s, African-Americans claiming a family link continued to pop up in the press. (One decidedly dark-skinned Oliver Harding, supposedly the president’s great-uncle, appeared in Abbott’s Monthly, a black-owned Chicago magazine, in 1932.) As recently as 2005, a Michigan schoolteacher named Marsha Stewart issued her own claim to Harding ancestry. “While growing up,” she wrote, “we were never allowed to talk about the relationship to a U.S. president outside family gatherings because we were ‘colored’ and Warren was ‘passing.’ ” from The New York Times

It really does not matter the race of our president, per the story you linked, but truth does matter.

#4

Tim,

Who is Dennis Phillips and why would I be interested in what he writes or thinks? I “googled” the name and only got a poker player.

#5
Ric Golding said:
Tim,

Who is Dennis Phillips and why would I be interested in what he writes or thinks? I “googled” the name and only got a poker player.


Easy enough to find out: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2267679.htm

Then you follow up with http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Dennis+Phillips%2C+University+of+Sydney&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

And amongst other things:

Dennis Phillips obtained his PhD from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) in 1972 in U.S. diplomatic history. He has taught American Politics and History at various times at three of Sydney’s four major public universities. Since 1972 has been at Macquarie University. Two of his recent publications are "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: the Bush Administration and “the Rule of Law” Australasian Journal of American Studies (December 2006) and “The American Alliance: Myth and Reality” Australasian Journal of American Studies (July 2004).

#6

Personally I think much of the misunderstanding of the U.S. has to do with the unabashed patriotism of heartland America. If I say that the U.S. is the best country in the world it doesn’t mean that I think we’re better than others but rather it displays love of country.

If I say that my mom was the best mom in the world who can argue? Conversely you can say with equal fervor that your mom was the best mom in the world and I couldn’t argue with that and wouldn’t. Love of country is much the same. Ideally everyone should believe that they live in the best country in the world. Unfortunately some live in countries ruled by despots but even then you will find a sizeable population expressing their loyalty.

Being patriotic doesn’t mean disdain for other countries and cultures. We love that which nurtures us and with which we are familiar while being suspicious and even fearful of strangers. This has been true since tribal times.

Exceptionalism is a natural function of national pride. Every country cheers at the presence of their own flag on the winner’s stand in the Olympics for example. This doesn’t mean a “smug sense of superiority”. Without a dream of greatness no nation can progress. A bland attitude of mediocrity leads to just that; mediocrity. A country doesn’t have to be the largest or the strongest or the richest to be great. It simply needs to provide access for the realization of people’s dreams and the respect for their traditions. This doesn’t happen all at once but needs to be built upon and constantly improved.

As to “empire”: If you read the history of the U.S. you will find that in virtually every war up to and including WWII that the U.S. was woefully unprepared. Prior to WWII the strength of our armed forces was rated below that of Portugal. Hardly the stance of an “evil empire”. It was so bad that when Gen. Stillwell (see the Stillwell Diaries) was sent on an inspection tour of the west coast to assess coastal defences he couldn’t find any. Aside from a few dozen coastal batteries we were virtually defenceless. Only the Navy stood in the way of invasion and the Pacific Fleet was in pretty sad shape after Pearl Harbor.

People now perhaps have trouble understanding how scary things were on the west coast of the U.S. during the first months of WWII. Even in the East U-boats were sinking ships within sight of our shores. We determined after the war that “never again” would we be caught unprepared. Additionally the advent of the nuclear age and trancontinental bombers and missles precluded having time to build forces “after the fact”.

Immediately after WWII we had a nuclear monopoly. Has any other “empire” in human history wielded such decisive power without using it to destroy their enemies? The U.S. used it as a deterrent against further aggression only. We traded our nuclear umbrella in exchange for other nations to limit their military and have paid most of the bills for that. Except for ex-Yugoslavia things have been pretty peaceful military-wise in Europe since 1945. The military violence has been behind the iron curtain and even the problems in Kosovo and vicinity were after the collapse of a communist country.

In conclusion: Mr. Phillips’ article didn’t offend me at all. A country doesn’t have to be perfect for you to love it. It is impossible for “all too imperfect humans” to have a perfect government. Too, any country that engages in relationships in the world will have disagreements and even find hatred in some circles. Yes, we have crooked politicians just like every other country in the world and yes, we make mistakes. But think for a minute what the world would have been like if the country with the nuclear monopoly post-WWII had been Russia or China or one of the Axis countries.

#7
David Hill said:
P.S. Well into the 1930s, African-Americans claiming a family link continued to pop up in the press. (One decidedly dark-skinned Oliver Harding, supposedly the president’s great-uncle, appeared in Abbott’s Monthly, a black-owned Chicago magazine, in 1932.) As recently as 2005, a Michigan schoolteacher named Marsha Stewart issued her own claim to Harding ancestry. “While growing up,” she wrote, “we were never allowed to talk about the relationship to a U.S. president outside family gatherings because we were ‘colored’ and Warren was ‘passing.’ ” from [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/magazine/06wwln-essay-t.html]The New York Times[/url]

It really does not matter the race of our president, per the story you linked, but truth does matter.


David,
exactly how does anyone claiming to be related to the president relate to this thread? Race issue again - your favourite topic! It was well known though, that Thomas Jefferson, the creator of the Bill of Rights was a slave owner and was ‘married’ to a slave, who bore him several children, but all of this has exactly nothing to do with my link and the topic.

#8
Tim Brien said:
......I ask this question as there are some who represent the true meaning of exceptionalism, providing a shining beacon to the world and others who feel the warmth that smugness gives, preferring an isolationist policy, irrespective of America's growing dependence on imported goods, services and technologies. Can they really afford to pass this smug sense of superiority onto future generations, in face of growing world globalisation?
Ric, this is a copy of what I wrote in the first posting in this thread, but it may have missed your gaze. Lately, (more than usual on this site) there have been numerous right wing attacks on both internal and external American policies and the role other countries play in world affairs. To many outside of America's borders, America is both a saint and a sinner, depending on their political point of view. Unfortunately, there are many supposed patriots within America, who do not follow the philosophy as set down in the formation of your country, as a 'city on the hill', a shining beacon to the world. They would have America isolate itself from the rest of the world, gloating in their smugness of superiority, irrespective of America's increasing reliance on the world around them for their very existence. 
 David wrote - Quote:  " We still are the center of the world when it comes to our universities and research.  Much of the world uses the US Dollar as a measure of economy (which I am certain will soon change).  We have, for better or worse, become the world's police force, rescuing (not conquering) almost every nation on Earth at least once, asking, in most cases, only for only a place to bury our dead."   

It is this mindset that passes onto future generations.  Look to history and America's meddling in the affairs of other countries.  An old saying - "reap as ye shall sow."    Many of America's forays into other countries since WW2,  have been a direct result of its own intervention into countries with legitimate governments (Asia, South and Central America, Middle East).  Whether we agree or not with the policies of those governemnts.  America is not the centre of learning or research in the world and the American dollar has been taking direct hits for a generation now.  It is this smugness that oozes from the wounded national pride.
#9

I’d second what Richard said

#10
Richard Smith said:
Personally I think much of the misunderstanding of the U.S. has to do with the unabashed patriotism of heartland America. If I say that the U.S. is the best country in the world it doesn't mean that I think we're better than others but rather it displays love of country.

If I say that my mom was the best mom in the world who can argue? Conversely you can say with equal fervor that your mom was the best mom in the world and I couldn’t argue with that and wouldn’t. Love of country is much the same. Ideally everyone should believe that they live in the best country in the world. Unfortunately some live in countries ruled by despots but even then you will find a sizeable population expressing their loyalty.

Being patriotic doesn’t mean disdain for other countries and cultures. We love that which nurtures us and with which we are familiar while being suspicious and even fearful of strangers. This has been true since tribal times.

Exceptionalism is a natural function of national pride. Every country cheers at the presence of their own flag on the winner’s stand in the Olympics for example. This doesn’t mean a “smug sense of superiority”. Without a dream of greatness no nation can progress. A bland attitude of mediocrity leads to just that; mediocrity. A country doesn’t have to be the largest or the strongest or the richest to be great. It simply needs to provide access for the realization of people’s dreams and the respect for their traditions. This doesn’t happen all at once but needs to be built upon and constantly improved.

As to “empire”: If you read the history of the U.S. you will find that in virtually every war up to and including WWII that the U.S. was woefully unprepared. Prior to WWII the strength of our armed forces was rated below that of Portugal. Hardly the stance of an “evil empire”. It was so bad that when Gen. Stillwell (see the Stillwell Diaries) was sent on an inspection tour of the west coast to assess coastal defences he couldn’t find any. Aside from a few dozen coastal batteries we were virtually defenceless. Only the Navy stood in the way of invasion and the Pacific Fleet was in pretty sad shape after Pearl Harbor.

People now perhaps have trouble understanding how scary things were on the west coast of the U.S. during the first months of WWII. Even in the East U-boats were sinking ships within sight of our shores. We determined after the war that “never again” would we be caught unprepared. Additionally the advent of the nuclear age and trancontinental bombers and missles precluded having time to build forces “after the fact”.

Immediately after WWII we had a nuclear monopoly. Has any other “empire” in human history wielded such decisive power without using it to destroy their enemies? The U.S. used it as a deterrent against further aggression only. We traded our nuclear umbrella in exchange for other nations to limit their military and have paid most of the bills for that. Except for ex-Yugoslavia things have been pretty peaceful military-wise in Europe since 1945. The military violence has been behind the iron curtain and even the problems in Kosovo and vicinity were after the collapse of a communist country.

In conclusion: Mr. Phillips’ article didn’t offend me at all. A country doesn’t have to be perfect for you to love it. It is impossible for “all too imperfect humans” to have a perfect government. Too, any country that engages in relationships in the world will have disagreements and even find hatred in some circles. Yes, we have crooked politicians just like every other country in the world and yes, we make mistakes. But think for a minute what the world would have been like if the country with the nuclear monopoly post-WWII had been Russia or China or one of the Axis countries.


Except for a few minor quibbles that would not alter the thrust of Richard’s post in any meaningful way, this excellent summation reflects my own take on this matter.

What I do find offensive is an American newspaper, owned by an American of Australian birth, edited by an Australian, that prints a cartoon showing an effigy of an American President with two bullet holes in him.

While I can understand why members of the Afro-American community might object to the image of a chimp, it’s the image of yet another US President dying a violent death that disturbs me.

#11

Dave,
the editor considered the cartoon as an excellent parody of the times we live in. The actual intent of the parody was limited to him and the cartoonist, as the reality is a president likened to a ‘pet’ chimp who goes wild and is shot dead by two white police officers. Who are the officers representing? Does the cartoon imply a pet animal who turns on his ‘owners’ and links to a mild candidate who is trying to change the system and there are minders who do not like the direction of the change (much like JFK’s and Abe Lincoln’s directions) and the consequences. Is the cartoonist being clairvoyant? The cartoon has found little to no support and is severely criticised world wide. Not only is it demeaning and racist, but also extremely violent in its intent. Lucky that the public did not take on a Muslim connection or there would have been worldwide mayhem.

    I found nothing but disgust for the drawing and feel that an apology is required.  Rupert Murdoch (owner of the paper) does like to meddle in Australian politics and no doubt has a political bias.
#12
Quote:
David wrote - Quote: " We still are the center of the world when it comes to our universities and research. Much of the world uses the US Dollar as a measure of economy (which I am certain will soon change). We have, for better or worse, become the world's police force, rescuing (not conquering) almost every nation on Earth at least once, asking, in most cases, only for only a place to bury our dead." .

It is this mindset that passes onto future generations. Look to history and America’s meddling in the affairs of other countries. An old saying - “reap as ye shall sow.” Many of America’s forays into other countries since WW2, have been a direct result of its own intervention into countries with legitimate governments (Asia, South and Central America, Middle East). Whether we agree or not with the policies of those governemnts. America is not the centre of learning or research in the world and the American dollar has been taking direct hits for a generation now. It is this smugness that oozes from the wounded national pride.


I make that statement because our schools are full of foreign-exchange students, and our military training academies are full of foreign military brass, whether you believe it or not. If it is not the US, then where IS the center of higher learning in the world? Cuba?

The American Constitution forbids the President from sending military troops to war without a declaration from Congress. I have stated this on numerous posts on this site, unless you just wish to continue to misquote and flame anyone you disagree with.

#13
Tim Brien said:
Dave, the editor considered the cartoon as an excellent parody of the times we live in. The actual intent of the parody was limited to him and the cartoonist, as the reality is a president likened to a 'pet' chimp who goes wild and is shot dead by two white police officers. Who are the officers representing? Does the cartoon imply a pet animal who turns on his 'owners' and links to a mild candidate who is trying to change the system and there are minders who do not like the direction of the change (much like JFK's and Abe Lincoln's directions) and the consequences. Is the cartoonist being clairvoyant? The cartoon has found little to no support and is severely criticised world wide. Not only is it demeaning and racist, but also extremely violent in its intent. Lucky that the public did not take on a Muslim connection or there would have been worldwide mayhem. 
    I found nothing but disgust for the drawing and feel that an apology is required.  Rupert Murdoch (owner of the paper) does like to meddle in Australian politics and no doubt has a political bias.</blockquote>

A new posting for this editor would be an excellent idea.

How about the Hall’s Creek “Daily News” or the Burren Junction “Tribune”?

#14
David Hill said:
..........The American Constitution forbids the President from sending military troops to war without a declaration from Congress. I have stated this on numerous posts on this site, unless you just wish to continue to misquote and flame anyone you disagree with.
David, where is this coming from? Where have I ever stated that the president alone is responsible for sending troops to war? Only person inflaming issues is yourself. We know that presidents, though, do like to meddle in the affairs of other countries - Iraq post Iranian taking of American embassy, contra affair, supporting Iraq in the mid-late 1980's, Central and South America (CIA black ops), Vietnam, China (supporting Chiang Kai Chek), Afghanistan (supporting the Mudjahadien against the Russians), Afghanistan CIA meddling, pre-2001 invasion. It does not require congressional approval to meddle in other countries affairs. 
    We had an interesting affair in the mid to late 1980's where American-sourced weapons were used by Iraq to combat American-sourced weapons used by Iran (supplied to the Shah of Iran pre-1979).   Do we see a pattern here - like chickens coming home to roost.  I remember the flack around the world in 1982 in the Falklands (Malvines) War when a French Exocet missile (sold to the Argentinians) sunk a British warship with around 380 loss of life.  You light a match then you risk getting burned.


   Also,  our universities are full of Asian and sub-continent students.  Our military establishments have been training Asian and Pacific Island officers for over forty years.  Using your analogy,  then Australia is actually the centre of learning and military training.  How many of the top German and Japanese officers/politicians/public servants studied at American universities and military training schools, pre-1941?  Food for thought.  Even Fidel Castro had a good American education.
#15
Tim Brien said:
Something to get the right-wingers on their bikes. (Big Snip)
Tim, are you implying that only right wingers have bikes? Or is it that only bikers are right wingers? Do right wingers ride Gold Wings, or some other brand of bike, or do they ride bicycles? I just have to know. Are you excluding any left winger from riding a bike? There are some on this forum who might be inclined to take exception to that exclusion.
#16

Steve,
“on your bike” is a colloqial expression much like the reference made to women, at that time of the month, “on your rags”, meaning let off some steam. Obviously cultural differences in language and expression. Democrats do not need bikes, as they are chauffered around by Republican drivers.

#17
Steve Featherkile said:
Tim Brien said:
Something to get the right-wingers on their bikes. (Big Snip)
Tim, are you implying that only right wingers have bikes? Or is it that only bikers are right wingers? Do right wingers ride Gold Wings, or some other brand of bike, or do they ride bicycles? I just have to know. Are you excluding any left winger from riding a bike? There are some on this forum who might be inclined to take exception to that exclusion.
One wingy-dingy, two wingy-dingies, three wingy-dingies ... hey Steve, have you cleaned your tricycle yet?
#18

Tim, I don’t suppose you could use plain old English when you post, eh? :lol: If’n you wants to say “let off steam,” then say “let of steam.” I’m sure that even the diseasal drivers here will understand that. :stuck_out_tongue:

#19
Steve Featherkile said:
Tim Brien said:
Something to get the right-wingers on their bikes. (Big Snip)
Tim, are you implying that only right wingers have bikes? Or is it that only bikers are right wingers? Do right wingers ride Gold Wings, or some other brand of bike, or do they ride bicycles? I just have to know. Are you excluding any left winger from riding a bike? There are some on this forum who might be inclined to take exception to that exclusion.
It's arguable that right-wingers would melt their Gold Wings down for the gold and walk.

It’s arguable that left-wingers would give their Gold Wings away to the poor and walk.

Give me the centre any day. At least we ride!

#20
Tim Brien said:
SNIP We had an interesting affair in the mid to late 1980's where American-sourced weapons were used by Iraq to combat American-sourced weapons used by Iran (supplied to the Shah of Iran pre-1979). Do we see a pattern here - like chickens coming home to roost. I remember the flack around the world in 1982 in the Falklands (Malvines) War when a French Exocet missile (sold to the Argentinians) sunk a British warship with around 380 loss of life. You light a match then you risk getting burned.

SNIP


Tim you do need to be careful about facts too.

The HMS Sheffield was indeed sunk by an Exocet missile. 20 crew members lost their lives. Not 380.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/The%20Falklands%20War.htm

The Agentine ship ARA General Belgrano was sunk by the British with the loss of 323. Approximately 770 were rescued by Argentine and Chilean navy vessels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano