Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Lady Blue]

I think it’s safe to say that every country and culture on this entire planet has an unsavory history if we but look. Most of history itself consists of one culture/race/religion/country invading/overpowering/killing off/conquering the guys across the road/river/lake/ocean for the purpose of gaining land/goods/labor/control because they feel justified/superior/greedy/or they just plain CAN.

Every culture/race/religion/country has been both the aggressor and the oppressed at some point in time. The aggressors have often oppressed their OWN. Sometimes the aggressors have gained or remained in control and won the battles, and sometimes the oppressed have risen up, revolted, fought and won.

When of the same culture/country, if the oppressed (the subordinate entity) stand up to the aggressors (the controlling entity), then the oppressed, by definition, become traitors and their actions treasonous, no matter what their cause may be. In the view of the aggressors (or ruling class) they are now enemies of the state, rebels, revolutionaries and heretics. In the view of the oppressed they are freedom-fighters, heroes and patriots fighting for a noble cause, which is usually by definition, freedom from oppression of some sort.

Our Founding Fathers, although (most, if not all were) born in America, were nonetheless British subjects. When they felt oppressed and decided to rise up against their sovereign, they became traitors to Britain, yet patriots to their cause. Benedict Arnold however, had the dubious distinction of being twice a traitor – first a traitor to the British for taking up arms against them, and then to the American Patriots for selling out and going back to the British side.

In simplistic terms, if victorious, the oppressed continue life with new found freedom and self-righteousness, in control of their lives and destinies. Life is good, prosperity reins. Inevitably, over time, the oppressed go through all the stages of the human condition and circumstance that now brings them to the doorstep of aggression, and so it goes.

Throughout history a given race/culture/country goes beyond its backyard and goes to great lengths to impose their will, religion and power, and corrupt, exploit, and steal the riches and resources of another given race/culture/country, as in the cases of the Zulu, Aztecs and Native Americans to name but a few.

We may not, as individuals, be at fault, or be a victim of these circumstances. But as descendents of one form of culture/race/religion/country or another, our human history is the same if we just look. Probably, without exception, we all come from being both the oppressors as well as the oppressed.

There is good, bad and mediocre in every single culture/race/religion and country in the world. No system, belief or practice is ideal or perfect. What worked yesterday does not work today and will need to change again for tomorrow.

We can’t even agree with our own family, friends, neighbors and leaders although we’re assimilated into a core culture from birth. We will always unite when in our own best interests and be in conflict for the same reasons. We're all selfish and generous. We're frail, yet strong. We're wise, yet foolish. We're human, yet monstrous. We're both right and wrong. We love, hate, kill and heal depending on which way the wind is blowing.

The US/Europe Cultural Divide is simply/complexly that we’ve always been the same/different and always were/will be for as long as humans have or will exist.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I don't accept that it's possible to have a meaningful discussion of cultural differences based on caricatures.

Would you have preferred the term archetypes?

The whole thread was defined as a over-generalization, to wit "US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings". What do you do with that? It does not describe fine-grained subculture subtlies. Maybe I take my old debater training too seriously. (You can bring any relevant fact to the debate, but you can't change the defined subject of the debate.)

Originally Posted by nekokami

In fact, I thought the point of this topic was to get past such over-generalizations, and try to understand each other better.

I have tried to get past the generalisations by describing how various differences formed. Not acceptable. I tried limiting my scope. Not acceptable.
To me, it seems like the only option is caputulation of my ehtics base. Sorry - not acceptable.

Originally Posted by nekokami

I guess you really do stand by the quote in your sig line.

Of course I do. I hadn't been aware I'd been made a God, or even a wise man on a mountaintop. Just another human being. But everbody has prejudices, even you, Nekokami. I'm aware of most of mine, they were self chosen at age 14 after several months of introspection, based on the knowledge I had available then. Nearly 40 years later, I have found little data change them. I described some of mine, and why. (And I stand by my other sig line as well, even though it's a fictional place. You might want to read the book it came from.)

Can you describe your prejudices, and why?

Originally Posted by nekokami

Similarly, when I read someone defending short-sighted strategies in the name of individual liberty, I also get frustrated. My view of the resource chain includes the living and working conditions of those who perform the labor that the "modern" standard of living depends on. Does yours? (Not a rhetorical question.).

Since you haven't described your view of the resource chain, I probably can't. I will note, for example, the work that many years of my technical experience is geared to has been off-shored to lift other people out of poverty, and drop me towards poverty. But, I know, that's the big corporation's fault. But aren't I part of the resource chain? What about ranchers in Texas who can no longer compete and their land is returning to prarie? Are they part of your resource chain? People in the extraction portion of the US who are hamstrung by regulations of people who've never seen a rig, or walked into a mine? (I've done both.) Do they count? Or is just people who are destitute (and they are destitute) who have moved up from starving to destitute due to free trade and open markets? Who need to be move up to poor, no matter what the cost to people here in the resource chain?

(By the by, the largest ecological disasters created by technology have occured in areas without free markets and unlimited government.)

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm part Cherokee. To me, the "American experiment" you're so fond of entailed one group seizing resources from another group, with no better justification than the historical accident that gave them access to more advanced weapons. If we want to include a historical perspective in this discussion of cultures, we need to include the less savory side of history as well. And I'm not saying that various countries now in the EU don't also have dark sides to their pasts-- it might be helpful to examine the contrasts and comparisons of these negatives as part of our discussion of cultural differences..

The seizure of resources by force has occurred on a steady basis since Ugg the Caveman invented the club. If you want to go into the negative side, Ok, but when I brought up the past, you insisted it was irrelevant. Pick your choice, but at least stay consistent.

Originally Posted by nekokami

Or, we can settle for "I'm entitled to my opinion, and nothing you say can change my mind!" In which case, I think I'll spend my time in other threads.

I'll sum it up by asking you the following question.

Where in the world will people who believe in a limited form of government be allowed to live and organize by those beliefs, without any "missionaries" trying to covert them, and without and unlimited form of government viewpoints controlling them because they end up successful?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

We may not, as individuals, be at fault, or be a victim of these circumstances. But as descendents of one form of culture/race/religion/country or another, our human history is the same if we just look. Probably, without exception, we all come from being both the oppressors as well as the oppressed.

I think there is a quote, incorrectly attributed to George Carling that goes something like: "My grandfather never owned a slave, and never was a slave; and neither was yours!"

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

But as descendents of one form of culture/race/religion/country or another, our human history is the same if we just look. Probably, without exception, we all come from being both the oppressors as well as the oppressed.

Sometimes both in the same generation.

[Bilbo1967]

Right, this thread (I think) is about cultural differences. Perhaps a summary of what I (as an Englishman) know to be true about Americans would help here.

All Americans are:

Arrogant
Obsessed by money and celebrity
Extremely right wing politically
Stupid
Fat
Gun owners
Rude
Self-obsessed

Now, clearly this is nonsense - but I think a lot of UK people really do believe the above (or a large part of it). Perhaps it would be good to explore why some of the above points are commonly held as stereotypes? Are there/were there elements of truth in there or is it just pure xenophobia (perhaps a mixture of the two?).

Perhaps also an American member could let us have a similar list from the US perception of people from the UK (yeah, go on, we can take it!).

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Right, this thread (I think) is about cultural differences. Perhaps a summary of what I (as an Englishman) know to be true about Americans would help here.

All Americans are:

Arrogant
Obsessed by money and celebrity
Extremely right wing politically
Stupid
Fat
Gun owners
Rude
Self-obsessed

Now, clearly this is nonsense - but I think a lot of UK people really do believe the above (or a large part of it). Perhaps it would be good to explore why some of the above points are commonly held as stereotypes? Are there/were there elements of truth in there or is it just pure xenophobia (perhaps a mixture of the two?).

Perhaps also an American member could let us have a similar list from the US perception of people from the UK (yeah, go on, we can take it!).

That attitude is repeated almost constantly in our media output also. On no less than two seperate occasions this week (Radio 4 and BBC2) I have heard the "Americans are stupid" stereotype repeated, which gained a raucous crowd reaction both times.

Maybe we should all stop thinking of ourselves as from here or there, and instead embrace everything from everywhere? My cultural upbringing has as much to do with the media I consumed as the place where I was raised, so maybe that's an approach. Instead of division along cultural lines, maybe inclusion along what is similar and admirable?

Just a thought.

[Bilbo1967]

Well, of course you're right Moe; wouldn't the world be a better (and more peaceful) place if we all respected and celebrated each other's differences and emphasised our similarities as a way of living together in harmony.

Can't see that happening any time soon though unfortunately!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Right, this thread (I think) is about cultural differences. Perhaps a summary of what I (as an Englishman) know to be true about Americans would help here.

All Americans are:

Arrogant
Obsessed by money and celebrity
Extremely right wing politically
Stupid
Fat
Gun owners
Rude
Self-obsessed

Now, clearly this is nonsense - but I think a lot of UK people really do believe the above (or a large part of it). Perhaps it would be good to explore why some of the above points are commonly held as stereotypes? Are there/were there elements of truth in there or is it just pure xenophobia (perhaps a mixture of the two?).

Perhaps also an American member could let us have a similar list from the US perception of people from the UK (yeah, go on, we can take it!).

Nekokami say I'm not supposed to stereotype....

Columist to Howard Roarke: What do you think of me? You may use any terms you like.

Howard Roarke: But I don't think of you.

Checklist:

Arrogant Depends on you cultural definition of arrogant. Guarded maybe.

Extremely right wing politically: Is a limited government libertarian extreme right wing?

Stupid: Depends on who you ask...

Fat: Yes.

Gun owner: That's a loaded question....

Rude: Read my posting on this thread, and form your own opinion. I'm biased.

Self obsessed: Good question. At leasst I have a self....

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

All Americans are:

Arrogant
Obsessed by money and celebrity
Extremely right wing politically
Stupid
Fat
Gun owners
Rude
Self-obsessed

We can only wish it were so, but unfortunately I know some who are skinny.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have tried to get past the generalisations by describing how various differences formed. Not acceptable. I tried limiting my scope. Not acceptable.
To me, it seems like the only option is caputulation of my ehtics base. Sorry - not acceptable.

I don't know about others, but my objection to the first strategy was that I don't think your analysis or conclusions held up. (I'm not sure about the "limiting scope" strategy. Was that when the impact of the European settlers on the native population was dismissed as irrelevant?)

Would it force you to capitulate your ethics base if you were to admit that the US is and always has been culturally diverse, and that the "limited government" experiment was not universally held to be of value even at the founding, and has become rather less so of late? I'm not saying that you, personally, need to reject the idea of limited government, but it seems to me that you don't want to admit that an awful lot of other US citizens are looking for alternatives, nor that there's any merit to the concerns people express about the system you cherish.

I commented that you seemed to stand by your sig line, i.e. "Remember, no matter what they say, people don't want the truth, just their prejudices reinforced. -RSE" I don't really understand how your response below connects with that.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Of course I do. I hadn't been aware I'd been made a God, or even a wise man on a mountaintop. Just another human being. But everbody has prejudices, even you, Nekokami. I'm aware of most of mine, they were self chosen at age 14 after several months of introspection, based on the knowledge I had available then. Nearly 40 years later, I have found little data change them. I described some of mine, and why. (And I stand by my other sig line as well, even though it's a fictional place. You might want to read the book it came from.)

Can you describe your prejudices, and why?

I can, and we can take that offline, if you like. Mine are more fluid than yours seem to be. I am constantly re-evaluating what I think is true, on the basis of new evidence, and I seem to come across relevant new evidence regularly.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Since you haven't described your view of the resource chain, I probably can't. I will note, for example, the work that many years of my technical experience is geared to has been off-shored to lift other people out of poverty, and drop me towards poverty. But, I know, that's the big corporation's fault. But aren't I part of the resource chain? What about ranchers in Texas who can no longer compete and their land is returning to prarie? Are they part of your resource chain? People in the extraction portion of the US who are hamstrung by regulations of people who've never seen a rig, or walked into a mine? (I've done both.) Do they count? Or is just people who are destitute (and they are destitute) who have moved up from starving to destitute due to free trade and open markets? Who need to be move up to poor, no matter what the cost to people here in the resource chain?

You count, and they (those who have moved from starving to destitute, etc) count. There aren't enough resources to go around for the size of population that we have, if everyone wants a lifestyle like the typical American, or even Western European. It's not just that some people in the world don't work hard enough, or don't know how to be efficient. There just aren't enough resources to go around. I live a fairly minimal lifestyle, for a westerner, and if everyone lived like me we'd need 3 1/2 Earths to support all of us.

The thing is, when we look at the historical reasons for poverty around the world, there are very often events in the past and present caused by the same people who benefit from a low-cost labor source (i.e. poverty) now. It looks to me like the system has a built-in dependency on maintaining poverty for a substantial part of the world's population.

I am guessing that you believe that the relative wealth presently enjoyed by citizens of the US is due to historically limited government and free markets. That might be true-- I'm not completely convinced, but let's accept that for the moment. What if the stunning poverty in many places in the rest of the world is also due, at least in part, to the free markets and (comparably) limited government in the US? Can you accept that this might be possible? Does it matter to you if it is?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

(By the by, the largest ecological disasters created by technology have occured in areas without free markets and unlimited government.)

I'm going to have to ask for a reference on this one. I'll give you Mainland China, but there are an awful lot of ecological disasters happening in areas with no governance at all.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The seizure of resources by force has occurred on a steady basis since Ugg the Caveman invented the club. If you want to go into the negative side, Ok, but when I brought up the past, you insisted it was irrelevant. Pick your choice, but at least stay consistent.

Actually, I don't think the past is irrelevant. That's not what I meant about Boston. I think the past isn't as uniform as you've been implying. You've described motivations for the founding of the US that were not held by the majority at the time of the Revolution, let alone before that or after. You want to base your analysis of a kind of archetypical "American" on that history. It seems to me that you have romanticized the history, omitting the people who disagreed with the direction things ended up going, including the native peoples. I'm asking for consistency. If you want to look at how history has shaped contemporary culture, look at all of it-- the ones who wrote the history books, the dissenters, the ones who were silenced.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'll sum it up by asking you the following question.

Where in the world will people who believe in a limited form of government be allowed to live and organize by those beliefs, without any "missionaries" trying to covert them, and without and unlimited form of government viewpoints controlling them because they end up successful?

Inquiring minds want to know...

It's a reasonable question. Before we pick a particular patch of real estate, how much resources do you think such a group should be entitled to at the founding? Whatever they've been able to accumulate under a system that has privileged them? If you are right and all that is necessary to succeed is limited government and a free market, and non-interference, would you accept land and other resources equivalent to the proportional share of the world's resources per capita, multiplied by the number of people in your starting group? And agree to confine your wastes within your own borders? (We'll pretend, for the moment, that the complex issue of sharing water can be solved, and we might also assume that your young people will be allowed to know about the rest of the world and leave if they want to. It would be up to you if you want to accept immigrants. Perhaps they'd come with a "dowry" of additional resources.)

If so, I'd support you all the way, and I'd honestly wish you well. Show us all how it's done. I would personally defend your right to do so, even though this isn't the kind of society I myself would want to live in.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Actually, I don't think the past is irrelevant. That's not what I meant about Boston. I think the past isn't as uniform as you've been implying. You've described motivations for the founding of the US that were not held by the majority at the time of the Revolution, let alone before that or after.

From what I have read about the American Revolution, about 30% of the American colonists actively supported it, an approximately equal number (ie another 30%) actively opposed it, and the other 40% just didn't want to get involved, so it's perhaps untrue to say that it was a "popular" uprising.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

From what I have read about the American Revolution, about 30% of the American colonists actively supported it, an approximately equal number (ie another 30%) actively opposed it, and the other 40% just didn't want to get involved, so it's perhaps untrue to say that it was a "popular" uprising.

30 percent seems pretty high for a revolution... Most of them had far less...

(and why the "thing" about the American revolution? It was the British Empire's Vietnam War, and you lost. Ok.)

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

30 percent seems pretty high for a revolution... Most of them had far less...

You should be playing Colonization. You need more then 50%!
(sorry, just needed to write this )

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by jæd

Please go and look up what "tyranny" is. If it includes "lots of professionals working their asses off and trying to care about people while never getting enough backing from the govt" you may have a point.

I come from a family with more than its share of medical professionals. Doctors, dentists, nurses, going back three generations. It's the bureaucrats, Harry, not the docs. The bureaucrats are driving the docs out of business.

You should spend some time talking to your standard family doc or pediatrician. Here in Illinois, if you are a baby doc and treat kids under the statewide insurance plan for the "poor," the state (1) doesn't pay you much and (2) delays payment for months. (Meanwhile, if you treat anyone who walks in your door, you get a lot of deadbeats who - guess what - are illegals.) And on the Medicaid/Medicare side of things, it appears that more and more docs are refusing to accept patients because of the same problems.

Let me introduce you to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy - which, as a member of a federal bureaucracy for some 37 years now, rings true to me:

"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

This Iron Law is why any governmental "heath care" system will ultimately become tyrannical. It will not be run for the people needing health care, any more than the public schools are run for the students. It will not be run for the docs, except for the ones who, like teachers who become administrators, become members of the administration. And it will be a tyranny, because you will take whatever medicine it wants to give you, and prevent you from getting any medicine it does not want to give you.

Given I have very direct experience of both the US and the UK systems that is almost completely incorrect. If you are very rich then you could, in theory, pay for your own treatment completely. At some point the vast majority will need some type of Govt intervention....

You are evidently unfamiliar with the concept of private health insurance. It covers most medical needs, even expensive ones.

Government's role in health care is to regulate for purposes of quality control and for insuring (so to speak) competition among providers, prosecuting of fraud, and providing transparency to the consumer.

But once we let the government take over the funding we will get two things: increasing costs, and decreasing service delivered in accordance with government decree handled by a bunch of bureaucrats following Pournelle's Iron Law to the letter.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Benedict Arnold, to be precise. As a general in the American Revolutionary army, he certainly could not be considered a loyal subject of the King. After continual snubbing by the other senior revolutary American generals, he sold out certain military secrets to the British. Therefore, he would then be a traitor to the American cause. That would seem to make him a traitor all around....

The man was a traitor from any perspective. Here's a quote that pretty much sums things up:

"In the end, Benedict Arnold's "moral failure lay not in his disenchantment with the American cause" for many other officers returned to civilian life disgusted with the decline in republican virtue and angry over their failure to win a guaranteed pension from Congress. Nor did his infamy stem from his transfer of allegiance to the British side, for other Patriots chose to become Loyalists, sometimes out of principle but just as often for personal gain. Arnold's perfidy lay in the abuse of his position of authority and trust: he would betray West Point and its garrison "and if necessary the entire American war effort" to secure his own success. His treason was not that of a principled man but that of a selfish one, and he never lived that down. Hated in America as a consort of "Beelzebub ... the Devil," Arnold was treated with coldness and even contempt in Britain. He died as he lived, a man without a country."

The Enigma of Benedict Arnold by James Henretta http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/arnold.html