USA social commentary - a visiting European view
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 23:23
VIEWED: 4974
PAGE 6 of 8
Monarchy isn't inherently evil, although it is of course bent easier in that direction by the myth of "royal blood" and "born better" by jackasses who don't seem to realize that scraping to survive takes time away from education or self-enrichment.
Of course, we got that here too, various corp-family dynasties, and suchlike...
But the Swiss made it work for them, historically, better than anyone else ever did, and the English did eventually swipe some of those same reforms.
And since I mentioned the Swiss - I'll also note a rather direct correlation between not gettin in everyone elses goddamn business and not getting embroiled in wars or having the shit bombed out of you.
Americans could take a lesson from that, you know.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And to sum up some of the attitudes here
That is priceless!
That's what I was thinking.
My only problem with it? No American (other than maybe Al Franken, that is) could draw a map of the world that accurate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I was referring to the ideology behind the British people.
Which you know absolutely nothing about.
Quote:
Britain has a long history of bowing to their monarchy. Its ingrained. No matter that they might now have a different form of government. (Laughable at best)
See Rue's comment. By the way, what is their current form of government? (That question is for Wulfie only; let's call it a pop quiz)
Quote:
Why else would they meekly allow the confiscation of their tools of self defense? Or cameras to be put on every street corner?
Which monarch to you bow to? Didn't you say you're from the DC area? Why did y'all allow the confiscation of your weapons of self defense prior to the Heller decision? And what's with all the cameras on every street corner in your neck of the woods?
Quote:
Well, because the government (queen) is LOOKING OUT FOR THEM!
Right?
Right. You really should look into the Queen's history a bit. Did you know she drove an ambulance during the second world war, and learned to work on and repair heavy vehicles, so that she could contribute to the war effort?
What was it you did during the war? Any of the wars, I mean? Since, ya know, you're all about patriotism and serving your country and all. And since you're "looking out for" your people, as you claim.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Come to think of it, I was in Spain last month and saw a naked, angry-looking man riding a bicycle through the one of the main plazas in Barcelona. He wasn't Jewish. (true story! Rode by me so close I could have touched it...him.) So obviously, all Spaniards are naked, angry, bicyclists, and not Jewish.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've always been suspicious of the Swiss neutrality - I mean, how is it you're one of the few countries that don't get invaded. I guess the Germans had something to gain out of leaving them alone, and they are (in parts) German speaking already. They made a lot of money out of the war, quite immorally - the swiss banks are where the germans stashed their booty gained from murdering jews and plundering Europes priceless artworks. Sometimes neutrality is questionable when abhorrent things are happening to all your neighbours, and you just pull down your blind and turn the tv up a notch.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Swiss neutrality is easy for them, because nobody WANTS to invade Switzerland. Look at it - it's mountains, ringed by mountains, surrounded by... MOUNTAINS. The Swiss have been there for eons, and are adapted to their terrain the way the Afghans are adapted to their terrain. You invade them, you don't need a matching force, or double their number. You need superiority on the order of a hundred to one or better, and nobody in recent times has found the risk worth the reward.
Add to that the fact that pretty much every Swiss citizen is trained in firearms proficiency, or at least was last I heard, and most of them are issued rifles or machineguns to keep in their home, just in case. It's said that the Swiss can summon a million armed citizens in less than 24 hours to repel any invasion, which will necessarily come through the few mountain passes which are easily guarded.
Think of the movie "300", and how a few men in just the right bottleneck were able to hold back a force numbering in the hundreds of thousands. (The actual numbers in the movie are bunkum, but it's true that a force of a few thousand DID hold off a force of AT LEAST 100,000, and possibly as many as 500,000, for some time).
I heard the story once of a German general, on the eve of WWII, visiting Switzerland and speaking with a Swiss officer. "How many armed men can you have at your disposal to repel an invasion?" asked the German. "One million men, in 24 hours" replied the Swiss. "So what would you do if I marched five million men through that mountain pass tomorrow morning?" asked the German. The Swiss thought for just a moment before responding, "I'd have each of my men take five shots, then go home."
And the Nazis never felt the need to invade Switzerland... or so it's said.
Don't get the wrong idea of Swiss neutrality - they're neutral, but they're not pussies, and they're not unarmed. They neutral because they ENFORCE that neutrality. And yes, there are German-speaking Swiss. And French-speaking Swiss. And Italian-speaking Swiss. They're a melting pot, and seem to do pretty well at it.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My understanding is the original poster was commenting on the difference between America as depicted in the media, and America in reality. Not whether Europe is better than the US or vice versa.
There are two reasons I would say why a European might be shocked to learn of some of the reality of life in America - one is to do with the type of media that reaches us (perhaps only in our younger years) reflecting the more glamorous side of America. But another reason is that America is a land of *extremes* (tho perhaps Americans don't see anything unusual), and that the extremes of poverty and violence in the US are *much* worse than what you can find anywhere in UK/France/(West)Germany. In this respect I would say the US is more on a par with countries like South Africe/Russia/Brazil, countries with real problems - and yet the US is richer than these, and even UK/France/Germany.
Quote:
Subjects vs citizens.
Slaves vs free people.
I just passed over this the first time, didn't understand what you could be saying... Absolutely unreal. Sometimes what I hear from the American right about Europe reminds me of a story of a Dutch missionary going behind the iron curtain to spread the gospel, and trying to talk to a Soviet soldier but coming up against: "Oh you're from Holland? You must be sick about the American occupation of your country." The missionary has to try and explain that Holland is not an occupied country, but gets nowhere...
Quote:
Most of it, actually. I tend to get robbed in *western* europe. It's a pretty common experience for americans.
Fair enough, I will note yours as an interesting, if quite anomylous (maybe cos your a conspicuously wealthy tourist?) experience. I have lived all my life in the UK, travelled around several citites in France, Germany etc. and never been the victim of crime, or felt in any real danger. As I'm sure is true for the majority of people living in America. But I maintain that some areas of the US are like nothing you will find in these otherwise comparable countries. Yes, all countries have their deprived areas, industries and cities in decline; and all towns and cities have their 'wrong side of the tracks' - but America in my view is quite unique in the way it takes this to an *extreme*. Why is this?
I'm sure there are a few reasons, but I suspect some of it can be put down to the extra 'edge' of individualism in the US mindset (folks like Wulf should note that individualism is not a uniquely American trait but a defining trait of Western culture and civilisation as a whole, going back to the ancient Greeks, see http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/indi
vidualism/). My guess is that the slightly more collectivist European mindset finds levels of societal degradation abhorrent, that americans find natural (the way of the world, personal responsibility *shrug*).
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magonsdaughter ?
Morality be damned, a countries leader has a certain responsibility to their own nation and people, over and above any for their neighbors, and while they had plenty of ground troops, sure - their neutrality was the only thing keeping the luftwaffe from bombing them back to the stone age.
And they used that neutrality also to the benefit of the allies as well, remember.
Speakin of, certain of the allied forces and noteable folk amongst them were also not above making immoral profits, since american corporations thought (and still do, IMHO) facism was the greatest thing since sliced bread given how much they hated those dirty unions, socialists, etc - remember that they supported that murderous bastard franco as well, and we happen to be the only nation on the planet who actually has nuked someone and it wasn't even technically a military target.
And take Finland for an example of our malicious behavior, for they would have rather remained neutral, but our "plans" for them and their country so horrified them that they threw in with the axis powers for mutual defense since the allied forces more or less threw them to the russian wolves - and yet throughout it all they were damned and bloody-handed determined to maintain their national sovereignty at any cost.
War is a damned ugly business all around, which is why smart people avoid them unless no other option presents itself - and all too often the choice whether or not to risk your neck for the intended outcome (all too often a lie in the first place, at least here in america) isn't up to you, but up to a bunch of shitheads who see you as cannon fodder, naught more than trained animals whos lives can be traded for political or financial points and support, something very much true ever since the civil war and our government forcing citizens to fight their countrymen at gunpoint.
(see also: NY Draft Riots)
Hell, some americans volunteered, against the wishes of their own government, to fight AGAINST Franco, choosing of their own free will to risk their necks, and many in WWII actively chose to fight it because they believed in putting a stop to Hitler and Mussolinni's aggressions, even when those aggressions had not yet directly impacted them.
On the other hand, we also did a lot of fighting to suppress other countries for corporate profit, look into the fruit wars for more info about that.
So war isn't really a business of morals, per se, and once the bullets fly a leader and a nation has to look to it's own interests even if some of the conduct required for it is quite reprehensible.
I don't blame those leaders, those nations, so much as I blame the governments who's ambitions or arrogance initiate them - poland, france, they didn't have much choice, nor did they initiate hostilities, you see ?
But then again, imma Anarchist, and the idea of taking up arms and shooting at folk I don't even know who have done me no wrong simply because I am told to by a government thoroughly appalls me in the first place, as does the notion of anyone with a damn lick of sense doing so.
For a fact, more people of the world have died by the stroke of some leaders pen than bullets have ever killed - and folks wonder why I got an issue with the idea of governments...
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sure all European countries would have preferred to remain neutral - they just didn't get a say in it. Germany invaded them and bombed the shit out of them.
ever played Diplomacy? Even though it's WW1, it gives a great insight into how countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland were able to stay neutral, but poor old Belgium - not a chance.
Sometimes neutrality is immoral, especially if you also reap the rewards of those who suffer around you.
It still feels to me like someone's raping your next door neighbour and you are the one that says...I'm not calling the police, nothing to do with me!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I have lived all my life in the UK, travelled around several citites in France, Germany etc. and never been the victim of crime, or felt in any real danger. As I'm sure is true for the majority of people living in America."
Not ... necessarily. No one in the US wants to be caught in certain areas of their local city, especially during the night (though, when it's a bad anough area, broad daylight is also a bad time of day). There is this feeling of being the lone target on the street.
That's why I can spot a Canadian or European in a crowd in the US. They are the ones comfortably walking with their heads up looking around and acting as if they belong there. The USers, OTOH, are extremely defensive.
BTW, everything danerous that has ever happened to me up to and including being beaten has happened in a US city, and usually during the day - I don't to go out at night unless I need to. This is in contrast to my exprience in several Canadian cities, where I comfortably and freely walked all hours of the day or night through all sorts of areas, and was never once so much as even mildly hassled.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME