Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Greg Anos]

Interesting thread. Some musing of my own.

The US is an achievement based culture. It always has been. It's an artifact of having an open frontier for 200+ years (circa 1650 - 1890). If you failed, you simply moved out to the edge and started over.

This shows in the little things everywhere. Look at sports. Football (soccer) has had little grip over here, (although that's very slowly starting to change). Why? How many ties do you get. American culture doesn't not have an abhorrance for losing nearly as much as an abhorrance to not having an achievement (winning or losing).

We seek answers in everything. We place a great emphasis on new knowledge here. (For a wonderful parody of this, see Mark Twain's The Innocents Abroad, written in 1869).

This leads to a view of government as referee. Government should try to see the "rules of the game" are enforced evenly, and let the best man win. Of course, in areas that are many generations away from the "frontier ethos", there has been a slow change to a more European government world view, as more and more people try to "lock in" their social position and reduce social mobility. This has led to continual friction inside the US itself between the followers of the old "frontier ethos" and the newer (to the US) "social lock-in ethos".

This is enough for a starter....

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And therein lies the difference, Nate. You consider a government-run healthcare system to be a "nanny"; we perceive it as a basic duty of government to provide such a service, and free access to healthcare to be a fundamental human right.

I find it interesting how many things are considered to be a "fundamental human right" that no government would have dreamed of funding 100 years ago.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We = the overwhelming majority of people in the UK. I think you'd struggle to find anyone in this country who is opposed to the basic idea of the NHS, don't you?

As long as 'we' doesn't automatically include me.

The NHS has let a lot of people down recently and there have been some truly shocking scandals. I wouldn't want to be admitted to my local hospital , and have been researching alternatives should the need ever arise.

Also, free access to healthcare is no longer a principle - many elderly people have to give up their savings, and sell their home to get the care they need.

The Adam Smith Instiute is one body that has argued for reform of the NHS.
"That the NHS is being steadily devastated by political interference is not
a controversial point. There is almost universal agreement among health
analysts, doctors, hospital managers, patients groups and others, that
government is the root of the problem."

So there are a variety of opinions on the role of the government with regard to the NHS.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I find it interesting how many things are considered to be a "fundamental human right" that no government would have dreamed of funding 100 years ago.

Attitudes have changed a lot, and so has population density since those government's existed. A hundred years ago (in some quarters) racial and sexual equality were not fundamental human rights' either.

[HarryT]

I'm sure the NHS does need to be reformed, but that's very different to saying that it shouldn't exist, don't you think?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

..Look at sports. Football (soccer) has had little grip over here, (although that's very slowly starting to change). Why? ...

'Cos you're no good at it.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure the NHS does need to be reformed, but that's very different to saying that it shouldn't exist, don't you think?

Too far off-topic to debate that here?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

'Cos you're no good at it.

You're quite right we're no good at it. We don't value it. Our best athletes don't play it, nor do our fans have much interest in watching it. So it gets relegated to a minor tier sport. The question "Why don't we value it?" is the important one to look at...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Attitudes have changed a lot, and so has population density since those government's existed. A hundred years ago (in some quarters) racial and sexual equality were not fundamental human rights' either.

A good example is education. Until 1880, education was not compulsory in England, and until 1891 it was not free. I'm sure, however, that today most people would consider it a fundamental duty of the government of a country to provide an educational system, and access to education to be a "right".

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Attitudes have changed a lot, and so has population density since those government's existed. A hundred years ago (in some quarters) racial and sexual equality were not fundamental human rights' either.

Yes, the entitlement attitude did not exist 100 years ago. But population density has not changed significantly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You're quite right we're no good at it. We don't value it. Our best athletes don't play it, nor do our fans have much interest in watching it. So it gets relegated to a minor tier sport. The question "Why don't we value it?" is the important one to look at...

You do your country an unjustice; there are some excellent US soccer players, but they almost all play in Europe because of the lack of a serious professional game in the US. Your national side is pretty good, too.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A good example is education. Until 1880, education was not compulsory in England, and until 1891 it was not free. I'm sure, however, that today most people would consider it a fundamental duty of the government of a country to provide an educational system, and access to education to be a "right".

Whereas government sponsered education has always been a bedrock of the American culture. The quickest way to learn of the new things in America was to read about them, so reading and writing were deemed necessary "game rules". For an example, read Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer written in the early 1870's, about a period in the 1840's, particularly the schoolhouse scenes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Too far off-topic to debate that here?

I don't have a problem with it if you don't.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You're quite right we're no good at it. We don't value it. Our best athletes don't play it, nor do our fans have much interest in watching it. So it gets relegated to a minor tier sport. The question "Why don't we value it?" is the important one to look at...

Well, that's easy. Because there is no place to put in commercials. Soccer is a timed game where the clock doesn't stop. So, where do you put in the TV ads? It just isn't commercially valid. Even the US Soccer League or whatever it is airs the games on minor cable channels that you have to pay to see.

Football (american) and Baseball have tons off opportunities to take time out for an add. A game with 4 15 minutes quarters takes 3 hours to "play" which gives them a captive audience for ads. This is also why Hockey here is such a minor TV covered sport also. Once again, a timed game with very few breaks or clock stoppages.

BOb

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes, the entitlement attitude did not exist 100 years ago. But population density has not changed significantly.

In America, or in the UK? I'm sure we have a significantly larger and more densely populated country than we had 100 years ago.