BS: America's shame

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 07:25 AM

Can't see how it's in any way relevent in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:49 AM

re: name of country.

What if Amerigo Vespucci had been named Luigi instead?

My only real point above was that is is always sad when generalizations about ANY country, race, culture or religion get applied with too broad a brush. There are certainly points to be made about the current way the USA is being led, but when the comments get really heavy, I always want to know what perfect country YOU live in.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:45 AM

Re: the Republicans still being in power, it could be because of the voting machines that can quite easily be hacked into and that don't leave any kind of paper trail.

On the other hand, I really don't think the Democrats would have been much better.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:52 AM

If Vespucci had been named Luigi instead of Amerigo, would the continent be called North Luica, and the United States be states of Luica as well?

Oh, Luica! For gracious skies
For amber waves of grain!
For purple mountain' majesty
Above a fruited plain!
Oh, Luica, oh, Luica!
God shed his grave on thee!
And crown thy good
With brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Hmmmmm....it does have a certain ring to it. Should I copyright it?? :D

For I'm proud to be a Luican
Where at least I know I'm free...

Hmmmmmmm.

A

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 01:16 PM

"God shed his grave on thee!"...??????????

Freudian slip, Amos? *grin* (yes, yes, the 'c' IS right beside the 'v')

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:04 PM

My guess is that if the U.S.A. were called Lucia, God would be in his grave. Whether or not he could shed it would be another matter.

Maybe it means he would shed his gravity and try to attain the same height as Lucia, star of the morning.

Amos, you are far too poetic.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:36 PM

Yes, Wolfgang, America will be ashamed for a very long time.

At present, my biggest fear is the Avian flu which has surfaced in Iraq. As we know, many diseases are brought 'home' by soldiers. In the case of the Avian flu, all it needs to become a pandemic is for the virus to be transmitted from human to human. This has not yet happened but Iraq is fertile ground for such a thing to occur.

With so much stife, it will be very difficult to contain the virus. In addition, clean water is a commodity (you can thank Hallibuton for that), and it will be almost impossible to treat because of the lack of hospitals and other medical facilities. It is not too hard to imagine that combined with the affects of war, the U.S. will be partly responsible for the spread of the Avian flu.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: autolycus
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 04:53 AM

Marion and Dianavan - Dianavan got my point , which was about the name of the country not the name of its inhabitants (Staters is possible bgut sounds rather awkward). And then you lost it again, reverting to callling the US America.

Yes, America is familiar terminology, but goodness me, so are United States, the States, USA. Surely?

My point was not so much that Brazilians mind Americans being called Americans, but minding the USA being called America.


WYSIWYG made the same point near the beginning, and as for glass houses and other perfect countries, nobody is saying any country is perfect; that is why every country can be examined and called to account. And in freedom-loving democracies, criticism (which can be constructive) and calling-to-account is part of their raison d'etre.

If we stick to glass house and motes and beams quotes as iron laws, most of the BS threads would cease to be, would meet the quire invisible, would have the curtain rung down on them. The Iraq war is partly a manifestation of criticism of another country. Constructive? See Wolfgang's original posting.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: GUEST,Marion
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:26 AM

Hi Ivor. No, I didn't realize that you were distinguishing between the country name and the name for the people, so I just picked one to make my sentences simpler. However, my point is the same about the country word: Canadians mean the US when we say "America". We never use just "America" to include Canada (only "North America", or less commonly "the Americas"). We don't feel offended when an American uses "America" to mean only the US; on the contrary, many of us would feel offended to hear Canada lumped in as "America".

I haven't interviewed every single Canadian on this matter, but I've lived here long enough and lived/travelled in enough regions to have a good sense of the common usage.

Maybe you're right about Brazilians - I have no idea.

Cheers, Marion

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:39 AM

The main shame of the US is that there were enough yahoos or people panicked by the Bush regime's propaganda campaigns to 1) support the Iraq invasion and 2) vote for Bush in 2004.   Still haven't heard of any Bush voter who didn't do it primarily due to hate and/or fear.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:34 PM

It may sound like a sacrilege, but the world's anger and resentment of the United States goes back farther than George Bush and the Republican regime. Anyone remember Somalia? Kuwait? Bosnia? How about Granada, El Salvadore, or Chile? Anyone remember a place called Vietnam? Anytime the US has intervened with our military, particularly without UN endorsement, it has brought down a storm of criticism. In Vietnam, our soldiers burned villages and threw prisoners out of helicopters.
I am no fan of George Bush, but to uncover the sorces of resentment against America, I believe you have to look deeper than the actions of the current administration. Kennedy, Johnson, Bush Sr, Clinton all took their lumps for unilateral military actions.
I believe the reasons for resentment lie primarily in these areas :
A) At one time, the United States was the only country on earth to create itself in the image of a republic ruled by its own people. This while the rest of the world was ruled by monarchies and dictatorship. As such, the US became the model for the common man's struggle against oppressive rule, and it's success gave direct impetus to the overthrow of Kings and dictators all over the world. This dissemination has taken root, and most countries on Earth now enjoy at least some level of democratic self-rule, and the idea is no longer strongly associated with the US.
B) During the Cold War and the many hot wars within it, the US was perceived by most as the defender of Europe and the West against the power of the USSR and China, and as such, a certain amount of slack was cut for Anmerica in the interest of protecting freedom and democracy. With the fall of the Soviets, the power of the US has seemed less necessary to Europeans, and the US's ability to act unilaterally, due to the lack of a formidable opponent, is both resented and feared.
C)American Culture with its films, music, fast food restaurants, and consumerism, like it or not, has become the dominating cultural paradigm on Earth. This is resented in many areas where the native culture is being seen to be overwhelmed, but paricularly in Islamic States, where the feel-good trappings of American Culture run counter to the puritanical nature of the Islamic belief system, and where commonly accepted freedoms such as the freedom of expression and women's rights are often viewed as dangerous and irreligious.

The US is, and continues to be, a country ruled by the will of its people. It is a country born with a glorious vision that I believe we still strive toward, and have at times attained. The fact is that the majority of its people supported the incursion into Iraq. The majority of its people voted to elect a Republican majority in its Senate and Congress, and to elect a Republican president. The people's power will again be expressed in the mid-term elections, and I hope that the Democrats will regain a majority. This may have an impact on the immediate situation in Iraq, but I believe it will have no impact whatsoever on the factors I have noted above.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 02:56 PM

"With the fall of the Soviets, the power of the US has seemed less necessary to Europeans, and the US's ability to act unilaterally, due to the lack of a formidable opponent, is both resented and feared."

You got that right!

This has been a long time coming and the people of the U.S., rather than heed the concerns of the rest of the world, have basked in glory completely oblivious to their recklessness.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 03:11 PM

But LEJ--just compare this Iraq war with the first Bush's Iraq war--especially insofar as international support was sought--and won--before a move was made.

The degree to which the US acts unilaterally, heedless of international views, is far greater under W than any other recent president--see the so-called "Bush doctrine". It's the allegation that pre-emptive war is fine foreign policy which alienates much of the world--and many Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 03:33 PM

Maybe I should say something after this thread seems to be finished.

(1) My only intention was to provide a view from outside, because that can be interesting sometimes. My perception is that (a few harsh words and the generalising title ignored) this view is shared by many of my compatriotes. I happen to agree with many statements and opinions in the article, but that's just BTW.
(2) If only those of us who come from countries that have never done wrongs and committed crimes in history were allowed to comment on other countries, we could close the BS section as far as politics is debated.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: America's shame
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 03:42 PM

I think any country can comment on any country, including its own. And no-one or no country is within their rights to say that there is any country not allowed to do so.

Ivor