Many, many years ago, I heard second hand a true story that still makes me smile. It was the story of an American walking down the Champs-Elysees in Paris. He was enjoying the day, going nowhere in particular.
After a few moments, he came upon a small knot of people clustered in a tight circle, and as he drew nearer, he heard the sound of a guitar. Even from a distance he could tell that most, perhaps all of the group were Americans — from just-off-the-plane tourists to seasoned, long-term ex-pats. They were smiling as they clustered around a street musician, who was strumming away energetically. Many in the audience had tears streaming down their faces as he sang:
Come and listen to my story
’bout a man named Jed,
A poor mountaineer
Barely kept his family fed.
And then one day
He was shootin’ at some food
When up from the ground
Come a-bubblin’ crude.
Then, with all the passion of Bill Travis and Davy Crockett calling the Alamo defenders to the ramparts, this crowd of Americans hollered at the top of their lungs: ‘OIL, THAT IS! BLACK GOLD! TEXAS TEA!’
Shocked, mystified and undoubtedly worried for their safety and those of their children, the Parisians continued walking by, no doubt giving them a wide berth and that expression we see so frequently from their waiters and maitre’Ds. To the Americans, they and the rest of their city no longer existed, and the unknown musician ‘ God bless him, whoever and wherever he may be ‘ grinned like a monkey and picked up the pace:
Just sit right back
And you’ll hear a tale
A tale of a fateful trip’
That started from
This tropic port
Aboard this tiny ship.
The smiles, the group singing — you can just take that for granted. But the tears, the weeping ‘- we can understand that too. The loneliness, the longing for the simple comfort we find in a kindred spirit, far from home. The instant camaraderie ‘- ‘Pittsburgh? Go Steelers!‘ And there’s something just so damn carefree and glorious about a bunch of oblivious Yankee tourists making complete idiots of themselves, surrounded by two thousand years of culture and art, banding together to sing about the Modern Stone-Age Fam-i-lee! and think about home’
You want to go where people know
People are all the same
You want to go where
Everybody knows your name.
In ’98 I spent a terrific three months in Brisbane, Australia. OZ is home to the nicest, most fun-loving people who ever walked the earth. I went boogey-boarding in the Coral Sea, and walked on white beaches so fine and clean that the sand squeaked like new sneakers on polished hardwood with every step you took.
But the night I got up and sang a karaoke Danny Zuko to an adorable, blonde Australian Sandy and a mob of fifty drunken Aussies torturing ‘Summer Nights’ from Grease‘well, to be perfectly honest, I was just so damn proud. That American accent really sold it. My money was no good in the joint after that.
For those of us paying attention, it looks like the world is getting to be not the same cozy place it was when I swam in the Coral Sea or The Unknown Musician put his hat down for a few francs. Something has happened. We all know what that something was, and there’s nothing worthwhile I can add about that clear, blue, fall morning.
Something has happened to us as a people, too -’ most of us, anyway. And the rest of the world looks at us the same way those Parisians did that harmless afternoon on the Champs Elysees: nervous and apprehensive and deeply concerned. We have already deeply shocked and surprised our enemies ‘- those that are still alive. But from those we thought friends, we have heard a growing stream of bitter invective and shrill hysteria that has risen in pitch above the range of human hearing and is now audible only to the neighborhood dogs. We are called unsophisticated, swaggering cowboys who have somehow stumbled upon vast power, and many of our erstwhile allies have taken to talking to us as you would a four year old holding a loaded gun.
Our critics watch us with an intensity most of us cannot believe or perhaps even imagine, and they are looking carefully, waiting to see what the American behemoth will do next.
At home and abroad, there have been renewed charges of American Imperialism, of cultural and economic hegemony, and of determined efforts on our part to subjugate and dominate the people of the world through our greed, our ignorance and our cruelty.
Once again, events not of our doing have thrust the United States into a position where military engagements on the far side of the world seem inevitable, and no less inevitable are the charges of American Imperialism. If we are to be worthy of the manifest blessings and freedoms we enjoy, we must take these charges very seriously, and be as ruthless in our self-examination as we are on the battlefield.
Unlike the miserable, poorly trained, ill-fed and disgracefully led legions of conscripts we will face on that battlefield, our soldiers are citizen volunteers, and such free people need, and deserve, a cause worthy of their hardships and sacrifice.
And there is no disputing the fact that it is WE who are going over THERE. To the degree that there are civilian casualties (and there will be), it will be their civilians, not ours, that are dying. There are justifications for such a course of action, justifications that tower above the base and criminal plunder of territory and resources. So if we are about to go and inflict such violence, we had better be damn sure we check our motives before we go.
Accusations of ‘Imperialism’ are flung at us so frequently, and met with so little defense, that it is actually shocking to see how easily such a simplisme charge can be overturned.
To be Imperial is to possess, or hope to possess, an empire, and these slanders have been made for about a century now. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines ‘empire’ as ‘a group of countries ruled by a single person, government or country.’ Oxford paperback dictionary calls it ‘a large group of states under single authority.’ Cambridge goes on to define ‘imperialism’ as ‘a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them.’
ANY rational person can see that the United States does not meet these qualifications by any stretch of the imagination. What nations do we rule? Whose legislative bodies can we overturn with a wave of the hand? Where on this planet do people live under an American flag who do not wish to? And as Jonah Goldberg correctly points out, where are our governors and our tax collectors so that we can siphon off the meager wages of our Imperial Slaves? What kind of empire does not have these imperial mechanisms?
At the end of World War II, America stood astride the world as the unchallenged military and economic power. The terrible might of Germany and Japan lay crushed in smoldering ruin. Great Britain, bled white by the near-total loss of two successive generations of their best and brightest, was in barely better shape. China was a collection of pre-industrial peasants fighting a bitter civil war, and nowhere in the rest of Asia, Africa or South America did there exist anything more than local defense militias.
Only the Soviets remained as a potent military force -’ and that force was essentially tactical, not strategic, in nature. While strong in tanks, artillery and men, it had no navy to speak of, and an air force consisting mostly of close support ground-attack aircraft such as the Il-2 Sturmovik. While effective against ground targets, the Soviets in 1945 had nothing resembling US heavy bombers such as the B-17, the B-24, or the magnificent B-29.
On the other hand, the United States not only had what was far and away the world’s preeminent Navy; we also had large numbers of long-range strategic bombers and swarms of highly-seasoned fighter escorts. We had a Marine Corps flush with victories: battle-hardened men who had invented through blood and horror the means to go ashore on enemy beaches and stay there. We had an Army whose courage and skill in battle was unsurpassed, and whose critical supply and ordinance staffs were, by far, the best in the world.
And, of course, we had the atomic bomb, and the will to use it.
History has never, and will never, record a time when such unchallenged power existed in the hands of a nation, nor of a time when opposing forces were so weak and in such a state of disarray and abject surrender.
And these feared and ruthless Americans, a people who had incinerated cities in Europe and Japan and whose ferocity and tenacity on island jungles and French beaches had brought fanatical warrior cultures to their knees -’ what did these new conquerors of the world do?
They went home is what they did. They did pause for a few years to rebuild the nations sworn to their destruction and the murder of their people. They carbon-copied their own system of government and enforced it on their most bitterly hated enemy, a people who have since given so much back to the world as a result of this generosity. They left troops in and sent huge sums of money to Europe to rebuild what they all knew would eventually become trading partners, but also determined competitors. Then they sent huge steel blades through their hard-earned fleets of ships and airplanes and came home to get on with their lives in peace and quiet.
Oh, and some of the islands they had visited had asked to remain under the American flag as territories and protectorates, free to leave whenever they chose.
We are still too close to our actions in those critical years to fully grasp the meaning of what we did. Distant history will show it to be the most magnanimous act in human history, a test of national character passed with such glory and distinction that it baffles and amazes both our friends and enemies to this day.
Of course, many of our critics will claim that those were the actions of a better, simpler America, a place long gone and nothing like the cruel monstrosity we have become today. But isn’t it odd that those who call us Imperialists are the first to point out our overwhelming strength ‘ a relative strength that is starting to approach once again that which we held in 1946? Surely, with the political, economic and military power we command today, we could safely assume the mantle of Imperialism — ‘a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them.’ — pretty much at will. And yet we do not.
Once again we see the posters calling for NO BLOOD FOR OIL. Putting aside whether or not oil is indeed worth fighting for, let us look at a past so recent as to be indicative of the people we are today.
In 1991, NO BLOOD FOR OIL had an actual point to make, for during the Gulf War we were indeed fighting to keep oil supplies out of the hands of a madman who would, perhaps ‘ and eventually did ‘ try to hold the world hostage to his ambitions by trying to control or destroy this vital resource.
After handing him the worst defeat in modern history, and once again with vast numbers of battle-hardened and victorious troops in place, the United States could have simply claimed the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields as spoils of war. It was clearly the Imperialist thing to do.
Furthermore, it was a fait accompli ‘ already done. There was no further risk to us. The Republican Guard was running as fast as their stolen Mercedes-Benz’s would carry them. We had achieved such a total and spectacular victory that our pilots ‘ men called baby-killers, sadists, murderers and worse ‘ refused to drop their weapons on legitimate military targets because the victory was so one-sided that they in their decency could no longer continue to do what they were ordered to do.
And so what did these American Imperialists do with the spoils of such victory, with the precious, precious oilfields completely and totally ours? We sent our best people over there to put out the fires. And then we came home. Again.
How many times will we have to do this before our critics are able to discern a pattern? How many provocations and taunts and slander will we have to endure before anti-Americans wake up to the simple truth that brings us home time and time again, which is simply this: For the first time in history, a nation powerful enough to rule the world has simply refused to do so. It is a moral and ethical choice we make as a people. More than that; it is data. It is evidence.
People who ascribe to us the most base motives imaginable, using ancient rhetoric from 80 years of Marxist failure have, as usual, had to confront the fact that everything they believe in is demonstrably and spectacularly wrong. Despite their shrieking words and foaming mouths, the history of our actions makes liars of them all. It is a truth so simple, written so large and so clearly, that even the most liberal among us can understand it.
Don’t let them use that word, ‘imperialism,’ unchallenged again.
There is no American Empire. There is, however, the possibility of American Hegemony. Back to the dictionaries:
Oxford Online is shockingly direct: ‘Hegemony: noun. Leadership.’ Clearly, by Oxford’s definition, we are an Hegemony.
But it gets more complicated. Merriam-Webster defines it as ‘preponderant influence or authority over others,’ while Cambridge weighs in with ‘the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore controlling others.’
‘Preponderant influence’ and ‘the strongest and most powerful’ are hard to disagree with. Those seem indisputable facts as applied to the United States, whether it be in the area of culture, politics, science and engineering, or our military prowess. Where the term comes into question lies in whether or not we use ‘authority over others’ and are ‘therefore controlling others.’
We are widely criticized among Europeans for what they call our cultural and economic hegemony. They decry our pop culture as vulgar and commercial, and in fact, it often is. McDonald’s are now everywhere on the European continent, and we are reminded what horrible, fattening food it is. Agreed.
What doesn’t seem to get through their anti-populist, anti-American blinders is that basic economic principle of supply and demand. I suppose we shouldn’t be too shocked to hear this. The birthplace, intellectual home and last bastion of Marxism has always had a tough time with economic reality.
They also have a tough time with democracy, and the idea of people ‘ you know, the masses ‘ making their own decisions. And the thing that breaks the heart of every European elitist is the inescapable fact that McDonald’s and Cheers are huge in Europe, because their own people can’t get enough of them.
I have never been to France myself, but I would presume that daily life there does not consist of squads of heavily armed US Marines rounding up the terrified population, herding them into McDonald’s at gunpoint, and shaking their last euros out of them. When France passes laws saying that some minimal percentage of their television programming must be produced in France, then that is an admission ‘ and it must be, if you will pardon the pun, a galling one ‘ that huge numbers of their people prefer our culture over their own.
Fact is, dreadful or not, McDonald’s is not subsidized by the US Department of World Hegemony. They are a business concern. The day European customers stop eating at McDonald’s, the McDonald’s will go away.
But they do not. They are growing like mushrooms. American television programming has to be legally constrained. I suspect that Spider-Man out-drew more Europeans in a weekend than all of the films of Truffaut’s did in the United States over forty years. This is telling them something, and what it is telling them is that our culture has a greater hold over the imaginations of their own people than theirs does.
To the Average French Citizen, I imagine Spider-Man, Cheers and McDonald’s represent more or less what they do to Americans: a fun couple of hours, a few laughs, and something quick to scarf down when you’re in a hurry. Big deal.
But to the deep-thinking elites of Europe, these trends are catastrophic, and terrifying. For it shows them, yet again, that a mob of boorish, unsophisticated, common brutes ‘ that’d be us ‘ is able to produce art and music and culture that cleans the clock of any nation that lets it in the door.
Spider-Man and McDonalds, and the long lines of their own countrymen waiting eagerly for a taste of them, prove to them daily that the European cultural superiority that they so deeply believe in is’how do we say this delicately?‘uh, wrong.
And of course, being unwilling to face these unpleasant logical inferences, the blame has to be put somewhere. And who better to blame than a blinded, staggering, idiotic Cyclops, smashing all the delicate china in its drunken, obnoxious rampage?
So, are we being an hegemony? Are we using some ‘authority over others’ to force our cultural and political will on unsuspecting, defenseless people? Or do those people, from their own free will, choose to enjoy American movies and food and music and television because it has somehow managed to tap into the human spirit, into a sense of playfulness and freedom and above all, optimism — things that all people crave, and that their own dark, brooding, pessimistic outlets have failed to deliver? Are these common Europeans being brainwashed by the orbiting Yankee Mind-Control Ray, or is the idea of a place where everybody knows your name or a beat-up teenage kid who can fly through canyons of skyscrapers on gossamer webs something that just about everyone wants to be a part of?
I studied film in college. I sat through Jules et Jim, The Bicycle Thief, 1900, Satyricon and The Grand Illusion. Watching them was work. I enjoyed just about all of these and many other mov — sorry, films — and I am a better person for having seen them, but some of them ‘ like a recent Polish entry in the Academy Awards, ‘Life as a Fatal, Sexually Transmitted Disease,’ well, that approached prolonged oral surgery in terms of its enjoyment value.
You don’t have to have the vast intellectual reserves of a French Minister of Culture to understand why our movies and music have such appeal abroad. They are, more often than not, each small ambassadors of freedom and optimism. From James Dean to Brad Pitt, Americans are cool; cool because they don’t spend their evening sitting around bumming cigarettes and discussing global warming. They have bad guys to fight and motorcycles to ride, vast stretches of open road to get lost in and a disdain for any authority whatsoever. Where the European hero is a deeply conflicted soul lost in an existentialist nightmare, the American counterpart is a member of a rag-tag group of Rebels flying out to destroy the Death Star. Or a no-nonsense cop who plays by his own rules. Or an ordinary person, who, as the result of chance (Spider-Man), determination (Batman) or accident of birth (Superman), uses amazing personal power to aid the weak and fight evil.
These are our myths. They lack the patina of history that elevates those of the Greeks and Norse and countless other mythologies. But they are not created in a vacuum. These stories come from our common heritage and our common beliefs. Our heroes are what we make them, and for this country, the most successful have been young men and women thrust into extraordinary circumstances, who fight evils and monsters and never, ever use their powers for personal gain.
Yes, these are fantasies. No, of course real Americans are not so altruistic. But these are the standards we create for ourselves, and these American heroes represent what we represent as a nation. Action over endless discussion and moral paralysis. Rebellion against authority. Defense of the weak and helpless. And most of all, the optimism of the happy ending.
We get a lot of criticism from our betters about how shallow and mindless the Hollywood ending is. Fair enough. It does turn its back on the untidiness of reality. But it is also an expression of how we would have things turn out in a perfect world, a world where freedom and justice triumph and reign. These are the things we believe in, and these are, not surprisingly, immensely attractive to the rest of the world.
Much of that world is now going through a state of cognitive dissonance regarding America and her people. In some places, this split-personality disorder is so intense as to cause us real concern.
Talk to the vaunted ‘Arab Street’ about America. Watch as their eyes glaze over with hatred and loathing and a desire to see us wiped off the face of the earth as criminals and murderers. Then something amazing happens. Time and time again, after expressing their view that there is no higher calling for their sons and daughters than to kill as many Americans as possible, watch what happens when asked if they want to visit the US.
On a table, place a $100 dollar bill, keys to a nearby Mercedes, a steak and lobster dinner and a US green card, and see which one disappears first.
These people, common people who spend their entire day sipping coffee and planning our violent demise, want nothing more than to go to Disney World (presumably they will blow themselves to pieces after they get through the lines at Pirates of the Caribbean.) They want to live in nice houses and drive nice cars, just as we do. They want to live in affluence and security ‘ like the Americans. They want everything we have, and admit it cheerfully. And then, some of them revert to planning how to blow up, shoot, poison or infect every last one of us.
How do they sleep with this contradiction? I personally find Islamic fundamentalists revolting, violent, ignorant and cruel. I have no desire whatsoever to visit Cairo or Damascus or Amman. To the extent that they want this fight I am ready to give it to them, with no schizophrenic mental contortions.
Mohammad Atta spent some of his last days in Las Vegas. That must have put the zap on the head of that murdering, smug bastard. He could have despised it from a distance and kept his Muslim soul pure for the butchery ahead. But he and his colleagues did not. They drank alcohol and cavorted with strippers. They could not resist the temptations. Even they, the most committed haters of what we are, could not stay away from what we have to offer.
To be honest, I think the very presence of America drives these Jihadists insane.
Promised world domination from their God and their holy Koran, they see around them nothing but failure and frustration and humiliation; while on the far side of the world lies a nation which, in their minds, has no culture and no history, and is populated by 300 million people bound and determined to break every one of their prohibitions on sexuality, drinking, gambling, and trade. As Steven Den Beste has pointed out brilliantly and often at www.denbeste.nu, not only our evident success, but our very existence calls to lie everything they believe in.
Again, paraphrasing my friend Steven, they look out from under a repressive, brutal government and a religion that demands obedience, conformity and denial of all natural desires… and see in us a society so free and comfortable with ourselves that we had the nerve, the audacity to include “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as inalienable rights!
I have no trouble understanding why such fanatical elements of Islam want to see us destroyed. What I do find hard to understand is how so many of them love us with the look of little children promised a trip to The Magic Kingdom. For many, many people on ‘The Arab Street’ the very idea of coming to the US fills them with visible glee. I don’t think I will ever understand how they can turn this inner argument down enough to be able to sleep at night.
In one sense perhaps, we are, in fact, an Empire. We are an empire of the mind, a place whose dreams and ideals have colonized the world. We are a black hole of desire upon which billions place their unfocused hopes. And yet, to them it seems as if we turn them away. We dangle freedom and hope and comfort in front of them with a glimpse into our everyday lives though television and movies. They want what we have, desperately. And they hate us for not giving it to them.
Well, sooner or later they are going to have to grow up a little and face some unpleasant truths. These people want the fruits of our success; they want our freedoms and our wealth and our confidence. But they are not willing to do the work. They are not willing to pay for it.
They wonder why we do not come and set them free from their own governments, why we don’t send our sons and daughters around the world to get killed in order to break their self-imposed shackles. They wonder why we don’t let all of them into the Magic Kingdom. They do not see, because they do not wish to see, that these freedoms and ideals cannot be dispensed like Hershey bars from a passing Jeep.
No one gave us our freedom ‘ we earned it. We fought and died for it. We have paid a terrible price in blood and treasure to keep that freedom. We fight and die to this day to preserve it. Right now, at this instant, American kids have chosen to be sitting in foxholes or cooped up in the bowels of ships, trading the liberty of their youth for poor pay and drab conditions to allow us to keep these freedoms. We will again ask some of these people to die for us, and some of them will.
To those poor suffering billions out there who want what we have, our refusal to hand our success to them on a platter makes us cold and inhuman and uncaring. But freedom is not a gift, it is an idea which only becomes a right when it has been paid for, and to that extent our edifice of prosperity and success is built on a deep and strong foundation that they simply do not have.
These foundations are well known to all who care to pay attention. Freedom of speech, no matter how reprehensible or challenging. Respect for law. Racial, sexual and religious equality. Respect for work and education. Tolerance. We have been hammering on these principles daily for almost two and a half centuries, and we still have a long way to go.
These and a thousand million small webs of trust and interdependency simply do not exist in the countries we find ourselves at odds with, nor do they seem in any hurry to develop them. The millions who stare wide-eyed at all we have accomplished refuse to do the dirty, unglamorous work that makes it all possible.
The founding legal document that we revere with the same passion that they do their religion is not a secret known only to a robed cabal. It is available for study in millions of places, quoted daily and debated in thousands of publications. It is the key to our success, prosperity, and outlook.
But adopting it is not easy. It means abandoning the easy satisfaction of blaming others for one’s own failures. It means forgoing fatwahs and murdering people who express opinions you find abhorrent. It means enduring the stress and strain of finding a way to make compromise with people you dislike. It means treating women and homosexuals and Jews and much more that they hate with respect and dignity. More than any of these lofty and essential habits, it means nothing more or less than getting out of bed each morning, slugging through traffic and putting in an honest day’s work — five days a week, fifty weeks a year.
But they don’t want that. They just want the Gold Card, and they want someone else to make the payments.
There are a few writers out there who have been responsible for teaching me not what to think, but how to think. Carl Sagan was one of the first; Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Den Beste are two of the most recent. But of them all, the one who has been the most fun has been P.J. O’Rourke. He toured the world pondering why some places work, and some don’t. His book, Eat the Rich, is just simply brilliant ‘ brilliant in how it shows success not to be the product of geography or the accident of national resources, but rather the culture and attitude of the people and the way they view themselves.
PJ ends this really excellent and very funny work by pointing out that while nine of the ten commandments deal with such primal, elemental rules as ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ God and Moses added at the end one that is somewhat startling in concept, namely: ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; nor his wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’ ‘In other words,’ writes PJ, ‘go get one of your own.’
I believe this Republic will weather the threats we face today in the same way we have for 250 years. I believe we are already a stronger, better place than we were on September 10th, 2001, for we have once again had to take stock of who we are and what we believe in.
And I believe that the power of our American Dream will, in fact, eventually cast off the ignorance and fear that have held so many in bondage for so long, because it is ultimately a fight you are free to join or walk away from. It represents a choice to join a ragtag group of Rebels fighting a desperate battle against tyranny and oppression ‘ and who would want to walk out on a movie like that?
Damn, that was a pleasure to read. Thank you.
How on earth do you keep raising the bar? Well done.
Brilliant, Bill. Thank you.
Bill – As Steve said above, “How do you keep raising the bar”? I hope one day to read all your thoughts in book form. Now that’s a collection I would treasure.
Continued success.
Terry
Bill, You have become another ‘must read’ along the lines of den Beste, Reynolds, and Lileks.
Keep up the excellent work!
Another really outstanding essay and yes, a pleasure to read.
I also enjoyed P.J. O’Rourke’s Eat the Rich, but I’m sure you’ve also read Parliament of Whores?
I’d be fascinated by your take on our system of government as it is now practiced. I spend some time posting on the newsgroups where I have a signature line I found somewhere on the ‘net:
The Constitution may not be the greatest work ever set to paper,
but it beats what the Government is using these days.
Keep it up, Bill. I know how much time it takes to craft essays like this. While I’d like to see a new one every day, please don’t burn yourself out.
One a week will do!
This is how blogging becomes an artform. That’s three of a kind, please continue.
Thanks for another brilliant piece!
Sent the link to your blog to another dozen people.
MonkeyPants
Imperial Falconer
Bill Whittle for President!!
Nuff said!
Great work, Bill.
You’re making it really hard for the rest of us to write anything with meaning.
Well done, Bill.
As a life-long car-nut, I have owned a number of vintage vehicles. One was a “T-Bucket Roadster”. To the uninitiated, this is the quintessental American “Hot-Rod”, of “77 Sunset Strip”, and “Beach Blanket Bingo” fame. For the five years, or so that I enthusiatically drove the thing everywhere, it became a study in what you write about in this essay. Perhaps, along with Jazz, Rock N’Roll, and yes, McDonalds, nothing is more American than a “hot-rod”. Not a refined, gleaming, hi-performance work of art, like the sports cars of Europe, but a glitzy exercise in wretched excess, born of castaway parts, and good for little more than showing off.
A T-Bucket, sitting next to a gleaming Porsche, is the rolling embodiment of some sentiments in your article. Having actually parked my Bucket next to such cars at rallys, and shows, guess which drew the larger crowds?..the most smiles?
What I discovered that I had was a smile machine. No matter where I went, no matter what age, gender, race, color, or creed, the universal reaction to that car was a smile. Children beamed, giggled, and pointed. Adults became child-like, and gave the thumbs-up, or shouted compliments. These weren’t car nuts, but everyday people on everyday streets. The universal appeal of this gaudy, overdone in-your-face contraption was what it symbolized..what it represented. Freedom to choose, freedom to create, freedom to be silly, have fun, make noise, and relish in the obvious wretched excess, with no need of a noble purpose. Free as well from pretentiousness, snobbery, wealth, or image. The freedom of “everyman”. The freedom to be an American.
Hubcap
I may not have time to read every blog on my ‘roll every day, but I’ll be damned if I’ll ever miss out on YOURS again!
Well written, enjoyably read! I, too, look forward to the next…and the next….
Thank you.
Bill – I don’t think you have it in you to scribe an uninteresting essay. You consistently hit quite a high mark. Not only does what you say ring true, it seems to resonate across the blogspace. Quite an accomplishment. Your empire essay is much like waves of oscillation in the deep ocean. The energy is passed along to others; the peak shows you sparkling vistas at and the throughs provoke self-examination.
You hit the mark dead-on with your statements regarding empire and hegemony. I have often countered those who state that America strives to be in Empire with my belief that America is actually a non-empire.
I state this in the belief that, as you pointed out, empires of often the result of conquest and occupation, with the empire imposing its laws on the subject peoples. Nothing could be further from the truth, in regards to America. We state our beliefs, particularly when it comes to human rights and fairness in the marketplace, but we do not write the laws and impose them against the will of the foreign populace. There have often been statements made by those of somewhat diminished capacities the Canada and Mexico should become our 51st and 52nd states. This raises the ire of the citizens of those countries. This is the basis of the claims for American imperialism. To the contrary, we try to get others to willingly follow our lead.
As an example, think about what occurred in the Philippines and Panama. When we received suzerainty over the Philippines, we did not make them a vassal state; rather, we appointed a governor, and granted them independence shortly after their request at the end of WWII. In Panama, we returned land and the operation of the Canal to the people of Panama. In both cases, no rebellion was necessary. We and they sat down, discussed the needs of the country, and granted the territory back to the local people. Hardly the act of a hegemon.
We are in fact the light and hope many peoples of the world. What other people of the world snipe at themselves, pointing out their own shortcomings for all to see. We see it as a critique of our shortcomings. What others in the world see is a nation where the standard is so high that they can barely imagine rising so far. I liken it to us saying that we still have thousands of feet yet to ascend; they see the mountain they still have yet to climb. That is one of the reasons so many immigrants come to America each year. The hope of improving things for themselves and their children.
When I was a Recruiter for the Army, I once was talking to a young kid about joining. Since he was 17, I had also to speak to his parents. His father had come to America 25 years previously, coming up from Guatemala and working on Miramar Naval Air Station as a gardener. After learning English, he brought his wife up, formed his own company (1 pickup truck and three other workers) and began doing lawn care throughout the San Diego area. Twenty years later, in 1988 when I met him, he had 400 employees, and lived in one of the best areas of North San Diego county. He said his oldest had gone into the Navy for four years, this son was going into the Army, and his youngest would go into one of the services when he was old enough. He felt his family had something to pay back. The boy I was working with took a job that gave him a lot of college money, but simply because he wanted to have the money on his own, not rely on his parents.
In my talks with many migrants, of which California has more than a few, the common response was they came here to have a better life. Whether their family remains where they came from or if they came here also, they willingly and eagerly came here.
I can’t think of an Empire in which this ever occurred.
Bill:
I stumbled onto your essay from a Rachel Lucas link; all I can say is that you have given voice to what many of us have stumbled to articulate over the past several years. Gracias!
Dusty
Bill,
I appreciate your writing, but I would like to suggest that world reaction to us as bullies and imperialists is a subtle and complex thing. I certainly agree that envy, and the sense of not being able to compete with us are very strong themes, but I believe that there is more going on. I think Europe has the view that ancient China used have about the rest of the world: it’s filled with barbarians who wouldn’t know civilization if bit them. The Europeans (continental) can’t understand why we’re ahead of them, or simply think that we are barbaric gun happy nuts who believe in capital punishment and solve their social problems with jails. And our whole emphasis on business confuses them. They are certain that it is simply the pursuit of money: so few have them have started a business or worked in a really vital one they can’t image the idea of work being satisfying. The truth is that our cultures have diverged so much in the last hundred years that they don’t have a clue about us.
Speaking of not having a clue “The Arab Street” certainly doesn’t. They know about the streets paved with gold, and would like to get a part of it, but they are told by state/religion controlled press that Christian world has been robbing them for centuries. (The fact that the Islamic world spent 1000+ conquering countries and forcing religious conversion seems to be forgotten.) The Arab Street is an uniformed mob. While we must recognize the danger from it, I think its opion is worthless. The demagogic political and religious leaders on the other hand deserve some of your attention.
Hope this is useful in sharpening your already fine pen.
Gawd! Yet another excellent essay. A hearty toast to you!
This essay rambles, and it’s too wordy. I can’t endorse it as enthusiastically as the others have done.
One point worth noting: Americans do NOT come home every time. There are a lot of American troops billeted around the world. Germany and S. Korea host particularly large contingents, and those countries are growing restive. I think we ought to get all our troops out of Europe, at the least.
It would be good to remember that billeting of British troops helped to trigger the American Revolution.
Hey Bill – Says what I’ve always wanted to say,
but didn’t have the wit to do it.
If the President of the USA ever sees your blog, he should immediately offer you serious sums of money to write his speeches.
No, maybe not. When people found out who wrote the speeches, many of them would elect you instead of him.
IMO, there is a note of hegemony in USA culture. It is, again IMO, inevitable regardless of whether or not it is intentional. You believe the USA to be superior to everywhere else. There are stacks of replies with the same view. The USA is undeniably the most powerful nation in the world today. Put the two together and some degree of hegemony is inevitable. The USA isn’t just an 800lb gorilla – it’s King Kong. It can’t help influencing almost everywhere.
There is a lot that is crude and vulgar in USA culture. There’s also a lot that is elegant, erudite and refined. The USA is a big place – there’s a lot of everything there. “Crude and vulgar” has mass market appeal, so it’s better for export. The Romans had gladitorial circuses, the USA has Jerry Springer et alia. Having said that, some of the export sucesses from the USA are far from crude and vulgar. Consider Frasier, for example. I place that on a par with Yes, Minister.
There are a couple of things that grate on me;
The hypocrisy which is sadly commonplace. Both here and on Rachel’s blog, I can see negative comments about “Europeans” from people who object to negative comments about “Americans”. What’s the difference?
The arrogance in claiming all good things to be American (and ignoring South America, of course). Concepts such as freedom of speech, a fair trial, etc, did not originate with the USA. For example, read a translation of the Magna Carta, focusing on the sections pertaining to criminal justice. Then read the USA Bill of Rights, focusing on the sections pertaining to criminal justice. The latter is clearly very strongly based on the former. Some key parts of the USA Bill of Rights are lifted directly from the Magna Carta, verbatim if you allow for the changes in English over time. The Magna Carta become law above all law in England in 1215. That’s a bit earlier than the USA Bill of Rights. What the USA did, and did very well, was to start a country from scratch and build those principles in at the foundation – but they didn’t create those principles and those principles are not American. I wasn’t completely joking when I said that the best way for Britain to remain true to its old principles would be to become a state of the USA. Nor is the adherence to those principles as perfect in the USA as it is made out to be – numerous actions by various USA governments are arguably in breach of the USA Constitution, and not just in modern times.
The “we did it all” principle affects a great deal, even if it isn’t wholly intentional. To give a topical example of this…to future generations, The Lord of the Rings will be an American creation. It’s the King Kong thing I referred to, above.
It often is intentional and carried to the point of historical revisionism. Watch “U-571″ for a good example…and then find out what actually happened, if you can. In reality, the USA was not involved at all at any stage.
The USA is not the Perfect Society depicted in blogdom and Hollywood. It has one very strong positive attribute, though – it works very well. That proves there’s a lot right with it.
Hubcap…you appear to contradict yourself by spending most of your post describing the image of a hot-rod and then saying it’s freedom from image.
Sapper Mike…there’s a lot of people in Britain whose ancestors came here for a better life, though admittedly most of them came after Britain ceased to be an empire. So there’s an Empire people willingly and eagerly came to for a better life. People are still coming here for a better life – and they’re travelling through most of Europe to do so, often risking death in the process.
Personally, I think it’s a damn good thing. IMO, the hybrid vigour caused by large-scale immigration was one of the factors that allowed Britain to successfully weather the transition from the largest empire the world has ever known to a very small country, while fighting two world wars.
I don’t know that the Magna Carta is a good reference document. It quite clearly states that it is in a response to the disagreement between barons and the crown, and nearly all the rights granted therein are granted only to the landed gentry. I would particularly reference the part about nobody being imprisoned or detained on the word of a woman unless it concerns her husband’s murder. Also the frequent references to disposition of chattels.
The principle of universal equality was certainly not in the Magna Carta. It classified the people into several separate groups, i.e. barons, knights, freemen, chattels, women. Admittedly the US did not solve the slavery issue for 100 years or so, but it certainly came much closer than the Magna Carta.
Let’s see…rights from the Constitution/Bill of Rights…
speech: US yes Magna Carta no.
establishment clause: US yes, Magna Carta no (except the Church of England)
free press: US yes Magna Carta no.
Right to bear arms: more or less a wash.
Quartering of troops: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Self-incrimination: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Reservation of rights not mentioned: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Free interstate commerce: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Confirmation of Judicial appointments: US yes, Magna Carta explicitly no (although they must “know the law”. It could be argued that any really egregious appointment would trigger the baronial revolt specifically allowed by the MC, but that could just as easily be because the Judge wanted to apply the law to Freemen, Chattels, and Barons too equally, since, after all, only the Barons could initiate the revolt.)
The Magna Carta is not the foundation of anything except another several centuries of chattel serfdom. It was imposed by the barons, and they were its beneficiaries. It is the founding document of an Oligarchy, not a Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy.
In particular, free speech, free press, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom from quarter, and the checks on judicial appointments were by and large explicit departures from the British conditions of the time.
Dear Angilion,
I expected this critism and would like to respond. Strangely, I realize that what we have here in microcosm reflects the lerger world around us.
This essay is not an uprovoked attack on Europeans. It is a defense of the United States. If you feel it is unjustified and harsh, may I point you to The Guardian for the start of your tour of the kind of things being said about us?
Furthermore, we have a large cadre of elitists in the US media pretty much mumbling and nodding at all of this. I am not willing to let such poisonous remarks go past me without a fight.
I did not get to see the Roman circuses. I have seen Jerry Springer, and I get as many laughs out of it as I do from Benny Hill — which is to say, quite a few guilty ones. Benny Hill has had me on the floor.
Regarding the Magna Carta, I agree completely that it was a breakthough in the revolt against the authority of the King. My admittedly limited understanding of it, however, reminds me that it took absolute power form the kings, and distributed it to DUKES, EARLS AND OTHER NOBLES. The full force of the Magna Carter was in effect at the time of the American Revolution. Our Founding Fathers apparently felt that it’s lack of limitations on Government, particularly a Bill of Rights, did not go nearly far enough. I maintain that the US Constitution properly remains the fist national document to put the power of government in the hands of the People. That said, no one can deny, least of all me, that the United States is the philosophical child of Great Britian. To say it owes it a debt in this regard is to say you owe your parents a debt — it’s inadequate. You owe them your very existence, as we do the United Kingdom.
In re-reading this esay, I cannot find any reference to any passages that suggest “we did it all.” If you can point them out tome, I will retract them and apologize.
I can understand the British reaction to the American movie “U-571.” For those unaware of the controversy, the actual stealing of the enigma device was accomplished by British commandos, not American. Many Brits accused us of stealing their history.
I do not know a great deal about the circumstances of that British raid. I do now a little more about the capture at sea of U-505, which now rests at the Chicage Museum of Science and Industry. I believe, but do not know for certain, that this was the first time a U-boat was taken at sea. Many of the elements of “U-571″ reflect the actions of those Americans.(http://www.msichicago.org/exhibit/U505/)
I don’t recall seeing “based on a true story” in the promotion of “U-571.” But you have a good point here — the enigma raid was not done by Americans, it was done by The British. However, this begs the question, which I passed on very briefly in the essay, of the Tenth Commandment: if this was such a great story and vital piece of history, why did Great Britian not make the movie herself? Das Boot, the absolutely brilliant German U-boat film, did very well overseas. Could it have something to do with the very depressing reports we read that 80% of British school children are ASHAMED of their own history?
I am half British. My grandfather was knighted in 1957. You have no idea how painful that statistic is to me. In addition, when I say ‘European’ I am almost always mentally excluding the Brits, whose leader has been stalwart in our defense against a great internal tide running against us. (For this, I and many, many other Americans are and shall forever be extremely grateful.)
That 80% statistic is ENORMOUSLY worrisome. I started this weblog to do my very small part to try and make sure that that number is never reached over here.
Angilion, you raise fine points in a reasonable, fair manner. It is a pleasure to have you here. Hopefully this clarifies my position a little; if not, I would be happy to respectfully discuss it further with you.
Well said!
I just made the most amazing chocolate & banana cheesecake. Anybody for a slice??
First, in response to Alan Sullivan’s comment: Yes, we do stay in some places. Sometimes for our own self-interest, but in the places you have mentioned, and many others, we’ve stayed to protect others. It was more the nature of the billeting of British troops that riled the colonists, rather than their presence.
Now, on to the meat of things.
I was going to wait until the first of the new year to post this idea somewhere (no blog of my own, yet), but the presence of your ‘Empire’ essay is too timely to put it off any longer.
The USA is the most powerful nation on the planet, in any sense one wishes to measure such things. We have influence that reaches both wide and deep. We may not be a force for direct conquest and occupation, save in a few necessary places, but we have enormous, potent forces at our disposal.
Given those things, and our stance as a nation striving to be moral, to be ethical, even in the wilderness state of international relations, is it not our responsibility, our duty, to bring the blessings of liberty to -everyone-? There are many around the world who simply cannot throw off the chains placed upon them by their leaders. Does it not fall to us to break those, to destroy those governemts who grind their own people down?
I ask not here for equivalencies between the USA and such places as Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, China, etc. They’re disingenuous at best. There -are- places in the world where the only word that can apply to the practices of their leaders is ‘evil’, and we should no longer hesitate to use that word. Moral relativism makes such horrors acceptable.
I do not suggest that we immediately invade and rebuild all of these places, and others. What I do suggest is that we should look at this as a problem to be solved over a century, perhaps more. We cannot extend these things by bankrupting ourselves. That we pick and choose our battles carefully, and work towards that end. That we destroy, piece by piece, the structures that have been allowed to flourish that create such amounts of human misery. Some of these battles and destructions will be military, others economic, still others cultural. Many will incorporate aspects of all three fronts.
Should we not strive to extend opportunity and freedom to everyone, around the world? If given the chance, some – or many – might choose not to take advantage of them, but should they be allowed to take away the chances of others to take hold of the dream we offer?
This will not be cheap, or quick, or painless. But if we are determined to strike at those who have chosen to be our enemies, and I pray that we are – we should be determined to bring chances and hope to those who have none. Not to bankroll their avarice, but to let them take their futures into their own hands.
What a terrific essay. I’ll be back regularly. However, there is one fact in there I find quite disturbing – YOU WENT SWIMMING IN THE CORAL SEA!!! What are you nuts? Glad you made it back in one piece.
Like multiple people have said… Bill’s work is of such quality, writing Fiskings seems almost inadequate. Great job!
But I do have one question, and I wish that you’d put the answer in “Empire Redux.” HOW can Europeans eat Mcdonald’s and watch Baywatch, yet agree with their elites that America is like a drunken cowboy? Constant investigation and simple observation both reveal that most Europeans do not trust or like the American government’s policies against certain Arab nations, and certainly don’t like their Israel policy. Their elites thusly keep their powers- remember, Europe is a democracy, although obviously not a perfect one- and the criticism continues. Bill, your points as to why America isn’t an empire were bang on: but you still haven’t answered the question, why does Europe despise America when they should be thanking the USA on bended knee? Canadians are constantly reminded that the Dutch think we’re the greatest people on Earth: why shouldn’t they? We freed them from the Nazis. So why don’t the French, who were saved by a far greater power that could have conceivably just left Europe to Hitler and kept on being a master power, like America very much at all? Why did Du Gaulle rip America apart, which set French- American relations back 400 years? THAT is the question I would like to see answered… it’s a hard one, but I’m sure you can do it if it can be done.
Trevalyan:
The short answer is that Canada is easy for Europeans to like, because we have nothing that they envy. The French in particular have spent the last three centuries telling themselves that they are the founders & proprietors of la civilisation, a word they invented; & from the 18th century until the middle of the 20th, ‘the Great Powers’ meant the European powers almost exclusively. America took away their global pre-eminence; America holds the place in the sun that most Europeans still, in their heart of hearts, believe is rightfully theirs. They cannot appreciate what America gives them, because they are consumed with envy of what America makes for itself. Canada is still a second-rate power compared to Britain, France, or Germany. (Even if we didn’t starve our military to the point of extinction, this would still be true.) They do not envy us or fear us.
When you regard yourself as the lord of the earth, you can be gracious & charming as you accept gifts from your inferiors. But when someone gives you such gifts as prove that you are their inferior, you suffer a blow to your self-conceit for which you may never forgive them.
Very similar to Victor Davis Hanson’s A Funny Sort of Empire.
Fucking beautiful. Seriously. I’m sending this to people I know. Keep writing, because you’re a shining beacon.
Author Author
Excellent work. You should write Presidential speeches.
Absolutely brilliant.Thank you.
Loved the piece. But you forgot another great example of American non-Imperialism: the Mexican War. In it, we invaded our neighbor, took over the whole place (Halls of Montezuma and all), then gave it back (90+%) except for the part we then paid for. No other country in the history of the world can claim anything similar.
I am going to go all over the place, so let me say Thank You now: ignore the rest if you want.
“…the US Constitution properly remains the fist national document to put the power of government in the hands of the People.” Yes, and that is perhaps a large part of why we are not an Empire. There is always the 10% mentioned by Lenin who want control at any price, the 10% who will go along, and the 80% who hope the others will eventually do something good. The US was the first to give the 80% some actual power, and they want to be home rather than trying to dominate others. Even the multi-nationals so hated by many almost always put even top management in “local” hands.
Yes, we are far from perfect – but we have come far in our two-and-a-third centuries. I do hope we will remember that it does take time, eg I think we will have to maintain a presence in Afghanistan until the national government can withstand a coalition of any two “warlord” types. This is not to say we must impose a government, though it may appear so because it has always been a region more than a nation and the regions have seldom cooperated. On the other hand, note that I put “warlord” in quotes. A few months ago, I read an interview with one man who has been branded as such: he was grateful as could be that the Taliban and their predecessors were out, wanted to go back to being a leader for his people rather than their general, but was in no hurry to send someone to Kabul. He wants, no, NEEDS, time to rebuild a thirty-year-old army into farmers and artisans: to that extent he supports whatever happens in Kabul – as long as the US reigns in extremists. Yes, he wants his voice heard in the capital – but is not yet ready. He trusts the US – I hope we do well by him.
And yes, we still have troops in other places. In some, it may at first blush seem anachronistic – Germany, for example, which has forgotten that less than a generation ago there was well-founded that if our “trip-wire” troops pulled out Eastern tanks would roll in the next day. Japan, which knows where China’s missiles are aimed. South Korea, much the same. These and others do not want our troops, yet are terrified we will actually recall them. And in none of these cases are we an occupying power. Even in Cuba we pay rent on Guantanomo, if the legal position is perhaps murky.
Well done, Sir – very well done!
Perhaps the verbal support from afar after 9 – 11 was because we were seen as “Victims” as this, of course, fits well into so many themes beloved in certain intellectual circles.
There is something in the American character, in our ethos as a people which rejects this status and our immediate collective American response is to fight back. Whatever we Americans are, it is not victims.
Why is this, do you think?
I can really appreciate the references you made to those who helped you to learn how to think, as opposed to what to think. I read Carl Sagan’s Dragons of Eden while I was serving in the Air Force during the last days of the cold war. While I never agreed with his politics, Sagan was a man who compeled you to examnine a subject deeply. I read alot of Asimov, Heinlin, as well as as much history as I could. The comparisons you make between the optimism of American movies and the dark futile tones of European films are well made. We strive to make ourselves better, closer to the ideal heros of our myths. The rest of the world seems to believe that what is, will always be, and that change is futile.
Thanks for your thoughtful article, I’m very glad that I stopped by.
An interesting footnote about the U-571 “controversy” is that there were _two_ Enigma devices captured by the Allies during World War II; one by the British, and one by the Americans. The U-Boat captured by Americans is presently on public display in Chicago.
Of the two, the British capture was more important, because it took place earlier. Nevertheless, it seems interesting that there is a number of British people who firmly believe that there never was a second device.
Who is wrong? Who is being lied to?
So sweetly lucid, it brought tears to my eyes, thanks
Trevalyn will serve as an excellent example of a problem. He believes that Europeans should thank the USA on bended knees. He is simply expressing a common sentiment.
Consider what that means – Europeans should regard the USA as God, or at least as a symbol of God on Earth with a divine right to rule, like a medeival King or Queen.
Perhaps they didn’t mean that we should all go that far. Perhaps regarding the USA as a serf regarded their Lord and Lady would be enough.
Do you really have to wonder why such towering condescension puts people’s backs up?
It’s the “we did it all” thing again. The USA was not the only country fighting the Axis powers, you know. If it hadn’t been for Britain and the Soviet Union, there wouldn’t have been a war for the USA to enter late and claim all the credit for winning.
Come here and talk to people who lived through the Blitz, then tell them it was of no importance because it happened before the USA joined the war and the USA was the only country fighting the Axis powers, right? Go and talk to people who lived through years of Nazi oppression before the USA got involved in the war, and tell them the same. Go find the relatives of the millions of people who died fighting the Axis powers and who were *not* from the USA, and tell them that their father, their husband, their grandfather, those people did not die, or even fight, because it was the USA alone that fought the Axis powers.
Kneel to you as if you were God? Kiss my arse, you callous, arrogant wannabee tyrant.
“I don’t know that the Magna Carta is a good reference document. It quite clearly states that it is in a response to the disagreement between barons and the crown, and nearly all the rights granted therein are granted only to the landed gentry.”
The rights granted in the Magna Carta are for everyone who was not a slave (or serf, which was effectively much the same thing). They were not granted only to the landed gentry.
“It classified the people into several separate groups, i.e. barons, knights, freemen, chattels, women”
I’m sure it’s normal to pretend that women had a lower status than chattels, but that doesn’t make it true. “Freemen” included women who were free just as much as it included men who were free. It’s only in recent years that “man” has become sex-specific. The original meaning of “man” was explicitly sex-neutral. It meant “person”.
There are references specficially to women in the Magna Carta. These establish certain inalienable rights for women, such as the right to own property and land, etc. Which women had before, anyway. The point of the Magna Carta was to establish them above all law.
The Magna Carta did not establish more centuries of serfdom. It established two key principles – inalienable rights and a law above the ruler.
You might like to note that I did not say that the Magna Carta was the same as the Constitution of the USA, which is the strawman you were fighting.
I said that the Magna Carta was *an* example proving that the concepts stridently proclaimed to have been invented by the USA were not.
“This essay is not an uprovoked attack on Europeans. It is a defense of the United States. If you feel it is unjustified and harsh, may I point you to The Guardian for the start of your tour of the kind of things being said about us?”
I’m disappointed to see that line of argument from you. I expected better, much better.
Two wrongs do not make a right. That’s true even at an individual level, but you are not working on an individual level here. You are working on a group level – all Europeans and all citizens of the USA.
I could do what you have done. It’s not difficult to find some citizens of the USA who are prejudiced against Europeans and point at them to deflect any criticism of a POV that Europe is superior to the USA. I wouldn’t, because I consider that type of behaviour to be profoundly wrong. It promotes prejudice. “Some of are prejudiced against , so prejudice against is justifiable”. Then switch the groups around and repeat. You give only a wave in that direction rather than marching down it, but even the wave is a disappointing sign.
I’m so disappointed that I’m not going to reply to the rest of your reply straight. I’m going to have a nice frothy bubblebath first instead.
Besides, it was not a defence of the USA. It’s a claim that the USA is better than everywhere else, especially Europe.
Well, the U-505 (the one in Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry) was captured by a carrier group that forced it to surface. There were no commando teams involved, and it was a total surprise to the US command (the commander of the carrier, Admiral Daniel Gallery, told his group that he wanted to do it, but never notified his commanders about his intentions). I’ve read his account of it, but I don’t remember whether they captured the code machine off of it. I know they were able to recover a number of code books and such.
Also, the FIRST Enigma machine captured in the war was by the _POLES_. Locals in occupyed Poland managed to steal one, then smuggle it out to Britain. Credit where credit is due, eh?
Just a quick list of some of the things in the Magna Carta:
A fair trial by a jury of the accused’s peers.
Punishment in keeping with the severity of the crime and not allowing cruel punishments, nor those that remove a person’s ability to make a living afterwards.
Security against unreasonable seizure of assets, arrest, etc.
Note that these explictly applied to all free people…just like they did in the Bill of Rights of the USA. If anyone really cares, I’ll quote sections from the Magna Carta along with the corresponding Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Note that the Magna Carta is written in Latin, so pick your translation carefully (or, preferably, make your own).
You might also want to look at the English Bill of Rights, 1689 and the Tolerance Act, also 1689. The latter is about freedom of religion.
The revolt of the British colonies in America was partially justified on the basis of British law at the time. The British government, it was argued, was *not* following British law in its treatment of the colonies, who were therefore entitled to declare independence. The same law has been used in Australia quite recently (1971), to form the Principality of Hutt River Province. The status of that country is still undefined, though it claimed independence from Australia in 1971. I get the impression that the Australian authorities are ignoring the issue because it’s too thorny and not really worth the trouble.
My point, as I have explicitly stated before, is to show that the USA did not create the concepts generally claimed to be “American” and portrayed as being invented by the USA. What it did with those concepts was to make them the foundation of a country rather than something added long after the country came into existance and to enforce them more strongly. The bluntly unequivocal wording is a joy to behold. As one famous free speech supporter said, “No law means no law. What else can it mean?”
A challenge for the people here:
Is there anything good that you do *not* see as being American?
Now try to pretend that you’re not from the USA, and try to see how you’d feel if all the good done anywhere else is appropriated by a country *with the power and influence to make that appropriation stick*
I think that some of what is going on with European and other fear of American “imperialism”, fear of what we will do with our great power is really projection. They know what they would do had they such power, because they know what they have done when they had such power, or even fractions of such power.
The greatest thing George Washington did for his country, and for the world, is that he “went home”. He had a substantial fraction of a continent under his power at the end of the Revolution, and he walked away from it. This was unfathomable to Europeans at the time, and it still seems to be.
It’s not that the US has never had any imperial tendencies, but our moves in that direction have usually been to check the growth of other empires. (To Hawaiians who resent the US takeover, I have asked if they really would rather be a colony of a still imperial Japan.) And we have done some nasty things in that vein (counter to an above post, we brutally quelled an insurrection in the Philippines after we took them from the Spanish empire). But still, our overall behavior in this regard has been vastly different from real empires.
Angilian, Perhaps “image conscious” would have been the better phrase to use for clarity. Hot-rods most definately have an image. Part of it is the absence, for the most part, of any need to project the image in a pretentious manner.
My sister, and her husband spent two years in the UK on job assignments. The reports I received were how the Brits rather matter of factly took credit for the victory in Europe. The Yanks arrived late, and contributed little. Apparently, a provincial attitude can cut both ways. I see little significance in such an attitude by anyone. I only wish that the Brits hadn’t seen fit to bang their proof marks into every available surface of our fine, lend-lease small arms. Stamping “NOT ENGLISH MADE” into the sides of them appeared to satisfy the standard British military pecksniffery, and cleared things up for any other country who might import them to our satisfaction as well.
Hubcap
I’m glad to see someone mentioning the Poles and their role in cracking the Nazi codes. Time for a point here – people were fighting the Nazis 15 years before the USA joined the war, and their work was crucial. Perhaps everyone in the USA should thank them on bended knees, Trevalyn, like a serf to the King?
However, Dave’s understanding of events is a little inaccurate.
An Enigma device was not captured by Poles in occupied Poland. Poles in unoccupied Poland made replicas of early Enigma devices, the prototypes.
Polish mathematicians working *before* the Nazi invasion of Poland, as early as 1928, collaborated with a traitor in the German cryptography group in 1932. Three Polish mathematicians were trying to crack the Enigma encoding right from the start, which gave them an advantage. Having a tame traitor must have helped a lot. I think it’s time he was thanked. Many thanks to Hans-Thilo Schmidt. If he hadn’t given lots of classified information to those Poles, it’s unlikely that anyone could have cracked the later, far more sophisticated, Enigma devices quickly enough. The Poles had got nowhere in 4 years against the early, far simpler Enigma devices before Hans-Thilo Schmidt gave them the necessary information. They spent 11 years on the work, always at least one step behind the Nazis. They got as far as having crude electromechanical devices built to speed up calculations, “bomba”. Thankfully, they were astute enough to realise that a Nazi invasion of Poland was imminent and got their work out to Britain and the genuises at Bletchley Park. IIRC, it took Turing a day to design a machine 10 times more powerful than a bomba. They built programmable electronic computers at Bletchly park, well before the Mark 1 or ENIAC…and then destroyed all the work at the end of WW2, leaving the whole field of computing essentially to the USA. N.B. I’m not suggesting that USA inventors built on the work at Bletchly Park without crediting it. I am suggesting that the British overnment made a serious error in judgement when they killed all work in the field of computing from Bletchly Park and declared it to be Secret Knowledge, not to be told to anyone. Actually, I’m stating it explicitly – they screwed up badly, IMO.
Angilion,
Something is driving this fury of yours that is not in the words written here, at least not by me.
Your entire thrust of the past several e-mails seems to be that we steal credit for everything good in the world. I do not see anywhere where I made that statement, nor have I seen it written in the comments.
Your attack on Trevalyn rabid pro-Americanism seesm to lose a little steam when you realize (if I am correct on this,) that Trevalyn is a Canadian who has also written critically of us in other threads.
You say you are disappointed that I point out things said in The Guardian, The Observer, Fisk, Pinter, and a host of other leading British critics, saying that by responding to their arguments, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right.’
Sir, that is patently nonsense. It is our OBLIGATION to respond to slander like that, and I will continue to do so.
Regarding America’s ‘late’ entry into the war, I will say, in the words of another unremembered writer, that we were late to your wars the same way a policeman is late to the scene of a crime. This nation was founded specificaly as a response to endless European wars. Thomas Jefferson was particularly vehement on this point, and felt that if we did not isolate ourselves against the endless bloody conflicts that have raged over the European continent since men took pen to parchment, then we would be bled white and eventually destroyed.
This is a democracy, and at the beginning of WW2 there were very large numbers of Germans and other immigrants that wanted nothing to do with yet another fight brought on by the elite Old-Chap diplomats of the Old World.
Do us the courtesy of remembering the lend-lease program, which was damn near illegal, and provided the destroyers and convoy support that kept the sea lanes open. Any reading of Churchill’s biographies will tell you that in his opinion, this kept Britain from falling. These were done as an ostensibly neutral country, out of respect and admiration for our British cousins.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am half British; my grandfather is was knighted as a member of the Order of the British Empire. I do not need that pedigree to love and admire the British. I am a pilot, too, and there is no place in time or space I would have rather been than in a Spitfire or a Hurricane defending the British isles.
With that said, uou might want to carefully examine the level and tone that has been coming from certain elements of your country this past year or two. Morons, cowboys, idiots — people who steal their wealth from starving Africans; people who never really invented anything worthwhile, just took a European idea and marketed it better in our vulgar, money grubbing way — this is, in fact, the core of your Magna Carta argument.
We percieve the actions of July 4th, 1776 to be a break in history — and that attitude and self-confidence is what has made us successful and kept us free.
Where on EARTH did anyone here write that only Americans died during WW2 and other conflicts. Who said — show me where — we wrote that we won WW2 on our own? What DOES gall us from Europeans is simply this:
Go to the various military cemetaries throughout Europe and count the American headstones there. Realize that these are only a fraction of the American kids who never had a chance to grow up because they died IN EUROPE fighting beside your country. Now come to the United States and show me comparable cemetaries where French and Germans and Italians died on our soil to keep US free.
You can’t do it.
We can handle criticism. We don’t call Tony Blair ‘a poodle’ and ‘a lapdog’ for standing by an ally — YOUR country does. As a nation that has fought and died beside you in two World Wars and spent untold treasure preventing a third, we find this PROFOUNDLY disgusting and disgraceful.
The capture of U-505 took place on June 4, 1944. The reason why it isn’t referred to much in connection with the Enigma codes is because it was so late.
The film wasn’t called “U-505″, was it? It wasn’t about the capture of U-505, was it?
There are other U-boat captures between the key capture of U-571 and the end of the war. For example, the capture of the communications gear from U-559 in 1942. Some British soldiers deliberately stayed in a sinking submarine, handing out the equipment. Two of them drowned doing so when the sub sank as they handed up the last piece.
It’s unfortunate you regarded my remarks as condescending, Angilion, so let me clarify. The bravery of Britain and the Soviet Union in fighting Hitler is certainly not regarded with anything short of honour in North America. However, I maintain that Britain would also have LOST to Hitler if the United States took the hands-off, “Tyrants will be Tyrants,” approach to global politics that seemingly dominates European thought now. And the Soviet Union would have lost, with equal valour. AFTER the war, America maintained their war footing in order to prevent the Soviets from finishing the job Hitler started. The elite crew of the European Union repays our generosity with contempt and derision. And we damned well KNOW the reason they wish to maintain the dictatorships of Iraq and Iran is for OIL. Not the sovereignty of nation states, but because they have massive contracts to buy cheap oil from those illegitimate governments. The stunning hypocrisy of their accusations about “blood for oil” rankles worst when I remember this. Certainly it rankles when young Iranian students are fighting their regime, while Europe coddles it!
I’m not asking for lordship over Europe: my statement meant that extreme gratitude would not be out of place in exchange for the vital AMERICAN aid in the defense of Europe against the armies of the Nazis, and then the Soviets. At the very least, we don’t expect our allies to be denounced as lapdogs! Is America a perfect jewel: no it isn’t, and when I see something I don’t like, I’ll call the American government on it. But it’s a DAMNED sight better than the duplicitous, spineless governments that dominate Europe, and the Du Gaulles of this world who seem delighted to believe that they freed Europe without the help of the American “cowboys.” It’s like “Idiots Redux” when Europe claims that Saddam would never ever use chemical weapons, or attempt to destroy Israel with nukes, or that he’s not a threat. The same thing that happened with Hitler, except the names and technologies are all different.
You can’t spend money on deterring tyrants from slaughtering their neighbours? Fine. You want to buy cheap oil from said megalomaniac tyrants? Knock yourself out. But DON’T go posing like enlightened scholars and brave freedom fighters when everyone knows that your actions are taken out of the most base self- interest! And certainly don’t sneer at military prowess when it’s been all that’s kept you safe for the past 60 years! Let Europe chew on THAT for a while… then I’ll think about according it a bit more respect.
That was another great post in response to Angilion, Bill. I was gonna write back, but I can’t write like that, especially in short order.
Another thing, Anglion, in response to your post at 0956 and to others who have not mentioned a dang thing about the Cold War:
What if America had not come to save the United Kingdom and Western Europe during WWII? Besides many more Europeans on both side dying, the continent and British Isles (even with our supply of materiel to Britain) would have been taken by the Nazis. Ok, how would that be different then the part of Europe that was eventually run by the Communists? Not a whole lot, I don’t think, though I can see comments coming about this. Nazis vs. Commies. Not a lot of fun to live under either “system” of government.
So, back to the Cold War. America would have had to take the same stand as we did against the Soviets and their empire, if the Nazi’s had the same power (which they would have had). It took major military spending over many years, posting of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen all over the world and 2 hot wars with losses of over 100,000 Americans to keep Soviet rule from spreading.
Yet, we had long-haired (well, and short-haired too) Europeans making a big stink about old Ronnie approving the setup of tactical missiles to counter the Soviet SS-20′s. That is a major lack of gratitude. I wonder how they feel now that they can talk to former Soviet subjects and see some of the mess left behind in Russia itself and the former satellite countries. But, President Reagan was not a Bill Clinton or George W. (the way he is turning out). He actually stood for his principles (and I’m not saying I agree with all of them. The basing of tactical missiles to counter the SS-20′s and the initiation of missile-defense research (“Star Wars”) were the last straws for the Soviets. They could not outspend Ronnie on their military, and not have a total s__thole for an economy.
So, it ended up being Ronald Reagan and lots and lots of Mechanical and Electrical engineers that won the Cold War, when it comes down to it, along with the soldiers of course.
The thing is, this would have had to happen if we had stayed out of WWII, just a different Boss, same as the old Boss. You would have heard just as much Western European criticism of American Imperialism then too, just from a different newspaper – the 3rd Reich Daily.
So, yeah they should thank us, but we don’t expect that, Anglicon. We just ignore the comments about American unilateral action, just as we did during the Cold War. I don’t expect the European to understand until they are subjects of a totalitarian regime. At that point, I guess they may shut up, cause they have to.
The saving grace of the USA is the ability to take the best from a document, an environment or a government and adopt it for our constitutional use. While the definition of hegemony may be accurate it has not been adopted for our constitutional use. To me the capability of controlling is the difference between We and the European nations. To whit: the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore capable of controlling others.
I’m a little late to the party but here’s my two cents worth.
Regarding so-called American Imperialism/Hegemony, it’s non-existent as Bill so eloquently pointed out. Furthermore, those who hurl the accusation are actually self-refuting. Considering how they cozy upto or remain silent about real tyrants, their epithets fall flat. If we truly were global masters, or had pretensions to being so, they wouldn’t say a word.
As to Angilion’s resentment of the “they should thank us on bended knee” I agree. No one owes me any gratitude, I wasn’t alive then and had absolutely no part in the Victory of WWII. I helped out with the Cold War, but I did it for my own reasons and expect no gratitude. Besides, if gratitude has to be asked for then it’s not worth having.
It should be remembered that relations between nations are very in-the-moment sort of things. There’s alot of what have you done for me lately there.
For a different perspective, if you are an American, just imagine what it would be like if France considered us ingrates because we didn’t thank them in perpituity for their assistance during the War for Independence. {Vive LaFayette!!}
Like Bill stated I don’t see where “we did it all” is even implied. Maybe Angilion has encountered this attitude elsewhere and is bringing it into this discussion. How far back are we to trace the geneaology of modern governance? Romans, Greeks, the code of Hammurabii?
It might be helpful to keep in mind that our accusers are mostly socialists, or at the very least fellow-travellers. America is practically incomprehensible from that perspective. The welfare state aside, we don’t want elite control over our lives. Our history, and the myths that are based on it, are very liberty-centric. One of our main tenets is do what you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others. This tenet is not strictly adhered to, of course, but it is a guiding principle. Strong suspicion of concentrated power, regardless of the noble rhetoric justifying it, has been America’s strongest bulwark against the modern world’s worker’s paradise experiment.
To hubcap: Rock on brother:)
Bill: I first read you on Rachel’s blog re 2nd Ammendment. That was remarkable. This is stunning, great, stupendous, etc., etc, etc.
What you have written should be on the front page of the NYT and WP – but sadly, won’t. As to our Anglo friend who has a real burr under his saddle, what he doesn’t seem to understand is that we come late to the party because we are forced to, not because we want to. We want to stay away, and do so after the dirtywork is done. The greatest criticism that we could undergo would be if we refused to be involved.
Wow…
“Thank-you” just doesn’t cut it. Discovering your site, and this essay in particular was the highlight of my week. I hope you don’t mind that I excerpted portions of it on my site to entice others to read it as well.
If my grandfather–who voluntarily fought in both World Wars–were still alive, he would shed a tear reading what you wrote.
His favorite saying, which I’m sure you’ll enjoy, was:
“Life is not a dream in the clover…On to the walls, on to the walls, on to the walls and OVER!”
God bless you!
There is a precendent for a potential universal state refusing to take over civilization. One of the Ptolemies offered Egypt to the Roman Republic and the Romans turned it down (at least the first time). Before Julius Caesar, Roman dictators went home after their tasks were finished.
That was a wonderful post.
Thank you very much.
Angillioin please refrain from making an a$$ of yourself. (Note, I wrote this slightly angry, so I hope it’s cogent.)
As for WWII, it’s like this: A friend should be very thankful when another friend helps them out of a mess they made, instead of kicking their friend in the face.
I doubt we were in for much trouble from Germany. I think they would have been content to have Europe and Russia for their Lebensraum. At least, that’s the impression I get from history books (of course, Hitler screwed up big time by declaring war first). We had our hands full with the Japanese, who were a greater threat to us. Yet, we decided to start with Europe first. Is it wrong to expect a little gratitude from friends for helping them out, not for just the four years we were in the war, but the 44 years after that, when the big red dog was breathing down Western Europes neck?
Secondly, as for the Magna Carta, get the #*@#(sorry, he made me mad) off your anglo-centric high horse. No one is claiming that America created the concepts of freedom and equality. What people are saying is that the specific combination is unique to America (and so far works far better than other places), because America took a lot of concepts and separated the wheat from the chaff. We got ideas from all over Europe and even from the Iriquois. Britain is not even close to being the main contributor to the Constitution (since, the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights), there were the Iroquois, the Greeks, the Romans, Locke (who was an Anglo) and others. In fact, just an example, the electoral system comes largely from the Seneca tribe of the Iroquois.
In conclusion, America has made many mistakes in the past (particularly against the Native Americans), but it is the best country in the world and I’ll be damned if anyone tries to unfairly denigrate my country.
Joseph Hertzlinger: I don’t think that’s a good example, Ptolemy XII said he’d give Julius 6000 talents if he made him king, instead of taking Egypt over for himself.
Bill, you’re completely wrong, they’re not slandering America…in print it’s libel.
Bill Whittle said:
You say you are disappointed that I point out things said in The Guardian, The Observer, Fisk, Pinter, and a host of other leading British critics,
Every so often I find someone who writes REALLY eloquently and to the point about issues which have, somehow, become hard to explain, but shouldn’t be. Your 3 essays: Empire, Freedom and Honor, definitely fall into that category.
I have two other favorites which I would like to share with you. One is a piece from May 2002 by Mark Steyn entitled “Sweet land of liberty: Britain and Europe have free governments, but only in the US are the people truly free” which details crucial differences between EU centralized governance and local control in the U.S. You might wish to link to this article on your site (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1102/steyn.html). Also, one of many places to access Gordon Sinclair’s marvelous 1973 pro-American Canadian radio broadcast is http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Our_Culture/americans.htm.
I live in Chappaqua, NY, and one of the places I intend to share these essays with is with the Social Studies department at the local high school. My daughter graduated from there last year and had to fight her way through because she was a patriot and supporter of the military long before 9/11. She had trouble with both peers and teachers. After a school assembly, she wrote the following, simply because she was so angry and upset. I don’t think I ever expected any teenager of mine to be spouting the “Love it or leave it” line I heard in my own youth, but this was the culmination of 12 years of curricula with an anti-American edge that most participants in the school community either don’t notice, support or ignore. Nonetheless, she is re-applying for a Marine NROTC scholarship, knowing that she is willing to fight for the right of others to disagree with her. I know she would like feedback about her essay from anyone interested in contacting her. Jessie can be reached through me at DKCGrp@netscape.net.
Social Studies or Socialism?
- Jessica Ruth Cunningham, November 2001
The assembly on Thursday was, in my opinion, a farce. We, the students, were told we were going to have an assembly on the history of terrorism, and the history behind what prompted the 9/11 attacks. That is to assume that we did, in fact, prompt the attacks, an assumption not everyone agrees with. Four teachers stood in front of the entire school and spoke with absolute solemnity the most politically correct, socialist biased, historical drivel ever to pass my ears; and in my long years in the public school system, I have heard a lot of it.
The teachers spoke of American foreign policy, and America, as they have for all of my life, with thoughtful and disturbing dislike. They did not shout out that America is evil. They said it slowly and quietly coating their political views with their titles as teachers; and replacing historical fact with their own opinions. They said many things about how the rest of the world hates us and sees us as imperialistic and nasty. They implied that “the why” was because we are culturally imperialistic. That we push our culture onto other societies and “once we get our foot in the door we proceed to push out or eradicate any other culture already present.” They didn’t mention that the reason other cultures accept ours, as well as other western cultures, is because they like them. It brings modernizations, new ideas and freedoms.
They never mentioned the fact that many Islamic country’s text books paint Americans as devils and evil without morals, ungodly wretches. That these countries breed hatred into generation after generation. That many of the newspapers say either that we are lying about the attacks in the first place, or that they were perpetrated by Israel. The papers paint the bombing in Afghanistan as unprovoked and terrorist. They show Osama Bin Laden to be a hero of Islam. They write about suicide bombers as though they were saints.
I don’t know about any of you reading this, but I remember 9/11, and I know we were provoked. I also remember the USS Cole and the US Embassy in the Sudan. We have been attacked and provoked without giving meaningful responses too many times. I know of hundreds of actual heroes, the police and firemen who died saving innocent lives. The men and women in the Army, the Marines, the Air Force, the Navy, the National Guard, and the Coast Guard are also to be remembered and respected as heroes of our country. They protect the innocent, those targeted by suicide bombers and terrorists; they protect us.
They mentioned that many middle eastern countries dislike us because we helped Israel, and have been on their side on all occasions. No one mentioned that we help Israel due to a fifty year old promise made after the end on World War II. After the war ended the UN promised the Jews a homeland. The chosen place, for said Zionist homeland, was, what is now, Israel. This was decided by the UN, not the US. We protect Israel because we promised to fifty years ago; and we are honorable enough to keep that promise, even under threats and pressure.
We, the students, were told that we are materialistic and obsessed with wealth and power. That is of course why we spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid and assistance funds and helping the homeless, helpless, and hungry everywhere in the world, sometimes even before we do anything at home! We are only interested in the Middle East because of oil; yet no one mentions that we could have all the oil we wanted if we developed our Alaskan oil resources. This is something that many environmentalists are against, yet our own citizens of Alaska want us to do it. Environmentalists aren’t the only ones who don’t want us to be self sufficient in oil, either. The UN has made it clear that America is a large and crucial part of the Middle East’s economy. Without our wealth and food stores they are left with a whole lot of oil, sand and anger; not much else.
We are a great and honorable country, always ready to stand and fight for those who ask for our help, and those we owe our loyalties to. But we have stayed off fighting for ourselves for far too long. I am sick of those who print and speak defeatist propaganda, and I have one thing to say to people who dislike The United States of America: “This is the only country, or at least one of the very very few countries, in the entire world that would allow you to preach your dislike of its government, ideals, and people. If you think its such a horrible place, LEAVE”.
>
This is inaccurate on almost every point:
- Although we did indeed take the capital and thoroughly defeat the Mexican forces, we did not in fact occupy the entire country.
- The part of Mexico which we annexed was well over 10% of the country.
- Yes, we did pay for it, but the price was not willingly agreed upon. The Polk administration offered to buy California and the southern extension of Texas several times, but the Mexican government refused to sell. So we invaded, turned out the uncooperative government, and wrote the purchase into the terms of surrender. I’m not complaining — I’m happy to be living in the U.S. rather than Mexico — but to pretend it was a willing sale is just naive. (And Texas, which came to us in a more roundabout way, wasn’t paid for at all.)
- Many other countries throughout history can claim something similar. In the early modern period in Europe it was standard procedure to invade a country, occupy most of it, and pull back to annex only a small piece of territory in the settlement. In 1870, for example, Prussia defeated France and occupied Paris, but they annexed only Alsace and Lorraine.
mdl
Phil wrote:
>
That’s not accurate. Before the 19th century, forced conversion was the exception, not the rule, as is obvious from even a passing glance at Islamic history.
With regard to Christianity and Judaism, the Qur’an explicitly forbids forced conversion. Religions in India and Africa did not enjoy the same scriptural protection, and there were sometimes proselytizing rulers there, but more often the practice was to respect local freedom of religion so long as the conquered people submitted to political suzerainty.
This explains why large Christian communities persisted throughout the Islamic world — in Egypt, Lebanon, Constantinople, all through the Balkans, etc. Jews fleeing persecution in Europe frequently fled to Ottoman lands, where religious freedom was respected. The large Jewish community in Salonika (later exterminated by the Nazis) was made up of Sephardic Jews who fled the Inquisition in Spain.
The Ottoman Empire was built on a fundamental premise of religious freedom, and its expansion in Europe was largely due to the fact that the Orthodox peasantry routinely favored Ottoman rule, which respected their religion, over the various Catholic princes, who did not.
It’s only in the modern (ie, nationalist) era that the nasty genocidal wars (Armenia, India, etc) become a feature of the Islamic world. The Ottoman government stuck to its ideal of multinationalism to the bitter end, eventually losing control of the state to the nationalists. The first Serbian independence movement was actually sponsored by the Ottoman government, against local Turkish landowners.
To a certain extent, the failure of the Islamic world is a by-product of its history of religious and cultural tolerance. It is precisely because the Ottoman Caliphate *didn’t* impose a uniform culture that the state lost its coherence in the nationalist era. Nations from the Ottoman sphere (both in Europe and the Middle East) are still struggling with that problem even today.
mdl
I don’t think that’s a good example, Ptolemy XII said he’d give Julius 6000 talents if he made him king, instead of taking Egypt over for himself.
I think Joseph was referring to an earlier era. Roman forces occupied Egypt during the time of Ptolemies VI and VII, to defend it against Seleucid attack. Rome could have easily annexed it, but they preferred to pull back and leave the Ptolemies in place.
As for Julius, I hardly think he was bribed not to take over Egypt. He was embroiled in his own civil war. So long as whoever ran Egypt acknowledged him as the leader of Rome, he had no need to annex the country.
Rome under the Republic never annexed Egypt. When Augustus took it, he claimed it as his personal property.
mdl
yeah. right you right wing piece of shit.
Bill,
First, I must say thank you! I first read your freedom essay on Rachel’s site, then your other essays here. You’ve written some of the finest, most cogent essays I’ve seen in a long time, expressing my sentiments better than I ever could.
Second, I’d like to recommend a book called “Beyond Terror,” written by a former Army Intel officer, Ralph Peters (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811700240/). One of the essays in the book, “The American Mission,” nicely complements this essay. He argues America has worked to fight against empires for most of her history. For example, we took on the British empire, destroyed the last vestiges of the Spanish empire, defeated the fledgling Nazi empire, and toppled the Soviet empire. It’s a good read, and available online (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99autumn/peters.htm).
Finally, this is as tip to whomever writes the code for your site. Could you please add ‘wrap=”virtual”‘ to the textarea tag in the comment form? It’s kind of annoying to have to write comments as really long, single lines of text that don’t wrap.
Thanks,
Nathan Machula
Hello, “Yeah,”
Just about what I’d expect from the left: no argument, no rebuttal, no ideas, no class, no clue and no return address. Just a cowardly shot on a passing bus from deep under the rock you crawled out of.
I believe I’ll leave your comment right where it is. Compared with the well-reasoned and articulate criticisms above you (and EVERYONE is above you, as you well know deep in your heart) I don’t see how I could have highlighted those who oppose us any better.
“Yeah” eloquently expresses the compassionate brotherhood, universal love, and nuanced intellectualism of the Politically Correct “Left”.
Sadly like
‘Yeah’, I don’t want to give a return address either. But:
1) Don’t think that you can unproblematically find the meaning of an ideologically and emotionally charged word like ‘imperialism’, ‘hegemony’ and so on in a dictionary. Producing meaning is a lot more complicated than the easy ‘this: means this’ of any dictionary or encyclopaedia, no matter how authoritative. There’s whole worlds of connotation, context, and so on to consider.
2) Sure, some movements to make people free and dissolve unjust authority have come from the US, but what the US doesn’t seem to see is that ‘difficult’ stuff like the films you don’t like is as much part of dissolving bonds that stop us being free as what you’re praising in your essay. By presenting itself – performing itself – as ‘the Land of the Free’, the US perversely makes it harder for it to really set itself free. Eg your use of ‘economic reality’ – economics need not be the bottom line, it’s actually another set of discourses you can problematise. An example of the naivety that us snotty Europeans like to sneer at in US culture?
America absolutely rocks, don’t get me wrong. Fun, free, people who know what it means to respect themselves and their own opinions and have integrity, people who can operate in the public domain with confidence. But also a culture that can’t seem to question itself rigorously or successfully…any attempts to self-question seem to descend into madness, what I’ve seen referred to as ‘hyper-CNN’, manic uberdiscussion of what’s going on…Sometimes America seems like not a black hole of desire to which we are drawn but a pulsar giving out information white noise which no one, but no one, on this planet, is sophisticated enough to filter yet.
Wow. Re-reading this, it’s a bit wonky and probably makes little sense. I just wanted to agree with ‘Yeah’ without being so…terse.
Very interesting discussion here!
I also like that the tone is GENERALLY civil.
I find that most of my American friends are so completely insulated from external events that they naturally have no knowledge of foreign events save for what is shown on CNN, and in some cases what is shown on PBS if they watch (the median knowledge levels varies of course).
If you MUST talk about the USA being top-of-the-heap, then I’m sure you won’t mind absorbing the lion’s share of criticism around the world for doing so. Being Canadian I understand what it’s like to enjoy a great standard of living. Being Canadian I am also not as shielded from what gives us that standard of living. The criticisms you hear are many times just vacuous vitriol, but much of it is well earned. Canada gets it’s fair share too so I don
Just a quick come-back to Debbie, too:
‘They didn’t mention that the reason other cultures accept ours, as well as other western cultures, is because they like them. It brings modernizations, new ideas and freedoms. ‘
Hmm…Modernisation and modernity are problematic ideas in themselves; new ideas aren’t necessarily good by virtue of their novelty…
“We, the students, were told that we are materialistic and obsessed with wealth and power. That is of course why we spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid and assistance funds and helping the homeless, helpless, and hungry everywhere in the world, sometimes even before we do anything at home!”
Well it does look like a pretty materialistic world view if you see your do-gooding purely in terms of spending dollars on aid! Someone who used their wealth and power for aid and assistance could be just as obsessed with that wealth and power as a greedy person…What about a world beyond wealth and power?
A Superior Snotty European Speaks
Bill,
I have been enjoying your blog, having first read your “Freedom” essay on rachellucas.com. The “Empire” piece was great, keep up the good work.
Most of the critiques have been serious and interesting as well. While America does not have exclusive license to magnanimity, I think you are correct that the disparity of military might and our reluctance to use it truly is without precedent.
Take care!
Jason B, what do you mean by the US is quietly supportting the second ‘coup’ of Hugo Chavez? What support are we providing? Arms? Organization? Or is it just tacit approval? We supported the Shah too but that didn’t make a darn bit of difference. The only thing I’ve seen is that the Bush Administration has been vacillating between supporting an earlier vote and the unconsitutional nature of any earlier vote. [Yes, I'm aware of the irony of the Bush Administration caring about the constitutionality of an election.]
The hate mongering does have to be dealt by all. It not only hurts the US but it too often serves as an excuse and distraction from the fundamental problems plaguing countries whose people hate the US. Of course the US screws up here and there. More could’ve been done for Rwanda (did the Canadians do anything) and the international community on the part of the US but the US isn’t godlike.
I think the World Court would be very usefull and help the US’s interests in promoting it’s interests (mostly benevalent). Of course after getting replaced by Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, I understand how the conservative ‘black helicopter’ crowd in the US would be even more distrustful of anything involving the UN or had worldwide governmental connotations.
Smedley:
1) Modernity is problematic in itself?? You may have had good motives for saying that, but to ME it sounds like the special “left- brand” ethnocentrism (re: racism), where modernity is not to be given to other nations because technological advancement isn’t necessarily a good thing. You might want to say it helps preserve culture: but to me it smacks of keeping wealth in the West.
2) Wealth typically IS a good measurement of how much you care. Half of Europe’s sucking up to dictatorships may indeed be because they spend relatively less on the Third World, except of course where their “strategic resources” are an option. Even volunteer efforts need cash. And the only way for a world beyond wealth and power is institute communism… and I generally don’t trust elites to tell me what’s “right reasons” and “wrong reasons.” I generally go for results.
“The reports I received were how the Brits rather matter of factly took credit for the victory in Europe. The Yanks arrived late, and contributed little. Apparently, a provincial attitude can cut both ways. I see little significance in such an attitude by anyone.”
I think there is considerable significance but I, like you, realise that it isn’t limited to a single country. In school, I learnt very little about the contributions of any of the Allies other than Britain and the USA. Almost nothing was said about the Soviet Union, for example, and they were absolutely crucial. I think it’s significant because it goes against what I see as a key point – it was an *alliance*. There’s no way any of the countries involved could have won by themselves.
Angilion: Magna Carta, which I have read in the original Latin, is a document guaranteeing the priviledges specific groups had enjoyed “in their grandfather’s time” which was standard for being accepted as Common Law in the early 13thC. Those groups were primarily the nobles and the chartered towns. The jury of one’s peers was specifically a priviledge that peers, ie Lord’s of the realm, could only be tried by a jury composed entirely of fellow Lords. Commoners could face juries including Lords even if their case involved acts against a lord. The vast majority of the populace was not guaranteed anything in the Charter. Notice the list of complaints against the Crown; they are complaints that the King and his agents had already broken the laws and agreements of the past and demanding the King no longer do so.
” You say you are disappointed that I point out things said in The Guardian, The Observer, Fisk, Pinter, and a host of other leading British critics,”
I said nothing of the kind, and made that very clear.
“Regarding the Magna Carta, I agree completely that it was a breakthough in the revolt against the authority of the King. My admittedly limited understanding of it, however, reminds me that it took absolute power form the kings, and distributed it to DUKES, EARLS AND OTHER NOBLES.”
That is a common but somewhat mistaken understanding of it. The rights laid out in the Magna Carta applied to all people who were free, not just nobles. It was largely about given more power to the nobility rather than just the monarch, but it contained a lot that was not about the nobility. The right to a fair trial in a reasonable length of time, for example. Right of passage for foreigners in England. All sorts of things.
“Our Founding Fathers apparently felt that it’s lack of limitations on Government, particularly a Bill of Rights, did not go nearly far enough.”
England had a Bill of Rights before the USA was formed. 1689, to be precise. I agree that the Founding Fathers of the USA apparently felt that English law did not go nearly far enough in this area. I don’t think it went nearly far enough myself. Secondly, part of the problem was that the relevant British law in this area was *not* being implemented fully in Britain, let alone the American colonies. Thirdly, as I have said before, there is a great deal of difference between principles added long after a country has been formed and principles put in at the foundation of a country, as the USA did with principles such as a fair trial, etc.
“I maintain that the US Constitution properly remains the fist national document to put the power of government in the hands of the People.”
Not all of the people, only some of them. Bear in mind that slavery was quite commonplace in the USA then, for example.
I think that the Constitution of the USA (including the Bill of Rights, which was added a little later) was a brilliant attempt at using some outstandingly noble principles as the bedrock of a country and that they were remarkably close to getting it right first time. They just needed to expand the scope more – they had the basics right. I have a copy on my PC and I have read it several times. It’s a beautiful thing, IMO.
“In re-reading this esay, I cannot find any reference to any passages that suggest “we did it all.”"
I was replying to all the posts I had seen so far, about the USA saving everywhere from the Nazis, etc. The closest you came was your references to the 1991 Gulf War.
[regarding U-571, the film about the key capture of an Enigma device by Royal Navy men and the cracking of the code by British experts, which was turned into the USA doing it instead]
“Commandment: if this was such a great story and vital piece of history, why did Great Britian not make the movie herself?”
Commandment? Did you intend to use a different word?
I don’t know why the British film industry didn’t make a film about the capture of U-571, though I suspect it’s because they couldn’t afford to do so. It wouldn’t have mattered, anyway. It could not have competed with the USA version.
“Could it have something to do with the very depressing reports we read that 80% of British school children are ASHAMED of their own history?”
Could be…if those reports reflect the truth in any way.
On a tangent: Angilion, face it. The U.S. Constitution is superior to any written set of governmental principles in the history of the world. As for Magna Carta, as I write, Commander Cressida Dick of the London Metropolitan Police is heading the “Diversity Division” and prosecuting “free” British citizens for thought crimes.(I’m not making this up.)Where in Magna Carta or the British Common Law does authority reside? Thank God and the authors of the Constitution, we Americans know that authority rests with the governed who have rights, which come from God, and cannot be abridged by any human force or government. I have always loved the early flag of my American ancestors, the one with the coiled snake and the words “Don’t tread on me.”
Take a look through the posts here…you’ll see things as extreme as a claim that Britain caused WW2 (from set). The tone is often that of the USA bailing out a bunch of, as Bill Whittle put it, “Old-Chap diplomats” and the problems they had created, the USA as the policeman arriving at the crime scene those barbaric Europeans had made for themselves, to sort it out for them.
Very little about Hitler and Nazism, or why the USA actually went to war (it was attacked by one of the Axis powers).
I’m glad that the President Roosevelt didn’t have that contempt for Britain and the rest of Europe and that he had considerably more foresight in how he defended the USA. Here’s a quote from him:
“In the present world situation of course there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of a very overwhelming number of Americans that the best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Great Britain in defending itself; and that, therefore, quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy in the world as a whole, it is equally important, from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help the British Empire to defend itself. . . .”
Yes, the USA could have chosen to end up fighting the Axis powers after they had conquered all of Europe, Africa and Asia, when they came for America. USA vs Everywhere Else would not have been a good idea for the USA, IMNSHO.
Beth Reasoner…
If you think I have ever claimed that the Magna Carta is better than, or even on a par with, the USA Constitution (with the USA Bill of Rights), please point out where.
You’re fighting a strawman.
Great Job, Mr. Whittle.
Anglilion, There is a tradition among European intellectuals to bad mouth Americans. It gives them something to do while they are waiting for their government checks. They conspire to pile one lie atop another to discomfort us, but it bothers Americans not at all. Why should we care about what effete snobs around the world think of us?
We do not fight the Al-Qeada for the world’s benefit, but our own. The world will be safer without the Islamists, but why should we care? We do not spread our values, our culture, our commerce, our democracy, our freedoms through out the world to benefit others, although others are benefited.
We are what we are– what we always were. It took September 11th to remind us of our greatness. Generations of leftist academics had put blinders on us– had mocked us to the point of being ashamed of being Americans.
The blinders are off now. No one will be able to put them on again. Mr. Whittle demolished a favorite lie of the European intellectual’s– that America is an empire. I hope he will trash your other lies shortly. Your cohorts will, no doubt, reply with endless sophistries that we American’s will ignore. You will put false words in our mouths, but the attempts will fail. You will call us arrogant; say that we think we are better than you.
And you are right; we do think we are better. Not because of any physical trait; we are, after all, the refuse of Europe. The people who would not bend their knee to their betters, and don’t do so now. We have surpassed you not because of language, culture or tradition; we share those with you. We have surpassed you because we are still locking forward, rather than back.
“Secondly, as for the Magna Carta, get the #*@#(sorry, he made me mad) off your anglo-centric high horse.”
If you were able to read what I had actually written, you would have seen that I cited the Magna Carta as *an* example of various principles. By your own argument, you should get the fuck off your USA-centric high horse every time you make *any* mention of the Constitution of the USA. Of course, it’s highly unlikely that you apply your own arguments to yourself.
“No one is claiming that America created the concepts of freedom and equality.”
Yes, they are. They are routinely described as American concepts.
Thank you, Louis Wheeler, for such an eloquent mixture of arrogance and hypocrisy. Excuse me for not bending my knees to those you declare my betters: everyone in the USA. Oh, that makes me an American by your definition. How strange.
You are looking backwards – your attitude would not be out of place in the British Empire, or any other such society.
Bleah…retyping this is not fun when you type a lot (hit the back button).
Anyway…more comments above are coming in about why Americans think better of themselves. I don’t imagine any nation would think otherwise of itself…why should Americans be any different? Patriotism is a defining characteristic of nationhood.
The lack of self-analysis is the problem.
Honestly…does anyone here ever stop to consider the opposing viewpoints in play here? I can understand exactly where people are coming from when they state for the record that their beliefs in their country’s greatness is due to “x” or “y”. I can draw a line between all the components of those beliefs, but more importantly, can an ardent patriot honestly ever understand another’s viewpoint?
The challenge is this, and it’s only a intellectual challange:
Would you argue an opposite viewpoint in a debate on US foreign policy using ALL available facts and lose on facts alone? It’s only fair if you really want to pursue a conclusion based on informed analysis that you argue against yourself and find yoru own weaknesses so that you better understand the true problems.
I have dealt with many American friends who wondered aloud any they are poorly received overseas (in general..people by nature generalize less when confronted by a true person). I have a couple of chilean friends from high school whose parents fled the Pinochet regime in the mid 1970′s. Their father is a PhD in pediatrics at MacMaster University in Hamilton ON. They are unequivocally angry at the US for supporting and backing the coup there. They could be construed as anti-US but they don’t hate americans. Chile lost a lot of innocent people at the hands of US-trained commandos. The type of torture used was specific to that taught in Fort Benning GA at the School of the Americas. My father went through basic training there in 1963 and knows the kind of training that could be had there (prepping for Vietnam).
So in the minds many chileans who barely survived the purges of 1973, the US is a nation which supported the coup against Allende by providing money and tactical training. How is this functionally different than say Al Qaida, which provides/d money and tactical training to terrorists?
Am I as a Canadian any less responsible than the perpetrators if my government aids a regime that ends up “accidentally” replacing an elected government and happens to kill thousands in the process? Should I be surprised if the opinion of Canadians is diminished amongst those in the nation affected? Do I then call them a liar because my national media didn’t tell me the same story?
JB
Trevelyan
1)On Modernity:
Modernity’s a difficult word, it’s not just about technology and all that bag but also a set of relationships to that technology, to culture, to society – and it’s not the only one, nor necessarily the best one. Critiquing modernity has nothing to do with levels of technology or prosperity in first, second or third-world socieities, it’s about questioning a certain way of going about things which proclaims itself to be ‘modern’.
“2) Wealth typically IS a good measurement of how much you care.”
I didn’t say it wasn’t, only saying that someone denying they’re obsessed with wealth and power and ‘proving it’ by going on and on about how benevolent they are in their use of wealth and power is STILL obsessed with wealth and power.
“And the only way for a world beyond wealth and power is institute communism…”
Not necessarily! You can’t reduce it to a US style capitalism vs. communism binary opposition. There’s always a variety of choices. Quite a few organisations that would probably sound ‘lefty’ to you (workers cooperatives in Pais Vasco and in Catalunya; squatter organisations that occupy unused buildings in the North of England) are basically founded on small-businessmen’s ideology. Even the Luddites who wanted to smash industrial technology were basically just small businessmen, farmers and so on…’the little guy’ who, as we keep saying, should not have to sacrifice his freedom for the sake of the state.
Here are replies to Angillion, after this I will no longer acknowledge him/her due to his/her blatant lies, and Jason B, which is how I think you should post if you want to criticize and not make an arse of yourself.
Angillion, go home if you’re going to lie. I did not say that and you know it. What I said was that Nazi Germany was no threat to the US at the time and we didn’t have to start the war there, but we did. Japan was a more imminent threat to us and could actually have attacked the contiguous states, if it desired.
Also, you are Anglo-centric, because your posts give off the air, and a stink air it is, that England was the sole or main contributor to the Constitution, when it was not. It was important and our Constitution could not have come about without the Magna Carta or English law. Now, as for the Magna Carta, I’m not sure. I can only take Thomas Paine’s word on the mess that the English governemnt was in at the time and the fact that it didn’t really protect anything, since it didn’t have teeth. Words are nice, but do they do anything?
Germany would not have kept going all over, Hitler only wanted Europe, really. That’s my interpretation. The US could have taken on Germany even if they had taken all of Europe and Britain, but it would have been a lot longer and much more difficult and resulted in many lives lost on both sides. Anyway, if you want to give an award, for the greatest contribution to Hitler’s defeat, you’d have to give it to Hitler.
As for the US-centric comment, I would be on a high horse, if I said that the US Constitution caused good in other people’s governments around the world, or even one. But I don’t. I say it works for America, that’s all I say. While, you seem to lay claim to the Magna Carta as all that is good in the US Constitution. Also, show me where someone said that Freedom and Equality are American concepts? I always thought they were natural.
And JB, I am constantly trying to think of opposing viewpoints, it’s really hard when you *think*, notice I did not say know, you know the right answer. I think it’s just part of human nature that it’s easier to notice other’s flaws than your own.
I am very dissapointed in many decisions of the US, but I also think the US has a chance to rectify those mistakes. I admit, we are slow at realizing things, Britain outlawed slavery before us and it seemed as if blacks were better treated over in Europe at the time for a long time, but we eventually come to the right answer.
I think some people do have legitimate gripes against America. Quite a few in Central and South America.
I also, think the comparison America and Al Qaida isn’t fair. But, you do present an interesting argument.
As for not knowing much about the world, I think it’s a mixed blessing. It should mean that Americans wouldn’t want to do anything to the world beyond just economically interacting with it, but in practice it seems as if an elite has risen up to govern our foreign policy. But, then on the flip side, I’m reminded of a song, whose advice everyone should follow, “Mind your own business” because “if you mind your own business, you won’t be minding mine.”
To Angilion and Smedley and Yeah the drooling village idiot:
1. The fact that most Americans think our society is superior to any other in the world is not a distinctly American trait. Virtually everyone believes that their own culture is superior to that of others. This is basic Anthropology 101.
2. The fact that Europeans believe their culture to be superior does not bother me. What DOES annoy me is that it often seems that Euros EXPECT Americans to believe in their inherent superiority, and act offended when we do not cater to their fantasies. The same people who are so quick to speak of American “arrogance” are themselves guilty of arrogance beyond belief.
3. By what yardstick are Euros “better” than Americans? Not by economics, that is certain. Perhaps it is intellectual, after all, consider the great concepts of Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Nazism that all came out of Europe in the 20th century. What golden jewels these were for the world. Perhaps America and the rest of the unwashed globe should bow down and kiss Europe’s feet for these wonderful gifts from the land of the Wise. Ah … I forgot, according to some Euros their superiority rests in intangibles, nuances of culture which cannot be expressed in mere words, something which the cynical might interpret as “denial” at best and otherwise as hopeless pig shit. I’m sorry, but if you can’t describe it in words I tend to doubt that it exists. Then again I’m just a “simple” American.
4. Americans (other than some of the political class at the far ends of the spectrum) do not believe in Utopia. We want to be left alone to pursue our own interests, not just as a country, but as individuals. When politicians try to “lead” us to the Promised Land we tend to vote them out. If any lesson can be gleaned from the history of the 20th century it is that the road to Utopia leads to and ends at the gates of Hell. Despite the lessons of history, European politics seems to center upon which version of Utopia the electorate wishes to gravitate to. To most Americans this is an alien concept.
5. If any European country had the economic and military predominance that the U.S. currently has, how would they exercise that power? If France was in that position do you really think the world situation would be better? How about
if it was Germany? Name your EU country. Do you really think this would bring about some Golden Age?
Once upon a time America was a backwater, or at least it was perceived as such, and many of the “upper classes” and academia fawned upon European ideas out of some strange inferiority complex. To some extent it still continues today in academia in which the proponents of marxism still hold sway.
But the times are changing. It is no longer America that is the backwater, it is Europe. Europe is sinking into irrelevance. The EU seeks to escape this fall by embracing the economic model of central planning that history has shown to be the path to disaster. I fear that the EU will be nothing more than a “kinder and gentler” form of the USSR, destined to die in an economic implosion. Americans no lomger look up to Europe, we look down, and for good reason.
Smedly, I don’t think your usage of Luddites is apt, because they were more of a violent movement. And I don’t think having them force the state to put restrictions on the businessmen, for the Luddites sake would be moral.
Also, all of those people can operate within a Capitalist framework, they’d have little hope in a Communist framework, for one the Luddites would have been sent to the Gulags for all their violence.
Gray1, then Set…
1. The fact that most Americans think our society is superior to any other in the world is not a distinctly American trait. Virtually everyone believes that their own culture is superior to that of others. This is basic Anthropology 101.
No. One basic insight of anthropology is most societies think that their way of going about things is ‘the’ way of going about things, the natural way…and everything else is weird.
2. The fact that Europeans believe their culture to be superior does not bother me. What DOES annoy me is that it often seems that Euros EXPECT Americans to believe in their inherent superiority, and act offended when we do not cater to their fantasies. The same people who are so quick to speak of American “arrogance” are themselves guilty of arrogance beyond belief.
Who says European culture’s superior? Europe is as in as much trouble as anywhere, everywhere else is, with its own problems to be sorted out, and so on. Why can’t you find anyone here saying the same thing about the US (which IS in as much trouble, with as much problems, as everyone else)???
3. By what yardstick are Euros “better” than Americans?
By no yardstick!!!
All this attack on ‘superior’ Euros…do you have an inferiority complex?
(Remember I’m a snotty European and couldn’t resist putting that in)
4. Americans (other than some of the political class at the far ends of the spectrum) do not believe in Utopia. We want to be left alone to pursue our own interests, not just as a country, but as individuals.
How can you be ‘left alone’? There’s a world full of other people, the things the individual does have consequences…This ideology at the macro scale (my country right or wrong) is the thing that sets off the alarm bells for we upturned-nose Europeans.
Besides, if you wanted to, you could trace the intellectual history of the concept ‘individual’, as an anthropologist might, and find it to be just as much a construct as any other society’s worldview…So ‘just’ being left to be individuals it itself a highly charged political, ideological viewpoint (even if it doesn’t admit it).
5. If any European country had the economic and military predominance that the U.S. currently has, how would they exercise that power? If France was in that position do you really think the world situation would be better? How about
if it was Germany? Name your EU country. Do you really think this would bring about some Golden Age?
No, it would be just as bad!
>To some extent it still continues today in academia in which the proponents of marxism still hold sway.
I don’t think that’s fair…Academics are all about critical thinking, being critical. The best tool for criticising the current US status quo is a kind of radical left wing approach…in another situation the tools for criticising the status quo would belong to another ideology!
Posted by: gray1 on December 30, 2002 01:19 AM
Smedly, I don’t think your usage of Luddites is apt, because they were more of a violent movement. And I don’t think having them force the state to put restrictions on the businessmen, for the Luddites sake would be moral.
>Just depends on your morality, and whether it has qualms about regulating business. We do have anti-monopolies commissions and organisations to look into big business for much the same reason than Ludd and company were worried about their small interests. Yeah, the violence was a problem, but there’s actually quite a lot more to luddism. And maybe the violence came about because the state wouldn’t listen (something that we all fear, the indifferent tyrannical state?).
>Also, all of those people can operate within a Capitalist framework, they’d have little hope in a Communist framework, for one the Luddites would have been sent to the Gulags for all their violence.
Well depends surely on how the framework was implemented! As I was saying over on the Australian firearms page, communism doesn’t equal 24/7 Stalinism necessarily.
“Am I as a Canadian any less responsible than the perpetrators if my government aids a regime that ends up “accidentally” replacing an elected government and happens to kill thousands in the process? Should I be surprised if the opinion of Canadians is diminished amongst those in the nation affected? Do I then call them a liar because my national media didn’t tell me the same story?”
Most sensible thing written here today. You can replace ‘Canadian’ with any word, nationality, social group, you like, still good stuff.
Sorry, Angillion for calling you a liar, I didn’t realize until now what you meant by “Take a look through the posts here…you’ll see things as extreme as a claim that Britain caused WW2.” I replied in the heat of the moment.
I think I wrote very poorly earlier. I was thinking along the lines of Churchill. The UK is guilty of the sin of inaction. They may not have invited Nazi aggression, but they did nothing for their allies to stop it. They didn’t start the mess, Germany did, but they did make it worse.
“Am I as a Canadian any less responsible than the perpetrators if my government aids a regime that ends up “accidentally” replacing an elected government and happens to kill thousands in the process?”
It depends on the circumstances. Like everything in life, it’s too difficult to say, unless you know the details for the particular circumstances. But, at least you should make sure the perpetrator’s are held responsible and pause for some reflection.
My point exactly. The US (or whatever nationality) ‘perpetrators’, right or wrong, should be held to account for their actions – they are responsible individuals, right? – and we should pause for some reflection on what they’re doing.
“Am I as a Canadian any less responsible than the perpetrators if my government aids a regime that ends up “accidentally” replacing an elected government and happens to kill thousands in the process?”
Yes, you are indeed less responsible, generally speaking. You (as in, “you, the citizens of Canada as a whole”) may be responsible to some degree, granted. But you do not bear full responsibility for their crimes unless your government had foreknowledge that that was what they had planned and/or aided them specifically for the purposes of implementing whatever abuses or crimes they committed. Again, you may bear some responsibility, especially if you had some reason to believe that they might indeed do that, but that’s not the same thing as being a fully knowledgeable and willing accomplice, let alone the actual perpetrator.
Roughly speaking, this is the difference between lending someone a knife to cut a piece of rope, only to find out later that they used it to cut someone else’s throat; lending them a knife to cut a piece of rope even though you suspect (but don’t know) that they may cut said person’s throat; and lending them the knife knowing damned good and well that that’s *exactly* what they plan to do with it. It’s a difference of degree, and your knowledge and motivations are also a factor.
As a (very) rough example, many Muslims contribute to charities. This is an integral part of their faith, and a fine and noble thing. And I would imagine that the charities they are most likely to contribute to (as a religious duty) are the ones that help their fellow Muslims specifically. Which is also fine; “clean up your own backyard first”, as my Dad always said.
But some of those are “charities” that contribute, or did contribute, money (or aid of whatever sort) to groups like Al Qaida, but without necessarily stating that that was what they were going to do with it. They may have a stated mission that is completely altruistic in nature, like, say, feeding starving children, or whatever. But instead they use some or all of that money to help Al Qaida. Does that mean that a Muslim (or anyone else for that matter) who gave to one of these pseudo-charities would therefore be responsible for any terrorist attacks later carried out by Al Qaida?
No, not really. Not in any meaningful sense of the word, anyway. UNLESS they suspected or knew that Al Qaida was actually the ultimate recipient of their money and had at least some idea of what Al Qaida actually planned to do with it.
Again, just an example… and due to the fact that I’m mind-bogglingly tired at the moment, possibly not even a very clear one. But the point I’m aiming to make is that nations, and their people, are only fully responsible for actions that they themselves either aid and abet (knowledgeably or negligently), or actually commit. To say otherwise would be rather like saying that the U.S. government, and by extension U.S. citizens, were responsible for the assassination of JFK, because Oswald was trained by the Marine Corps. But this is not so, if for no other reason the fact that there was no possible way such a result could be foreseen.
Hmm… that last bit is probably stretching things to the snapping point, but hopefully it makes at least *some* sense. But that’s my opinion on the subject, anyway. But if I’ve managed to miss some huge logical hole in the argument somewhere, for God’s sake feel free to point it out to me. It wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t see the forest for the trees.
James Salmon
“But the point I’m aiming to make is that nations, and their people, are only fully responsible for actions that they themselves either aid and abet (knowledgeably or negligently), or actually commit”
We’re on the same wavelength here. By this token, US citizens should reflect on things like School of the Americas, the Cold War US funding of unpalatable regimes purely because they weren’t Communist, and the 80s adventures in Central/Latin America.
Reply to Smedley: If the individual (and _you_ are an individual) is only a social construct, then any degree of totalitarianism seems permissible, and Pol Pot didn’t do anything seriously wrong.
Reply to Gray1: If non-political, non-military, non-economic culture is intangible and non-existent, then what are all those strange objects in the Louvre?
Angilion made an excellent point that the Magna Carta did in fact recognize rights of women, e.g., to property. It’s long been observed that women have long had a relatively high position in the West, esp. in Northern Europe among the Celts, the Vikings, the ancient Anglo-Saxons, and this going back long before Christianity, as have most of our other Western traditions and values, e.g., trial by jury or the West’s passion for exploration.
Back to Steven Malcolm Anderson –
Why does accepting that social units (individuals, groups, organisations, relations) are social constructs, i.e. born of the social system legitimate totalitarianism? It just means you have to come up with a better (more rigorous, more substantial) argument against it than referring back to the rights of the social concept of the ‘individual’. (Notice I’m not actually talking about I-me-Smedley writing this, although there’s plenty of work done on how subjectivity is constructed thru’ language,I’m thinking especially of “individual” as an ideological term in political documents like the Constitution).
“Reply to Gray1: If non-political, non-military, non-economic culture is intangible and non-existent, then what are all those strange objects in the Louvre?”
About this…you can quite easily find a political-cum-ideological-cum-economic interpretation for all cultural products…they’re products of a given cultural moment, its ideologies, its politics and so on. The fact that we house them in the Louvre and say they’re apolitical could (just could) be a way of distracting ourself from the uncomfortable fact they might have some politics in them…
I hope that my old friend Angilion (“…our Anglo friend who seems to have a burr up his saddle…” as somebody here called him) keeps posting here. He and I have had some sharp disagreements recently over some other things, but his defense of England complements Mr. Whittle’s defense of America and is a needed corrective to the errors of some of those posting here. America is a daughter of England, inseparably a part of the culture of Europe, of the West, and I’m glad of it.
To Angilion and all others: _On bended knees_ I thank England, the British Isles, for having given us their ancient common law and Magna Carta, foundations of our freedom, for having raised up so superlative a statesman as Winston Churchill (truly “their finest hour”), and for having bequeathed to the West such an incredibly rich literature and poetry, from Chaucer to Chesterton, from Spenser to Shakespeare to Shelley to Shaw (if you will forgive the alliterations). God (and Goddess) save the Queen! Long live the Monarchy!
I hate Stalin, but _on bended knees_ I thank the millions of brave Russians who gave their lives to stop Hitler. _On bended knees_ I thank all those Englishmen, Frenchmen, Poles, Danes, and all others who resisted the Nazis. And, once again, _on bended knees_ I thank the soldiers of my own country who fought the Nazis, incl. my own father. _All_ of these brave warriors were heroes and _all_ of them deserve our undying gratitude.
_On bended knees_ I thank the French for creating, over the centuries, the most beautiful language in the world, for their exquisite cuisine, for Rheims Cathedral and Notre Dame, for Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc), for so many things. France, with England, has long been the center of our Western culture. They were that at the time of our own War for Independence, and they aided us in that War.
_On bended knees_ I thank the Germans for their unsurpassable music (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), for their profound Romanticist philosophy (Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Nietzsche, Spengler, etc.), and for their contributions to the theory of color. Germany’s political history since 1870 leaves much to be desired, but culturally they plumbed the depths and soared to the heights.
_On bended knees_ I thank Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Poland, and every other great European nation for creating this rich tapestry of culture of which I am priviledged to partake.
_On bended knees_ I thank the Founding Fathers of these United States of America for creating a political system in which I am free to enjoy the blessings of my Western culture without hindrance, and _on bended knees_ I thank our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry S Truman, for defending and preserving that system in the crucible of titanic wars in which our very existence as a free people were at stake.
Back to Steven Malcolm Anderson (this is brief because my last post didn’t go up for some random technical type reason)
Reply to Smedley: If the individual (and _you_ are an individual) is only a social construct, then any degree of totalitarianism seems permissible, and Pol Pot didn’t do anything seriously wrong.
Just because social units (individuals, groups, families, whatever) might only be meaningful in terms of the system they’re built within doesn’t justify totalitarianism! It just means you have to find a stronger, more reasoned way of arguing against it.
Reply to Gray1: If non-political, non-military, non-economic culture is intangible and non-existent, then what are all those strange objects in the Louvre?
I think it’s quite easy to find artistic production always has some ideological value – all those objects were products of a point in time, its politics and so on. It’s only the fact we put them in the Louvre and say that’s apolitical art that stops us from thinking the uncomfortable thought that even that art is heavily laden with politics.
I’d better make myself perfectly clear (as President Nixon used to say) regarding my last post here: The Western culture of which I speak has nothing to do with “race” (which _is_ largely a “social construct”) or skin color. I could be as black as velvet and yet I would still consider myself a European, spiritually.
I must add to all that that _on bended knee_ I give thanks to the ancient Northern European tribes, Vikings, Celts, Angles, Saxons, Goths, my own distant ancestors, who were the original creators of the Western soul and _style_ before the nations formed, and also to the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans of the Mediterranean world who gave completion and form to the spirit of the Northern Europeans. And, above all, to the Gods and the Goddesses who my ancestors worshipped.
It looks like Smedley here is expressing very articulately and cogently the same basic philosophy that our old friend “Yeah” expressed so inarticulately. Interesting opponents here. Perhaps I’ll say more later.
And then one day Italy and America combined to give us Camille Paglia. _On bended knee_ I thank her for her profound wisdom about our culture and its psycho-sexual-esthetic roots.
Oops…double post.
Je suis desole.
Our enemies, both within and without, would love nothing better than to see America and the rest of Europe divided against each other. Right now, their hostility is directed primarily against America and her military might. But what they seek to destroy is the culture that that might protects, and which is the spiritual sustenance of America. Notice that the favorite bete noir of the Politically Correct is the “Dead White _European_ Male”.
In short, without America there is no Europe. Without Europe there is no America.
I have no problem with the idea a nation has enemies, that it has to deal with this…I just wonder about the way a nation goes about dealing with it, and about whether it bothers to really think about what it’s doing, and even what this thing “culture” is that it’s trying to defend.
I don’t mean you find the answer before you start defending it (obviously stupid); I just mean you can’t afford to put the questioning side of you on ‘pause’ while going to war. That includes questioning notions of ‘culture’ and ‘spiritual sustenance’.
Anglilion, Do you understand the English language? It is neither hypocrisy nor arrogance to tell unpleasant truths.
We Americans do not want to rule you Europeans, nor will we be ruled. That is why The Kyoto Treaty will never be ratified, and the International Criminal Court will have no jurisdiction here. America will not march to your drummer.
We will remake the world– just as the British did in the Nineteenth Century, but we will take no tribute for it. We will set the world aright and walk way knowing that you people will muck it up again. No empire would do that.
Next time, put some thought into your response.
“In short, without America there is no Europe. Without Europe there is no America.”
Well, they’d still be there, but they’d be very different.
“We Americans do not want to rule you Europeans, nor will we be ruled. That is why The Kyoto Treaty will never be ratified, and the International Criminal Court will have no jurisdiction here. America will not march to your drummer.We will remake the world– ”
Or…”We believe in no higher power than the USA and will not accept a power above us or on the same level as us”…?
Concerning Set: Unlike you, I don’t accuse someone of anything unless I have proof. There’s no need to acknowledge me – this is for other people.
I said you said that Britain caused WW2. You call me a liar for doing so. Here is the proof for my statement…on the subject of the USA coming to Britain’s aid in WW2, you wrote:
“As for WWII, it’s like this: A friend should be very thankful when another friend helps them out of a mess they made”
You also said this:
“Also, you are Anglo-centric, because your posts give off the air, and a stink air it is, that England was the sole or main contributor to the Constitution, when it was not.”
Quite apart from your silly insults and your poor English, that statement is wholly untrue. I have said, from the start and over and over again, that the Magna Carta is *an* example of certain principles that were built into the Constitution of the USA. The only area where there it could be argued to be the main contributor is the USA Bill of Rights, and I wouldn’t make that argument myself. 2 or 3 sections of the USA Bill of Rights, yes. All of it, no. I’ve no doubt that the people who write the USA Constitution were inspired partly by the Magna Carta, the Tolerance Act (of England) and the English Bill of Rights, but only partly.
As for your comments on Hitler’s ambitions:
“Germany would not have kept going all over, Hitler only wanted Europe, really. That’s my interpretation.”
So…what was the fighting in Africa about?
You remind me of Chamberlain and the other appeasers. They genuinely believed that Hitler only wanted some land, land Germany might have had a claim to anyway. Then a bit more, just a bit more. I don’t see any reason to believe that Hitler would have been satisfied with Europe, or Europe and Africa. I think the USA would have been a target, and quickly. In numerous important ways, the USA was the direct opposite of the Third Reich. Hitler couldn’t have let it stand. If nothing else, he would have nuked it to slag. I doubt if anyone thinks he would have had any moral qualms about doing so.
gray1:
“The fact that Europeans believe their culture to be superior does not bother me. What DOES annoy me is that it often seems that Euros EXPECT Americans to believe in their inherent superiority, and act offended when we do not cater to their fantasies.”
I think you’re projecting your own prejudices onto the people your charmingly deride as “Euros”.
In fact, I’m sure of it. It’s you who EXPECT everyone else to believe in the innate superiority of Americans (you ignore the millions of people in South America, of course) and act offended when they do not cater to your fantasies.
Here’s a spanner in your works – I don’t believe that my culture is superior to that of the USA, no matter how much you and some other citizens of the USA act to convince me that my culture is superior to yours. You are not the culture of the USA, thankfully. I don’t think a country the size of the USA could be said to have a single culture, anyway.
So you’re just projecting that idea, too.
“Am I as a Canadian any less responsible than the perpetrators if my government aids a regime that ends up “accidentally” replacing an elected government and happens to kill thousands in the process?”
Yes, you are less responsible than the perpetrators. You are not the regime. You are not the government of your country, so you didn’t aid the regime. Where is the reason for you to be responsible for the actions of other people?
Yes, you are less responsible than the perpetrators. You are not the regime. You are not the government of your country, so you didn’t aid the regime. Where is the reason for you to be responsible for the actions of other people?
I think the point is the government acts in your place on what you might, with tongue in cheek, call the “world stage”. If you accept the ruling party of your country and it goes around doing criminal stuff, there’s an argument (which I’m not necessarily going to endorse) for you to have some responsibility for that. How much is between you and your conscience.
Not seeing this argument is why people like a friend from the States I met in Spain get confused when they’re attacked for being citizens of a country that would permit stuff like School of the Americas. They don’t see that people make the (possibly unfair) link between ‘America (United States of)’ and “American citizens”
“Sorry, Angillion for calling you a liar, I didn’t realize until now what you meant [..]”
Apology accepted. I have replied before seeing your apology, so the tone of my reply is very harsh. Perhaps we should simply forget those posts, as they stemmed from a misunderstanding?
“I think I wrote very poorly earlier. I was thinking along the lines of Churchill. The UK is guilty of the sin of inaction. They may not have invited Nazi aggression, but they did nothing for their allies to stop it. They didn’t start the mess, Germany did, but they did make it worse.”
I see your line of argument, though I’m I don’t it’s the same line of argument that Churchill followed. I don’t recall Churchill saying that Britain made WW2 worse or that Britain did nothing for its allies. In fact, Britain did a great deal for its allies(*) against Nazi aggression – it went to war when its first ally (Poland) was invaded by Nazi Germany. Your line of argument also puts the USA in a very bad light, as being even more guilty of the sin of inaction, as they waited a lot longer before going to war, and did so only when the Axis powers attacked the USA itself, rather than when the Axis powers attacked an ally of the USA. By your argument, the USA made WW2 much worse. So, on both counts, I disagree with your line of argument.
* And also, like the USA, for itself. If you don’t aid your allies against an enemy, you may well end up with no-one to aid you when the enemy comes for you.
“Anglilion, Do you understand the English language? It is neither hypocrisy nor arrogance to tell unpleasant truths.”
Loius Wheeler, your hypocrisy is in sneering at Europeans while condemning them for sneering at the USA (including those who don’t, especially me). You also expect everyone to regard everyone in the USA as their betters, while condemning that very attitude in others and holding the decision not to do so the essence of the USA.
Your arrogance permeates everything you say, but here are a couple of examples:
“we do think we are better [...] We have surpassed you [...]”
“We will set the world aright and walk way knowing that you people will muck it up again.”
Feel free to get back to me when you need another lesson in English.
“The Western culture of which I speak has nothing to do with “race” (which _is_ largely a “social construct”) or skin color. I could be as black as velvet and yet I would still consider myself a European, spiritually.”
I recall a debate I had concerning the nationality of someone whose skin was black. Actually black, not a relatively dark shade of brown. He was born in England. He spoke English as his native language (he even had a strong and specifically English accent). He had lived in England all his life. The key point was a single question – “Where is your home, the place where your heart is?”. It was in Birmingham, England. So I concluded my piece with “This man is an Englishman”. Because he was.
Sadly, he would now be classed not as English but as African English.
” I think the point is the government acts in your place on what you might, with tongue in cheek, call the “world stage”. If you accept the ruling party of your country and it goes around doing criminal stuff, there’s an argument (which I’m not necessarily going to endorse) for you to have some responsibility for that.”
I see the line of argument, but I oppose it. My argument is that a person is responsible only for what they have control over or agree to accept responsibility for by accepting a position of authority. For example, if I was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, I would be personally responsible for all actions of the government here, even I knew nothing about them, let alone initiated them, because of the authority I had accepted.
I voted against the current government. I do not support them. Even if I had voted for them, I would not be responsible for their actions because I have no control over them.
Once again a wonderful essay worthy of being read in every school in this nation. I do not care what else you do with your life good sir, but if you love freedom and our nations as you seem so obviously to do, please keep writing and publishing. You have a gift our nation needs.
A little clarification that might clear up something about the Magna Carta:
The first draft talked only about the nobility. A later draft, which was actually signed into law, made the crucial difference of extending the scope to free commoners.
Angillion, yeah I should really cut down on news and politics it’s really only adding stress to my life.
I recall it was the Czech that the British let down. My memory is hazy, but I recall, from Chruchill’s The Gathering Storm, that the Czech received an assurance from England for help. I also recall that the Czech had equipment equal to the Germans, they just didn’t have the numbers. Anyway, if the French and British wouldn’t have ignored Nazi aggression in the mid-’30s they could have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Also, I remember Churchill’s criticism of the governments of the time was pretty harsh (I think rightfully so).
I also think that the allies, US included, handled the end of WWI very poorly. Britain and the US giving Germany too much in loans, neglecting to put force behind the armistice. On our side I largely blame Wilson, one president I really don’t like. I’m don’t know too much about the European leadership, so I can’t comment on them.
“* And also, like the USA, for itself. If you don’t aid your allies against an enemy, you may well end up with no-one to aid you when the enemy comes for you”
Yes, I think that’s one lesson we should take from WWII.
As for the US being in a bad light, yeah, but the US, at the time, was sick of constant European wars, and have been sick of them since Jefferson. I don’t think all of the US people were entirely clear on all of Hitler’s intentions. I’m just going on what I remember hearing what he said in Mein Kampf. I should probably check it out and confirm. Also, I think the US at the time had a policy of neutrality much like Switzerland.
Also, I had another idea. Europe shouldn’t have to be thankful for America for helping them defeat Nazi Germany, it was in our best interest. But, we did supply Europe with massive sums of money to rebuild and helped keep Communist Russia out.
Angilion, I don’t sneer at Europeans; I don’t think much about them at all. Since 9/11, The Europeans have seemed irrelevant. There is an old engineering rule in America, “Lead, follow or GET OUT OF THE WAY.” Most Americans, according to the polls, want Europe to get out of the way.
We don’t mean this in a prideful or haughty way– just as a simple statement of fact. Europe’s best days are behind her. It is economically, culturally and militarily in decline. Its population is dropping. In 2040, America will have 410 million citizens (fifty million more than Europe) and have double the GNP. Europe is like a disreputable uncle to us– old, tired, poor and cranky, but that doesn’t mean we have no affection. We just don’t take you people seriously.
When I disagree with your statements and say so; this does not make me a hypocrite. There is no pretense here; you don’t know what you are talking about. You can dispute my evidence or reasoning, That’s fair. But, to call people names when you don’t know the meaning of the words is ignorant.
Isn’t it strange though that as cultures become more “Americanized” there seems to be a directly proportional increase in crime and other socially undesirable effects?
Not that I’m a liberal mind you; I truly appreciate all your work and generally agree with your views; merely an invitation to debate.
On the ride home, I thought of another point I’d like to make. You rely heavily on historical data as evidence and fact in your essay. Having served many years in the military and now with other agencies within the US government I’ve come to realize that history, as documented, is NOT always fact. Have you considered the means that we’ve employed to arrive at the position we now enjoy?
To borrow a tactic from you – let’s look into what “classified information” is, in particular the definition of TOP SECRET information: “That information that if disclosed could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”
To paraphrase – “That information that if disclosed could reasonably be expected to cause extreme embarrassment to the United States due to socially unacceptable, immoral, and sometimes inhuman tactics employed to achieve a desired political, economic, or military end-state.”
Again I feel the need to inform both you and your readers that I AM NOT left-wing. I firmly believe in the
Angilion is absolutely right about Hitler, FDR, and Churchill. If we had continued to bury our heads in the sand, as the isolationists (many or most of them pro-Nazi Fifth Columnists) were urging us to do, then Hitler and his Japanese allies would have ended up all the resources of Europe, Asia, and Africa at their disposal, with vast populations of slaves and cannon fodder. It would have been but a short step from there to the destruction of our racially-mixed, “Jew-ridden” USA, which Hitler hated.
It is very important to remember this, because if you read Pat Buchanan and other neo-Nazi revisionists and Holocaust deniers, you would get the idea that we hadn’t needed to fight at all, that Hitler was a reasonable chap we could negotiate with, and that the War was forced on him by a Zionist conspiracy. As Hitler himself said in his “Mein Kampf”, if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, enough people will come to believe it.
Europe without America, America without Europe. Angilion replied that they’d still be there, but they’d be very different. True, and I wouldn’t want to live in either.
I’m getting tired of this sneering at “Euros”. America is part of Europe.
Therefore, _I_ am part of Europe.
On:
“With regard to Christianity and Judaism, the Qur’an explicitly forbids forced conversion. Religions in India and Africa did not enjoy the same scriptural protection, and there were sometimes proselytizing rulers there, but more often the practice was to respect local freedom of religion so long as the conquered people submitted to political suzerainty.”
I was being brief, and less explicit than I should have been. I was mostly thinking of the Mogols in India in terms of forced conversions. That said, I don’t believe the folks in Albania felt that they had much choice.
On the other hand Many of the folks in N. Africa embraced Islam as more monotheistic than Orthodox Christianity (trinity).
I am confident the that most people in what is now Turkey were not to happy to be invaded (being the center of the empire and quite well off), and the excursions to Vienna weren’t great for most of the people in the way (but I fully grant that many of the nobles there were pretty miserable rulers).
My point was (in attemmpt to get remotely back to the topic) that it is often depicted that the Nasty European crusaders, and then later the imperialists have beaten up the innocent Islamic states, and the great expansion of the Islamic empire (which fully intened to conquer Europe) is ignored. It was an enlightened empire of its time, but it was still as conquest minded as any European state has been.
How do people feel about Turkey being considered for EU membership? I for one have no problem with it but I know it riles an awful lots of people, and despite all the talk of Ottomans and so on we haven’t really touched on that…
The comment…
“We Americans do not want to rule you Europeans, nor will we be ruled. That is why The Kyoto Treaty will never be ratified, and the International Criminal Court will have no jurisdiction here. America will not march to your drummer.”
And the muddle-headed response…
“Or…”We believe in no higher power than the USA and will not accept a power above us or on the same level as us”…?”
We do not want to rule you and we will not allow you to rule us. How much clearer can one be? No presumed superiority–or implied inferiority, merely a desire to live an let live.
But you speak of a higher power–will you demand that your nation submit itself to the dictates of a higher–or commeasurate power? Will you demand that your nation renounce its’ sovereignty? its’ responsibilities to it’s citizens–in favor of a multinational governing body that does not abide by its own resolutions?
I didn’t think so.
I actually have no problem with my nation existing beneath or alongside other powers…strangely enough I believe in cooperation. And cooperation is necessary because this planet is too small for “mere live and let live”…actions on the national and international level (eg actions with effect on environment, international war crimes) have too many repercussions, cause too many consequences to others. I’ve said, here, and on Rachel Lucas’ gun thread, I love my nation but not ‘my nation right or wrong’. I’d ditch the concept of nation in a minute if a better way of life was available.
One thing Europe has which seems to occur less when people talk of US nationalism is the occurrence of “nested nationalities”…eg Catalunya is coming to define itself as one nation nested within a larger one, Spain. (In fact the history of Spain, composed as it is of many nationalisms, is highly troubled…but at least they admit it’s problematic and they’re trying to deal with the fact). Nations aren’t mutually exclusive entities: they can overlap, messily, in complicated ways.
Here and on the Lucas thread I’ve tried just to raise a few questions, about gun control, about ‘US imperialism’. I’ve got one of my old school textbooks by me here from the DDR…in pink are a few “socialist countries” and in blue, as “Capitalist Superpowers” or “Lesser Capitalist States”, is pretty much the rest of the world bar Africa. When we were young in the DDR we were made to feel surrounded by an ‘Evil Empire’, but we learned to question it (the wall came down when I was just into my teens) and now we are free of a bad time, a time of manipulative ideological indoctrination. But over on the side of the “West” there remains an unwillingness to self-questioning, to self-examination, to wondering how ideology permeates its ways of life.
The whole metaphor that this site runs off…”Liberalism is off course, it’s time to eject”…could be read, slightly perversely I admit, against itself. Liberalism was one stage in an ongoing attempt to question things and be more just. Now when the questioning gets hard, because we have to question even things which seem ‘self-evident’ like the Constitution which has done us so much good, people are ejecting rather than complete the mission.
You’ve got to be brave enough even to question your most dearly held principles, your most highly cherished and inalienable rights, all the things that seem natural and right to you. The circular arguments on Lucas’ board have shown how disturbingly incapable quite normal sensible people are of justifying even something as straightforward as the 2nd Amendment, or the idea of Constitutional Rights.
Don’t get me wrong, the DDR-Zeit (pre fall of the “Iron Curtain”)was bad, we’re grateful things are better…but
1) Don’t make the same mistake that school textbook did and paint all the socialist republics as if they were the same Stalinist ‘Evil Empire’. There were differences in the regimes…Slovaks had increased freedom of national expression even in the wake of Prague 68; in the DDR we were able to discuss alternative, even Western political models (tho’ I freely admit discussion was hardly open and easy); Titoism, for its faults, was yet another brand of Communism that was relatively ‘soft’. Each country’s socialism was different, even if you were taught to see it as one big monolith from Berlin to Peking.
Even at our worst times, in Central-East Europe we still drank drinks, went for walks, talked, wanted to be happy, breathed the air, played sports, took the p*ss out of each other. Life could be bad, some horrific things happened in our nation’s name, but daily life wasn’t non-stop hell. (Even the US itself has things like Vietnam, or Sacco and Vanzetti on its conscience).
2) Things are better under Western systems, but they’re still not perfect. It’s still worth questioning things, and when you haven’t got answers that substantiate your positions, that’s not an excuse to say “p*ss off back to Cuba where you belong!” or whatever. It’s not about trying to get rid of the good we have in the west (I now work as a clinical linguist in London, I appreciate what I have), it’s about raising the bar, raising the game so what’s good can get better. Don’t be afraid!
Sorry this was so long. I’ve been accused of a few things on this thread and the lucas one (even trolling)…I just wanted to do something other than watch my accusers trip over their own feet. No offence intended.
Smedley.
In response to my earlier post Angillion writes:
———————————————
I think you’re projecting your own prejudices onto the people your charmingly deride as “Euros”.
In fact, I’m sure of it. It’s you who EXPECT everyone else to believe in the innate superiority of Americans (you ignore the millions of people in South America, of course) and act offended when they do not cater to your fantasies.
Here’s a spanner in your works – I don’t believe that my culture is superior to that of the USA, no matter how much you and some other citizens of the USA act to convince me that my culture is superior to yours. You are not the culture of the USA, thankfully. I don’t think a country the size of the USA could be said to have a single culture, anyway.
So you’re just projecting that idea, too.
———————————————
Do you read the newspapers from your own country? How about the editorials in them? The letters from the readers? I suppose the common references to “Bush the cowboy” and “Bush the moron” and the shrill cries of “unilateralism” are are all meant in good fun. And then of course there is the implicit message that any group of people capable of electing a “moron” must themselves be, uh– deficient. You may not personally consider yourself to be inherently superior to the vile and barbaric Americans, but apparently many of your countrymen do, and they are quite vocal about it. And lets not even get into what the French think.
Then of course there is ever the attitude of “moral” superiority that abounds, as is shown by the reactions to the US refusal to sign the Kyoto and ICC treaties. The fact that the Kyoto treaty would basically cripple the US economy apparently is inconsequential to the Wise Europeans. If you believe that you have the right to give orders to others and are angry when they refuse to comply, what what you call such a relationship? Equality with dispensation due to disparities in wisdom? What euphemism would you use to describe this?
As to the ICC, the very concept of it as it now structured is totally contrary to the precepts of the American legal system. The “crimes” it would prosecute consist of vague terms such as “aggression” which are totally undefined and the protections given to defendants fail to meet the minimum standards required by the US Constitution. Yet we are primitive and backward people who refuse to do what our “betters” insist is the right and moral thing to do.
As to the use of the term “Euro,” this was not meant as any sort of insult. What is the correct term for referring to a citizen(?) of the European Union? I certainly wouldn’t refer to them merely as Europeans, as this would be duplicating my earlier sin of referring to citizens of the USA as Americans, and everyone knows that the EU does not encompass all of Europe. And by the way, just what term do you use to refer to citizens of the USA? USAers? Certainly not the ugly and demeaning term “yank.”
Certainly not.
As regarding the existence of American culture, there are certain attitudes that are shared amongst the majority of the population, believe it or not. I can go anywhere in my country which is geographically bigger than all of the EU, speak my native language to the inhibitants, and have little or no chance of inadvertantly committing some act that is culturally taboo. America is not Europe. Americans are not Europeans, despite the fact of ancestry.
And no, I do not consider Americans (a little side point here, people from Mexico and most of South America refer to USA citizens as “Americanos”–go and figure) as being superior to anyone else, but neither are we inferior to anyone else. I prefer my country to yours, just as you probably prefer yours to any other. This is just human nature, and there is nothing inherently bad about this.
I hope this clarifies what I posted earier.
Which islands would those be, other than those transferred from German to American custody after WWI?
Smedley, I’m glad to have you here. You are intelligent and civil, the opposite of a “troll”, the opposite of Mr. “yeah” (what a clown he/she was, ha! ha!). Your skepticism reminds me of that of David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher. Which was strikingly parallel to that of the Buddha in India thousands of years before.
I reiterate that _I_ am a European, despite the fact of being a native (though not Native) to America and having lived here all my life. I have never yet actually set foot in Europe. If I ever do, I hope that I will so conduct myself as to bring honor to my country and not shame. I am a European because I revere the high culture of Europe, of the West, to which I belong, all the things I mentioned in earlier posts, e.g., Shakespeare, Beethoven, Chartres, Nietzsche, etc..
Our Founding Fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, were English aristocrats steeped in the richness of Western and Classical culture. They believed in what Jefferson called “a natural aristocracy” among men. And Jefferson also recognized that “human nature is the same on both sides of the Atlantic.” They had no illusions of creating a New Eden, a New Adam. They were not followers of Rousseau or of Babeuf. They knew that human nature needs culture to be human and not merely animal.
America is Freedom. But Freedom, if it is not to be merely empty and aimless, must be not only freedom _from_ but also freedom _of_, _to_, and _for_. Freedom means freedom to choose and pursue one’s values, one’s “happiness” if you will. And what I value is the rich stock of culture, which is, for us, the culture of the West.
I do not want to live in an America cut off from Europe, cut off from that rich stock of culture that is my rightful heritage. I do not want to live in America where the creed is that of cultural egalitarianism (“any one thing is as good as any other thing”), of pretentious “unpretentiousness” (“look at my hot rod, baby”, “what’s happenin’, dude?”), of ostentatious vulgarity, where cheap “fast food” is the only cuisine, the only art is TV sitcoms, where culture is whatever the greatest number (esp. the greatest number of teenagers and children) happen to like, whatever appeals to the lowest common denominator.
That is _not_ Freedom (not for me, anyway!), that is not _my_ America, and that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this country. What they wanted was freedom for the “common man” to become _uncommon_, to become noble, to rise above the herd, to strive for something better.
“We just don’t take you people seriously.”
Is just one of the many examples of you sneering at Europeans. It, like your nationalistic arrogance,
permeates all your posts.
You are not a hypocrit for disagreeing with me. You’re a hypocrit for doing what you complain about other people doing.
Let me make a clarification.
When I say America will remake the world I don’t mean we will do it how empires are built: militarily. No hobnailed booted American, no equivalent of the Roman legions, will tread upon the vanquished. America will not stand like a colossus on a helpless mass of subject people; exacting tribute from the sweat of slaves and near slaves. That is the European way, not the American way.
Will we have influence? Yes. Will the world emulate us? Yes. Why? Because, we have the best that the world has to offer. We are a nation of immigrants; a collector of ideas, cultures, methods and people. The best people in the world have always come to us; those who would have been ground down if they had stayed in their countries of origin; those trapped by tradition, custom and class. We offered these “new Americans” no easy path; no sinecures. We offered them the opportunity to struggle with us, to compete. An opportunity so they could earn their own money, position and power.
Oh Yes, we often failed to be fair. Power was used to deny people their rights. America often failed to live up to its promises. It was seduced by Socialism– the idea that one could live off another’s labors. It was broken with strife, bound by petty regulations, stifled by an unfree press, indoctrinated by leftists in government run schools. And we taxed exorbitantly our greatest benefactors– those who’s enterprise created our wealth. Yet, hobbled at every joint by rules and regulations, limbs bound by foreign ideologies and creeds, we remained free. This freedom produced wealth that was the envy of the world.
The world has had three responses: to want to take that wealth away, to dissuade us from creating wealth or to copy our methods to make wealth of their own. The last method is how we make the world into our image. Oh! There will be regional differences just as Boston is different from Houston or LA. What we will share is a common culture; a common way of commerce, of regulating ourselves, of satisfying human needs.
People of wealth and power are always emulated; questions are asked of how they got there. People around the globe will copy us in the strangest ways. In Asia, they are copying our holidays and improving them. They have two St Valentine’s days in Japan, one for Girls– another for boys. Christmas is a season of good cheer, Thanksgiving a time for gratitude. Why are they adopting these celebrations, to please us? No. To please their rulers? No. Their governments are not pleased. They adopt these celebrations because they had no Holidays of their own. They adopted them for the reason they took to wearing sneakers and blue jeans– because they are fun.
We adopt the best of the world, change and mold it into our culture and return it to the world. They adopt our values and make it theirs and return it to us. Constant change, innovation and reappraisal are the watchwords. The world becomes ever closer, ever richer, ever freer.
Come on, Europe, join in!
“As for the US being in a bad light, yeah, but the US, at the time, was sick of constant European wars, and have been sick of them since Jefferson. I don’t think all of the US people were entirely clear on all of Hitler’s intentions.”
I’d just like to reiterate that it was not my argument that painted the USA in a bad light, it was Set’s argument (that Britain made WW2 worse by not going to war against the Nazis earlier).
If you read Chamberlain’s speeches, etc, you’ll find precisely the same attitude in them as you show, above. WWI only ended in 1918, and every living adult remembered it, especially in nightmares. It was not like previous wars. As for being clear on Hitler’s intentions, it’s not the case that all the British people were clear about them, either. Most people in Britain knew very little about them – how could they? Until 1939, Hitler’s forces were not using blitzkreig and his politicians were adept at pretending to seek a diplomatic solution. The western part of Czechoslovakia, for example, had always been disputed and most of the people there were basically German. Initially, Hitler and his stated intentions could appear reasonable to people who didn’t know what was going on inside Germany.
Angilion, Please get a dictionary. Neither arrogance nor hypocrisy has the definition you think it has. And neither applies to me.
I am neither proud nor haughty. The facts are evident that America is supreme in the world militarily, economically and culturally. New York, not Paris, the center of the arts now. Artists always suck up to their patrons, and the patrons are in America. Sorry, just the facts.
Nor am I insincere. I make no pretense at virtue; I am what I am; I believe what I believe. And I say so. Do I disagree that America is an Empire? Yes. Do I believe that a cabal of European authoritarian intellectuals conspire to defame America? Yes. By any means necessary– fair or foul– logical or illogical? Yes. Need I copy their specious arguments? No. I prefer to say the truth, and reveal the lies– just as Mr Whittle did on empire.
BWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
WE INTERRUPT THIS FLAME WAR FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Please see the new post at the top of the home page.
There are “Linker” blogs and there are “thinker” blogs. The Linkers are cleaning our clocks. If this continues, they will get all the hot chicks and the Thinkers will die out. Then Michael Moore will reign supreme, astride the globe like a ravaging Goliath, and we nothing but slaves working in his underground Jelly Donut mines.
Read the top post, get out there and vote, and don’t come back until we’ve struck a blow for all that is good and decent in this world.
WE NOW RETURN YOU TO “SECRETS OF THE MAGNA CARTA” ON EJECT-TV.
PS Have a happy New Year. Now all of you go outside and get some air and some sunlight before we all take this too seriously and say something we’ll regret later.
Happy New Year, Mr. Whittle, Angilion, and everyone else reading this blog!
“But the point I’m aiming to make is that nations, and their people, are only fully responsible for actions that they themselves either aid and abet (knowledgeably or negligently), or actually commit”
“We’re on the same wavelength here. By this token, US citizens should reflect on things like School of the Americas, the Cold War US funding of unpalatable regimes purely because they weren’t Communist, and the 80s adventures in Central/Latin America.”
Smedley,
Well, we’re on a similar wavelength here, possibly, but I don’t think we’re on exactly the same one. To be sure, however, allow me to clarify my argument a bit, please.
The point that I was attempting to make is that nations (and their citizens) are not automatically responsible for the crimes of another nation (and its citizens) simply because they gave aid to that nation. Nations are only responsible for such if they gave that aid with a reasonable suspicion that that aid would likely be used to further those (or at the very least, similar) crimes, or knew damned good and well that it would be.
A good case in point is, in fact, the U.S. Army School of the Americas that you mentioned. The typical argument against the SOA (and against its successor, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) goes something like this one, taken from the homepage of School of the Americas Watch website (www.soaw.org):
“The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American soldiers in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America.”
Now, all of this is true, so far as it goes… which is not very far, really. It implies, for instance, that the only things the SOA trained its students in were “combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics”, which is not even remotely the case. The SOA also trained people in things like helicopter maintenance and land-mine removal, among many other things. What it did *not* do, as near as I can tell, is actually train and advise people to commit human rights violations as a general matter of policy. Or if they did, they must have been monumentally incompetent at it, considering these statements (as two examples) taken from a manual reprinted by the SOA Watch, and dealing with how to handle the seperation of covert intelligence employees:
“There are many disadvantages in the use of threats of physical violence or true physical abuse.” (Handeling (sic) of Sources, Chapter 10, section 2 subsection b.)
“DO NOT make threats of physical violence or use violence or physical abuse.” (ibid, Chapter 10, Summary, subsection k.)
(found on this page: http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=56)
Now, I’m not trying to say that the School never did anything the slightest bit shady, or never failed to properly train its students that atrocities are not an acceptable way to do business. I am saying, however, that the SOA trained a great many people, during a period of over five decades, in a great many things, but the stereotypical view of it being a “School of Assassins” is at the very least a gross exaggeration. In my opinion, at least. People who went there may have become assassins later, yes. Whether they were trained there to *be* assassins is another matter entirely.
Which leads us to the second part of the SOA Watch’s argument; namely, that graduates of the SOA have committed human rights violations. This is true. But the implication that because the offenders graduated from the SOA, they violated human rights, is at the very least shaky.
Out of the over 60,000 graduates of the School of the Americas since 1946, roughly one percent of them have been implicated in or convicted of human rights violations. Now, if the students of the School of the Americas were being routinely and systematically inculcated with the attitude that human rights are something to be ignored whenever it’s convenient, which seems to be the prevailing belief, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that that percentage would be much higher? But instead, it would appear that the opposite is true, considering the fact that 99% of the graduates have *not* been implicated in or convicted of human rights violations.
But in any case, the mere fact that someone who graduated from the School of the Americas and later committed an atrocity is not prima facie evidence that they did so *because* they were a graduate of the SOA, or even that the training they received was a material aid to their doing so. In other words, the fact that the SOA trained someone who later became a criminal is not proof that it trained and/or advised them *to* become a criminal.
And by any stretch of the imagination, the link between some, at least, of the graduates of the SOA who did later commit crimes is tenuous at best. For instance, let’s take this example from the SOA Watch’s website:
“COL Leopoldo Hipolito Hincapi
“With great power comes great responsibility”
Well, Bill Whittle does claim to like Spiderman…
All of us “Yuropeons”, “Amerikans”, “Yanks” (or “Damn Yankees”, as Southerners called us Northerners during and after our Civil War), “Limeys”, “Frogs”, “Krauts”, “Dagos”, “Polacks”, etc. — i.e., all of us of the West — had better learn to hang together or else, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately (as Benjamin Franklin put it so well). Happy New Year!
And, once again, I hope my friend Angilion keeps posting here. The latest comments that I have seen in reply to him only seem to corroborate his point, and he can frame his answers better than I can. Happy New Year to Angi, Bill Whittle, and everybody else reading this blog (and Rachel’s, too).
Dead (and Living, and Yet Unborn) White (and Black and Everything In Between) European (_including!_ American) Males (and Females) — unite! You have nothing to lose but the chains of Political Correctness! You have a civilization to save! Happy New Year!
>I don’t know why the British film industry didn’t make a film about the capture of U-571, though I suspect it’s because they couldn’t afford to do so.
I think this sentence shows a lot about your background in the subject.
It was standard practice for the German navy to skip numbers when designating U-Boats. There never was a U-571 serving in the German Navy during World War II, or if there was, it somehow escaped the incredibly detailed, virtually torpedo-by-torpedo record of the Battle of the Atlantic in “Hitler’s U-Boat War.”
You are criticizing an American film for showing Americans taking over a fictional submarine on the grounds that it was actually the British who took over this same, entirely fictional, submarine.