American nationalism

[Comrade Stalin]

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.

[Closet Queen]

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.

[Tigerman]

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

To a large extent, yes.

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.

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.

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?

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?

...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.

[Richardm]

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.

[Comrade Stalin]

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.

[Fox]

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.

[Closet Queen]

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.

[imyourbiggestfan]

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....

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?

[Comrade Stalin]

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".

[Alleycat]

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".

And really big dogs they are.