American nationalism

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Postby Comrade Stalin » 03 Jun 2003, 09:50

Soddom wrote:It all looks very compelling, and I wonder just how much further from the topic and context of my reply you are prepared to stoop.


Most Americans don't stoop. We leave that to our so-called "allies". The only reason most of the people posting on this forum aren't a statistic on the above graph is because of the benign nature of American nationalism.
"I got very well acquainted with Joe Stalin, and I like old Joe! He is a decent fellow." - Harry Truman after the Potsdam Conference
Comrade Stalin
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6221
Joined: 06 Jun 2002, 16:01
Location: Partying with 72 former virgins....
4 Recognized(s)



Postby Closet Queen » 03 Jun 2003, 10:40

blueface666 wrote:Most Americans don't stoop. We leave that to our so-called "allies". The only reason most of the people posting on this forum aren't a statistic on the above graph is because of the benign nature of American nationalism.


Are you Donald Rumsfield? You've obviously read the same boy's own history of the world.

The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to "benign" American nationalism.
"Honey, I've blown a guy just to get him outta my house."
Forumosan avatar
Closet Queen
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: 17 May 2001, 16:01
Location: Taipei



Postby Tigerman » 03 Jun 2003, 10:49

Fox wrote:Voluntarism? US nationalism is sourced and expressed through voluntarism. Is that really true?


To a large extent, yes.

Fox wrote:I'm sure there is something to the argument, but I am a little sceptical as to it forming the complete picture. I do believe that the US is a country of ideas and ideals. I do think these ideas are manipulated to exploit US nationalism from time to time and as the author rightly points out this proposes a danger to the long term hegemonic position of the US.


Maybe... but really, do not all nations and organizations use "manipulation" to gather support for their agendas? And then, I think you need to look into the reasons for and type of "manipulation" employed. "Manipulation" does not always have negative conotations, IMO.

Fox wrote:I would like to point to something alluded to by the writer but not fully explored. The most likely expressions of antagonism toward the US rightly or wrongly are based in economics first and geopolitics second.


Interesting. But could you provide some examples? Do you think Islamic fundamentalists, the group that currently hates the US the most, bases its antagonism toward the US on the economic might of the US? What about China? China obviously thinks that being economically powerful is the goal... to be rich is glorious... China's beef with the US seems largely political and ideological.

Fox wrote:Simply put the US is such an economic power house that it in most instances can ignore, conjole, bully, and exploit most situations it finds itself in. Quite naturally it is tempted to do so. However, such actions do have consequences. Some of them distasteful, plain wrong, regretable, but perhaps inevitable.


Could you expand on this idea? If what you say is true, why did the US bother to waste time going to the UN and seeking multinational support for its use of force in ousting Saddam? True, in the end, the US did go it almost alone... but why did the US seek support?

Fox wrote:Of course the rest of the world feels jaded. Where can other countries air their grievances perceived or otherwise against US economic imperialism?


The WTO, which was created in the world order (with the GATT) that the US initiated after WW2 comes to mind. But what do you mean by US economic imperialism? How exactly does the US conduct this economic imperialism?

Fox wrote:...the US policy of unilateralism is what godes others. That unilateralism created so much ill will toward the US especially in the hands of the Bush administration, that sympathy for the US was quite simply squanded by this administration. I believe purposefully. However, to what end I have no idea.


Others, including myself, believe that Bush did not "squander" the good will of other nations towards the US after 911, but rather, Bush spent that good will and has initiated real reform and a revolution in the most troubled region of the world. We don't know yet to what end his attempts will reach... success or failure? ... but I think he should be credited at least with attempting something new. The old ways certainly were nothing but failures.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17772
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Postby Richardm » 03 Jun 2003, 11:20

I didn't like this article. The author seemed to go out of his way not to say anything of substance. He brought up a good point about the difference between patriotism and nationalism but dropped it and didn't tell us what the difference is.

Most Americans would consider themselves patriotic and be proud of it, but I don't know anyone who would admit to being nationalist. Nationalism is something that we ascribe to Germans and Japanese during the Second World War. It has a bad association.

A little nationalism is good for any country as long as it doesn't get out of control. People should be proud of their own country.

Most Americans would be happy to return to the days of isolationism, but that is not practical.
Richardm
"Drinks for the House!"
 
Posts: 4065
Joined: 15 Apr 2003, 13:33



Postby Comrade Stalin » 03 Jun 2003, 12:42

Soddom wrote:The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to "benign" American nationalism.


Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. :roll: Keep smokin' that funny weed and it'll cause you even more brain damage. :lol:
"I got very well acquainted with Joe Stalin, and I like old Joe! He is a decent fellow." - Harry Truman after the Potsdam Conference
Comrade Stalin
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6221
Joined: 06 Jun 2002, 16:01
Location: Partying with 72 former virgins....
4 Recognized(s)



Postby Fox » 03 Jun 2003, 12:57

Tigerman,

I'll give it a go.

The author is pointing to a paradox in US foreign policy and how it manifests into antagonism.

What makes for good domestic policy may not make for very good foreign policy. The examples given being backdowns on the Kyoto Protocol, Nuclear Test Ban treaty, and the International Criminal Court of Justice. Good examples as they cover the gamet.

The US backed out of the Kyoto Protocols largely for economic reasons, which the current administration was quite frank about.
However, the Kyoto Protocols, whilst most likely floored with compromise by all parties, did at the time represent the world's best crack at controlling global warming. Now don't get me wrong there may well be very good reasons for having backed out of this treaty, but on the face of it and clearly in the author's opinion these were largely based around US domestic political and economic interests, as opposed to science. The perception in the world outside the US- they are going it alone. This approach clearly was met with a great deal of antagonism and cynicism.

Why the antagonism and cynicism? Well as the author goes to some pains to point out US nationalism. Whilst the US is some what insulated from the rest of the world geographically, it is also very inward looking. Many people in the US have little interest in world affairs and yet the US is the biggest player. Nationalism manifests in the US at a grassroots level adhereing to certain universalistic ideals. These ideals when manipulated for domestic consumption to galvinize American will seem hypocritical to the outside world who witness the US going it alone on the issues described above.

That is the paradox the author is pointing to. I think its probably right.

I'm sorry I didn't answer all your good questions comprehensively. That kind of thing can lead to a lot of back and forth as you are probably fairly aware of. I'd just like to approach the questions in the context of the article. However, since you liked the article so much too, perhaps you can tell us why.
"When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her." Wilde

"I don't know where the sun beams end and the star light begins. It's all a mystery." Flaming Lips

"a man's position here is not ruled so much by what he can earn as by what he can owe and still remain at large." Letters of a Shanghai Griffin

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.
redbubble
http://www.planetediting.com
Forumosan avatar
Fox
Retired President (tuì xiū de zǒng tǒng)
Retired President (tuì xiū de zǒng tǒng)
 
Posts: 5578
Joined: 11 Jun 2002, 16:01
Location: Taipei
65 Recommends(s)
80 Recognized(s)



Postby Closet Queen » 03 Jun 2003, 13:36

blueface666 wrote:
Soddom wrote:The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to "benign" American nationalism.


Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. :roll: Keep smokin' that funny weed and it'll cause you even more brain damage. :lol:


Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking it was the Americans in their crusade against the Commie who bombed the hell out of those people. I hadn't realised the Commies were piloting the B52s.
"Honey, I've blown a guy just to get him outta my house."
Forumosan avatar
Closet Queen
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: 17 May 2001, 16:01
Location: Taipei



Postby imyourbiggestfan » 03 Jun 2003, 13:48

Fox wrote:I'm sorry I didn't answer all your good questions comprehensively.


Not good enough, given that you said the major reason the world doesn't like the US is "Economic imperialism." I, like Mr T., would like to hear exactly what you mean by this....

Fox wrote: That kind of thing can lead to a lot of back and forth as you are probably fairly aware of.


Baaaaaarrrrfff......

'Scuse me.

Isn't that what a forum is for?
imyourbiggestfan
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: 08 Nov 2002, 11:27



Postby Comrade Stalin » 03 Jun 2003, 13:53

Soddom wrote:
blueface666 wrote:
Soddom wrote:The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to "benign" American nationalism.


Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. :roll: Keep smokin' that funny weed and it'll cause you even more brain damage. :lol:


Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking it was the Americans in their crusade against the Commie who bombed the hell out of those people. I hadn't realised the Commies were piloting the B52s.


Yep, that's what happens when you start thinking.
Those B-52's were bombing the hell out of your communist brethren. Too bad we didn't kill more of them and their supporters. The world would be alot better off. You know, it's really funny. There were no "boat people" until your "progressive elements" took over. And you never shed a tear for them, now do you? Well Soddom, you're just going to have to live with it. The US won the Cold War and the US is the Big Dog on the block. You can whine and squirm all you want but the word is out: "Don't f*ck with the US". :lol: :lol: :lol:
"I got very well acquainted with Joe Stalin, and I like old Joe! He is a decent fellow." - Harry Truman after the Potsdam Conference
Comrade Stalin
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6221
Joined: 06 Jun 2002, 16:01
Location: Partying with 72 former virgins....
4 Recognized(s)



Postby Alleycat » 03 Jun 2003, 13:58

Soddom wrote:
blueface666 wrote:
Soddom wrote:

The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to "benign" American nationalism.


Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. Keep smokin' that funny weed and it'll cause you even more brain damage.


Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking it was the Americans in their crusade against the Commie who bombed the hell out of those people. I hadn't realised the Commies were piloting the B52s.


Yep, that's what happens when you start thinking.
Those B-52's were bombing the hell out of your communist brethren. Too bad we didn't kill more of them and their supporters. The world would be alot better off. You know, it's really funny. There were no "boat people" until your "progressive elements" took over. And you never shed a tear for them, now do you? Well Soddom, you're just going to have to live with it. the US won the Cold War and the US is the Big Dog on the block. You can whine and squirm all you want but the word is out: "Don't f*ck with the US".


Image

And really big dogs they are.
Forumosan avatar
Alleycat
Second Landlord (èr fáng dōng)
Second Landlord (èr fáng dōng)
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: 04 Oct 2002, 15:16
Location: Alleycat's, baking pizza.



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 3 visitors

Time goes, you say? Ah no!
Alas, Time stays, we go.
-- HENRY AUSTIN DOBSON