American Nationalizm These are some quotes from Official Chinese newspaper regarding "American Nationalizm". What do all you guys think? "People's Daily took the opportunity of the inaugural speech to offer its readers a different history lesson on the American character. Here is the English translation of that article. American nationalism displays the following characters. First, it is originated from the worship to 'The American Creed', with liberty, democracy and the rule of law lying at its core. The Creed takes form along with the shaping and developing of the country, but has been taken by many Americans as a truth or standard that 'fits all'. From a religious perspective, many Americans indulge themselves in a sense of superiority, believing themselves 'men chosen by God.' Second, due to the nation's superior natural and geographical conditions, and its history of never being invaded, American nationalism is void of historical bitterness found in typical nationalism of some other peoples. Third, American nationalism shows a strong inclination of being self-centered, a combination of an isolationism tendency (being disdain to associate with other peoples) and a sense of mission to save 'the fettered world' by whatever means it desires. American nationalism rejects nationalism in other peoples, which doesn't, or unwilling to learn other people's emotions and thoughts, but adopts American standards in all cases. Fourth, in foreign policy, American nationalism takes a form of a mixture of morality and pragmatism. Sometimes America holds ideology as the benchmark, deciding a friend or foe by American values, beliefs and political considerations; sometimes it exercises double standards for the sake of national interest, showing a certain degree of moral hypocrisy. " http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/dailyUpdate.html
Stereotyping is generally never good, but often hints at underlying truths (racial stereotyping aside).
I think it's interesting to see ourselves through other people's eyes. Some people take it as insulting and won't waste time with the opinion of people who have a different culture and have their own version of absolute truth.
True. It would be interesting now to see those who were so adamant about 'universal rights' in the 'Declaration of Independence' principles thread give us their opinion. Clearly some other cultures do not share these 'core' beliefs.
But that’s the mantra, not the practice, as his last point suggests. For all Bush’s talk about freedom and liberty, do you think he will lift a single finger to bring freedom and liberty to the people of Saudi Arabia? No one outside the US believes this administration anymore. They have become essentially a universal symbol of dishonesty, incompetence, and immorality, or at least extreme moral relativism. And lets be frank, for many and an increasing number of people, Bush represents evil personified. The profound incompetence of this administration may be the world’s saving grace, though. A lot more people would have been scared by Bush’s pronouncement that he was going to take his Orwellian version of “liberty and freedom” to the world if they thought the US had the ability to do it. Iraq has shown the US to be largely impotent, and this has been largely due to the profound incompetence of its leadership and intelligence organisations, but also due to its simple lack of strength in some key areas. Will the US move on to Iran? How? With what army and on whose dollar? And Iran is a far more formidable foe than Iraq was. One thing that is becoming clear is that this next century will be the new non-American century. We are witnessing, before our very eyes, the decline of American world power. (A radically different administration could change this, IMO, but although Kerry was much less malicious, he was no more competent. There is a real crisis of leadership in the US at this time, it seems to me, and that is having a dramatic effect on the US and the world). I don’t think it was a coincidence that here in Canada the CBC on their national news show last night had a feature on the new China. Will the new world power be China, or the EU? With India and Japan there could be an Asian power block. The future isn’t clear on this, but the thing that does seem clear is that the US has abdicated its position of moral authority and has shown itself to be largely militarily impotent as well. And now the world is, quite consciously IMO, beginning to look for leadership, both moral and material, elsewhere.
Ha! I'd expect no less from a Canadian. Talk about an impotent country, lol. I think, as Mark Twain once said, the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated. Certainly China and the EU are gaining power (although we should not overlook massive obstacles to either being able to lead, or to project that power). However, the Bush vision (and I'm not really a supporter of Bush) is hardly Orwellian. For someone to declare that we are the enemy of the worlds dictators, or the worlds tyranny, is certainly not Orwellian. While our power does have limits, and most will acknowledge this, the direction we're taking is, in effect, what our harshest critics have claimed we should be doing - standing against non democratic forms of government. Some will be confronted with the sword, some with the dollar. To think all can be confronted by the same means is, at best, naive. btw: how are your grizzlies doing?
Originally posted by dragonsnake American Nationalizm These are some quotes from Official Chinese newspaper regarding "American Nationalizm". What do all you guys think? ...From a religious perspective, many Americans indulge themselves in a sense of superiority, believing themselves 'men chosen by God.' Pretty accurate overall, with a few problems. I don''t think Americans consider ourselves chosen or favored by God, but maybe the Country itself. Second, due to the nation's superior natural and geographical conditions, and its history of never being invaded, American nationalism is void of historical bitterness found in typical nationalism of some other peoples. FWIW, see: War of 1812. Hell, the British even burned the White House down. Third, American nationalism shows a strong inclination of being self-centered, a combination of an isolationism tendency (being disdain to associate with other peoples) ... 'Disdain to associate with other Peoples', what does that mean? We're made up of people from all over the World.
It is when that declaration is close to the opposite of the truth, or at the very least is widely perceived as such. WMD? No WMD. “We’re going to liberate the people of Iraq.” Now the reality is that more civilians have been killed by this war in 2 years than Saddam killed in his 20 years in power, and it is still very unclear what kind of governmental structure will be in place when the fighting has finally stopped. Not many people would call this liberation or freedom, and not many believe that this administration ever intended to do what it claimed to want to do, to liberate the people of Iraq. Further, if we take a hypothetical situation where a country does genuinely intend to liberate an oppressed people, breaking international law to enter into a foolhardy war and cause tens of thousands of innocent casualties does not support the cause of freedom or democracy. Again, the opposite is much truer. What I’m saying is that the international community has almost overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that this administration is NOT doing this, that their claims are false and their true intentions are essentially the opposite of what they claim. They are, after all, in Iraq and not Saudi Arabia. The proof is in what this administration is actually doing, not in what they are saying. Now, whether this administration has become so detached from reality that it believes its own self serving Orwellian definitions of liberation and freedom, or whether this is just a crass pursuit of wealth and power veiled in a language designed to con the American electorate I’m not sure. Alas, my Grizzlies were the Vancouver Grizzlies. I’m begrudgingly following the Raptors more now, and the Rockets.
In order to be a moral leader a person or a country must be respected. As Smeg’s polls along with many others show, this administration has lost the respect of the world community. In order to lead by virtue of military power a country needs to be able to show that it has such power. While the US is by no means a 100 lbs weakling, the dramatic failures of its intelligence organisations and its military strategists in Iraq is truly stunning. The result of this is that the US has met more than its match trying to exert its will on a country as small and weak as Iraq. The US is still very economically powerful, but many other places in the world are rapidly gaining, and when China and India really start to roll economically … The big one would be the first one, IMO. Moral authority can be extremely powerful, as people like MLK, Ghandi, and Mandela have shown us. Likewise, each of these people encountered seemingly much more powerful forces who didn’t have moral authority, and ended up being not that powerful after all.
He’s referring to the war of 1812 which was between the US and the British Colonies that later became Canada. And yea, we torched the White House and defeated the American invaders. But we’ve been pretty peaceful with each other since then. It seems that you got the message.
What they believe or don't believe is up to them. If we believe what the declaration said then we should practice what we believe in regardless of whether other countries believe that is the right thing to do. If they think it is ok to imprison people without a trial, or access to a lawyer, then I will disagree with that, but I won't use it as an excuse to do the same, and somehow feel justified because another nation would deny those rights as well. All we can do is strive to live up to our ideals and values. Other authoritarian regimes don't excuse us only selectively applying the freedoms to people that we believe were endowed to all men by their creator.
Your posts are spot on. American power is on the decline. Militarily we still have it. Economically we are weakening. I don't know if it is coincidence or not that Iraq decided to switch it's monitary base from the American dollar to the Euro shortly before the invasion talk started or not. Anyway, The word of America has been damaged. Our credibly is understandably at a low point. Our words about upholding moral principles ring hollow to a larger extent. I don't think it is inevitible though. I believe it can still be turned around.
First off, NO, more civilians are have not been killed in the last 2 years than in the last 20. That is patently FALSE. If you take the MOST BIASED estimate its 100,000 Iraqis dead from the intervention while MILLIONS died from sanctions ALONE. That's not even beginning to count those executed or killed by Saddam's regime. EVEN IF you take the worst case most biased estimates of those killed in this intervention you simply do not even come CLOSE to the number killed by Saddam. Second, we did not break 'international law' in intervening in Iraq, anymore than we broke international law in intervening in Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Somalia, or a litany of other places. International law clearly recognizes removing a dictatorial regime as within the boundaries of acceptable action. Thank you, and goodnight. Finally, while immediate impacts are certainly regrettable, removing a totalitarian despot is completely and inherently in line with the principles of 'freedom,' and 'liberty,' and 'democracy.' Supporting the continuance of the previous regime is in NO WAY in line with those principles. And what the 'international community,' which is itself a complete and warped representation of reality, concludes is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the actions of this administration are consistent with the ideals of freedom and democracy. The whole populations of Western Europe protested American troops and tactical nukes in Europe, while their governments concluded the opposite because of the threat of Soviet expansion. The list of countries supporting the intervention in Iraq is NUMEROUS. And while you may laugh at 'poland' and other jokes (you know those pollacks), there is no substantive reason why their view is less legitimate than that of Russia, China, France, or Germany (who just coincidentally happen to be the 4 largest debtors of Saddams regime). If you truly believe that this is a neocon conspiracy, then the real question you should be asking is 'what is a neocon.' Known as 'hard wilsonians,' they are not prone to conquering for oil or material gain, but rather prone to intervene so EVERYONE involved can enjoy democracy and freedom as we know it.
