Bad use of links in posts July 2, 2005 1:24 PM Subscribe
Huh, that's lame. I pulled a few of the "America sucks more every day" posts from threads where it wouldn't confuse things. I'll try to write the guy an email and see what's up his butt.
posted by jessamyn at 1:31 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 1:31 PM on July 2, 2005
I have a feeling he/she likes Canada...
Oh, and you forgot a few
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43073#967352
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43001#964914
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42992#964727
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42904#961550
posted by jmd82 at 1:36 PM on July 2, 2005
Oh, and you forgot a few
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43073#967352
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43001#964914
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42992#964727
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42904#961550
posted by jmd82 at 1:36 PM on July 2, 2005
The bombing begins in five minutes, andrew.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:15 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:15 PM on July 2, 2005
Isn't what wakko types just a summary of what 98% of the posts on metafilter say anyways? Why punish those who know the advantage of not being long winded?
posted by Stynxno at 2:47 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by Stynxno at 2:47 PM on July 2, 2005
Isn't what wakko types just a summary of what 98% of the posts on metafilter say anyways?
Exactly. He's to the point, and I, for one, applaud his brevity.
posted by justgary at 2:51 PM on July 2, 2005
Exactly. He's to the point, and I, for one, applaud his brevity.
posted by justgary at 2:51 PM on July 2, 2005
same
posted by puke & cry at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by puke & cry at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2005
Wakko used to like ALL the United States and their Capitals.
posted by wendell at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by wendell at 2:52 PM on July 2, 2005
I pulled a few of the "America sucks more every day" posts from threads where it wouldn't confuse things.
well, aren't you special.
posted by quonsar at 3:34 PM on July 2, 2005
well, aren't you special.
posted by quonsar at 3:34 PM on July 2, 2005
as i'm ducking the bombs, let me point out in his defense that it's a lot easier to like you people as individuals than it is en masse.
so at some point (quite regularly, actually, if you deal with americans day to day) you start to think how the country can act that way, and whether or not you should start to hold the americans you know responsible for it. i mean, you stay there. you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
what do you want? seems like the best of both worlds, sometimes - like you care just a bit too much about staying rich, to this uninformed foreigner. look at the number of threads on askme about buying stuff. even bloody suvs. the stupid discussions about how hard life is with only one car. the handmade wedding rings. even knives. how much do you people spend on kitchen knives for chrissakes? or nasa technology matresses. hello? and frigging designer notepads. ooo look at me i have a moleskine. yes, you, keswick.
don't look at me. i don't know what you should do. as i said - ain't my country. i'm not offended by wakko's posts. but it seems like maybe you should be doing something more than preaching to the converted here (and then complaining if someone says the same thing too loud).
i'm sorry. individually, you're some of the friendliest people on earth. you have some beautiful cities. and some amazing riches. but, but, but....
and no, the answer isn't more fucking propoganda from amberglow and matteo.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2005 [1 favorite]
so at some point (quite regularly, actually, if you deal with americans day to day) you start to think how the country can act that way, and whether or not you should start to hold the americans you know responsible for it. i mean, you stay there. you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
what do you want? seems like the best of both worlds, sometimes - like you care just a bit too much about staying rich, to this uninformed foreigner. look at the number of threads on askme about buying stuff. even bloody suvs. the stupid discussions about how hard life is with only one car. the handmade wedding rings. even knives. how much do you people spend on kitchen knives for chrissakes? or nasa technology matresses. hello? and frigging designer notepads. ooo look at me i have a moleskine. yes, you, keswick.
don't look at me. i don't know what you should do. as i said - ain't my country. i'm not offended by wakko's posts. but it seems like maybe you should be doing something more than preaching to the converted here (and then complaining if someone says the same thing too loud).
i'm sorry. individually, you're some of the friendliest people on earth. you have some beautiful cities. and some amazing riches. but, but, but....
and no, the answer isn't more fucking propoganda from amberglow and matteo.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2005 [1 favorite]
Ah. So it seems Mr. wakko thinks America sucks more everyday. I believe I can understand how he may have formed that opinion. His repetitiveness on the issue is certainly somewhat less than stimulating although - and I'm speaking purely personally here - I found it less tedious and predictable than A FUCKING METATALK POST WHINING ABOUT IT.
This has been my "Jesus Arsing Christ In A Smart Car, Why The Blistering Fuck Won't You Just Let People Fucking BE Or Else Slag Them Where They Lie, Metawhiners?" post of the week. I will never stop making them unless and until I am banned. NEVER, do you hear me?
My word, this Cab Sauv is decidedly impertinent. I believe a cheap cigar may be in order.
posted by Decani at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2005
This has been my "Jesus Arsing Christ In A Smart Car, Why The Blistering Fuck Won't You Just Let People Fucking BE Or Else Slag Them Where They Lie, Metawhiners?" post of the week. I will never stop making them unless and until I am banned. NEVER, do you hear me?
My word, this Cab Sauv is decidedly impertinent. I believe a cheap cigar may be in order.
posted by Decani at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2005
Wow. I got my own thread. You guys are great.
I'm just being succinct.
posted by wakko at 4:13 PM on July 2, 2005
I'm just being succinct.
posted by wakko at 4:13 PM on July 2, 2005
so at some point (quite regularly, actually, if you deal with americans day to day) you start to think how the country can act that way, and whether or not you should start to hold the americans you know responsible for it. i mean, you stay there. you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
Jesus Christ.
*grits teeth, seems to remember andrew cooke is usually nice and not a jerk*
posted by mlis at 4:45 PM on July 2, 2005
Jesus Christ.
*grits teeth, seems to remember andrew cooke is usually nice and not a jerk*
posted by mlis at 4:45 PM on July 2, 2005
yo, andrew cooke, get bent, you fuck.
Even a post like this actually contributes more to the discussion at hand than does a repetitively redundant repeat of "America sucks more every day". So kudos, Hat Maui, and andrew cooke, get bent. Maybe the issue isn't "Stop badmouthing the USA" but "Stop posting the same thing over and over uselessly."
posted by Aknaton at 5:08 PM on July 2, 2005
Even a post like this actually contributes more to the discussion at hand than does a repetitively redundant repeat of "America sucks more every day". So kudos, Hat Maui, and andrew cooke, get bent. Maybe the issue isn't "Stop badmouthing the USA" but "Stop posting the same thing over and over uselessly."
posted by Aknaton at 5:08 PM on July 2, 2005
Andrew, the US is my home. I disagree with the leadership, and I've tried to get others elected but that didn't work out. You can go ahead and attack my government all you want, I don't care. But when you attack my country you also attack its founding principles and the people and places I love, and I'm not going to just sit here and take it.
posted by cali at 5:14 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by cali at 5:14 PM on July 2, 2005
Aknaton:
When the news stories repetitively, repeatedly deal with yet another right that's been taken from us, or yet another politician getting away with murder, or yet another misguided crusade against whatever the faux-Christian right saw on television over the weekend, what more needs to be said than those five little words? Isn't most of the discussion in threads dealing with these stories merely an exercise in mental masturbation and me-tooism?
What's wrong with summing it up in one line?
Furthermore, who appointed you the arbiter of what is and is not a "useful" comment? Would you like to define for us what one should look like? I mean, let's be fair here: how many other one-line comments are really all that "useful" and substantial; how many really engender further discussion and debate? (How many others inspire MeTa threads?) I won't even mention comments that are just image links.
America sucking isn't my fault; I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, when I sees 'em.
- A.P.
posted by wakko at 6:18 PM on July 2, 2005
When the news stories repetitively, repeatedly deal with yet another right that's been taken from us, or yet another politician getting away with murder, or yet another misguided crusade against whatever the faux-Christian right saw on television over the weekend, what more needs to be said than those five little words? Isn't most of the discussion in threads dealing with these stories merely an exercise in mental masturbation and me-tooism?
What's wrong with summing it up in one line?
Furthermore, who appointed you the arbiter of what is and is not a "useful" comment? Would you like to define for us what one should look like? I mean, let's be fair here: how many other one-line comments are really all that "useful" and substantial; how many really engender further discussion and debate? (How many others inspire MeTa threads?) I won't even mention comments that are just image links.
America sucking isn't my fault; I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, when I sees 'em.
- A.P.
posted by wakko at 6:18 PM on July 2, 2005
What's wrong with summing it up in one line?
It's boring as hell for one. In the fight against injustice, banality is not the preffered weapon.
posted by jonmc at 6:24 PM on July 2, 2005
It's boring as hell for one. In the fight against injustice, banality is not the preffered weapon.
posted by jonmc at 6:24 PM on July 2, 2005
*thwap*
Oh...damn...andrew cooke, you got us, right in the pride.
posted by gramschmidt at 6:28 PM on July 2, 2005
Oh...damn...andrew cooke, you got us, right in the pride.
posted by gramschmidt at 6:28 PM on July 2, 2005
How are we fighting against anything here? We're posting silly little messages on a website. Let's not give ourselves more credit than we deserve.
posted by wakko at 6:29 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by wakko at 6:29 PM on July 2, 2005
Would that include yourself, wakko?
Thousands of people read this site everyday, our little spewings affect people, whether we like it or not. But ultimately, my objection to your comments is aesthetic. Quite simply, you're boring.
Of course, you'll retort that "what does it matter if I'm boring? I'm right, dammit!" which contradicts your own disregard for your own statements.
posted by jonmc at 6:32 PM on July 2, 2005
Thousands of people read this site everyday, our little spewings affect people, whether we like it or not. But ultimately, my objection to your comments is aesthetic. Quite simply, you're boring.
Of course, you'll retort that "what does it matter if I'm boring? I'm right, dammit!" which contradicts your own disregard for your own statements.
posted by jonmc at 6:32 PM on July 2, 2005
It would appear I'm quite obviously not boring to you.
And if you've got objections to my one-line posts (of which I've made about a half dozen, in addition to my other more substantial posts), do you also object in kind to any other such posts?
Or is this a case of familiarity breeding contempt? I am honestly curious. If I posted it in different languages, would it help matters for you? I could try it in verse. Set it to music, perhaps?
I must admit, objecting to a handful of my posts for their aesthetics is about the last thing I ever expected...
posted by wakko at 6:50 PM on July 2, 2005
And if you've got objections to my one-line posts (of which I've made about a half dozen, in addition to my other more substantial posts), do you also object in kind to any other such posts?
Or is this a case of familiarity breeding contempt? I am honestly curious. If I posted it in different languages, would it help matters for you? I could try it in verse. Set it to music, perhaps?
I must admit, objecting to a handful of my posts for their aesthetics is about the last thing I ever expected...
posted by wakko at 6:50 PM on July 2, 2005
wakko, in what universe is posting the same line over and over not boring? I was unaware of your existence until this thread, quite frankly, so I can assure you it's no familiarity breeding contempt. But if you're going to make cranky, inflammatory comments (which I oftn indulge in myself) at least make them interesting.
posted by jonmc at 7:10 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by jonmc at 7:10 PM on July 2, 2005
Taken out of context, certainly, each one looks the same.
Unfortunately, each comment refers to separate, distinct instances of what I believe to be America slipping further and further, inexorably, into a pit of utter despair and suckdom. Go ahead and read the articles they link to if you don't believe me. My brevity in each discussion, though it may appear strangely similar in each case, really needs to be viewed in light of the situation it is in response to. Separating them from their discussion threads by pinpointing them with anchor tags merely serves to cheapen their impact and destroys the overarching theme behind them.
Surely, my snide little complaints in these threads are no more substantial than any others. I mean, what makes my six or seven one-line comments any more meaningful than any other posts by other users in these types of threads, posts which just say the same thing I say a little bit differently?
On the other hand, though, what makes them any less meaningful?
posted by wakko at 7:48 PM on July 2, 2005
Unfortunately, each comment refers to separate, distinct instances of what I believe to be America slipping further and further, inexorably, into a pit of utter despair and suckdom. Go ahead and read the articles they link to if you don't believe me. My brevity in each discussion, though it may appear strangely similar in each case, really needs to be viewed in light of the situation it is in response to. Separating them from their discussion threads by pinpointing them with anchor tags merely serves to cheapen their impact and destroys the overarching theme behind them.
Surely, my snide little complaints in these threads are no more substantial than any others. I mean, what makes my six or seven one-line comments any more meaningful than any other posts by other users in these types of threads, posts which just say the same thing I say a little bit differently?
On the other hand, though, what makes them any less meaningful?
posted by wakko at 7:48 PM on July 2, 2005
It would appear I'm quite obviously not boring to you.
No, boring would be the wrong word. Annoying in the same way that a know-it-all, pessimistic, puerile, self-satisfied teenager is. All the adults roll their eyes, but you go on and on.
If you want to make America better, shut the fuck up here and go door to door trying to talk some sense into the 50% of jesus-loving americans that think wal mart is a good idea, gay marraige is a bad idea, and voted for Bush. (Of course, they'll probably shoot you, which is why you're wasting your time on teh intarweb. Safer, and you get to preach to the choir.)
Surely, my snide little complaints in these threads are no more substantial than any others. I mean, what makes my six or seven one-line comments any more meaningful than any other posts by other users in these types of threads, posts which just say the same thing I say a little bit differently?
Again, you're fucking annoying. Go somewhere else and piss on things because you think you can. The adults were having a discussion. When you have a discussion, you make a statement, and then back it up with some facts or other information. Sharing information helps educate all. Therefore, your snide little statements are completely worthless and lacking any reason to be around here.
If you must piss, go piss in someone else's sandbox.
posted by SpecialK at 8:04 PM on July 2, 2005
No, boring would be the wrong word. Annoying in the same way that a know-it-all, pessimistic, puerile, self-satisfied teenager is. All the adults roll their eyes, but you go on and on.
If you want to make America better, shut the fuck up here and go door to door trying to talk some sense into the 50% of jesus-loving americans that think wal mart is a good idea, gay marraige is a bad idea, and voted for Bush. (Of course, they'll probably shoot you, which is why you're wasting your time on teh intarweb. Safer, and you get to preach to the choir.)
Surely, my snide little complaints in these threads are no more substantial than any others. I mean, what makes my six or seven one-line comments any more meaningful than any other posts by other users in these types of threads, posts which just say the same thing I say a little bit differently?
Again, you're fucking annoying. Go somewhere else and piss on things because you think you can. The adults were having a discussion. When you have a discussion, you make a statement, and then back it up with some facts or other information. Sharing information helps educate all. Therefore, your snide little statements are completely worthless and lacking any reason to be around here.
If you must piss, go piss in someone else's sandbox.
posted by SpecialK at 8:04 PM on July 2, 2005
Way to answer the question, SpecialK. And such a civil tone. You old-timers sure do know how to make a guy feel welcome.
Since you ignored my question, though, I'll ask it again: How are a handful of little one-line posts from me any different than any other one-line memes on this or any other discussion site?
posted by wakko at 8:11 PM on July 2, 2005
Since you ignored my question, though, I'll ask it again: How are a handful of little one-line posts from me any different than any other one-line memes on this or any other discussion site?
posted by wakko at 8:11 PM on July 2, 2005
How are a handful of little one-line posts from me any different than any other one-line memes on this or any other discussion site?
Well usually people who replay the MeFi one-liners here [pancakes/vibrate/cameras &c] have already contributed in some other meaningful way and so are not looked at as merely one-note axe-grinders. It's entirely possible you have a complex critique of America, as andrew cooke seems to. However, we don't know because the bulk of your contributions have been going into threads about US politics and making comments that are too short and too lacking in context to be seen as much of anything.
Even quonsar gets beyond the fish/pants thing once in a while.
posted by jessamyn at 8:22 PM on July 2, 2005
Well usually people who replay the MeFi one-liners here [pancakes/vibrate/cameras &c] have already contributed in some other meaningful way and so are not looked at as merely one-note axe-grinders. It's entirely possible you have a complex critique of America, as andrew cooke seems to. However, we don't know because the bulk of your contributions have been going into threads about US politics and making comments that are too short and too lacking in context to be seen as much of anything.
Even quonsar gets beyond the fish/pants thing once in a while.
posted by jessamyn at 8:22 PM on July 2, 2005
I was with you for a while there wakko, but you're annoying now.
posted by puke & cry at 8:24 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by puke & cry at 8:24 PM on July 2, 2005
Thank you, quonsar. This thread can now end on a positive note!!
posted by wakko at 8:26 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by wakko at 8:26 PM on July 2, 2005
LOL
posted by George W. Bush at 8:28 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by George W. Bush at 8:28 PM on July 2, 2005
It's entirely possible you have a complex critique of America, as andrew cooke seems to
i hope you're not referring to his nonsensical statement upthread. if you were referring to that, i hope you're being facetious. because unsubstantiated complaints about consumerism or whatever he was on about are just about the furthest thing from 'complex critiques.'
knee, reflex hammer, jerk. andrew, under'cooke'd commentary, jerk.
posted by Hat Maui at 8:50 PM on July 2, 2005
i hope you're not referring to his nonsensical statement upthread. if you were referring to that, i hope you're being facetious. because unsubstantiated complaints about consumerism or whatever he was on about are just about the furthest thing from 'complex critiques.'
knee, reflex hammer, jerk. andrew, under'cooke'd commentary, jerk.
posted by Hat Maui at 8:50 PM on July 2, 2005
andrew cooke says it well. What he says reflects the feelings of many of us out here in the rest of the world, ranging from the pro-American to anti-, who watch and wait in hope for the pendulum to swing back.
yo, andrew cooke, get bent, you fuck.
You, though, Hat Maui, I'd ban from this community in a freakin' heartbeat if I could for a comment like that.
In conclusion, and in the spirit of camaraderie, good humour and complex critiques: fuck America right in the rusty wrinkled rectum, my friends!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 PM on July 2, 2005
yo, andrew cooke, get bent, you fuck.
You, though, Hat Maui, I'd ban from this community in a freakin' heartbeat if I could for a comment like that.
In conclusion, and in the spirit of camaraderie, good humour and complex critiques: fuck America right in the rusty wrinkled rectum, my friends!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 PM on July 2, 2005
Hat Maui, I believe you would be exhibit A in Andrew Cooke's argument.
you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
posted by puke & cry at 9:08 PM on July 2, 2005
you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
posted by puke & cry at 9:08 PM on July 2, 2005
Way to answer the question, SpecialK. And such a civil tone. You old-timers sure do know how to make a guy feel welcome.
Our purpose here is not to make you feel welcome. Our purpose here is not to be civil. Our purpose here is to talk things over and see if we can tease out enough of a kernel of truth to figure shit out. If you'd like to be welcome here, make yourself welcome by contributing positively to that purpose. The reason for my tone was because I have zero tolerance for stupidity, and an extremely low tolerance for the adolescent behaviour you've displayed in this thread.
Get this through your thick head right now: We, as a community, owe you nothing. Not one red cent. Not even a warm welcome or a positive critique of your participation. The ball is in your court. You've fumbled it pretty badly so far.
Since you ignored my question, though, I'll ask it again: How are a handful of little one-line posts from me any different than any other one-line memes on this or any other discussion site?
The other one-liners are usually pretty funny, for reasons you don't yet understand. People who contribute other one-liners or memes or hilarity have also contributed positively in other ways and fit into that category I mentioned above of 'have made themselves welcome'. Get in the way of the discussions by being puerile, though, and we might understandably get pissed. Quonsar, for instance, is welcome to tell my that he has fish in his pants, or that his fish happen to be spending the evening in my pants, any time he wants... mostly because he's contributed so to the information and culture of this site so profoundly over the past five years that he's welcome in my 'home' any time -- although I might leave the good china locked up. ;)
MetaFilter: Leave the good china locked up.
posted by SpecialK at 9:20 PM on July 2, 2005
Our purpose here is not to make you feel welcome. Our purpose here is not to be civil. Our purpose here is to talk things over and see if we can tease out enough of a kernel of truth to figure shit out. If you'd like to be welcome here, make yourself welcome by contributing positively to that purpose. The reason for my tone was because I have zero tolerance for stupidity, and an extremely low tolerance for the adolescent behaviour you've displayed in this thread.
Get this through your thick head right now: We, as a community, owe you nothing. Not one red cent. Not even a warm welcome or a positive critique of your participation. The ball is in your court. You've fumbled it pretty badly so far.
Since you ignored my question, though, I'll ask it again: How are a handful of little one-line posts from me any different than any other one-line memes on this or any other discussion site?
The other one-liners are usually pretty funny, for reasons you don't yet understand. People who contribute other one-liners or memes or hilarity have also contributed positively in other ways and fit into that category I mentioned above of 'have made themselves welcome'. Get in the way of the discussions by being puerile, though, and we might understandably get pissed. Quonsar, for instance, is welcome to tell my that he has fish in his pants, or that his fish happen to be spending the evening in my pants, any time he wants... mostly because he's contributed so to the information and culture of this site so profoundly over the past five years that he's welcome in my 'home' any time -- although I might leave the good china locked up. ;)
MetaFilter: Leave the good china locked up.
posted by SpecialK at 9:20 PM on July 2, 2005
wakko, I know what you're doing. You get your little viral advertising campaign going, design "America sucks more every day" t-shirts at CafePress, pretty soon you are getting quoted by celebrities, attacked by Fox News, you license your phrase to Dyson vacuum cleaners, you get a magazine cover as "America's King of Suck", then you pull out the "America Sucks More Every Day" screenplay you've been working on and get Tom Cruise to star in it, suddenly you're on Fortune's Richest Celebrities list and andrew cooke is more pissed at you than the Average American. Well, you're not going to get away with it. I've already registered americasucksmoreeveryday.com, .org AND .us (no, I didn't use GoDaddy). And don't you get ideas either, Hat Maui, I've also registered getbentyoufuck.com and .xxx (bwahahahahahaha...)
posted by wendell at 9:35 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by wendell at 9:35 PM on July 2, 2005
Hey, andrew cooke! SpecialK has GOOD china! Friggin' materialistic rich American.
Then again, "Leave the good China locked up" could be a rallying cry to defend Taiwan.
posted by wendell at 9:38 PM on July 2, 2005
Then again, "Leave the good China locked up" could be a rallying cry to defend Taiwan.
posted by wendell at 9:38 PM on July 2, 2005
i don't know. it seems like every time i pick my nose, i can get my finger in there farther than the last time.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:48 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:48 PM on July 2, 2005
You, though, Hat Maui, I'd ban from this community in a freakin' heartbeat if I could for a comment like that.
well, cluck cluck. you're telling me that you think his assessment of mefites consumerism applies only to americans? that there's not a consumer culture that's every bit as venal and superfluous in fucking europe? australia? wherever you're from? pray tell, where is this shangri-la in which you dwell where everyone is egalitarian and consumerism went the way of the dodo?
your impotent wish to ban me is interesting. why am i not entitled to my opinion about andrew cooke's febrile and poorly substantiated rant?
you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
okay, i'm game, the usa has sunk low. but please tell me why this doesn't apply elsewhere? or are you simply referring to the actions of our government, which very few of us support? is the answer that all of us should move to your xanadu of a sharing and caring nation?
bottom line, sweeping critical statements about americans are offensive to americans. if i were to make a sweeping statement about whatever countries you are from, stavros and andrew, you'd be justified in getting angry about it, as i did when tarred with the 'americans suck' brush.
insert your nationality into andrew cooke's statement and see if doesn't raise your hackles, stavros.
Hat Maui, I believe you would be exhibit A in Andrew Cooke's argument.
you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
posted by puke & cry at 9:08 PM PST on July 2
that statement doesn't even make sense. we complain about u.s. policies and therefore we can't object if someone attacks americans? andrew cooke wasn't pointing out 'how low the usa has sunk' in any meaningful way; he was calling us consumerist as if his pot was made from finest alabaster. nanny nanny boo boo.
while we're on the topic of 'responsibility' for whatever he thinks we're responsible for, what about the british government? do we hold british people responsible for the smokescreen that tony blair created for bush, legitimizing his war? of course not. so fuck your holier-than-thou 'holding americans you know responsible' shit, andrew, and your 'fuck-america-in-the-ass-but-i'd-ban-you-from-my-precious-community-because-you-told-someone-off,' stavros.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:52 PM on July 2, 2005
well, cluck cluck. you're telling me that you think his assessment of mefites consumerism applies only to americans? that there's not a consumer culture that's every bit as venal and superfluous in fucking europe? australia? wherever you're from? pray tell, where is this shangri-la in which you dwell where everyone is egalitarian and consumerism went the way of the dodo?
your impotent wish to ban me is interesting. why am i not entitled to my opinion about andrew cooke's febrile and poorly substantiated rant?
you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
okay, i'm game, the usa has sunk low. but please tell me why this doesn't apply elsewhere? or are you simply referring to the actions of our government, which very few of us support? is the answer that all of us should move to your xanadu of a sharing and caring nation?
bottom line, sweeping critical statements about americans are offensive to americans. if i were to make a sweeping statement about whatever countries you are from, stavros and andrew, you'd be justified in getting angry about it, as i did when tarred with the 'americans suck' brush.
insert your nationality into andrew cooke's statement and see if doesn't raise your hackles, stavros.
Hat Maui, I believe you would be exhibit A in Andrew Cooke's argument.
you moan, but you still get pissy if someone points out just how low the usa has sunk.
posted by puke & cry at 9:08 PM PST on July 2
that statement doesn't even make sense. we complain about u.s. policies and therefore we can't object if someone attacks americans? andrew cooke wasn't pointing out 'how low the usa has sunk' in any meaningful way; he was calling us consumerist as if his pot was made from finest alabaster. nanny nanny boo boo.
while we're on the topic of 'responsibility' for whatever he thinks we're responsible for, what about the british government? do we hold british people responsible for the smokescreen that tony blair created for bush, legitimizing his war? of course not. so fuck your holier-than-thou 'holding americans you know responsible' shit, andrew, and your 'fuck-america-in-the-ass-but-i'd-ban-you-from-my-precious-community-because-you-told-someone-off,' stavros.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:52 PM on July 2, 2005
wendell:
You figured it out. I am going to be bigger than Joe Francis. Just watch!
posted by wakko at 10:02 PM on July 2, 2005
You figured it out. I am going to be bigger than Joe Francis. Just watch!
posted by wakko at 10:02 PM on July 2, 2005
This is one dumbass thread.
I usually take the "if you have nothing nice to say...etc." route, but I am really surprised at the people who are attacking wakko. I'm sure you are nice folks and all (except for Hot Maui), but some of the comments you are posting here me think you might be the type of Americans that give Americans a bad name.
His comments are harmless. What in your world made you think this was worth a post, saucy intruder?
posted by jaronson at 10:32 PM on July 2, 2005
I usually take the "if you have nothing nice to say...etc." route, but I am really surprised at the people who are attacking wakko. I'm sure you are nice folks and all (except for Hot Maui), but some of the comments you are posting here me think you might be the type of Americans that give Americans a bad name.
His comments are harmless. What in your world made you think this was worth a post, saucy intruder?
posted by jaronson at 10:32 PM on July 2, 2005
Chickens don't have hackles, I don't think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:34 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:34 PM on July 2, 2005
Chickens don't have hackles, I don't think.
you're not sure?
chicken, know thyself!
I'm sure you are nice folks and all (except for Hot Maui)
jaronson, i'm nice as hell. fuck you.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:12 PM on July 2, 2005
you're not sure?
chicken, know thyself!
I'm sure you are nice folks and all (except for Hot Maui)
jaronson, i'm nice as hell. fuck you.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:12 PM on July 2, 2005
I have a spicy chicken burrito right now, does that count?
posted by wakko at 11:24 PM on July 2, 2005
posted by wakko at 11:24 PM on July 2, 2005
Andrew, I suggest a suicide bombing run at the local US embassy. That'll make you feel better.
I have no idea why anyone doesn't see that jonmc has the right perspective on this matter. Sprinkling the site with the same one-line comments as one's majority contribution (or within a short period of time) has never been acceptable and has gotten people banned in the past. The content is mostly irrelevant.
I don't agree with andrew cooke, but I'd like to point out that most other countries and peoples are far, far more stereotyped and villified than America is when their policies are very unpopular worldwide. People here and everywhere, whenever a country is unpopular, whether it is Yugoslavia or the USSR, will villify the inhabitants and speak of them in very stereotyped and bigoted terms. I'm not saying it's right, in fact I think it's very wrong. But I am saying that we (Americans) are not subject to the bigotry and hatred than almost any other people are or would be. We have the unusual advantage of projecting both our cultural images and our individual personalities around the world. The rest of the world watches films with the plucky, honest, good-hearted American hero. The rest of the world can't get away from being exposed to individual Americans who make it very difficult to villify and stereotype and hate in the way that is usually pretty easy. For the most part, people the world over, in relative terms, bend over backwards to accomodate hostile US policies as being not representative of individual Americans. I think it'd be better if it worked this way all the time, with everyone, because for the most part people the world over are much the same, and are good, and are deserving our respect and friendship regarldess of what their governments do. But it isn't this way, mostly, and at least we Americans can be grateful that for whatever reasons, the rest of the world tends to like and trust individual Americans, regardless of what our government does.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:12 AM on July 3, 2005
I have no idea why anyone doesn't see that jonmc has the right perspective on this matter. Sprinkling the site with the same one-line comments as one's majority contribution (or within a short period of time) has never been acceptable and has gotten people banned in the past. The content is mostly irrelevant.
I don't agree with andrew cooke, but I'd like to point out that most other countries and peoples are far, far more stereotyped and villified than America is when their policies are very unpopular worldwide. People here and everywhere, whenever a country is unpopular, whether it is Yugoslavia or the USSR, will villify the inhabitants and speak of them in very stereotyped and bigoted terms. I'm not saying it's right, in fact I think it's very wrong. But I am saying that we (Americans) are not subject to the bigotry and hatred than almost any other people are or would be. We have the unusual advantage of projecting both our cultural images and our individual personalities around the world. The rest of the world watches films with the plucky, honest, good-hearted American hero. The rest of the world can't get away from being exposed to individual Americans who make it very difficult to villify and stereotype and hate in the way that is usually pretty easy. For the most part, people the world over, in relative terms, bend over backwards to accomodate hostile US policies as being not representative of individual Americans. I think it'd be better if it worked this way all the time, with everyone, because for the most part people the world over are much the same, and are good, and are deserving our respect and friendship regarldess of what their governments do. But it isn't this way, mostly, and at least we Americans can be grateful that for whatever reasons, the rest of the world tends to like and trust individual Americans, regardless of what our government does.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:12 AM on July 3, 2005
at least we Americans can be grateful that for whatever reasons, the rest of the world tends to like and trust individual Americans, regardless of what our government does.
This is true, and is something I've said many times before. But it is not true to the extent that you claim, any more, I don't think, out here in the world.
I remain uncertain to what degree individual citizens of a democratic nation can and should be held responsible for the policies of the government they elect and the actions of their nation in the aggregate. 'Not at all' doesn't seem like the right answer, but neither does the opposite.
Difficult. For my part, as I've said before, I may revile the nation, but I do not harbour any animosity towards its citizens. Most of 'em, anyway.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:48 AM on July 3, 2005
This is true, and is something I've said many times before. But it is not true to the extent that you claim, any more, I don't think, out here in the world.
I remain uncertain to what degree individual citizens of a democratic nation can and should be held responsible for the policies of the government they elect and the actions of their nation in the aggregate. 'Not at all' doesn't seem like the right answer, but neither does the opposite.
Difficult. For my part, as I've said before, I may revile the nation, but I do not harbour any animosity towards its citizens. Most of 'em, anyway.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:48 AM on July 3, 2005
I guess I'd like to say something to the andrew cookes and stravrosthewonderchickens out there.
As leftist as my politics have ever been, I've never been a self-hating American. I've never hated the US and, in fact, I've mostly been very patriotic in the sense that I've believed very strongly in the liberal ideals that form the core of the founding of this country. Twelve years ago, I recall a long conversation with a Venezualan friend of mine where he was astonished that I was knowledgable about the US's sorry and repugnant history in Latin America, that I was aware of the many times the US has invaded and occupied various Latin American countries over the last 150 years. I made no excuses for this very illiberal, very anti-democratic history of American imperalism. But I also talked to him about other things the US has done, and examples of how the US has been a force for liberal, democratic values in the world. I thought that slowly but surely the US's foreign policy was moving more into line with core American values, more into line with what average Americans idealistically think it is and has been. I came away from that conversation with a certain optimism and pride.
These days, however, I sometimes think that I am capable of leaving the US and renouncing my citizenship. I am very close to giving up on my country, I am bitterly disapointed with it and many of its people. I am angry. But, you know, this is where I was born, this is where my family and friends are, this is a big part of my identity and it cannot be simply renounced. And could I somehow stop being an American but continue to be a New Mexican? Because New Mexico is truly and deeply my home and it's a part of my identity I will not surrender.
So what would you have me and people like me do? I vote against these leaders and their policies. I engage in public discourse against them, I join and support activist organizations that work against them. I am angry and feel betrayed by G W Bush and others. I feel guilt and shame for my part, unwilling but nevertheless still my responsibility, for these policies and actions. But what would you have me do? If I left the US my family and friends would remain here. I cannot change my past. I cannot erase this large portion of my identity. Stop and ask yourself what would you do in this position. You might understand why people elsewhere would be angry with you, but we are in some sense prisoners of the circumstances of our birth. I cannot stop being an American, not really. You should not explicitly or implicitly ask me to hate myself for those parts of myself which are key to my identity but are things in which I never had a choice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:52 AM on July 3, 2005
As leftist as my politics have ever been, I've never been a self-hating American. I've never hated the US and, in fact, I've mostly been very patriotic in the sense that I've believed very strongly in the liberal ideals that form the core of the founding of this country. Twelve years ago, I recall a long conversation with a Venezualan friend of mine where he was astonished that I was knowledgable about the US's sorry and repugnant history in Latin America, that I was aware of the many times the US has invaded and occupied various Latin American countries over the last 150 years. I made no excuses for this very illiberal, very anti-democratic history of American imperalism. But I also talked to him about other things the US has done, and examples of how the US has been a force for liberal, democratic values in the world. I thought that slowly but surely the US's foreign policy was moving more into line with core American values, more into line with what average Americans idealistically think it is and has been. I came away from that conversation with a certain optimism and pride.
These days, however, I sometimes think that I am capable of leaving the US and renouncing my citizenship. I am very close to giving up on my country, I am bitterly disapointed with it and many of its people. I am angry. But, you know, this is where I was born, this is where my family and friends are, this is a big part of my identity and it cannot be simply renounced. And could I somehow stop being an American but continue to be a New Mexican? Because New Mexico is truly and deeply my home and it's a part of my identity I will not surrender.
So what would you have me and people like me do? I vote against these leaders and their policies. I engage in public discourse against them, I join and support activist organizations that work against them. I am angry and feel betrayed by G W Bush and others. I feel guilt and shame for my part, unwilling but nevertheless still my responsibility, for these policies and actions. But what would you have me do? If I left the US my family and friends would remain here. I cannot change my past. I cannot erase this large portion of my identity. Stop and ask yourself what would you do in this position. You might understand why people elsewhere would be angry with you, but we are in some sense prisoners of the circumstances of our birth. I cannot stop being an American, not really. You should not explicitly or implicitly ask me to hate myself for those parts of myself which are key to my identity but are things in which I never had a choice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:52 AM on July 3, 2005
taz writes "Charmingly ambiguous."
*Carries taz ever so gently to the centre dais. Ensheaths her in a blue ribbon*
posted by peacay at 7:41 AM on July 3, 2005
*Carries taz ever so gently to the centre dais. Ensheaths her in a blue ribbon*
posted by peacay at 7:41 AM on July 3, 2005
So what would you have me and people like me do?
i don't know. i even said i didn't know.
let me put it this way - what would you have us do? some jerk just asked for suggestions for patriotic music on askme. we're all supposed to bite our tongues?
it's your country. you love it, apparently. you sort it out.
whatever you're doing, or not doing, it's not enough. either you take responsibility and fix it, or shut the fuck up and stop saying how wonderful the place is. you can't have it both ways.
what bugs me is the inconsistencies here. a lot of people say "hey, don't blame me, i don't like it, i didn't vote for it". but you're smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. you know this is largely about american consumption. yet you keep fucking consuming. just listen to yourselves. see the examples i gave.
as i said, it's a wonderful place. you're amazingly friendly. but there's some weird cognitive dissonance going on. you don't play patriotic music and love your country when it's shitting all over the place. you take it someplace quiet and explain things.
maybe, EB, you're the one perfect person, and it's everyone else. what i find so amazing is that everyone thinks they're the perfect person and it's always someone else. who is responsible? who are the smart-arsed educated (relatively) rich kids that alienated 51% of their country? who are the well-informed educated people in cities who should know better - and who vote democrat - but keep driving round in cars? do you really carpool? did you really go somewhere with a bit worse school so that you could use public transport? did you really buy the slightly less fancy food because it used less packaging? did you really choose your last job based on lving right or on making more?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:38 AM on July 3, 2005
i don't know. i even said i didn't know.
let me put it this way - what would you have us do? some jerk just asked for suggestions for patriotic music on askme. we're all supposed to bite our tongues?
it's your country. you love it, apparently. you sort it out.
whatever you're doing, or not doing, it's not enough. either you take responsibility and fix it, or shut the fuck up and stop saying how wonderful the place is. you can't have it both ways.
what bugs me is the inconsistencies here. a lot of people say "hey, don't blame me, i don't like it, i didn't vote for it". but you're smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. you know this is largely about american consumption. yet you keep fucking consuming. just listen to yourselves. see the examples i gave.
as i said, it's a wonderful place. you're amazingly friendly. but there's some weird cognitive dissonance going on. you don't play patriotic music and love your country when it's shitting all over the place. you take it someplace quiet and explain things.
maybe, EB, you're the one perfect person, and it's everyone else. what i find so amazing is that everyone thinks they're the perfect person and it's always someone else. who is responsible? who are the smart-arsed educated (relatively) rich kids that alienated 51% of their country? who are the well-informed educated people in cities who should know better - and who vote democrat - but keep driving round in cars? do you really carpool? did you really go somewhere with a bit worse school so that you could use public transport? did you really buy the slightly less fancy food because it used less packaging? did you really choose your last job based on lving right or on making more?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:38 AM on July 3, 2005
"you know this is largely about american consumption. yet you keep fucking consuming."
No it isn't. But even if it were, the rest of the developed world is just as guilty. Do Americans consume more than everyone else? Yes. But the difference between Americans and Europeans is insignificant compared to the difference between the developed world and the developing world. By the way, I don't own a car. Do you?
Anyway, it's apparent that you've already caricatured us and stopped thinking of us as individuals. You have your villains. You don't believe in "good Americans" any more than the Freepers believe in "good Muslims". I fight that impulse in myself, not indulge it. I fight it because it's the disease, not the cure. People are people are people. No nation is a nation of saints and no nation is a nation of villains. We could all find ourselves in each other's shoes.
I know someone who was in Hamburg at the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq. The people they knew there were horrified and angry at the US invasion. Why? Well, one reason oft-repeated was that it reminded them of the terrible suffering and injustice they remember from when they were bombed during WWII. Such is human nature.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:24 AM on July 3, 2005
No it isn't. But even if it were, the rest of the developed world is just as guilty. Do Americans consume more than everyone else? Yes. But the difference between Americans and Europeans is insignificant compared to the difference between the developed world and the developing world. By the way, I don't own a car. Do you?
Anyway, it's apparent that you've already caricatured us and stopped thinking of us as individuals. You have your villains. You don't believe in "good Americans" any more than the Freepers believe in "good Muslims". I fight that impulse in myself, not indulge it. I fight it because it's the disease, not the cure. People are people are people. No nation is a nation of saints and no nation is a nation of villains. We could all find ourselves in each other's shoes.
I know someone who was in Hamburg at the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq. The people they knew there were horrified and angry at the US invasion. Why? Well, one reason oft-repeated was that it reminded them of the terrible suffering and injustice they remember from when they were bombed during WWII. Such is human nature.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:24 AM on July 3, 2005
CBS News Sunday Morning had an interesting segment today:
AN AMERICAN DILEMMA
"Since at least the end of World War II, Americans have liked to think of themselves as “the good guys,” helping out countries and people in need, and being a role model for other nations. But during the past few years, the rest of the world may have been forming a different opinion. Jim Axelrod looks at America through the eyes of the world."
The show referenced The Pew Global Attitudes Project and its recent gobal survey - U.S. Image Up Slightly, But Still Negative.
posted by ericb at 10:44 AM on July 3, 2005
AN AMERICAN DILEMMA
"Since at least the end of World War II, Americans have liked to think of themselves as “the good guys,” helping out countries and people in need, and being a role model for other nations. But during the past few years, the rest of the world may have been forming a different opinion. Jim Axelrod looks at America through the eyes of the world."
The show referenced The Pew Global Attitudes Project and its recent gobal survey - U.S. Image Up Slightly, But Still Negative.
posted by ericb at 10:44 AM on July 3, 2005
"Since at least the end of World War II, Americans have liked to think of themselves as “the good guys,” helping out countries and people in need, and being a role model for other nations. But during the past few years, the rest of the world may have been forming a different opinion. Jim Axelrod looks at America through the eyes of the world."
This is key. Wanting to be "the good guys," and do the right thing is a natural and admirable human impulse. But, we've been led astray by a confusing political landscape and by cynical manipulation by the Bushes and Cheney's of the world to the point that when we think we're doing good, we're actually casuing damage. Our job is to somehow tap into that natural inclination towards good in the hearts of our citizenry (call me a pollyanna, but I believe it's there) and point it in the right direction.
posted by jonmc at 10:56 AM on July 3, 2005
This is key. Wanting to be "the good guys," and do the right thing is a natural and admirable human impulse. But, we've been led astray by a confusing political landscape and by cynical manipulation by the Bushes and Cheney's of the world to the point that when we think we're doing good, we're actually casuing damage. Our job is to somehow tap into that natural inclination towards good in the hearts of our citizenry (call me a pollyanna, but I believe it's there) and point it in the right direction.
posted by jonmc at 10:56 AM on July 3, 2005
let me put it this way - what would you have us do? some jerk just asked for suggestions for patriotic music on askme. we're all supposed to bite our tongues?
Yes. Or are you saying your inabilty to handle a fucking music question is somehow reasonable, and not at all evidence of you being a big baby.
peacay: Is Rice wearing blackface makeup in the painting? It looks like it to me, and it's pretty sleazy if thats the case.
posted by Snyder at 12:41 PM on July 3, 2005
Yes. Or are you saying your inabilty to handle a fucking music question is somehow reasonable, and not at all evidence of you being a big baby.
peacay: Is Rice wearing blackface makeup in the painting? It looks like it to me, and it's pretty sleazy if thats the case.
posted by Snyder at 12:41 PM on July 3, 2005
"Our job is to somehow tap into that natural inclination towards good in the hearts of our citizenry (call me a pollyanna, but I believe it's there) and point it in the right direction."
Americans, generally speaking, have always had the right instincts with regard to foreign policy. The problem, however, is that they've been and continue to be spectacularly ignorant of what the US's actual foreign policy and activities really are. The average American thinks that the US foreign policy is idealistic and devoted to furthering the liberal values upon which the US was founded. Actual US foreign policy has always been predominantly cynical and mercantilist. Just as an example, and no personal insult intended, but how many times, jonmc, do you think that the US has invaded or otherwise occupied the Dominican Republic? Just as an example. In how many South American countries, and how many times, did the US take military action to support the interests of US fruit companies? How much does the average American know of the US's history in the Phillipines? Our training of the Shah of Iran's secret police? For that matter, how much does the average American know that US foreign policy was ambivalent toward Hitler prior to WWII?
The simple reality is that the US has never had a truly benevolent and democratic foreign policy. That's not to say that any country has, certainly not the Europeans. But I also don't think that any other nation's populace is both as ignorant and idealistic about their foreign policy, either. Most Americans really and truly believe that our role has almost always been to be the good guys, saving the day and fighting evil. Most Americans, when confronted by the reality of the history of US foreign policy, either are deeply disappointed or even go into denial.
In this way I do think that we, as individual citizens, are greatly to blame. We are willfully ignorant. I've investigated and agonized over this aspect of American nature all my adult life, and I've never seen it get any better. I can't say that I expect that it will get better.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:47 PM on July 3, 2005
Americans, generally speaking, have always had the right instincts with regard to foreign policy. The problem, however, is that they've been and continue to be spectacularly ignorant of what the US's actual foreign policy and activities really are. The average American thinks that the US foreign policy is idealistic and devoted to furthering the liberal values upon which the US was founded. Actual US foreign policy has always been predominantly cynical and mercantilist. Just as an example, and no personal insult intended, but how many times, jonmc, do you think that the US has invaded or otherwise occupied the Dominican Republic? Just as an example. In how many South American countries, and how many times, did the US take military action to support the interests of US fruit companies? How much does the average American know of the US's history in the Phillipines? Our training of the Shah of Iran's secret police? For that matter, how much does the average American know that US foreign policy was ambivalent toward Hitler prior to WWII?
The simple reality is that the US has never had a truly benevolent and democratic foreign policy. That's not to say that any country has, certainly not the Europeans. But I also don't think that any other nation's populace is both as ignorant and idealistic about their foreign policy, either. Most Americans really and truly believe that our role has almost always been to be the good guys, saving the day and fighting evil. Most Americans, when confronted by the reality of the history of US foreign policy, either are deeply disappointed or even go into denial.
In this way I do think that we, as individual citizens, are greatly to blame. We are willfully ignorant. I've investigated and agonized over this aspect of American nature all my adult life, and I've never seen it get any better. I can't say that I expect that it will get better.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:47 PM on July 3, 2005
"peacay: Is Rice wearing blackface makeup in the painting?"
It sure looks like it, doesn't it? I find it repellent but at least understandable when a fellow member of an oppressed group makes that sort of accusation. But when, for example, a white person points their finger and cries "Uncle Tom", I just want to beat them with a brick and spit in their face. They have no right, no standing to make such judgments.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:57 PM on July 3, 2005
It sure looks like it, doesn't it? I find it repellent but at least understandable when a fellow member of an oppressed group makes that sort of accusation. But when, for example, a white person points their finger and cries "Uncle Tom", I just want to beat them with a brick and spit in their face. They have no right, no standing to make such judgments.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:57 PM on July 3, 2005
Just as an example, and no personal insult intended, but how many times, jonmc, do you think that the US has invaded or otherwise occupied the Dominican Republic? Just as an example. In how many South American countries, and how many times, did the US take military action to support the interests of US fruit companies? How much does the average American know of the US's history in the Phillipines? Our training of the Shah of Iran's secret police? For that matter, how much does the average American know that US foreign policy was ambivalent toward Hitler prior to WWII?
More times than I'd like, just from my own personal research into the matter, but I'd wager that most Americans of any political or social stripe don't know about it because it isn't broadcast on the nightly news. And too much of the media that does is so accusatory ("You inavded Nicaragua, you tract house dweller!") that it fallson deaf ears. Avoiding that shit is kind of what I meant by "appealing to peoples better instincts." A slight adjustment in delivery would be all that's required ("do you good people want your tax dollars supporting this kind of thing?" would be much ore effective in rallying support).
But when, for example, a white person points their finger and cries "Uncle Tom", I just want to beat them with a brick and spit in their face. They have no right, no standing to make such judgments.
I 100% agree with you here. Nobody, black, white or windowpane plaid is above legitamite criticism, but when some white person calls somebody an uncle tom, it reveals that they want black people to play a designated role-"suffering darkie, to be saved by the noble white sahib" or "brave revolutionary third world warrior"- that rivals the stereotypes of any conservative bigot. Liberation for black people includes the right to tell you to take your pre-suppositions and shove them.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on July 3, 2005
More times than I'd like, just from my own personal research into the matter, but I'd wager that most Americans of any political or social stripe don't know about it because it isn't broadcast on the nightly news. And too much of the media that does is so accusatory ("You inavded Nicaragua, you tract house dweller!") that it fallson deaf ears. Avoiding that shit is kind of what I meant by "appealing to peoples better instincts." A slight adjustment in delivery would be all that's required ("do you good people want your tax dollars supporting this kind of thing?" would be much ore effective in rallying support).
But when, for example, a white person points their finger and cries "Uncle Tom", I just want to beat them with a brick and spit in their face. They have no right, no standing to make such judgments.
I 100% agree with you here. Nobody, black, white or windowpane plaid is above legitamite criticism, but when some white person calls somebody an uncle tom, it reveals that they want black people to play a designated role-"suffering darkie, to be saved by the noble white sahib" or "brave revolutionary third world warrior"- that rivals the stereotypes of any conservative bigot. Liberation for black people includes the right to tell you to take your pre-suppositions and shove them.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on July 3, 2005
I got no problem with wakko - he's being honest.
Two caveats though:
1) If one day America sucked less he'd should probably acknowledge that.
2) America != USA (but we mostly get the point 'cause it's a common mistake)
posted by 31d1 at 1:57 PM on July 3, 2005
Two caveats though:
1) If one day America sucked less he'd should probably acknowledge that.
2) America != USA (but we mostly get the point 'cause it's a common mistake)
posted by 31d1 at 1:57 PM on July 3, 2005
Just to correct a common mistake:
America == USA.
Why? Cause it's a nickname for the only country in the Americas to have "America" in its name.
posted by found missing at 2:12 PM on July 3, 2005
America == USA.
Why? Cause it's a nickname for the only country in the Americas to have "America" in its name.
posted by found missing at 2:12 PM on July 3, 2005
The simple reality is that the US has never had a truly benevolent and democratic foreign policy.
I don't know -- seems to me we had one for a few years in the 1780s. But I'm probably misremembring.
This is yet another extremely weird MeTa thread. Is the site about to fission into Proud Americans and Contemptuous Others, with Self-Hating Americans running around likechickens uh, fowl with their heads cut off, trying to decide where to hang their hats? Because if so, I want to set up a concession stand selling them food while they make up their minds.
posted by languagehat at 3:49 PM on July 3, 2005
I don't know -- seems to me we had one for a few years in the 1780s. But I'm probably misremembring.
This is yet another extremely weird MeTa thread. Is the site about to fission into Proud Americans and Contemptuous Others, with Self-Hating Americans running around like
posted by languagehat at 3:49 PM on July 3, 2005
But, how could anyone with his head cut off either eat or make up his mind?
posted by found missing at 3:56 PM on July 3, 2005
posted by found missing at 3:56 PM on July 3, 2005
languagehat, I imagine that some Indian nations would disagree with you about the 1780s, but I'd need to go and check.
But I also doubt that you'd find any country whose foreign policy was consistently benevolent or democratic when the chips were down. You mostly see nice stuff when the relevant country doesn't have anything to gain from being underhanded or anything to lose from being noble.
how could anyone with his head cut off either eat or make up his mind
If Mike the Chicken can do it, so can we!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:00 PM on July 3, 2005
But I also doubt that you'd find any country whose foreign policy was consistently benevolent or democratic when the chips were down. You mostly see nice stuff when the relevant country doesn't have anything to gain from being underhanded or anything to lose from being noble.
how could anyone with his head cut off either eat or make up his mind
If Mike the Chicken can do it, so can we!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:00 PM on July 3, 2005
For that matter, how much does the average American know that US foreign policy was ambivalent toward Hitler prior to WWII?
Point of correction: the US foreign policy was at best ambivalent toward Hitler until nearly the very end of the war. The Americans entered very late into the game.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:16 PM on July 3, 2005
Point of correction: the US foreign policy was at best ambivalent toward Hitler until nearly the very end of the war. The Americans entered very late into the game.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:16 PM on July 3, 2005
Huh? In my timeline (Neil Armstrong, 20 July AUC 2722) early 1942 isn't "nearly the very end" of a period ranging from mid 1939 to mid 1945. 1941 if you count the undeclared naval war.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:44 PM on July 3, 2005
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:44 PM on July 3, 2005
What xenophobe said. And even then, it was because our foreign policy was isolationist in general, not because we thought he was a nice guy.
posted by SpecialK at 5:28 PM on July 3, 2005
posted by SpecialK at 5:28 PM on July 3, 2005
Ethereal Bligh writes "But when, for example, a white person points their finger and cries 'Uncle Tom', I just want to beat them with a brick and spit in their face. They have no right, no standing to make such judgments."
For the record, I was on that painter's website during the course of this thread and I thought that that particular picture encompassed many of the ideas being discussed or otherwise confusedly tossed around in here.
I didn't see the detail in the Coneleeza Rice caricature until it was pointed out. My reaction (yeah, I'm white, anglo) is 2-fold. Pointing out that she's a token black in Bush's administration +/- that she's adopted characteristics from the elitist world to gain acceptance. It's social commentary/critique.
Now I've heard of Uncle Tom's Cabin and I can vaguely work out that it refers to subjugation of African Americans by parodying/ridiculing of them by whites but you have to understand that this is a purely American trope and it's not something that's been imbued in my cultural background to the significant extent it has in yours. (yeah, yeah, Australia has one fucked up record in terms of our own race relations which mortifies me no end and it's embarrassing having a government that won't even officially apologize for having stolen many children from their families in the past in a ludicrous attempt at integration -- but this is beside the point in terms of this picture and that possible Uncle Tom motif)
So although it may seem like a case of 'he doth protesteth to much', I'm just trying to say that I don't have the framework socialization in which I can identify in this picture an attempt to disparage a whole group (race) of people. And while it's also true that ignorance is not necessarily an exonorating factor, I really only saw it the picture as a whole as a biting satire on many of the negative aspects of Bush Inc.
And as it matters, the artist is, I just found out, white.
posted by peacay at 5:32 PM on July 3, 2005
For the record, I was on that painter's website during the course of this thread and I thought that that particular picture encompassed many of the ideas being discussed or otherwise confusedly tossed around in here.
I didn't see the detail in the Coneleeza Rice caricature until it was pointed out. My reaction (yeah, I'm white, anglo) is 2-fold. Pointing out that she's a token black in Bush's administration +/- that she's adopted characteristics from the elitist world to gain acceptance. It's social commentary/critique.
Now I've heard of Uncle Tom's Cabin and I can vaguely work out that it refers to subjugation of African Americans by parodying/ridiculing of them by whites but you have to understand that this is a purely American trope and it's not something that's been imbued in my cultural background to the significant extent it has in yours. (yeah, yeah, Australia has one fucked up record in terms of our own race relations which mortifies me no end and it's embarrassing having a government that won't even officially apologize for having stolen many children from their families in the past in a ludicrous attempt at integration -- but this is beside the point in terms of this picture and that possible Uncle Tom motif)
So although it may seem like a case of 'he doth protesteth to much', I'm just trying to say that I don't have the framework socialization in which I can identify in this picture an attempt to disparage a whole group (race) of people. And while it's also true that ignorance is not necessarily an exonorating factor, I really only saw it the picture as a whole as a biting satire on many of the negative aspects of Bush Inc.
And as it matters, the artist is, I just found out, white.
posted by peacay at 5:32 PM on July 3, 2005
"And even then, it was because our foreign policy was isolationist in general, not because we thought he was a nice guy."
That's understating it. We've whitewashed our history and consequently most people don't realize how very antisemetic the US was prior to WWII. Hitler's views on the Jews were looked on quite favorably by many sectors of the American population, including those in the executive and legislative branches of government.
"But I also doubt that you'd find any country whose foreign policy was consistently benevolent or democratic when the chips were down. You mostly see nice stuff when the relevant country doesn't have anything to gain from being underhanded or anything to lose from being noble."
I entirely agree with this. In modern times, Canada's foreign policy has been, I think, the most admirable and enlightened...but I think that's mostly the result of an accident of history. It really hasn't been put to the test.
Anyway, my point wasn't that the US is exceptional when it comes to amoral foreign policy--I know it isn't. But my point is that the US is exceptional in the degree to which the its citizens believe their foreign policy to be very moral and benevolent.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:05 PM on July 3, 2005
That's understating it. We've whitewashed our history and consequently most people don't realize how very antisemetic the US was prior to WWII. Hitler's views on the Jews were looked on quite favorably by many sectors of the American population, including those in the executive and legislative branches of government.
"But I also doubt that you'd find any country whose foreign policy was consistently benevolent or democratic when the chips were down. You mostly see nice stuff when the relevant country doesn't have anything to gain from being underhanded or anything to lose from being noble."
I entirely agree with this. In modern times, Canada's foreign policy has been, I think, the most admirable and enlightened...but I think that's mostly the result of an accident of history. It really hasn't been put to the test.
Anyway, my point wasn't that the US is exceptional when it comes to amoral foreign policy--I know it isn't. But my point is that the US is exceptional in the degree to which the its citizens believe their foreign policy to be very moral and benevolent.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:05 PM on July 3, 2005
my point wasn't that the US is exceptional when it comes to amoral foreign policy--I know it isn't
Yah, that was clear (I thought) from what you said earlier. I was just staking out a position as neither a Proud American, Self-Hating American, or Contemptuous Other.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:27 PM on July 3, 2005
Yah, that was clear (I thought) from what you said earlier. I was just staking out a position as neither a Proud American, Self-Hating American, or Contemptuous Other.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:27 PM on July 3, 2005
In modern times, Canada's foreign policy has been, I think, the most admirable and enlightened
*Snorts*
posted by Francophone at 7:35 PM on July 3, 2005
*Snorts*
posted by Francophone at 7:35 PM on July 3, 2005
But, you know, this is where I was born, this is where my family and friends are, this is a big part of my identity and it cannot be simply renounced.
Tell that to your ancestors.
It can be renounced, if you've got the will. You'll be leaving behind your family and friends, a familiar language, recognizable streets, foods, smells... along with the belligerent, selfish, bombastic, religious, gluttonous, blind bootlickers.
The only truly patriotic parts left on this national carcass are the fanciful ideas of what it was supposed to be that linger in our collective conscious. You can take those with you when you leave.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:30 PM on July 3, 2005
Tell that to your ancestors.
It can be renounced, if you've got the will. You'll be leaving behind your family and friends, a familiar language, recognizable streets, foods, smells... along with the belligerent, selfish, bombastic, religious, gluttonous, blind bootlickers.
The only truly patriotic parts left on this national carcass are the fanciful ideas of what it was supposed to be that linger in our collective conscious. You can take those with you when you leave.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:30 PM on July 3, 2005
Or you can stay and try to fix it. But whatever's easiest for you.
posted by Cyrano at 11:37 PM on July 3, 2005
posted by Cyrano at 11:37 PM on July 3, 2005
I used to feel that way, cyrano. But pamphlets get thrown in the trash, protests go underreported (/undercounted), and my vote seems more and more irrelevant every day. The further this country slips into its own dark ages, the more extreme the actions necessary to pull it back. If I had the stomach or the firearm skills for assassinations, I'd stay and fight the good fight. But I don't; so yes, leaving is the easier option.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:20 AM on July 4, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:20 AM on July 4, 2005
Actually, I think the disconnect here is that the US (== America, that linguistic tussle is over), or more properly, it's citizens, doesn't see the country as a singular superpower, while the rest of the world does. There's always resentment for the big kid, particularly if they start throwing their weight around, as has happened under George fils. The world sees the US as an aggressive, my-way-or-the-highway player.
Most Americans though, are much more inward-looking, essentially isolationist. They're nice to their neighbors down the street, so they expect everyone in the world to think that they're nice people. There's a strong disconnect between the attitudes of say, a middle-aged man, self-employed who does Rotary Club work on the weekends, generous to a fault, who voted republican and the actions of the US trade representative who puts punitive and protectionist duties on Korean steel, for example. This prototypical repub is a nice guy, but his government can be a real bastard to his counterparts in Europe or Australia. Small wonder they don't like him then.
What most Americans don't get is that the US does not behave in a "nice" way on the world stage. The US behaves like a commercial empire, like that of the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries. It's very aggressive in pursing it's own interests and, unlike Europe, is not willing to negotiate on any matter. It's the US way or no way. Units and measurement, Kyoto, the world court, are a few examples. Everything is like this. There's what world does, and then there's what the US does.
Americans shouldn't be surprised that they are feared and distrusted as much as the British were in those times. Ask an Indian about British foreign policy sometime---even generations later, passions still are hot. US citizens need to realize that they are part of an aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial power, not of the semi-isolationist, content-within-its-own-borders, friend-to-all of the Eisenhower era.
passim, ROU: In my timeline (Neil Armstrong, 20 July AUC 2722)
Someone's been reading his Silverberg, I see.
posted by bonehead at 8:08 AM on July 4, 2005
Most Americans though, are much more inward-looking, essentially isolationist. They're nice to their neighbors down the street, so they expect everyone in the world to think that they're nice people. There's a strong disconnect between the attitudes of say, a middle-aged man, self-employed who does Rotary Club work on the weekends, generous to a fault, who voted republican and the actions of the US trade representative who puts punitive and protectionist duties on Korean steel, for example. This prototypical repub is a nice guy, but his government can be a real bastard to his counterparts in Europe or Australia. Small wonder they don't like him then.
What most Americans don't get is that the US does not behave in a "nice" way on the world stage. The US behaves like a commercial empire, like that of the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries. It's very aggressive in pursing it's own interests and, unlike Europe, is not willing to negotiate on any matter. It's the US way or no way. Units and measurement, Kyoto, the world court, are a few examples. Everything is like this. There's what world does, and then there's what the US does.
Americans shouldn't be surprised that they are feared and distrusted as much as the British were in those times. Ask an Indian about British foreign policy sometime---even generations later, passions still are hot. US citizens need to realize that they are part of an aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial power, not of the semi-isolationist, content-within-its-own-borders, friend-to-all of the Eisenhower era.
passim, ROU: In my timeline (Neil Armstrong, 20 July AUC 2722)
Someone's been reading his Silverberg, I see.
posted by bonehead at 8:08 AM on July 4, 2005
passim, ROU: In my timeline (Neil Armstrong, 20 July AUC 2722)
Someone's been reading his Silverberg, I see.
1) That Silverberg book looks interesting; is it worth reading?
2) Somebody who actually knows what they're talking about please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the much-talked-about AUC calendar (dating events from the mythical founding of Rome) was hardly ever used; the Romans dated things in terms of who was consul at the time, and the first genuinely popular epoch was the Seleucid, which begins in 312 BCE. I seem to recall reading that this was still used in Byzantine times. But I'm basically talking out of my ass.
posted by languagehat at 9:32 AM on July 4, 2005
Someone's been reading his Silverberg, I see.
1) That Silverberg book looks interesting; is it worth reading?
2) Somebody who actually knows what they're talking about please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the much-talked-about AUC calendar (dating events from the mythical founding of Rome) was hardly ever used; the Romans dated things in terms of who was consul at the time, and the first genuinely popular epoch was the Seleucid, which begins in 312 BCE. I seem to recall reading that this was still used in Byzantine times. But I'm basically talking out of my ass.
posted by languagehat at 9:32 AM on July 4, 2005
Mystery solved. Headless man talks out of ass! (smiley emoticon here)
posted by found missing at 10:20 AM on July 4, 2005
posted by found missing at 10:20 AM on July 4, 2005
Imprimus: worth reading? IMO, a lesser work. A Lesser Silverberg is still better than a Good Turtledove, and miles better than a whole boatload of Sterling. Good for the beach.
Secundus: That was my impression too, that most dating was from the begining of an Emperor's reign. I was surprised to see Silverberg using the AUC dating.
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on July 4, 2005
Secundus: That was my impression too, that most dating was from the begining of an Emperor's reign. I was surprised to see Silverberg using the AUC dating.
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on July 4, 2005
Just a gag. I haven't read those stories, but thought it would be amusing to post from a slightly different timeline. Nor am I likely to get to them soon, with Brass Man, Accelerando, The Hidden Family, and Mammoth on the way, and MacLeod's Learning the World due in August. I keep meaning to though.
Looking back, I probably ought to have shifted the WW2 dates too. Ah well. I abase myself.
Eh, Stirling is fun if you're after a good yarn with a few bondage lesbians thrown in just in case.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:48 AM on July 4, 2005
Looking back, I probably ought to have shifted the WW2 dates too. Ah well. I abase myself.
Eh, Stirling is fun if you're after a good yarn with a few bondage lesbians thrown in just in case.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:48 AM on July 4, 2005
It can be renounced, if you've got the will. You'll be leaving behind your family and friends, a familiar language, recognizable streets, foods, smells... along with the belligerent, selfish, bombastic, religious, gluttonous, blind bootlickers.
I find it telling that "religious" is slipped into that list, Civil_Disobedient.
posted by gd779 at 11:28 AM on July 4, 2005
I find it telling that "religious" is slipped into that list, Civil_Disobedient.
posted by gd779 at 11:28 AM on July 4, 2005
Units and measurement, Kyoto, the world court, are a few examples. Everything is like this. There's what world does, and then there's what the US does.
bonehead: Oh, please. Pick some better examples. Kyoto was never about global warming. Let me say that again: Kyoto had nothing to do with global warming. How could it? Without the committment of the developing nations, it's recommendations would have done nothing whatsoever to slow global warming in the long-term. What it would have done is slowed down economic growth in the developed nations, giving developing nations a chance to catch up - which is why, had the U.S. signed it, Europe wouldn't have. Kyoto was DOA from day one, and the higher echelons of the EU always knew it, but they signed it anyway because (after the U.S.'s Byrd-Hagel resolution passed) they knew they could use it as a convenient political club.
Similar motivations drive much (but admittedly not all) of the European support for the World Court. But that issue is extraordinarily complex, so I'll set it aside.
Which leaves us with metrics vs. the english system. And there I'm totally with you. The english system of measurement sucks.
Ask an Indian about British foreign policy sometime---even generations later, passions still are hot.
On the other hand, ask an Indonesian about Dutch foreign policy. The Dutch did a lot of really bad things to indonesia. But when I was living in China, one of the most remarkable conversations I had was with two friends of mine: one a Chinese-Indonesian and the other a Dutch citizen. The Dutch guy apologized for his country's human rights abuses. The Indonesian thanked him for the Dutch imperialism, because for all the oppression they brought, they Dutch still left Indonesia better than they found it. Now this illustration is probably complicated a little by the fact that the ethnic Chinese fared a bit better under Dutch rule than they did under Indonesian rule, but I still think the point remains: "aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial powers" occassionally do more good than harm. They often bring the rule of law, capitalism and increased long-term prosperity. Not always, but sometimes. So try not to swallow the doctrine of "universal third world oppression by the West" quite so uncritically, especially if (and I don't know if this is true for you or not) you've never lived in a developing country and seen it's effects first-hand.
posted by gd779 at 11:29 AM on July 4, 2005
bonehead: Oh, please. Pick some better examples. Kyoto was never about global warming. Let me say that again: Kyoto had nothing to do with global warming. How could it? Without the committment of the developing nations, it's recommendations would have done nothing whatsoever to slow global warming in the long-term. What it would have done is slowed down economic growth in the developed nations, giving developing nations a chance to catch up - which is why, had the U.S. signed it, Europe wouldn't have. Kyoto was DOA from day one, and the higher echelons of the EU always knew it, but they signed it anyway because (after the U.S.'s Byrd-Hagel resolution passed) they knew they could use it as a convenient political club.
Similar motivations drive much (but admittedly not all) of the European support for the World Court. But that issue is extraordinarily complex, so I'll set it aside.
Which leaves us with metrics vs. the english system. And there I'm totally with you. The english system of measurement sucks.
Ask an Indian about British foreign policy sometime---even generations later, passions still are hot.
On the other hand, ask an Indonesian about Dutch foreign policy. The Dutch did a lot of really bad things to indonesia. But when I was living in China, one of the most remarkable conversations I had was with two friends of mine: one a Chinese-Indonesian and the other a Dutch citizen. The Dutch guy apologized for his country's human rights abuses. The Indonesian thanked him for the Dutch imperialism, because for all the oppression they brought, they Dutch still left Indonesia better than they found it. Now this illustration is probably complicated a little by the fact that the ethnic Chinese fared a bit better under Dutch rule than they did under Indonesian rule, but I still think the point remains: "aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial powers" occassionally do more good than harm. They often bring the rule of law, capitalism and increased long-term prosperity. Not always, but sometimes. So try not to swallow the doctrine of "universal third world oppression by the West" quite so uncritically, especially if (and I don't know if this is true for you or not) you've never lived in a developing country and seen it's effects first-hand.
posted by gd779 at 11:29 AM on July 4, 2005
Now this illustration is probably complicated a little by the fact that the ethnic Chinese fared a bit better under Dutch rule than they did under Indonesian rule, but I still think the point remains: "aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial powers" occassionally do more good than harm.
I'm sorry, I must have missed where you made that point. You draw your proof that imperialism can sometimes cause more good than harm with a story about how one chinese-indonesian thanked one dutch guy? Well my girlfriend is Indonesian (Bughese from Jakarta), and she's certainly not thanking any Dutch for their imperialism.
So I guess my anecdotal evidence counters yours.
posted by Edible Energy at 11:46 AM on July 4, 2005
I'm sorry, I must have missed where you made that point. You draw your proof that imperialism can sometimes cause more good than harm with a story about how one chinese-indonesian thanked one dutch guy? Well my girlfriend is Indonesian (Bughese from Jakarta), and she's certainly not thanking any Dutch for their imperialism.
So I guess my anecdotal evidence counters yours.
posted by Edible Energy at 11:46 AM on July 4, 2005
gd779: ...better examples: ok, any number of trade, economic, or security issues.
I deal with a number of standards bodies for environmental laboratory quality control. The whole world follows a single standard ISO/IEC 17025. The whole world, that is except the US which has two (or three depending on who's counting) competing standards bodies, neither of which are compatible with ISO/IEC. This is particularly odd, because the NBS/NIST was one of the prime movers behind ISO 17025.
Likewise for many engineering standards. In the US it's SAE and ASTM, for the rest of the world (except those who supply US firms), it's ISO.
And actually, I think you dismiss too lightly those other agreements. Kyoto, for it's (lack of) merits was the way the world decided to do things. Likewise the international court of criminal justice. Rather than try to fix either, the US response was to stalk off in a huff. Aggrieved indignation is an all-too-common response by the US administration to many international treaties. Unilateralism is another symptom of developing empire.
I still think the point remains: "aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial powers" occasionally do more good than harm.
Yes bwana, you Americans have a heavy burden.
Actually, I agree, but I think that is completely beside the point. The Brits, in particular, left most every place they "touched", in better shape than they found it, with the notable exception of China. Didn't stop them from being widely hated by their clients though. See India, above.
posted by bonehead at 12:47 PM on July 4, 2005
I deal with a number of standards bodies for environmental laboratory quality control. The whole world follows a single standard ISO/IEC 17025. The whole world, that is except the US which has two (or three depending on who's counting) competing standards bodies, neither of which are compatible with ISO/IEC. This is particularly odd, because the NBS/NIST was one of the prime movers behind ISO 17025.
Likewise for many engineering standards. In the US it's SAE and ASTM, for the rest of the world (except those who supply US firms), it's ISO.
And actually, I think you dismiss too lightly those other agreements. Kyoto, for it's (lack of) merits was the way the world decided to do things. Likewise the international court of criminal justice. Rather than try to fix either, the US response was to stalk off in a huff. Aggrieved indignation is an all-too-common response by the US administration to many international treaties. Unilateralism is another symptom of developing empire.
I still think the point remains: "aggressive, expansionist, commercial Imperial powers" occasionally do more good than harm.
Yes bwana, you Americans have a heavy burden.
Actually, I agree, but I think that is completely beside the point. The Brits, in particular, left most every place they "touched", in better shape than they found it, with the notable exception of China. Didn't stop them from being widely hated by their clients though. See India, above.
posted by bonehead at 12:47 PM on July 4, 2005
OK, look at it from another point of view. "Imperialistic powers" often cause a singularity, to use a science fiction term, which causes a lot of short-term pain. (Short term, in this context, is defined as "1-2 generations".) During this period, the social and economic infrastructure of the imperialized tend to take a major ding, and the social order gets turned upside down. If the imperialization lasts more than two generations, it seems to me that this will start to reverse itself and the new generations will become comfortable with the new culture... and the older generations who lived under the old rule will start to die off, leaving a new social order firmly in power -- one that takes the best of the old social order and combines it with an economic power that was capable of forming an empire. This didn't happen in the imperialization of asian countries for the most part... with a few notable exceptions, like Hong Kong. The imperialization didn't last long enough and the older generations came into power and tried to re-implement the weaker memes by fiat and force, which caused the culture to stagnate to our outside eyes.
For examples of how the imperialized can help, how about Rome? They built a network of roads that still, in some cases, persist to this day. They brought farming and the precursors to industrial technology to societies that were in some cases stuck in prehistorical tribal modes. The introduction of a common academic language, Latin, sped up the pace of learning by an untold amount.
Of course, that's the good... which is only apparent once you're looking at it over a huge period of time. The bad was the amount of societal oppression that happened with the forcible subjugation of the natives... the obliteration of religions and traditional beleifs and ways of doing things. Then you have the fact that roman governors and soldiers were in no way saints; whole villages of english redheads or germanic blondes were giving birth to swarthy, italian-featured babies.
That's kind of the way the cookie crumbles. You get the good with the bad. The liberation with the oppression. Ideas with greater economic or psychological might take over from ones that are weaker... Kind of a darwinism of ideas. In the end, everyone benefits and the culture *usually* ends up growing and benefitting, *IF* the cycle is completed ... but damn, I don't ever want to be in a generation that goes through that kind of similarity.
Oh, and Bonehead, it's actually Heinlein that came up with the concept of dating timelines by who landed on the moon.
posted by SpecialK at 1:23 PM on July 4, 2005
For examples of how the imperialized can help, how about Rome? They built a network of roads that still, in some cases, persist to this day. They brought farming and the precursors to industrial technology to societies that were in some cases stuck in prehistorical tribal modes. The introduction of a common academic language, Latin, sped up the pace of learning by an untold amount.
Of course, that's the good... which is only apparent once you're looking at it over a huge period of time. The bad was the amount of societal oppression that happened with the forcible subjugation of the natives... the obliteration of religions and traditional beleifs and ways of doing things. Then you have the fact that roman governors and soldiers were in no way saints; whole villages of english redheads or germanic blondes were giving birth to swarthy, italian-featured babies.
That's kind of the way the cookie crumbles. You get the good with the bad. The liberation with the oppression. Ideas with greater economic or psychological might take over from ones that are weaker... Kind of a darwinism of ideas. In the end, everyone benefits and the culture *usually* ends up growing and benefitting, *IF* the cycle is completed ... but damn, I don't ever want to be in a generation that goes through that kind of similarity.
Oh, and Bonehead, it's actually Heinlein that came up with the concept of dating timelines by who landed on the moon.
posted by SpecialK at 1:23 PM on July 4, 2005
err ... block 2, paragraph one, "How the imperialists can help"
posted by SpecialK at 1:27 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by SpecialK at 1:27 PM on July 4, 2005
gah, and "similarity" got spellchecked from a misspelling of "singularity". Remind me not to post *after* starting my traditional 4th of july BBQ & Beerfest.
posted by SpecialK at 1:29 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by SpecialK at 1:29 PM on July 4, 2005
SpecialK, perhaps we've been too elliptical above. I will attempt to Explain The Joke. Pardon my pedantry.
A. U. C., in this context, means ab urbe condita, "since the founding" [of Rome].
What the ROU's comment above referred to was an alternate history in which we continue to use the (rather obscure) Roman dating system, hence implying that he was posting from an alternate timeline (incidentally, what colour is the sky over there?).
Since Robert Silverberg just published an alternate history on the subject (my link above), and having some vague ideas of the ROU's preferred reading material, I inferred that he was riffing on this source. It turns out that his joke was entirely sui generis and thus much cleverer that I had given him credit for.
We then traded barbs over hack skiffy authors.
I do apologize for being less than clear.
posted by bonehead at 1:57 PM on July 4, 2005
A. U. C., in this context, means ab urbe condita, "since the founding" [of Rome].
What the ROU's comment above referred to was an alternate history in which we continue to use the (rather obscure) Roman dating system, hence implying that he was posting from an alternate timeline (incidentally, what colour is the sky over there?).
Since Robert Silverberg just published an alternate history on the subject (my link above), and having some vague ideas of the ROU's preferred reading material, I inferred that he was riffing on this source. It turns out that his joke was entirely sui generis and thus much cleverer that I had given him credit for.
We then traded barbs over hack skiffy authors.
I do apologize for being less than clear.
posted by bonehead at 1:57 PM on July 4, 2005
Likewise for many engineering standards. In the US it's SAE and ASTM, for the rest of the world (except those who supply US firms), it's ISO.
Well, that's a good point. Still, I don't know anything about laboratory quality control standards, but I used to know a thing or two about telecom standards, and I think that similar American decisions in that industry have paid off in spades.
While Europe and most of the rest of the world quickly settled on GSM, for example, America left the standards field open and chaotic. As a result, we eventually developed CDMA, and that's turned out to be a huge technological advantage going forward. So I don't know what's going on in your field, but maybe there's a reason for it? Then again, maybe not.
(This stuck a memory: former Mefite Steven den Beste once wrote a fantastic article on the GSM/CDMA thing - accessible to lay people and pretty much making exactly the point I want to make here - which you can read here, if you like. His point is that the European focus on cooperation and consensus doesn't really work very well in technical standards, and that the American preference for chaotic competiton tends to fair better in the long run).
And actually, I think you dismiss too lightly those other agreements. Kyoto, for it's (lack of) merits was the way the world decided to do things. Likewise the international court of criminal justice. Rather than try to fix either, the US response was to stalk off in a huff.
What should the U.S. have done? There was no way that the developing nations (China, for example) were going to agree to Kyoto-style cuts in emissions. It was just clearly out of the question. So how should the U.S. have tried to fix that?
As for the World Court, there's nothing to fix from a U.S. perspective. We tend to oppose international government on principle, because such institutions are not democratically accountable. But like I said, that's a complex issue, and there are reasonable points on both sides.
Actually, I agree, but I think that is completely beside the point. The Brits, in particular, left most every place they "touched", in better shape than they found it, with the notable exception of China. Didn't stop them from being widely hated by their clients though. See India, above.
That's a very good point. You're right.
posted by gd779 at 2:54 PM on July 4, 2005
Well, that's a good point. Still, I don't know anything about laboratory quality control standards, but I used to know a thing or two about telecom standards, and I think that similar American decisions in that industry have paid off in spades.
While Europe and most of the rest of the world quickly settled on GSM, for example, America left the standards field open and chaotic. As a result, we eventually developed CDMA, and that's turned out to be a huge technological advantage going forward. So I don't know what's going on in your field, but maybe there's a reason for it? Then again, maybe not.
(This stuck a memory: former Mefite Steven den Beste once wrote a fantastic article on the GSM/CDMA thing - accessible to lay people and pretty much making exactly the point I want to make here - which you can read here, if you like. His point is that the European focus on cooperation and consensus doesn't really work very well in technical standards, and that the American preference for chaotic competiton tends to fair better in the long run).
And actually, I think you dismiss too lightly those other agreements. Kyoto, for it's (lack of) merits was the way the world decided to do things. Likewise the international court of criminal justice. Rather than try to fix either, the US response was to stalk off in a huff.
What should the U.S. have done? There was no way that the developing nations (China, for example) were going to agree to Kyoto-style cuts in emissions. It was just clearly out of the question. So how should the U.S. have tried to fix that?
As for the World Court, there's nothing to fix from a U.S. perspective. We tend to oppose international government on principle, because such institutions are not democratically accountable. But like I said, that's a complex issue, and there are reasonable points on both sides.
Actually, I agree, but I think that is completely beside the point. The Brits, in particular, left most every place they "touched", in better shape than they found it, with the notable exception of China. Didn't stop them from being widely hated by their clients though. See India, above.
That's a very good point. You're right.
posted by gd779 at 2:54 PM on July 4, 2005
Just a note: the Dutch were in many ways the very worst of the European imperialists, and for longer. See: Africa.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:03 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:03 PM on July 4, 2005
the Dutch were in many ways the very worst of the European imperialists
Worse than the Belgians? I don't think so. See: Africa.
posted by languagehat at 3:37 PM on July 4, 2005
Worse than the Belgians? I don't think so. See: Africa.
posted by languagehat at 3:37 PM on July 4, 2005
(incidentally, what colour is the sky over there?)
Fuligin, since the accident. Why?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:50 PM on July 4, 2005
Fuligin, since the accident. Why?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:50 PM on July 4, 2005
A bit late, but my take is that it's not whether the comment is right or wrong, but the way that the self-serving conclusory nature of the statement forecloses any further interesting conversation. It's like going up to a party and anytime that somebody brings up race relations saying "Gee, OJ was guilty" and walks away. There's evidence on both sides of the question of OJ's guilt, but just stating that and walking away doesn't contribute anything useful to the conversation. In fact, it makes the person come off as a one-note harp that nobody wants to talk to. I think he's well within his rights to believe that, but to just repeat it in the hopes that shear repetition will make others believe it does not contribute to our community.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:53 PM on July 4, 2005
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:53 PM on July 4, 2005
Andrew, the US is my home. I disagree with the leadership, and I've tried to get others elected but that didn't work out. You can go ahead and attack my government all you want, I don't care. But when you attack my country you also attack its founding principles and the people and places I love, and I'm not going to just sit here and take it.
At the risk of starting another tkchrist incident I have to say that if anything is wrong with Americans - not America - it's this. This wretched, seemingly instinctive, puffed-up, self-important drivel.
It makes you look no better than po-faced global village idiots ripe for the pillory. Seriously. Get the fuck over yourselves. Your country really- no really - isn't as free as you think it is or as great as you think it is. For Christ's sake stop talking like you learned your history from Reader's Digest and learn some fucking humility instead. Or else close your eyes, keep spouting your self-mythologising bullshit and bleating "Why do they hate us so?" as the flags burn and the bombs go off in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
posted by Decani at 5:38 PM on July 5, 2005
At the risk of starting another tkchrist incident I have to say that if anything is wrong with Americans - not America - it's this. This wretched, seemingly instinctive, puffed-up, self-important drivel.
It makes you look no better than po-faced global village idiots ripe for the pillory. Seriously. Get the fuck over yourselves. Your country really- no really - isn't as free as you think it is or as great as you think it is. For Christ's sake stop talking like you learned your history from Reader's Digest and learn some fucking humility instead. Or else close your eyes, keep spouting your self-mythologising bullshit and bleating "Why do they hate us so?" as the flags burn and the bombs go off in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
posted by Decani at 5:38 PM on July 5, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
i'm not part of your country, pal.
posted by andrew cooke at 1:29 PM on July 2, 2005