TheRPGSite

The Lounge => Media and Inspiration => Topic started by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 11:41:30 AM

Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 11:41:30 AM
So to avert the derailing of another thread, I'd like discuss American Exceptionalism.

First, what is American exceptionalism? It's the believe that America embodies some particular human ideals (usually freedom, opportunity, rights of man), and that America is thus not like other countries. Some Americans believe this is actually a religious identity - that America is favoured by God. Others point to the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution as unique documents in human history.

So some questions:

How many Americans here believe the U.S. is uniquely free, has unique opportunities, etc., and how widespread is the notion among Americans at large?

Is it true that America is unlike other nations in embodying universal ideals, particularly freedom in speech and politics, and in economic opportunity?

How does the widely held belief in American exceptionalism among Americans affect America's relations with the rest of the world?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 11:50:17 AM
How is this different than other people’s nationalism? Is “Why do Americans think America is so special? My country does X, Y & Z as well or better than America!” Other than the fact of America’s power, as a world player, American pride is just the same as any other nation’s people feeling pride in the home.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 27, 2008, 11:54:01 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;240549
How many Americans here believe the U.S. is uniquely free, has unique opportunities, etc., and how widespread is the notion among Americans at large?


You could count me in that group.


Quote from: Haffrung;240549

Is it true that America is unlike other nations in embodying universal ideals, particularly freedom in speech and politics, and in economic opportunity?


Yes for economic opportunity. Doesn't mean the US will keep it however.

As for free speech and the like, things use to be better and I consider them decaying- but not in the direction I'm sure most here would indicate. Instead the rule of liberial thought, especially in research and academia but also including the MSM and Hollywood has overwhelmed what at one time was a prized element of the American worldview.

Not that it's any better anywhere else in the West.


Quote from: Haffrung;240549

How does the widely held belief in American exceptionalism among Americans affect America's relations with the rest of the world?


Until we cease to exist, we'll be hated no matter what.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 27, 2008, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240556
Other than the fact of America’s power, as a world player, American pride is just the same as any other nation’s people feeling pride in the home.
Not really.

There's a real tinge of "we're unique" in American public discourse, whether political or commercial. There's not the same tone in every country's talking about itself. Most countries tend to say that they're good at this or that, but not that they're unique and special and have a... Manifest Destiny.

It's hard to see it when you're right in it. Fish, it is said, don't know they're in water.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 27, 2008, 12:14:33 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240549
How many Americans here believe the U.S. is uniquely free, has unique opportunities, etc., and how widespread is the notion among Americans at large?

I trend in that direction. I think it's less now than, say, 40 years ago - both as a result of our slide and others' gains. but I still think we hold an edge. Let me put it this way, I think we are unique, but I don't know that we're the best in freedom or opportunity. It's a rare mix we have; that I would support.

Quote from: Haffrung;240549
Is it true that America is unlike other nations in embodying universal ideals, particularly freedom in speech and politics, and in economic opportunity?

I think that last is probably still our forte. I think, as I mentioned, we're less exceptional on the speech and politics. That's all implementation or execution. I do think we continue to be unmatched in our idealism. Whether we reach those lofty peaks or not is a different question - and we must always remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Quote from: Haffrung;240549
How does the widely held belief in American exceptionalism among Americans affect America's relations with the rest of the world?

I disagree with Kyle (surprise!) and say it's not so unique in the world. What we do have is the economic and military power to act on that belief in exceptionalism, which I'm sure does not sit well with others.

Then again, if we ever wanted to fight when I was in school in Milwaukee, all we had to do was tell them they were a suburb of Chicago. It's the little brother syndrome, to some extent. To shift Mr. Gleichman's point a little - until we cease to be the, or one of the, superpowers of the world, there will be a certain level of hostility.

And I understand it - I can empathize with those that feel we are telling them how to live when they didn't ask us to be in charge. Taxation without Representation, indeed.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;240571
Not really.

There's a real tinge of "we're unique" in American public discourse, whether political or commercial. There's not the same tone in every country's talking about itself. Most countries tend to say that they're good at this or that, but not that they're unique and special and have a... Manifest Destiny.

It's hard to see it when you're right in it. Fish, it is said, don't know they're in water.


Must be nice to be "better than me" so much that you can see the "problem" but I can't. :worship:

What people dislike about America is the power, wealth and influence they have as a whole. You know, 'cause the French (for example) never think they are better than everyone else....

I am sure that when the Europeans were out and about building their empires and exploiting folks around the globe, they didn't think they were better than anyone else.

National pride is national pride. It just gets you more dirty looks when you happen to be the big dog on the block.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 12:42:15 PM
The main thing about American exceptionalism is that the American government  does all sorts of stupid and cruel shit that few other countries would dare to, but they think that they can actually do it, or deserve to do it, because they belong to a nation unlike others. They reflect this back onto the population, and are able to legitimise themselves, in spite of failure.

It's worth pointing out that the idea of a nation being the "greatest" is only really still articulated in American political discourse. You'll occasionally find vestiges of it in the governments of other nations declaring their own countries to be the best at this or that, but the American conception of themselves as "greatest" is exceptional insofar as it enjoys popular support. It differs from nationalist pride in the respect that most national pride is directed at the restitution of perceived grievances or at concrete problems, rather than being a free-floating, abstract sense of superiority.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 27, 2008, 12:59:08 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240581
Must be nice to be "better than me" so much that you can see the "problem" but I can't. :worship:
It's not that I'm better than you, it's just that I'm not in your country.

It's hard to see the thing you're immersed in. But of course, if you're not in it you may have an imperfect understanding of it. That's an old problem in anthropology: someone truly an outsider will miss important things, someone truly an insider will take so much for granted as "natural", have so many assumptions they've never heard spoken or even thought through, that they'll also miss things. So to really understand a culture you must be both an outsider and an insider at once. That's the paradox of anthropology, and the OP's is essentially an anthropological question, a question about people and their culture.

That paradox applies to me, too - it's hard for me have a clear and objective idea of Australian culture, since I'm immersed in it. However, US and (for example) English culture I'm equally an outsider to, so I can see that there are differences between the two, differences in the nationalism of each.

Quote from: CavScout
What people dislike about America is the power, wealth and influence they have as a whole. You know, 'cause the French (for example) never think they are better than everyone else....
I assure you that the French are often as strongly-disliked as Americans ;)

Nonetheless, there are differences, which could be discussed by CavScout if he'd deign to reply to the OP instead of just trying to make me his StormBringer for this thread.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 27, 2008, 01:13:59 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240591
The main thing about American exceptionalism is that the American government  does all sorts of stupid and cruel shit that few other countries would dare to, but they think that they can actually do it, or deserve to do it, because they belong to a nation unlike others. They reflect this back onto the population, and are able to legitimise themselves, in spite of failure.

It's worth pointing out that the idea of a nation being the "greatest" is only really still articulated in American political discourse. You'll occasionally find vestiges of it in the governments of other nations declaring their own countries to be the best at this or that, but the American conception of themselves as "greatest" is exceptional insofar as it enjoys popular support. It differs from nationalist pride in the respect that most national pride is directed at the restitution of perceived grievances or at concrete problems, rather than being a free-floating, abstract sense of superiority.


Funny enough, in the book I'm reading now, the city-state of Athens had the same opinion of itself and justified its own atrocities and imperialistic ambitions on the grounds that it was spreading culture and enlightenment.  It's not an attitude unique to the United States.  It's an attitude that seems to be held by any state that possesses power and projects influence on a scale disproportionate to those around it.  Or something.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 01:31:08 PM
Quote from: KenHR;240603
Funny enough, in the book I'm reading now, the city-state of Athens had the same opinion of itself and justified its own atrocities and imperialistic ambitions on the grounds that it was spreading culture and enlightenment.  It's not an attitude unique to the United States.  It's an attitude that seems to be held by any state that possesses power and projects influence on a scale disproportionate to those around it.  Or something.


Athens had its own shit going on. It certainly did consider itself the greatest of the Greek states, but it didn't have the messianic conception of history that undergirds American political discourse. The Athenians were in it for glory and money, not to end history by replicating their ethos (or symbiotic economic arrangements) throughout the world.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240591
The main thing about American exceptionalism is that the American government  does all sorts of stupid and cruel shit that few other countries would dare to, but they think that they can actually do it, or deserve to do it, because they belong to a nation unlike others. They reflect this back onto the population, and are able to legitimise themselves, in spite of failure.


Utter nonsense. America does what’s in its interest when it can because it can. Just like every other nation does when they can. To pretend that no other nation acts in self-interest when ever it can is pure folly, unless one belongs to a nation so inept that they are truly at the behest of others.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240591
It's worth pointing out that the idea of a nation being the "greatest" is only really still articulated in American political discourse. You'll occasionally find vestiges of it in the governments of other nations declaring their own countries to be the best at this or that, but the American conception of themselves as "greatest" is exceptional insofar as it enjoys popular support. It differs from nationalist pride in the respect that most national pride is directed at the restitution of perceived grievances or at concrete problems, rather than being a free-floating, abstract sense of superiority.


It’s just like most things; the biggest guy on the block catches hell for being the biggest guy on the block. Ask Microsoft.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 27, 2008, 01:40:33 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240614
Athens had its own shit going on. It certainly did consider itself the greatest of the Greek states, but it didn't have the messianic conception of history that undergirds American political discourse. The Athenians were in it for glory and money, not to end history by replicating their ethos (or symbiotic economic arrangements) throughout the world.


I think I'd disagree here, but it's been quite a while since I've delved into the history of the ancient Greeks (not to mention that we're veering way OT).  I do seem to remember Athens having a virtual empire built on forced tribute and export of its ideals and language throughout the Hellenic world.  The methods might have been more crude, but...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;240596
Nonetheless, there are differences, which could be discussed by CavScout if he'd deign to reply to the OP instead of just trying to make me his StormBringer for this thread.


Are you actually saying you can respond to my post and I should not respond to yours?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 01:46:44 PM
Quote from: KenHR;240619
I think I'd disagree here, but it's been quite a while since I've delved into the history of the ancient Greeks (not to mention that we're veering way OT).  I do seem to remember Athens having a virtual empire built on forced tribute and export of its ideals and language throughout the Hellenic world.  The methods might have been more crude, but...


Well, you know, when Alexander the Great was about conquering the world, spreading Greek culture, he wasn't fulfilling his divine rights or anything... forget about all the kings and what not expanding their empires... divine right never entered into it. :rolleyes:
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 27, 2008, 01:49:12 PM
Alright, since that e-mail from my friend indirectly inspired this thread's start ...I'll re-post it here.


I told her the question of the other thread, her answering machine may have garbled what was recorded...but this is how she responded:


Quote
While France invented the principle of liberty brotherhood and equality, it was America who put it in practice like no other nation on earth.
 There is no country in the world where the belief that ANYBODY can become something of value; and that we all are born equal (with equaL potential and opportunity) is held so deeply and so sincerely by so many people. Even the most free democracies in the rest of the world have only a pale sense of that,by comparison; so I think that liberty and equality ideals are the USA contribution to the world.

A world without that would be a much darker place


She was born and grew up in Europe.  Only started living here in America in the early 1980s, She speaks and writes at least 6 languages pretty fluently. (To be fair tho, she is not always the most comfortable with e-mail & computers. She tends to prefer the phone or regular letters in the mail)

Also she has got a professional career where she had to earn her degreee for it in the mid-90s...about 9, 10 years ago.

- Ed C.






P.S. : She became a U.S. citizen in 2004.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: walkerp on August 27, 2008, 01:54:47 PM
We're pretty free here in Canada.  Pretty good potential for success for newcomers as well, relatively speaking.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jgants on August 27, 2008, 01:58:29 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240618
It’s just like most things; the biggest guy on the block catches hell for being the biggest guy on the block. Ask Microsoft.


I think there is definitely some truth to that.

I also think we cause an equal amount of trouble with our whole "we don't need anyone's permission to do whatever we want" attitude and the whole "America is the greatest, therefore no one else is worth learning anything from" attitude not to mention the "we're God's chosen country" attitude.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 02:03:18 PM
Quote from: jgants;240633
I think there is definitely some truth to that.

I also think we cause an equal amount of trouble with our whole "we don't need anyone's permission to do whatever we want" attitude and the whole "America is the greatest, therefore no one else is worth learning anything from" attitude not to mention the "we're God's chosen country" attitude.


None of that latter, though, is uniquely American. Perhaps unique in this specific time-frame,  but only because of the balance of power. You don't think, for example, the British Empire, at its height of power, thought of itself as the "greatest" and did whatever it felt was in its national interests?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: NotYourMonkey on August 27, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240549
So to avert the derailing of another thread, I'd like discuss American Exceptionalism.

First, what is American exceptionalism? It's the believe that America embodies some particular human ideals (usually freedom, opportunity, rights of man), and that America is thus not like other countries. Some Americans believe this is actually a religious identity - that America is favoured by God. Others point to the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution as unique documents in human history.


I tend to see it as the "it can't happen here" syndrome.  That the U.S. can do stupid, dangerous, and cruel things and have it be OK because we are America.  It is the worst kind of magical thinking.

Quote from: Haffrung;240549

How many Americans here believe the U.S. is uniquely free, has unique opportunities, etc., and how widespread is the notion among Americans at large?


My SWAG on this is that lots and lots of Americans feel that this is true.  If not most (and I'd think most), at least a big, big minority.

Quote from: Haffrung;240549

Is it true that America is unlike other nations in embodying universal ideals, particularly freedom in speech and politics, and in economic opportunity?


  Yes and no.  We have more freedom of speech than most places, even other Western democracies, for the moment.  We have both more and less political freedom than other western democracies.  We basically have two meaningful choices in any election cycle, and it is expensive as hell to deal in initiatives a lot of the time, and you can't really do that on the Federal level.  Of course, we also don't have a rigid and largely closed party structure that you see in some of the parliamentary democracies.  Unfortunately, I see a lot of the political liberty we do have as vulnerable for a variety of reasons.  On the economic front, I don't know what class mobility is like in Europe at the moment, but I know it is getting more difficult, and more downward here.

Quote from: Haffrung;240549

How does the widely held belief in American exceptionalism among Americans affect America's relations with the rest of the world?


Again, a total SWAG, but I think it pisses people off.  Some European countries have already played the games we have been playing a hundred years ago and more and know how this ends, and we won't listen.

Also, I don't think any claims that we are the good guys are going to resonate real well in most of Central America.  I know if I were Iranian, and was old enough to remember how the Shah ended up in power, the fact that the U.S. calls itself a force for Democracy would piss me off as much as what happened to my country.  Same with Chile, or Nicaragua, or Guatamala, or a shit ton of other countries we have done shitty things to over the course of the last hundred years.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: walkerp;240631
We're pretty free here in Canada.  Pretty good potential for success for newcomers as well, relatively speaking.


I bet you'd be hard pressed to find countries with the unique mix of freedoms that the US has. Finding coutries that have all of the following is hard:
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of Religion
Right to bear arms.

The combination of those three does make the US somewhat unique.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 27, 2008, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: jgants;240633
I also think we cause an equal amount of trouble with our whole "we don't need anyone's permission to do whatever we want" attitude

I think the mistake people make is forgetting to add something to the end of that. It should read "we don't need anyone's permission to do whatever we want - if we feel that thing is necessary to protect our self-interests." When you leave that last part off, it makes it sound like a spoiled child - the way in which another nation that doesn't like what the US has chosen to do would like to characterize the US. Unfortunately, the second portion tends to be left off because it makes the US, in those cases, pretty much like other nations in that it acts in its own self interest; takes away some of th bite/sting of the comment.

Quote from: jgants;240633
and the whole "America is the greatest, therefore no one else is worth learning anything from" attitude

This one is not so familiar to me. Is this prevalent in the US?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 02:13:47 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;240649
This one is not so familiar to me. Is this prevalent in the US?


I am sure there is some, just as any other country. But the US certainly hasn't been adverse to taking something from somewhere else and incorporating it and/or improving on it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Settembrini on August 27, 2008, 02:31:08 PM
1) Every country is undebatably unique
2) Every country is undebatably exceptional in some regards.
3) Speaking in Koltarese, America is a 300 pt. build, with 120 pts in flaws
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240556
How is this different than other people’s nationalism? Is “Why do Americans think America is so special? My country does X, Y & Z as well or better than America!”


Three differences:



So you may hear a Canadian say that overall he thinks Canada is a great place to live, because X, Y, and Z are all pretty good in Canada. You won't hear a Canadian say "nobody else in the world is as free as Canadians," or "Canada is the only place in the world where someone who can start with nothing and become the CEO of a fortune 500 company."
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Ian Absentia on August 27, 2008, 03:02:56 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240668
So you may hear a Canadian say that overall he thinks Canada is a great place to live, because X, Y, and Z are all pretty good in Canada. You won't hear a Canadian say "nobody else in the world is as free as Canadians," or "Canada is the only place in the world where someone who can start with nothing and become the CEO of a fortune 500 company."
You know you're about to get maybe a half-dozen responses claiming, "I don't hear that sort of thing here in the US" don't you?

!i!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 27, 2008, 03:15:20 PM
Actually, he's going to get at least one response calling bullshit about no one from other countries claiming their the best.

I love the carefully worded examples.

"We have a pretty good work-life balance...."

When in reality there are plenty of booster of their own nations that would have said, in all fucking honesty

"We have the best work-life balance here in..."

 Its bullshit. Maybe America does go overboard on claiming the best 'big ticket idea's... or maybe we're the loudest and most obnoxious about it. But I call bullshit that we are by any means the only ones.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240644
I bet you'd be hard pressed to find countries with the unique mix of freedoms that the US has. Finding coutries that have all of the following is hard:
Freedom of the Press



Same as other Western Democracies.

Quote


Freedom of Religion



The U.S. may have a slight edge over some European countries, in that cults like the Scientology are granted the status of religion in the U.S., while in some other democracies they are considered, well, cults.

However, I'd say Canada is as free when it comes to religion as the U.S. Or do you know of a religion that is free to practice in the U.S., but suppressed in Canada?

Quote


Right to bear arms.



How important of a freedom that is depends on your culture. In a lot of democracies, it's not very important. But the right to, say, be a bachelor and not have that counted against you in politics may be very important. Or the right to sunbathe nude.

Quote


The combination of those three does make the US somewhat unique.


Only legally, and then it's still debatable. Then there's the whole notion of conformity, and how that shapes freedom and behaviour. Sure, I'd be free run for high office in the U.S. as an atheist. My chances of election are virtually nil, though. So in the U.S., religion places more constraints on my opportunity than in Canada.

I think it was de Tocqueville who said there is nowhere on earth where there's such a gulf between what you're legally allowed to do and the narrow bounds of convention than in the U.S.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 03:26:14 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;240649
I think the mistake people make is forgetting to add something to the end of that. It should read "we don't need anyone's permission to do whatever we want - if we feel that thing is necessary to protect our self-interests." When you leave that last part off, it makes it sound like a spoiled child - the way in which another nation that doesn't like what the US has chosen to do would like to characterize the US. Unfortunately, the second portion tends to be left off because it makes the US, in those cases, pretty much like other nations in that it acts in its own self interest; takes away some of th bite/sting of the comment.



Where American exceptionalism comes in is the widespread belief among American that their country does not act in the world stage in its own national interests - that it acts to defend universal human ideals. The citizens of other countries are skeptical of this altruism - not only because they don't feel the U.S. is a selfless actor on the world stage, but because they don't believe any nation is a selfless actor on the world stage.

That's why it makes so many non-Americans cringe when a president of the U.S. speaks of using force to defend freedom around the world, without any reference to American interests, especially when he uses the language and cadence of a preacher speaking to his congregation. It makes America seem at once hypocritical, and dangerously zealous.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 27, 2008, 03:31:33 PM
Quote
The U.S. may have a slight edge over some European countries, in that cults like the Scientology are granted the status of religion in the U.S., while in some other democracies they are considered, well, cults.

However, I'd say Canada is as free when it comes to religion as the U.S. Or do you know of a religion that is free to practice in the U.S., but suppressed in Canada?


Off the top of my head here's a couple examples where Americans are more free in terms of religion then our neighbors to the north and across the ocean:

-In the US someone is free to deliver a religious sermon either in favor of or against controversial issues such as homosexuality.  In Canada someone can be hauled off to jail for preaching that homosexuality is a sin.  

-Most European countries have official state religions.

Quote
How important of a freedom that is depends on your culture. In a lot of democracies, it's not very important. But the right to, say, be a bachelor and not have that counted against you in politics may be very important. Or the right to sunbathe nude.


Sunbathing nude will not protect your property or freedom from those who would take it- either other private citizens or the goverment.  I think the importance of the right to bear arms transcends American culture.  That explains why totalitarian regimes- be they Nazi Germany or Communist China- that arose in very different cultures work so hard to oppress private ownership of firearms.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240682
Same as other Western Democracies.


Not quite true. For example, the British Official Secrets Act restrains the press far more than they would be restrained in the US.

Quote from: Haffrung;240682
The U.S. may have a slight edge over some European countries, in that cults like the Scientology are granted the status of religion in the U.S., while in some other democracies they are considered, well, cults.


It’s not exactly freedom of religion if one gets to decide which unusual or out-of-favor religions one thinks should have freedom.

Quote from: Haffrung;240682
However, I'd say Canada is as free when it comes to religion as the U.S. Or do you know of a religion that is free to practice in the U.S., but suppressed in Canada?


I'll remind you my post was about the unique combination of three.

Quote from: Haffrung;240682
]How important of a freedom that is depends on your culture. In a lot of democracies, it's not very important. But the right to, say, be a bachelor and not have that counted against you in politics may be very important. Or the right to sunbathe nude.


I'll remind you my post was about the unique combination of three. It’s not about if you think the right is deserving or not.

Quote from: Haffrung;240682
Only legally, and then it's still debatable. Then there's the whole notion of conformity, and how that shapes freedom and behaviour. Sure, I'd be free run for high office in the U.S. as an atheist. My chances of election are virtually nil, though. So in the U.S., religion places more constraints on my opportunity than in Canada.


Just because you can do something is not reason, alone, to do it.

But again, you tried to tear each of the freedoms apart as individuals when the uniqueness is the combination of them.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 03:35:38 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240686
Where American exceptionalism comes in is the widespread belief among American that their country does not act in the world stage in its own national interests - that it acts to defend universal human ideals. The citizens of other countries are skeptical of this altruism - not only because they don't feel the U.S. is a selfless actor on the world stage, but because they don't believe any nation is a selfless actor on the world stage.

That's why it makes so many non-Americans cringe when a president of the U.S. speaks of using force to defend freedom around the world, without any reference to American interests, especially when he uses the language and cadence of a preacher speaking to his congregation. It makes America at once hypocritical, and dangerously zealous.


Yeah 'cause no other country does this, currently, in the past or will in the future. Only those Americans....

"The envious die not once, but as oft as the envied win applause."  ~Baltasar Gracian

"Envy is the art of counting the other fellow's blessings instead of your own." ~Harold Coffin
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 03:35:59 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240618
Utter nonsense. America does what’s in its interest when it can because it can. Just like every other nation does when they can. To pretend that no other nation acts in self-interest when ever it can is pure folly, unless one belongs to a nation so inept that they are truly at the behest of others.


Actually, the American government rarely acts in its nation's self-interest, except if "self-interest" is defined in crudest and stupidest way, or as the "self-interest" of its ruling elite.

Quote
It’s just like most things; the biggest guy on the block catches hell for being the biggest guy on the block. Ask Microsoft.


It is simply wrong to attribute the flack America gets to "ressentiment". Specifically, it is a failure of imagination and understanding.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: KenHR;240619
I think I'd disagree here, but it's been quite a while since I've delved into the history of the ancient Greeks (not to mention that we're veering way OT).  I do seem to remember Athens having a virtual empire built on forced tribute and export of its ideals and language throughout the Hellenic world.  The methods might have been more crude, but...


Er, no. For one thing, there were no serious state-sponsored attempts to export the Attic dialect of Greek to the other Greeks. There was also no attempt to export the ethos of the Athenian people (indeed, this would seem ludicrous and perhaps even impious to the Athenians and other Greeks). What the Athenians did do was sponsor democratic parties in other city-states against oligarchic factions which were seen as favouring Sparta (and, by the time of the Peloponnesian War, they weren't even doing this consistently; IIRC they were at one point supporting the oligarchic anti-Spartan party in Argos against the isolationist / de facto pro-Spartan democratic party).

The American empire really isn't like the Athenian one. It's much more similar to the British, and even then, it has many unique features derived from its apocalyptic, militaristic, capitalist character.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 03:42:20 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;240694
In Canada someone can be hauled off to jail for preaching that homosexuality is a sin.  




No, they cannot. Where did you hear that?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240699
Actually, the American government rarely acts in its nation's self-interest, except if "self-interest" is defined in crudest and stupidest way, or as the "self-interest" of its ruling elite.


Please… are you going to argue that the US has amassed its great power, wealth and influence by routinely acting against its own self-interests?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240699
It is simply wrong to attribute the flack America gets to "ressentiment". Specifically, it is a failure of imagination and understanding.


It's not wrong; it is squarely on the mark. But then I assume you think Americans are too arrogant to understand the arrogant ramblings of those envious of the power, wealth and influence wielded by the US. Not to worry, when some other country takes on the mantle of superpower, and has amassed as much power and influence, we in the US will call them arrogant and self-serving when they act in their self-interests.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;240694

-In the US someone is free to deliver a religious sermon either in favor of or against controversial issues such as homosexuality.  In Canada someone can be hauled off to jail for preaching that homosexuality is a sin.


Actually, they can't be, you ignorant fuck.

For that matter, in Canada, a homosexual is free to get married and experience the benefits that accrue to that status. In America, only a few states allow homosexual marriages and they not recognised on a federal level.

America isn't really that free, from an outsider's perspective. Freedom is not just a set of formal declarations by the government, but rather a set of practices and abilities that individuals have. For example, in both Canada and America one is free to protest things, but in America, one can be confined to out-of-the-way "free-speech zones" and other holding pens legally while doing it, whereas in Canada one can pretty much march anywhere in public that one wants, whether outside a convention centre or down the streets of Toronto.

In Canada, I can say whatever I please, and so long as I don't say it at the work place, my boss can't fire me for saying it. In America, if my boss doesn't like what I say in my off-working hours, they can fire me. In Canada, if I want to smoke, I can. In America, my boss has the right to fire me for smoking because of the risk of increased costs accruing to him.

While it's not totally perfect up here, we do have a much healthier practice of freedom than Americans do.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 27, 2008, 03:57:11 PM
It's part of the lifetime of the empire or 'superpower', if you prefer. You can, therefore you do. You dominate, therefore you are best. You spread your views, therefore you are right.

Then when things are lost or degenerating, you become far more cynical. You can't, therefore you don't bother. You follow, therefore you are pants. You keep your views to yourself, therefore you are stagnant.

*all you's are general, not specific*
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240708
Please… are you going to argue that the US has amassed its great power, wealth and influence by routinely acting against its own self-interests?


No, you ignoramus. Read what I wrote, not whatever bizarre fantastical strawmen you find easiest to nitpick. I provided no account of how America amassed its "power, wealth and influence", and I consider it unimportant for our current discussion of how America badly uses that "power, wealth and influence".

Quote
It's not wrong; it is squarely on the mark. But then I assume you think Americans are too arrogant to understand the arrogant ramblings of those envious of the power, wealth and influence wielded by the US.


Your assumption is incorrect, mostly because it has no basis in anything I've said. I'm also unsure what "arrogant ramblings of those envious of... the US[,]" you are referring to.

Quote
Not to worry, when some other country takes on the mantle of superpower, and has amassed as much power and influence, we in the US will call them arrogant and self-serving when they act in their self-interests.


That is simply an abhorrent sort of moral relativism fit for the Chinese fascists and other sorts of scum. Is this the company you desire to be among?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 03:57:43 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240708
Please… are you going to argue that the US has amassed its great power, wealth and influence by routinely acting against its own self-interests?


Given the USA's current overseas commitments in the context of a struggling home economy and the alienation of allies you could say that it's against the self interest of many of its citizens.

I'm curious as to why you chose freedom of the press, religion and the right to bear arms in terms of America's exceptionalism. Writing as a European I'd certainly value health care/an effective welfare system above the third on your list. For me, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens if it expects loyalty and a commitment in return.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240706
No, they cannot. Where did you hear that?


I don't know about jail, but they can be dragged in front of a tribual where
Quote
"Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence — due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any “judgement” they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim."[1 (http://bloodthirstyliberal.com/?p=6386)]

or

Quote
"A British Columbian "human rights" tribunal did, however, decide that it had jurisdiction over what a Toronto-based magazine could publish, and the show trial against Maclean's continues there, with judgement awaited. The Alberta HRC continues to try Ezra Levant and his Western Standard magazine (now defunct in print) -- in proceedings that have gone on for more than two years. The Canadian HRC has taken 16 months in preliminary consideration of the case a gay activist brought against the small Toronto-based Catholic Insight magazine. Indeed: prolonged and arbitrary delays appear to be part of the method by which the HRCs bleed their respondents dry with legal and other expenses."[2 (http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/keep_fighting.html)]


or

Quote
"In the case of the CPSO, the targets are doctors who refuse to perform abortions on healthy women, or refer them to abortionists, prescribe morning-after pills, help same-sex couples conceive children, and so forth. The idea is to strip a doctor of his licence, should he or she allow moral conscience to stand in the way of delivering any state-sanctioned "medical" "services.""[3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/canadas_human_rights_revolutio.html)]
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240719
No, you ignoramus. Read what I wrote, not whatever bizarre fantastical strawmen you find easiest to nitpick. I provided no account of how America amassed its "power, wealth and influence", and I consider it unimportant for our current discussion of how America badly uses that "power, wealth and influence".


So, when you say:
Quote
[T]he American government rarely acts in its nation's self-interest, except if "self-interest" is defined in crudest and stupidest way, or as the "self-interest" of its ruling elite.

You are really congratulating the American people on the surprising unique ability to overcome the nearly constant government that is working against the country’s own interests?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 04:07:59 PM
The person who wrote that is unfamiliar with the actual processes by which HRCs function. They also seem unaware that they exist as an adjunct to the civil courts, not the criminal ones.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240720
Given the USA's current overseas commitments in the context of a struggling home economy and the alienation of allies you could say that it's against the self interest of many of its citizens.


Only when it got tough. When everyone thought it was going to be Gulf War '91 Redux the support was like 70%+.  In any case, you’ll be hard pressed to argue it is not in the US’s self-interest to maintain influence in that part of the world. You may not like it, which is not the same thing.

Quote
I'm curious as to why you chose freedom of the press, religion and the right to bear arms in terms of America's exceptionalism. Writing as a European I'd certainly value health care/an effective welfare system above the third on your list. For me, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens if it expects loyalty and a commitment in return.


Simply, as was stated, to show uniqueness. Then again, the American Constitution isn’t about earning the government the loyalty of the people. It is meant to limit the power the government can acquire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 04:13:25 PM
Do you really want to raise the issue of abortion and a therefore a woman's right to choose? This seems to be increasingly less of a right in the US. Pseudo's already mentioned gay rights too.

The problem with a lot of the freedoms that certain people enjoy in the US is that they're not universal, varying from state to state.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240728
So, when you say:

You are really congratulating the American people on the surprising unique ability to overcome the nearly constant government that is working against the country’s own interests?


Actually, yes. I consider Americans basically decently people who are hampered by being born into one of the most powerful regimes in the modern era, which directs that power to domination and regimentation, both internally and externally. I don't consider that unique to Americans though, to correct your statement. Most people are in such a situation, with the technologies of control being most refined in the developed West, but most freely and brutally applied in the various authoritarian regimes of the developing world.

You seem to be under the impression that I am some sort of state-loving socialist. Let me unambiguously remove that impression by stating for the record: I am not. I probably dislike the state more than anyone else in this discussion, certainly more than most of the "conservatives" in it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240734
Only when it got tough. When everyone thought it was going to be Gulf War '91 Redux the support was like 70%+.  In any case, you’ll be hard pressed to argue it is not in the US’s self-interest to maintain influence in that part of the world. You may not like it, which is not the same thing.


Who was talking about approval? I was talking about government acting in the interests of its people. Maintaining a presence is one thing, draining your resources whilst radicalising people against your country something very different.

Quote from: CavScout;240734
Simply, as was stated, to show uniqueness. Then again, the American Constitution isn’t about earning the government the loyalty of the people. It is meant to limit the power the government can acquire.


What's that Pledge of Allegiance thing again?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:17:29 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240729
The person who wrote that is unfamiliar with the actual processes by which HRCs function. They also seem unaware that they exist as an adjunct to the civil courts, not the criminal ones.


Let us guess, anyone who critiques the HRC is simply "unfamiliar with the actual process".

Quote
“Mark Steyn, my friend, colleague, and arguably the most talented political writer working today, is on trial for thought crimes.
Steyn -- a one-man media empire based in New Hampshire -- was published a few years ago in Maclean's. Now the magazine and its editors are in the dock before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on the charge that they violated a provincial hate-speech law by running the work of a hate-monger, namely Mark Steyn. A similar prosecution is pending before the national version of this kangaroo court, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Not that the facts are relevant to the charges, but here's what happened. Maclean's ran an excerpt from Steyn's bestseller, America Alone.
The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense. It charged in its complaint that the magazine was "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt." It was particularly scandalized by Steyn's argument that rising birthrates among Muslims in Europe will force non-Muslims there to come to "an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots."[1 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/canadas_thought_police.html)]


or

Quote
"This is a point worth recalling, as we head into a period in Canada when, owing to malice from an ideological camp, to cowardice on the part of our elected representatives, and to indifference on the part of the people, free speech and freedom of the press will disappear in Canada."[2 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/deafening_silence.html)]


or

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission [3 (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607120)]
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240742
Who was talking about approval? I was talking about government acting in the interests of its people. Maintaining a presence is one thing, draining your resources whilst radicalising people against your country something very different.


Folks were plenty “radicalized” prior to the Iraq War.

Quote
What's that Pledge of Allegiance thing again?


It's not the Constitution and hold zero legal binding.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240738
You seem to be under the impression that I am some sort of state-loving socialist.


You are the one confused. I think you are a jealous and envious non-American who wishes his country wielded the power and influence to act in its own interests with little regard to the rest of the world.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 04:27:12 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240744
Let us guess, anyone who critiques the HRC is simply "unfamiliar with the actual process".


No, not at all. The HRCs have many problems with them. The article you linked to, though, said that they were identical to Maoist re-education tribunals and the like. Watch the stupid rhetoric in the articles you link to.

Quote
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission [3 (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607120)]


Dean Steacy is currently under investigation by the RCMP for his unethical behaviour. That is, the Canadian state, for all its faults, does not condone his behaviour and is punishing him in due accord with the laws.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 04:27:49 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240746
Folks were plenty “radicalized” prior to the Iraq War.


Although ironically enough, not taking pot shots and blowing up your troops on a regular basis. Keeping people in prison without charge and torturing them of course hasn't made things worse at all, right? Was invading a country without a proper pretext and poor medium to long-term planning REALLY in the best in interests of the citizens a country already committed to Afghanistan?

Quote from: CavScout;240746
It's not the Constitution and hold zero legal binding.


I talked of a commitment to the state. Let's stick to that, shall we?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 27, 2008, 04:29:26 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240749
You are the one confused. I think you are a jealous and envious non-American who wishes his country wielded the power and influence to act in its own interests with little regard to the rest of the world.


You could not be more incorrect. I would no more wish for Canada to wield America's power than I do for America to. Should you someday stop being a moral relativist, you would perhaps even be capable of realising why.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 27, 2008, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240686
Where American exceptionalism comes in is the widespread belief among American that their country does not act in the world stage in its own national interests - that it acts to defend universal human ideals.

How widespread is this belief? I wonder. It's complicated because in many cases, the two are not mutually exclusive. IOW, to act on the world stage in defense of universal human ideals is often in the best interests of the US.

Now, whether or not we defend those ideals, or achieve them, is an argument worthy of far more effort than a thread on a forum - it's the overriding question of the day.

However, because those two things coincide but work against the self interest of other players on the world stage does not negate the coincidence of those two things.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 27, 2008, 04:39:46 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240752
Although ironically enough, not taking pot shots and blowing up your troops on a regular basis.

Define "regular". Before 9/11, there were several attempts, some successful, to take "pot shots" at troops - sometimes even civilians.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 04:42:02 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;240767
Define "regular". Before 9/11, there were several attempts, some successful, to take "pot shots" at troops - sometimes even civilians.


There were indeed. On a daily, weekly basis? Not so much.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240752
Although ironically enough, not taking pot shots and blowing up your troops on a regular basis. Keeping people in prison without charge and torturing them of course hasn't made things worse at all, right? Was invading a country without a proper pretext and poor medium to long-term planning REALLY in the best in interests of the citizens a country already committed to Afghanistan?


No, instead of soldiers it was embassy workers, naval ships and buildings in New York City. If by “proper pretext” you mean unanimous world approval? Then perhaps not. If you mean technical legal standing, then actually yes.

Quote
I talked of a commitment to the state. Let's stick to that, shall we?


So you dodge then?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240771
There were indeed. On a daily, weekly basis? Not so much.


That's basically the definition of war.... arguing against war by saying soldiers will be attacked is rather idiotic.

When all the teeth-mashing and political rhetoric is done with, the Iraq War, in terms of casualties, will likely rank pretty low on our list of conflicts.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240779
No, instead of soldiers it was embassy workers, naval ships and buildings in New York City. If by “proper pretext” you mean unanimous world approval? Then perhaps not. If you mean technical legal standing, then actually yes.


So because of Muslim extremists and states, including the Saudis on 9/11, you attack Iraq? That's your pretext? Really?

Quote from: CavScout;240779
So you dodge then?


If you say so...just re-read what I wrote in 39. Can you say draft by the way?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 04:59:56 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240781
That's basically the definition of war.... arguing against war by saying soldiers will be attacked is rather idiotic.

When all the teeth-mashing and political rhetoric is done with, the Iraq War, in terms of casualties, will likely rank pretty low on our list of conflicts.


I'm aware of what a war constitutes thanks. I asked was it necessary and in the best interests of its citizens. Just answer the question.

You can dismiss the deaths of your soldiers (and we'll ignore for the purposes of this debate Iraqi civilian deaths), but should a state heading for recession really be pumping money into the bottomless pit that Iraq currently is?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240785
So because of Muslim extremists and states, including the Saudis on 9/11, you attack Iraq? That's your pretext? Really?


You forgetting Afganistan?

Quote
If you say so...just re-read what I wrote in 39. Can you say draft by the way?


I'd say unlikely. Diluting the military professionalism is just asking to get the same army we had in Vietnam. Perhaps a robust military rebuilding to reverse the cuts started by Bush 41. Bet we wish we had a couple of the division we let go in 41 and 42.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240790
I'm aware of what a war constitutes thanks. I asked was it necessary and in the best interests of its citizens. Just answer the question.

You can dismiss the deaths of your soldiers (and we'll ignore for the purposes of this debate Iraqi civilian deaths), but should a state heading for recession really be pumping money into the bottomless pit that Iraq currently is?


Why when you get an answer do you keep changing the question?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 27, 2008, 05:16:03 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240790
I'm aware of what a war constitutes thanks. I asked was it necessary and in the best interests of its citizens.
Depends. See, the dirty little secret is that it's all about Oil, but not in the way people think.

Now people will point and shout and say "But look at the oil prices!" But it's a much longer term question/answer than 5 years...more like 25 or 50.

So, yeah, in the long run, it might very well be in the best interests of the US. Patience is a virtue rarely practiced these days.

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240790
You can dismiss the deaths of your soldiers (and we'll ignore for the purposes of this debate Iraqi civilian deaths), but should a state heading for recession really be pumping money into the bottomless pit that Iraq currently is?
Depends on A) how important you think it is in the long run, B) what the situation is, C) a thousand other things. Just putting it against a recession is only measure.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240723
I don't know about jail, but they can be dragged in front of a tribual where...


Those aren't cases where a preacher called homosexuality sinful. Sorry, still wrong.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 05:22:14 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240744
Let us guess, anyone who critiques the HRC is simply "unfamiliar with the actual process".



You might help your case if you link to actual news stories about Human Rights Commissions in Canada, rather than vitriolic opinion-pieces by American conservatives. I mean, if I quoted Michael Moore's blog as my source for how the American corporate economy works, I wouldn't expect to be taken very seriously.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 27, 2008, 05:23:14 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;240763
How widespread is this belief? I wonder. It's complicated because in many cases, the two are not mutually exclusive. IOW, to act on the world stage in defense of universal human ideals is often in the best interests of the US.

Now, whether or not we defend those ideals, or achieve them, is an argument worthy of far more effort than a thread on a forum - it's the overriding question of the day.

However, because those two things coincide but work against the self interest of other players on the world stage does not negate the coincidence of those two things.
Man, James, I don't know how it is in suburban Illinois, but I live in a pretty liberal state, though admittedly an area that contains some more conservative elements than the rest, and I've been hearing shit like Haffrung describes all my life, including from my own parents.

By contrast, I can't recall ever hearing anything like, say, what CavScout's spouting or what Haffrung describes from any of the many foreign folks I've encountered in what is at this point some 15 years spent wasting time on the Internet.

Unless you count reactionary responses to such American exceptionalism of the "You know, we're not exactly communist China over here, either".  Usually however this is in response to the staggering level of ignorance of the actual freedoms of citizens of other Western countries.  You'd be amazed at the sheer number of Americans who honestly believe that most of Europe is basically one step above Soviet Russia, usually for pure kneejerk reasons like them daring provide public health care.  

Frankly, I harbor no such delusions, but I also know what an iconoclast that has typically made me in my life.  Liberal, Republican, right, left, whatever boxes you want to create, the notion of America as some magic land of golden freedom and opportunity amidst of world of dark and evil forces is one I've been hearing drilled into my head from all sides since I was old enough to understand basic speech.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 05:30:42 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240797
You forgetting Afganistan?

I'd say unlikely. Diluting the military professionalism is just asking to get the same army we had in Vietnam. Perhaps a robust military rebuilding to reverse the cuts started by Bush 41. Bet we wish we had a couple of the division we let go in 41 and 42.


I think you'll find I mentioned Afghanistan in Post 51 - when I asked was it necessary and in the best interests to then go into Iraq. You actually responded to the post but didn't address that point, funnily enough.

My reference to a draft was in reference to a commitment to the State. I see I should have made myself clearer for you.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 05:31:32 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240798
Why when you get an answer do you keep changing the question?


Answer the original question and then we can actually take this further.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240805
Those aren't cases where a preacher called homosexuality sinful. Sorry, still wrong.


I suppose you just skipped over this in the linked articles:
"The Canadian HRC has taken 16 months in preliminary consideration of the case a gay activist brought against the small Toronto-based Catholic Insight magazine. Indeed: prolonged and arbitrary delays appear to be part of the method by which the HRCs bleed their respondents dry with legal and other expenses."

Any number of articles can be found by a simple Google search.
Toronto Catholic Magazine Faced with Human Rights Complaint by Homosexual (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07122002.html)
The latest news on the HRC controversy (http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_784.shtml)
Governments Must Reform Human Rights Commissions (http://catholicanada.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=653&Itemid=91)
Catholic Insight in the news (http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_779.shtml)
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240819
Answer the original question and then we can actually take this further.


The Constitution trumps the Pledge. You just don't like the answer. One has the force of law, the other does not. Again, you didn't like that answer.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 05:35:12 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;240804
Depends. See, the dirty little secret is that it's all about Oil, but not in the way people think.

Now people will point and shout and say "But look at the oil prices!" But it's a much longer term question/answer than 5 years...more like 25 or 50.

So, yeah, in the long run, it might very well be in the best interests of the US. Patience is a virtue rarely practiced these days.

Depends on A) how important you think it is in the long run, B) what the situation is, C) a thousand other things. Just putting it against a recession is only measure.


Only a measure, but if you're already committed elsewhere surely Iraq could have waited a year or two, particularly if certain people really are playing the very long game? I think certain people got rather carried away with the support for operations in Afghanistan and went ahead of schedule.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240821
The Constitution trumps the Pledge. You just don't like the answer. One has the force of law, the other does not. Again, you didn't like that answer.


That's fine, the Pledge is just one example of loyalty and thank you for clarifying that. I also mentioned a draft. That's a commitment, right? The USA has laws about treason? That's expecting loyalty and commitment, right? As I asked in my original post.

Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240830
That's fine, the Pledge is just one example of loyalty and thank you for clarifying that. I also mentioned a draft. That's a commitment, right? The USA has laws about treason? That's expecting loyalty and commitment, right? As I asked in my original post.

Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?


Just how often do you think non-elementary school aged Americans are reciting the Pledge?

Not sure how you are equating the draft with "commitment". A draft is "you will join the army, by force of law". Has little to do with "commitment". Actual "commitment" to the nation is those who volunteer. Treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution. What's your actual point?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 06:43:32 PM
Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 06:58:31 PM
Whilst you're addressing the question you've consistently ignored (and James has actually responded to) I'll just re-post what I put in my first post.

For me, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens if it expects loyalty and a commitment in return.

You chose to bring the constitution in, I talked about the state.

By living in the States you're making a commitment.

You are indeed subject to the treason laws in your constitution
You abide by the law, or suffer consequences
You pay taxes (well, most of you do)
You serve jury duty if required
If your country wills it, you get packed off to war (unless you skip off to Canada or try to register as an objector)

My point, simply put, is that I do expect something in return for my loyalty and commitment. Hence my replacing the right to bear arms with social welfare/health care as one measure of how a country might be measured.

You wrote in your initial response
Then again, the American Constitution isn’t about earning the government the loyalty of the people.

How does that square with laws on treason? Maybe you think the government doesn't have to earn loyalty, but should just expect it? I personally think expectations should go both ways.

Is that simple enough for you?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 07:04:50 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240860
Whilst you're addressing the question you've consistently ignored (and James has actually responded to) I'll just re-post what I put in my first post.

For me, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens if it expects loyalty and a commitment in return.

You chose to bring the constitution in, I talked about the state.

By living in the States you're making a commitment.

You are indeed subject to the treason laws in your constitution
You abide by the law, or suffer consequences
You pay taxes (well, most of you do)
You serve jury duty if required
If your country wills it, you get packed off to war (unless you skip off to Canada or try to register as an objector)

My point, simply put, is that I do expect something in return for my loyalty and commitment. Hence my replacing the right to bear arms with social welfare/health care as one measure of how a country might be measured.

You wrote in your initial response
Then again, the American Constitution isn’t about earning the government the loyalty of the people.

How does that square with laws on treason? Maybe you think the government doesn't have to earn loyalty, but should just expect it? I personally think expectations should go both ways.

Is that simple enough for you?


Why cut the quote? Why not use the entire thing:
Then again, the American Constitution isn’t about earning the government the loyalty of the people. It is meant to limit the power the government can acquire.

Quote
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 07:31:42 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240862
Why cut the quote? Why not use the entire thing:
Then again, the American Constitution isn’t about earning the government the loyalty of the people. It is meant to limit the power the government can acquire.

It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended.


So, YOU, THE PEOPLE, expect loyalty and commitment from citizens of the USA? Marvellous, glad we clarified that.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 07:35:13 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240864
So, YOU, THE PEOPLE, expect loyalty and commitment from citizens of the USA? Marvellous, glad we clarified that.


The government is beholden to the people, not the other way around.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 27, 2008, 07:56:20 PM
Josua Ford - you're doing thing that Balbinus asked people NOT to do in that other thread. Instead of discussing the topic, you did a bait & switch to talk about Iraq. So, I guess in this thread you're taking Stormbringer's place in sparring with CavScout in an effort to bore everybody?

Also - what is your location?

 You have left that blank.

 Nice to know from 'where' you are debating (if you call that debating)  as a frame of reference.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 08:00:51 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240866
The government is beholden to the people, not the other way around.


How is that relevant to what I asked to clarify? Being a citizen of the USA involves commitment and loyalty? Just answer that question please.

Ed: Fuck off or read the damn thread properly. Either would be good.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 27, 2008, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240856
Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?
Since you're not around much, I'll give you the benefit of the following heads up:  You will never get a straight honest answer about anything from CavScout.  Ever.  You may as well call up talk radio shows at random, because that seems to be what he spends most of his time parroting.

Or to put it more succinctly:  Please don't feed the troll.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 27, 2008, 08:03:36 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;240878
Since you're not around much, I'll give you the benefit of the following heads up:  You will never get a straight honest answer about anything from CavScout.  Ever.  You may as well call up talk radio shows at random, because that seems to be what he spends most of his time parroting.

Or to put it more succinctly:  Please don't feed the troll.


I know, I know - I'm trying to put off doing some work. I do read a lot of threads even though I don't often post - this has brought my RP/Off-Topic ratio way out of kilter.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 27, 2008, 08:10:55 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240877

Ed: Fuck off or read the damn thread properly. Either would be good.



Take your own advice, because I'm here more often and bit more consistently.

I'm usually here all week.

Try the veal.

- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on August 27, 2008, 08:24:22 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240549

First, what is American exceptionalism?


It's a trolling thread created by a non-American to flamebait Americans who have some national pride into engaging in a pointless debate about why the United States shouldn't be the superpower that it is.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 08:27:03 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240877
How is that relevant to what I asked to clarify? Being a citizen of the USA involves commitment and loyalty? Just answer that question please.

Ed: Fuck off or read the damn thread properly. Either would be good.


You got the answer, you just don't like it. Too fucking bad.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 27, 2008, 08:30:52 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;240888
It's a trolling thread created by a non-American to flamebait Americans who have some national pride into engaging in a pointless debate about why the United States shouldn't be the superpower that it is.


Jeff is more than likely - Absolutely Right.

 What ticks me off is that it was created reaction to a post I did in that other thread.

 I honestly asked a "European-American" (Born, raised there, but now an American citizen) She then gave me an honest answer based on the 50+ years that she has been alive, surviving, going to school, and working her 3 careers over the years. Then, I posted my friend's answer as a post.

So, Balbinus didn't like that answer - and Haffrung creates this thread.


Sometimes, I think a few non-Americans get uncomfortable or squirmy when they see other non-Americans actually say NICE things about the U.S.A.  Like somehow they broke the unwritten code or violated the sceret handshake of the "Not s'posed to like those U.S. people" club.

- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Aos on August 27, 2008, 08:31:06 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;240888
It's a trolling thread created by a non-American to flamebait Americans who have some national pride into engaging in a pointless debate about why the United States shouldn't be the superpower that it is.


FTW.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Ian Absentia on August 27, 2008, 09:30:20 PM
Boo-hoo.  Mean old foreigners criticising and making fun of us again.  Must be envy!  Boo-hoo.

!i!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 27, 2008, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: Ian Absentia;240906
Boo-hoo.  Mean old foreigners criticising and making fun of us again.  Must be envy!  Boo-hoo.


Actually, it's more like some foreigners "boo-hooing" about Americans daring to think they are special.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 27, 2008, 09:51:18 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240915
Actually, it's more like some foreigners "boo-hooing" about Americans daring to think they are special.


Yeah, its not like they got to the Moon first or anything like that.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 27, 2008, 09:51:47 PM
At the point when I've come across 15 posts by different Australians claiming that "the great thing about Australia is that it's the only country in the world where freedom/opportunity/justice/happiness is possible", I promise I'll start a thread asking about Australian exceptionalism.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Ian Absentia on August 27, 2008, 10:52:51 PM
Quote from: CavScout;240915
Actually, it's more like some foreigners "boo-hooing" about Americans daring to think they are special.
That's not quite how it looks from here, chief.  Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of dissident voices lining up to take a shot at the big guy.  But, man, you'd think folks with such pride would feel a little more secure in their superiority.

!i!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Ian Absentia on August 27, 2008, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: Koltar;240918
Yeah, its not like they got to the Moon first or anything like that.
Fuck you, Ed.

By the way, the next time you marvel at the any of the Hubble Space Telescope photos, you might want to have a look at this photo, too:

(http://randomproject.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/canadarm.jpg)

Fat out of the fire, my man.

!i!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 27, 2008, 11:13:41 PM
Quote from: Ian Absentia;240936
Fuck you, Ed.

Sorry, we haven't had a first date yet.....
(http://randomproject.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/canadarm.jpg)

Fat out of the fire, my man.

!i!



Yeah - I remember when it was first anounced that Canada was makling the arm - Bob & Doug McKenzie joked about it on SCTV.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Aos on August 27, 2008, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: Ian Absentia;240906
Boo-hoo.  Mean old foreigners criticising and making fun of us again.  Must be envy!  Boo-hoo.

!i!


Your point is a good one, no doubt- but flame bait is still flame bait.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Ian Absentia on August 28, 2008, 01:19:19 AM
Hey, if it's any consolation, I chafe less when it's Europeans or Asians chapping the collective US ass.  It's almost like a hazing before admission into the Gentlemen's Club for Empires In Decline.

!i!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 04:01:08 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240704

The American empire really isn't like the Athenian one. It's much more similar to the British, and even then, it has many unique features derived from its apocalyptic, militaristic, capitalist character.


Yes, but - I don't think American Exceptionalism is dependent on the American Empire.  In this it differs from British 'New Jerusalem'-ism, which died with the British Empire.  American Exceptionalism predates the Empire - and Jeffersonian 'Shining City on a Hill'-ism is anti-imperalist, as was Washington's warning against foreign entanglements.  Most Americans, as far as I can see, aren't even aware that America has a global empire, and American Presidents rarely if ever talk about  America as possessing a world empire (although think-tankers in DC certainly do).  From what I've seen, when Presidents address the American people, they present America as a vulnerable nation state whose survival is potentially at risk from external threats.  And most Americans seem think of America that way.  This isn't new; post-WW2 Americans were still worrying about the British threat to American freedom, never mind the Soviet threat!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 04:32:53 AM
Quote from: S'mon;240974
Yes, but - I don't think American Exceptionalism is dependent on the American Empire.  In this it differs from British 'New Jerusalem'-ism, which died with the British Empire.  American Exceptionalism predates the Empire - and Jeffersonian 'Shining City on a Hill'-ism is anti-imperalist, as was Washington's warning against foreign entanglements.  Most Americans, as far as I can see, aren't even aware that America has a global empire, and American Presidents rarely if ever talk about  America as possessing a world empire (although think-tankers in DC certainly do).  From what I've seen, when Presidents address the American people, they present America as a vulnerable nation state whose survival is potentially at risk from external threats.  And most Americans seem think of America that way.  This isn't new; post-WW2 Americans were still worrying about the British threat to American freedom, never mind the Soviet threat!
Of course, what better way to ensure distraction form overanalysis of internal threats to freedom, than by appeals to imagined external threats to the same?

It's truly staggering the level of boogeymanism that exists in this country regarding external sources that provide no credible threat to the rights of it's citizens, while the very idea that there might be threats to those rights internally, or even that those rights are not as strong as believed, is often met with outright hostility.  

And no, by internal threats I don't mean this latest fantasy land paranoia that somehow Islam is going to culturally consume the world.  At least, not directly.  It is a popular excuse for the dismantling of human rights within our borders however.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 04:45:44 AM
Quote from: J Arcane;240977
Of course, what better way to ensure distraction form overanalysis of internal threats to freedom, than by appeals to imagined external threats to the same?


The attitude (that America is vulnerable to external threat) is certainly useful to the unscrupulous, but I think it goes further than that.  I remember seeing a US General talking to a British journalist.  When he said "the American military is the greatest in the world" he looked like a naughty schoolboy, his tongue was literally in his cheek and he had this "aren't I naughty" look.  Like, the British Empire was going to come get him!  In 1898 America was deliriously happy due to victory in war - with Spain.  Spain.  Even in 1698 Spain was well past its prime.  In 1898 the US was beginning to surpass the British Empire as the most powerful country in the world!  Now, when US military spending equals that of the entire rest of world combined, the US still sees itself militarily threatened by such 'great powers' as Iran.

I think this is something few external observers of the US grasp.  We see overwhelming power, often liberally applied.  Most Americans don't see the US that way at all.  America began as a small country threatened by greater powers, and that identity is I think still bound up in the fabric of the American nation.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 05:05:09 AM
Quote
I think this is something few external observers of the US grasp. We see overwhelming power, often liberally applied. Most Americans don't see the US that way at all. America began as a small country threatened by greater powers, and that identity is I think still bound up in the fabric of the American nation.

Well, in it's early days, the US was barely unified at all.  Significant portions of the populace either hadn't cared about the revolution, or had been loyal to the crown.  On top of that, each colony had rather grown accustomed to handling it's own affairs with a surprising level of independence, to the extent that at the time it was more like a league of nations than a single unified body.

Plus, we pretty much lucked out on the whole Revolution thing, and I suspect were a bit worried that the British would come back around and stomp us proper the next time.  Sort of like the kid whose mum catches him stealing from the cookie jar, but mummy was in a hurry to get to an errand and didn't have time to punish the kid properly.  

We needed that sort of attitude of "us vs. the world" to unify the chaotic rabble enough to keep the whole silly experiment afloat.  

Over time though, it became ingrained, and has long since lost it's relevance, but has been largely stoked by the manipulative for the sake of keeping the populace in far too much fear of the rest of the world to notice much when the politicians themselves slip past this law or that law that isn't exactly in their best interests.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:14:21 AM
Quote from: J Arcane;240980
Over time though, it became ingrained, and has long since lost it's relevance, but has been largely stoked by the manipulative for the sake of keeping the populace in far too much fear of the rest of the world to notice much when the politicians themselves slip past this law or that law that isn't exactly in their best interests.


I agree it's stoked by the manipulative.  Re slipping laws past the people - true, and something like McCain-Feingold is an abomination, but here in the UK over the past 10 years the 'Unwritten Constitution has been trashed and we now have a totalitarian State, albeit a soft totalitarianism.  I can't see that happening so easily in the US.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 07:54:17 AM
Some references for the restrictions on religious freedom in Canada:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59600

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59338
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 28, 2008, 08:12:47 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;240704
Er, no. For one thing, there were no serious state-sponsored attempts to export the Attic dialect of Greek to the other Greeks. There was also no attempt to export the ethos of the Athenian people (indeed, this would seem ludicrous and perhaps even impious to the Athenians and other Greeks). What the Athenians did do was sponsor democratic parties in other city-states against oligarchic factions which were seen as favouring Sparta (and, by the time of the Peloponnesian War, they weren't even doing this consistently; IIRC they were at one point supporting the oligarchic anti-Spartan party in Argos against the isolationist / de facto pro-Spartan democratic party).

The American empire really isn't like the Athenian one. It's much more similar to the British, and even then, it has many unique features derived from its apocalyptic, militaristic, capitalist character.


Hmm.  I agree with your last sentence...analogizing is a dangerous thing, and obscures the object under analysis.  As for the rest...it will sideline the topic at hand (which would probably be more useful to the human race) and I'd have to delve back into books long consigned to storage...but I'm not entirely in agreement with you there.

But anyway I thought the original post was about individuals expressing these ideas, not about state-sponsored anything.  So is this thread meant to piss on rah-rah patriot types who don't think their country can do any wrong, or is it to piss on the state as a whole?  Or is everyone just confusing the individual with the state?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jgants on August 28, 2008, 08:29:13 AM
Quote from: J Arcane;240980
Over time though, it became ingrained, and has long since lost it's relevance, but has been largely stoked by the manipulative for the sake of keeping the populace in far too much fear of the rest of the world to notice much when the politicians themselves slip past this law or that law that isn't exactly in their best interests.


The whole thing sickens me.  There are so many ignorant fucks in the country carrying on about a pathetic, weak country like Iran being a threat to us and how Muslim terrorists will kill us all.  Just like in the 80's with all the communist fear nonsense.  Oceania is at war with Eurasia, indeed.

Meanwhile, everyone in the US is at risk because of interal problems that no one wants to admit or do anything about - like the incredibly fragile state of the economy, the environment, the national infrastructure, the massive threat of the national debt, our military being over-extended, decreasing life expectancies, etc.

But yeah, let's not fix any of the real problems - several of which could cause some very serious life changes for all of us within as little as 10 years.  Instead, lets keep finding new boogeymen to worry about.  :(
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: jgants;241014
The whole thing sickens me.  There are so many ignorant fucks in the country carrying on about a pathetic, weak country like Iran being a threat to us and how Muslim terrorists will kill us all.


You know what sickens me. The lack of perspective and knowledge of history.

A pathetic, weak country like Afghanistan habored the people and resources to kill more Americans on American soil than Imperial Japan at the height of it's power.

But sure, if you're willing to allow the deaths of a few thousand Americans every few years- go ahead and call the people calling attention to the threat ignorant fucks. After all, your personal chance of avoiding death is rather good.

But if you really want to show how certain you are- move to Israel after Iran gets nukes. Then you will have at least earned the right to claim you've put your life on the line with your political beliefs.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: jgants;241014
The whole thing sickens me.  There are so many ignorant fucks in the country carrying on about a pathetic, weak country like Iran being a threat to us and how Muslim terrorists will kill us all.  Just like in the 80's with all the communist fear nonsense.  Oceania is at war with Eurasia, indeed.  :(


Heh, the Russians were perfectly capable of killing a good third of you (and a far higher proportion of us Brits) in minutes.  They still are, in fact.  And they always intended that if war broke out they would strike first, as a US nuclear first strike would have seriously degraded their ability to retaliate.  Of course they weren't crazy (although crazy leaders are possible), and they didn't intend to launch a nuclear war with the US unless it looked like war was inevitable, in which case they would have gone all-out.  According to Kremlin records AIR they nearly launched a nuclear strike in 1983 after Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech, which sounded to them like the prelude to an attack.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: S'mon;240974
Most Americans, as far as I can see, aren't even aware that America has a global empire, and American Presidents rarely if ever talk about America as possessing a world empire.


That's because we really don't. Unless you simply want to say having power, wealth and influence makes you an empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 09:11:00 AM
Quote from: jgants;241014
The whole thing sickens me.  There are so many ignorant fucks in the country carrying on about a pathetic, weak country like Iran being a threat to us and how Muslim terrorists will kill us all.  Just like in the 80's with all the communist fear nonsense.  Oceania is at war with Eurasia, indeed.

Meanwhile, everyone in the US is at risk because of interal problems that no one wants to admit or do anything about - like the incredibly fragile state of the economy, the environment, the national infrastructure, the massive threat of the national debt, our military being over-extended, decreasing life expectancies, etc.

But yeah, let's not fix any of the real problems - several of which could cause some very serious life changes for all of us within as little as 10 years.  Instead, lets keep finding new boogeymen to worry about.  :(


Sure Iran is not likely to invade the good ol’ USA but neither were Germany, or the Soviet Union and who ever else you want to toss on the list. But what they could do, and for some may do, is threaten places or countries that are in the American interests to protect.

If you don’t think countries that can drastically influence the oil production of the world are of interest to the United States you are willfully blind.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 09:14:54 AM
Quote from: wulfgar;241007
Some references for the restrictions on religious freedom in Canada:




People are free to practice whatever religion they choose in Canada. They are not free to say whatever they like about other religions.

You may deplore that as an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech. But that's not the same as restricting freedom of religion.

By the way, I just love the websites you guys are linking to. The pseudo-news format of stories full of "we have learned" and "some have reported". The fluttering flags, eagles, calls to buy oil for Israel. Ads for getting great abs in three weeks. It's like a window to a whole other world.

Illegals shock, suffocate, slit throats in U.S.

Finally, someone says: No new mosques! *

Is Khalid al-Mansour the man behind Obama myth?


* How's that for freedom of religion? Or by freedom of religion, do you folks mean the freedom to belong to any Christian denomination you choose?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 09:20:15 AM
Quote
People are free to practice whatever religion they choose in Canada. They are not free to say whatever they like about other religions.

You may deplore that as an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech. But that's not the same as restricting freedom of religion.


So sorry. Canada has "freedom" of religion as long as you don't talk about it.... /rolleyes
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 09:24:58 AM
Quote from: CavScout;241024
That's because we really don't. Unless you simply want to say having power, wealth and influence makes you an empire.


Sorry, having a quarter of a million soldiers deployed in 737 overseas military bases in 63 countries qualifies as an empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 09:30:40 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241034
Sorry, having a quarter of a million soldiers deployed in 737 overseas military bases in 63 countries qualifies as an empire.


Only if you want to define that as an empire....
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 11:22:12 AM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;240823
Only a measure, but if you're already committed elsewhere surely Iraq could have waited a year or two, particularly if certain people really are playing the very long game? I think certain people got rather carried away with the support for operations in Afghanistan and went ahead of schedule.

Meh...we could argue until we are both old, toothless, wrinkled men sitting in wheelchairs about whether or not the timing was right.

But, like I said, Iraq, far more than Afghanistan, was all about Oil. However, it was not about taking the oil, or making Cheney rich, or any of another dozen theories. It's much more simple. We need a presence in the middle east. Now, we're fine sitting in our bunkers in the sand, but 9/11 comes along and hips us to the fact that our little game in the Saudi desert isn't going to last.

We can't go into Iran, Syria, etc. because we can't even manufacture a pretext.

But wait - isn't there already this guy with whom we're officially still at war? Couldn't we, given the current mind set, get the people behind going in? We won't lie, but we'll make it sound like we better get off our asses. Truth is, we could wait five - the oil isn't going anywhere and the likelihood is neither is Saddam. But, see, the world is getting weak in its pressure. There are these pansies running around with pictures of starving people and getting the Court of World Opinion's panties in bunch over the coalition blocking goods. If we're not careful, they'll fold to his all in and we'll be right back where we started - worse, even.

I get mad over Iraq because they couldn't just level with us and make it a cost/benefit analysis about the next five years. And trust me, I'm as mad at everyone for not being able to take it rationally as I am at leaders for assuming so - if you get my meaning.

IMHO, YMMV, and I'll probably get whacked for this one...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 11:29:26 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;241071
I get mad over Iraq because they couldn't just level with us and make it a cost/benefit analysis about the next five years. And trust me, I'm as mad at everyone for not being able to take it rationally as I am at leaders for assuming so - if you get my meaning.


They leveled with you James. It's all in the original authorization for Use of Military Force that passed the Senate 77-23 and the House 296-133.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241034
Sorry, having a quarter of a million soldiers deployed in 737 overseas military bases in 63 countries qualifies as an empire.

I'm curious - how many of those countries are in thrall to us? I mean, we have troops in Germany. Are they part of the American Empire?

These are honest questions - has America pulled off being an Empire without actually being an Empire? If so, how does it affect the comparisons?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;241071

But, like I said, Iraq, far more than Afghanistan, was all about Oil. However, it was not about taking the oil, or making Cheney rich, or any of another dozen theories. It's much more simple. We need a presence in the middle east. Now, we're fine sitting in our bunkers in the sand, but 9/11 comes along and hips us to the fact that our little game in the Saudi desert isn't going to last...

I get mad over Iraq because they couldn't just level with us and make it a cost/benefit analysis about the next five years. And trust me, I'm as mad at everyone for not being able to take it rationally as I am at leaders for assuming so - if you get my meaning.



That's a pretty good assessment. Throw a big dollop of 'Americans are livid over 9/11 and they want to see somebody get walloped' and that about covers it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
Quote from: gleichman;241077
They leveled with you James. It's all in the original authorization for Use of Military Force that passed the Senate 77-23 and the House 296-133.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Not quite. This is more along the lines of "here's why we think we're justified." It's not that I don't agree with them - some are more accurate then others.

I just wish someone would have said, "Look, folks. We need oil to flow freely in the world - it's the grease of the Economic and Military engine that keeps you all fat and happy. In order for that to happen, we have to protect interests in the region. We figure since Iraq is [INSERT WHEREAS CLAUSES] it is as good a place as any to continue our presence. We think it will take 2 months to conquer and 5-10 years to full stabilize. At the end, we'll have an 'ally' in the region and we'll have Iran squeezed."

Would have been damn refreshing. And would have cut off any of the debate about those things having laid them all out ahead of time.

EDIT: "cut off debate" is a bad way of putting it. More accurately, we could have debated about the right things.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 11:41:23 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241079
That's a pretty good assessment. Throw a big dollop of 'Americans are livid over 9/11 and they want to see somebody get walloped' and that about covers it.

Yeah, I was being sensitive to it, placing it under "given the current mind set."

And this is coming from someone probably diametrically opposed to many here because I supported the War, and believe we absolutely must remain for some time.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 28, 2008, 11:42:10 AM
EDIT: Response to James.

And of course a highly successful (initial) campaign helps come election time and diverts from the failure to collar Osama too...

I don't disagree that the States wanted a presence - the talk of acquiring bases for ten more years, etc is just the first step, but the sheer cost to the country is phenomenal. Extended conflict helped bring about the end of the British Empire and the strain on US troops doesn't seem to be getting much easier. I do wonder whether it would have cost the US any more (including goodwill and foreign support) to have carried on in 1991 and pushed through Iraq (to support minorities and help stabilise the country, naturally...). The Soviet Union was in no state to be flexing muscles, the economy looked brighter and I don't think insurgents would have been so well supported, supplied and in such numbers.

It's in stark contrast to the First & Second World Wars, in which the American government managed to move into pre-eminence in a relatively short period of time, even when the public might have favoured an isolationist policy.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 28, 2008, 11:45:59 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;241083
Yeah, I was being sensitive to it, placing it under "given the current mind set."

And this is coming from someone probably diametrically opposed to many here because I supported the War, and believe we absolutely must remain for some time.


I'd agree you're going to have to stay there for some time now. I didn't support the war and was appalled at my government's decision to go along with the half-arsed plan, but it's a moot point now. You are indeed in it for the long haul, regardless of what Obama might say.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 11:47:01 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;241078
I'm curious - how many of those countries are in thrall to us?


Do those countries have to be in thrall to the U.S. to be part of an empire? I don't believe so. To me, a good definition of an empire is a state with global economic and political interests, with the means and demonstrated willingness to assert those interests with armed force or the threat of force. They don't have to be oppressive.

You also need to keep in mind that many countries that host American bases do so either secretly, or against the wishes of most of the citizens. If you held referendums in every country that hosts an American military base, I think you'd see many or most of those bases close.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 11:48:45 AM
If we continue to have polite discourse about a sensitive subject, even agreeing on some things, we will give the Internet a bad name - and it will all come back to TheRPGSite.

So...America is the best and all y'all from foreign places suck.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241090
Do those countries have to be in thrall to the U.S. to be part of an empire? I don't believe so. To me, a good definition of an empire is a state with global economic and political interests, with the means and demonstrated willingness to assert those interests with armed force or the threat of force. They don't have to be oppressive.

You also need to keep in mind that many countries that host American bases do so either secretly, or against the wishes of most of the citizens. If you help referendums in every country that hosts an American military base, I think you'd see many or most of those bases close.

IMHO, it's a bit of a loose definition. I'm not saying it isn't the definition to which common usage is turning, but it seems to me if you leave out the authority/control aspect, the application of the term gets dicey.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;241080
I just wish someone would have said, "Look, folks. We need oil to flow freely in the world - it's the grease of the Economic and Military engine that keeps you all fat and happy. In order for that to happen, we have to protect interests in the region. We figure since Iraq is [INSERT WHEREAS CLAUSES] it is as good a place as any to continue our presence. We think it will take 2 months to conquer and 5-10 years to full stabilize. At the end, we'll have an 'ally' in the region and we'll have Iran squeezed."


I heard the reasoning quite often. It was in fact the stock statement from the hated neo-cons.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 11:58:45 AM
Quote from: gleichman;241100
I heard the reasoning quite often. It was in fact the stock statement from the hated neo-cons.


Buty way down the list from warning 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!' in a way that rasied the spectre of New York being turned into a radioactive crater.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 12:02:41 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241103
Buty way down the list from warning 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!' in a way that rasied the spectre of New York being turned into a radioactive crater.


I certainly would agree that the Bush administration focus on that was a huge error both of judgement and of PR.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 12:05:35 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;241085
I don't disagree that the States wanted a presence - the talk of acquiring bases for ten more years, etc is just the first step, but the sheer cost to the country is phenomenal.


As compared to what? This "cost" issue is always being trotted out. Is the war costing money? Sure but it's not breaking the bank.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 12:08:27 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241077
They leveled with you James. It's all in the original authorization for Use of Military Force that passed the Senate 77-23 and the House 296-133.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf


Hell, go back to 1998 when Clinton signed the IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf) which states:
Quote
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts
to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power
in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government
to replace that regime.


The Bush haters always forget this. Always.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241090
Do those countries have to be in thrall to the U.S. to be part of an empire? I don't believe so. To me, a good definition of an empire is a state with global economic and political interests, with the means and demonstrated willingness to assert those interests with armed force or the threat of force. They don't have to be oppressive.


That describes just about every member of the G8....
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241111
Hell, go back to 1998 when Clinton signed the IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf) which states:


The Bush haters always forget this. Always.


Is true.

Also much of the original safeguard of the oil lanes points was made during the First Gulf War.


Myself, I blame a news media that does nothing more than serve up sound bites. All the information and reasoning was there, but you'd never know it unless you knew it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 28, 2008, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241103
Buty way down the list from warning 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!' in a way that rasied the spectre of New York being turned into a radioactive crater.


Quote from: gleichman;241106
I certainly would agree that the Bush administration focus on that was a huge error both of judgement and of PR.


And that's the issue for many people really - there was a great deal of support and sympathy for the US after 9/11 and so much has been pissed away. It's why Tony Blair took such a hammering in public opinion when 9/11 and the climate of fear that developed was being used to target a completely different agenda.

The worst of it is I liked him for a lot of what he's done and he seemed so sincere that this was the right thing to do. Bollocks.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;241116
The worst of it is I liked him for a lot of what he's done and he seemed so sincere that this was the right thing to do. Bollocks.

I saw this and just wanted to be clear. I do think it was the right thing to do - for the reasons I stated and, for me, as much about the possible ancillary benefits. Tony Blair might very well have been sincere in his belief that it was the right thing to do.

The self interest to keep oil flowing freely (that is, keep the market available so we can purchase it) in order to continue the security and prosperity of your tribe is not mutually exclusive with "the right thing to do."
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241078
These are honest questions - has America pulled off being an Empire without actually being an Empire?

I believe so, but only if you purposely distort the meaning of the word "empire" to include figurative or non-literal meanings: with the death of imperialism worldwide, America needed a way to spread its influence and economy without use of force, and - intentionally or otherwise - that way turned out to be cultural exports. Rather than send tanks and guns, we sent McDonalds and Levi jeans, and by that standard, for some while, we won the war of empire. But no empire lasts forever, and our economic empire will last comparatively briefly, and that's only if you don't believe it's already ended.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: TonyLB on August 28, 2008, 12:39:14 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;240549
How many Americans here believe the U.S. is uniquely free, has unique opportunities, etc., and how widespread is the notion among Americans at large?
I do not believe these things.  Other countries focus on freedom and opportunity for their citizens as much as (if not more than) America.  I do, however, believe that America is unique in the extent to which it is seen (both internally and externally) as a symbol of these things.

That's both an opportunity and a responsibility:  If America, as a country, actually stands up and does right in these regards, it is seen as a validation not only of America in specific, but of democratic principles in general.  If America doesn't stand up and do the right thing, it is seen as discrediting not only America in specific, but democratic principles in general.

I sure as heck wish that the country did a better job of living up to its symbolism.

Quote from: Haffrung;240549
Is it true that America is unlike other nations in embodying universal ideals, particularly freedom in speech and politics, and in economic opportunity?
Roughly the same answer as above.

Quote from: Haffrung;240549
How does the widely held belief in American exceptionalism among Americans affect America's relations with the rest of the world?
Poorly.  Many more people believe in America's exceptionalism in an arrogant and/or entitled way than take it as a responsibility.  That's got pretty predictable results in foreign affairs.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 28, 2008, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241121
I saw this and just wanted to be clear. I do think it was the right thing to do - for the reasons I stated and, for me, as much about the possible ancillary benefits. Tony Blair might very well have been sincere in his belief that it was the right thing to do.

The self interest to keep oil flowing freely (that is, keep the market available so we can purchase it) in order to continue the security and prosperity of your tribe is not mutually exclusive with "the right thing to do."


A fair point - I should have been clearer. In the very long term it may be the right thing, provided the States can continue projecting its influence. It's the way it was done that rankles, both from the building a case to the execution and follow up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 12:51:07 PM
Quote
People are free to practice whatever religion they choose in Canada. They are not free to say whatever they like about other religions.


Members of most religions, Protestant and Catholic Christians, Jews, and Muslims for example, believe that they their faith is the true way to know God and achieve salvation.  Speaking about their faith is important both for evangilization and simply proclaiming their own devotion.  Using the force of the law to stop people from comparing or contrasting one religion with another or engaging in theological debate is indeed a frontal assault on freedom of religion.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 12:57:04 PM
Quote from: Engine;241124
I believe so, but only if you purposely distort the meaning of the word "empire" to include figurative or non-literal meanings: with the death of imperialism worldwide, America needed a way to spread its influence and economy without use of force, and - intentionally or otherwise - that way turned out to be cultural exports. Rather than send tanks and guns, we sent McDonalds and Levi jeans, and by that standard, for some while, we won the war of empire. But no empire lasts forever, and our economic empire will last comparatively briefly, and that's only if you don't believe it's already ended.


Red Wizards of Thay! :jaw-dropping:
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 12:59:42 PM
Hell, in Canada they have government agents posting messages on websites that are racist, then have the site owners hauled before the HRC for having those statements on their sites (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=422ae2ae-2482-4e6b-a34b-a301ce4a3c95&p=1)!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 28, 2008, 01:02:35 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241108
As compared to what? This "cost" issue is always being trotted out. Is the war costing money? Sure but it's not breaking the bank.


It is if you consider deficit spending to be a Bad Thing when much of our credit is held by foreign nations.  It is if you consider the other costs associated with the war whose effects will be felt long after the last pair of combat boots are out of Baghdad: medical care for returning wounded, for example.  There's also the fact that our national budget buries a lot of the spending for the war in nebulous discretionary spending categories.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9292.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48651/The-Economic-Impact-of-the-Iraq-War-and-Higher-Military-Spending

http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/blog/content/impact-iraq-war-us-national-deficit-zooming-new-record-half-trillion-fiscal-year-2009-could-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7304300.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-25-budget-deficits_x.htm

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n06516707-usa-budget-deficit/
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: NotYourMonkey on August 28, 2008, 01:04:12 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241133
Members of most religions, Protestant and Catholic Christians, Jews, and Muslims for example, believe that they their faith is the true way to know God and achieve salvation.  Speaking about their faith is important both for evangilization and simply proclaiming their own devotion.  Using the force of the law to stop people from comparing or contrasting one religion with another or engaging in theological debate is indeed a frontal assault on freedom of religion.


Now here is an important question:

Does Canada allow evangelists to say "our religion is the one true way, all other religious creeds are incomplete or false"?  

Not being Canadian, I could be wrong, but I thought you had to stop at defaming other faiths, which was basically accusing them of being evil, or making crap up about them.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 01:23:58 PM
Quote from: KenHR;241137
It is if you consider deficit spending to be a Bad Thing when much of our credit is held by foreign nations.  It is if you consider the other costs associated with the war whose effects will be felt long after the last pair of combat boots are out of Baghdad: medical care for returning wounded, for example.  There's also the fact that our national budget buries a lot of the spending for the war in nebulous discretionary spending categories.


Just how is “deficit spending” linked to the Iraq War? It’s not. There was deficit spending long before Iraq and there will be long after.

Of course, the real issue is the national debt and it’s also not “breaking the bank” like so many like to claim. The current (2007) US debt (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf) is just 36.8% of GDP. Less than in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Even less than the Clinton years:
1992: 48.1%, 1993: 49.4%, 1994: 49.3%, 1995: 49.2%, 1996: 48.5%, 1997: 46.1%, 1998: 43.1%,  and 1999: 39.8%.

Let’s not even compare what the national debt was to periods of war, like WWII where the ratio of debt to the GDP was truly horrendous: 1943: 70.9%, 1944: 88.3%, 1945: 106.2% or 1946: 108.6%! It would not drop below 40% until 1964!

The national debt has increased every year since 1970 (’68-’69 last time it dipped).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 01:27:49 PM
Quote
That describes just about every member of the G8....


Err, no.

The UK and France have militaries capable of expeditionary operations, but their interests are not global in scope.

Germany lacks expeditionary military capability. As does Japan.

Italy and Canada lack both expeditionary military capability, and global interests.

China has global interests, but lacks expeditionary military capability. Same with Russia (the Caucus and Eastern Europe are regional operations).

But to get back to the original point, most Americans are genuinely ignorant of how active its government is in every corner of the globe, from military bases, to giving covert assistance to all sorts of regimes, to using money to influence domestic politics in favour of American economic interests.

Americans regard themselve as simple folk minding their own business in Missouri or Arizona. They don't realize that to the man on the street in Timbuktu, the U.S. isn't a family watching a baseball game in Kansas; the U.S. is those CIA operatives handing over cash and satellite intelligence to the corrupt faction governing their country and suppressing their fellow tribesmen.

That ignorance among the American public means American foreign policy isn't governed by democracy at all. Worse, Americans are alarmed when people they've never heard of end up burning flags in front of an embassy.

As long as Americans like CavScout continue to believe the only reason those foreigners burn flags is because they envy America's power, Americans are going to keep being blindsided by hostility they didn't know existed and haven't the faintest idea how to defuse (besides bombing the fuck out of the bastards). America would be a lot better off if Americans grew up and recognized all the shady operations that are carried out in their name by agents of their state and tried to put themselves in the shoes of the people on the receiving end. But that would fly in the face of the cherished belief that the U.S., as a uniquely virtuous state, must always be in the right in any dispute with foreigners.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: TonyLB;241127
I do not believe these things.  Other countries focus on freedom and opportunity for their citizens as much as (if not more than) America.  I do, however, believe that America is unique in the extent to which it is seen (both internally and externally) as a symbol of these things.

That's both an opportunity and a responsibility:  If America, as a country, actually stands up and does right in these regards, it is seen as a validation not only of America in specific, but of democratic principles in general.  If America doesn't stand up and do the right thing, it is seen as discrediting not only America in specific, but democratic principles in general.




Good answer.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: NotYourMonkey;241138
Now here is an important question:

Does Canada allow evangelists to say "our religion is the one true way, all other religious creeds are incomplete or false"?  

Not being Canadian, I could be wrong, but I thought you had to stop at defaming other faiths, which was basically accusing them of being evil, or making crap up about them.


Quote
- As noted above, Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine for the publisher's reprinting of a chapter of Steyn's book "America Alone," Complaint brought in November by the Canadian Islamic Congress, which said the article subjects Canadian Muslims to discrimination, hatred and contempt.

- Ron Gray, leader of the CHP, brought before the Ontario and Canadian HRCs by Edmonton activist Rob Wells for an article on the party's website critical of homosexual conduct. Among other things, Mr. Gray was told by a HRC mediator that "freedom of expression is an American concept."

- Catholic Insight magazine is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission due to material on its website critical of homosexual conduct. The passages of articles in question were written in the context of speaking out against the activists who agitated for adding so-called sexual orientation to the Hate Crimes Act in 2003, and the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in 2005.

- Steven Boissoin, a Christian pastor who faces punishment by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate. (Case brought by University of Calgary professor Darren Lund.) The judge claimed a "circumstantial causal connection" could be made between the letter and an attack on a homosexual teenager in that city.

- John Di Cecco, a Kamloops, BC city councilor, fined $1,000 for by the BC Human Rights Tribunal when a complaint was brought in response to comments he made about homosexual conduct.

- Knights of Columbus of Port Coquitlam, BC, fined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in December, 2005 for how they handled their refusal of the use of their hall for a lesbian "wedding" reception.

- Bishop Fred Henry in 2005 was on the receiving end of a human rights complaint for articulating the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage in a pastoral letter. (The complaint was later withdrawn after a meeting with the complainants, and substantial expense.)

- In 2002, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to three complainants because of the publication of an advertisement that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality. Four years later, this was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after the court ruled that the message, though offensive, didn't reach the level of inciting hatred. The League was part of an intervention to protest the labeling of Scriptural passages as hate speech.

- Bill Whatcott, charged with spreading hate against homosexual persons for the distribution of material objecting to an advertisement that ran in Saskatchewan's largest newspaper for homosexuals, Perceptions, seeking boys for activities that specifically mentioned that their age was "….not so relevant".  The material distributed by Mr. Whatcott also objected to material promoting "gay" culture and beliefs entering into the Saskatoon Public School System and the University of Saskatchewan. The appeal by Mr. Whatcott to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench from his conviction and fine of $17,500.00 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal was denied by the Judgment of Mr. Justice F. Kovatch in a decision received on December 11, 2007.

- In British Columbia, Chris Kempling, a teacher at a public high school, was cited in May 2001 for professional misconduct by the BC College of Teachers (BCCT) for letters published in a local newspaper. As punishment he was suspended from teaching for one month. He appealed his suspension all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which finally refused to hear the appeal in 2006.

When some CBC interviews in 2004 became the basis for a formal reprimand by the Quesnel School District, Kempling complained to the BC Human Rights Tribunal on the grounds that his religious freedom was being infringed, a complaint that the Tribunal rejected in November 2005.

- In 1999, Toronto printer Scott Brockie was ordered by the Ontario commission to pay a gay activist group $5,000 for refusing to print their letterhead.
[1 (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08010207.html)]


Read this article  (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/canada%E2%80%99s-human-rights-kangaroo-court/)for even more fun.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 01:33:35 PM
Quote
Does Canada allow evangelists to say "our religion is the one true way, all other religious creeds are incomplete or false"?

Not being Canadian, I could be wrong, but I thought you had to stop at defaming other faiths, which was basically accusing them of being evil, or making crap up about them.


Well if a Christian says "Muhammad was a false profit.  He was either crazy or lying because he wasn't inspired by God.  Revelation ended with the completion of the New Testament"  to that Christian it's a simple statement belief.  To a Muslim who takes offence, it can be defamation.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 01:41:16 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241136
Hell, in Canada they have government agents posting messages on websites that are racist, then have the site owners hauled before the HRC for having those statements on their sites (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=422ae2ae-2482-4e6b-a34b-a301ce4a3c95&p=1)!

Take what you will from the article, but this just leaped out at me:
Quote
Lemire is then charged under Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which makes it illegal to disseminate material on the Internet "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

Contempt, according to the online dictionary, is defined as:
Quote

1.  The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.
3. Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

If that truly is the law, it's..well...pardon my French...merde.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241147
Err, no.

The UK and France have militaries capable of expeditionary operations, but their interests are not global in scope.

Germany lacks expeditionary military capability. As does Japan.

Italy and Canada lack both expeditionary military capability, and global interests.

China has global interests, but lacks expeditionary military capability. Same with Russia (the Caucus and Eastern Europe are regional operations).


Do you really, seriously, really think the UK and France don't have interest globally? Are you fucking insane?

Nearly all of them can act on their own, or in concert with NATO. But I suppose if NATO acts in the Balkans, the Euros are just doing their neighborly duty and the US is expanding its empire...

The only countries not using their military or economic power to influence their national interests abroad are those countries that can’t.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jgants on August 28, 2008, 01:45:53 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241018
You know what sickens me. The lack of perspective and knowledge of history.

A pathetic, weak country like Afghanistan habored the people and resources to kill more Americans on American soil than Imperial Japan at the height of it's power.

But sure, if you're willing to allow the deaths of a few thousand Americans every few years- go ahead and call the people calling attention to the threat ignorant fucks. After all, your personal chance of avoiding death is rather good.

But if you really want to show how certain you are- move to Israel after Iran gets nukes. Then you will have at least earned the right to claim you've put your life on the line with your political beliefs.


Talk about a lack of perspective.  Yes, about three thousand people died on 9/11.  

More people than that die every single day in the US.  Many of them from things we could have prevented by spending more money on maintaining our infrastructure, combatting poverty, and providing universal health care.  

A person is far, far more likely to die as the result of a car crash on a poorly maintained highway than in a terrorist attack.  Poverty causes increases in crime, drug use, domestic violence, diseases, and alcohol use - all of which threaten our lives every day.

And healthcare is the worst of all.  You get all outraged about a few dozen nutjobs blowing up a couple of airplanes, when HMOs and insurance companies are murdering people by the thousands every single fucking day just to make a little bit more money.  Christ, we have a worse infant mortality rate than Cuba.

Then there's our wonderful war on terror - which has already killed off more Americans than 9/11 ever did.  And that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians that we killed.

So please, spare me the "every American life is sacred" bit.  It's a load of crap.  We let people die every day in the US because we are too cheap to pay the same taxes as most other developed countries.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 01:49:31 PM
Quote from: jgants;241165
Talk about a lack of perspective.  Yes, about three thousand people died on 9/11.  

More people than that die every single day in the US.  Many of them from things we could have prevented by spending more money on maintaining our infrastructure, combatting poverty, and providing universal health care.  

A person is far, far more likely to die as the result of a car crash on a poorly maintained highway than in a terrorist attack.  Poverty causes increases in crime, drug use, domestic violence, diseases, and alcohol use - all of which threaten our lives every day.

And healthcare is the worst of all.  You get all outraged about a few dozen nutjobs blowing up a couple of airplanes, when HMOs and insurance companies are murdering people by the thousands every single fucking day just to make a little bit more money.  Christ, we have a worse infant mortality rate than Cuba.

Then there's our wonderful war on terror - which has already killed off more Americans than 9/11 ever did.  And that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians that we killed.

So please, spare me the "every American life is sacred" bit.  It's a load of crap.  We let people die every day in the US because we are too cheap to pay the same taxes as most other developed countries.


Then why don't you propose we ban automobiles? That be 40,000 people a year we'd save. If you kept perspective you’d see whining about the Iraq War is not nearly as import as those 40,000 you'd save!

Of course, that’s ridiculous, much like your rant.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241133
Members of most religions, Protestant and Catholic Christians, Jews, and Muslims for example, believe that they their faith is the true way to know God and achieve salvation.  Speaking about their faith is important both for evangilization and simply proclaiming their own devotion.  


I disagree; freedom to evangilize outside the church is distinct from the freedom to practice a religion.

There are cultural differences at work here. In most liberal democracies, religion is considered a private matter, and aggressive prosthelytizing in public is regarded as an infringement on the public domain. Furthermore, religion isn't simply a behaviour - it's an identity. So to denounce someone's religion is tantamount to denouncing their identity along racial or gender lines. Which in Canada, can be prohibited as hate speech.

In Canada, Christians can practice whatever beliefs they choose. They cannot, however, denounce Jews with the blood libel while they're at it. We've found everyone gets along better that way.

Remember, Canada is a country which was evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants for much of its history, at a time when the two communities were at each other's throats in many parts of the Christian world. We have a long history of mutual tolerance. More recently, Calgary saw the opening of the largest Mosque in North America - without the sort of bigoted hysteria I found in the website you linked. I'd put Canada's track record of religious tolerance up against the U.S. any day.

So according to you, what Canadians lack is the freedom to be religiously bigoted and intolerant. I gotta admit, the U.S. probably has us beat on that front.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241161

The only countries not using their military or economic power to influence their national interests abroad are those countries that can’t.


Look up hegemon in the dictionary. The U.S. is the only country today that fits the bill.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 01:58:57 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241161
Do you really, seriously, really think the UK and France don't have interest globally?

I have to agree with this - I mean, to think that they don't have global interests, aspirations even, is a bit naive.

Perhaps what irks some Americans, and causes some of the friction with traditional allies is when the interests, for whatever reasons, diverge.

So when America is protecting interests that dovetail nicely with what the others want, everyone is fine with American power. When they think America is not acting with their best interests in the fore, they are not so happy about American power.

It's a tough situation.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241172
Look up hegemon in the dictionary. The U.S. is the only country today that fits the bill.


Even so, what's your point?

Again, the only countries not using their military or economic power to influence their national interests abroad are those countries that can’t.

It's not exactly rocket science to proclaim, "My country isn't hegemonic like yours.... not that we could be even if we wanted to. We simply have neither the power or influence to make that decision."

It's like hating the kid who's dad bought him a Porche. You're just mad you don't have one.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 02:02:56 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241170
So according to you, what Canadians lack is the freedom to be religiously bigoted and intolerant. I gotta admit, the U.S. probably has us beat on that front.

Then you confirm our exceptionalism on this point. I know you meant it kind of snarky, but really, this is a fundamental point.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 02:05:03 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241175

It's not exactly rocket science to proclaim, "My country isn't hegemonic like yours.... not that we could be even if we wanted to. We simply have neither the power or influence to make that decision."

It's like hating the kid who's dad bought him a Porche. You're just mad you don't have one.


I haven't denounced the U.S. for having an empire. I'm saying the delusional denial that the U.S. has an empire - that it has bases and soldiers and agents and money-men and advisers, and is entagled in disputes in every corner of the globe - is causing Americans a lot of grief, and will continue to cause them a lot of grief. There is an enormous gulf between what the average voter in Kansas believes America's role in the world is, and reality. All I'm saying is Americans need to bridge that gulf, grow up, and take some notice in what they're government and business interests are doing abroad.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241177
Then you confirm our exceptionalism on this point. I know you meant it kind of snarky, but really, this is a fundamental point.


Sure. The U.S. is more free than Canada when it comes to speech, while Canada is the more tolerant country in terms of religion.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 02:09:43 PM
Quote from: jgants;241165
Talk about a lack of perspective.  Yes, about three thousand people died on 9/11.

More people than that die every single day in the US.


So your reaction in 1941 would to have been to ignore the attack on Pearl huh? Nice jgants.

The rest of your post is typically trash facts. Just picking at random:


Quote from: jgants;241165

Christ, we have a worse infant mortality rate than Cuba.


http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

Which shows that the actual facts on the ground is completely opposite your assumed facts. The US not only has a better infant morality after adjustment- it goes to great and expensive lengths on what other nations write-off as a hopeless waste and then shovel into the trash can.

I could play John Morrow here and do the same to the rest of your post, but frankly I don't feel like spending the energy. Besides, your statements stand by themselves as the joke they are.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:12:38 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241180
I haven't denounced the U.S. for having an empire. I'm saying the delusional denial that the U.S. has an empire - that it has bases and soldiers and agents and money-men and advisers, and is entagled in disputes in every corner of the globe - is causing Americans a lot of grief, and will continue to cause them a lot of grief. There is an enormous gulf between what the average voter in Kansas believes America's role in the world is, and reality. All I'm saying is Americans need to bridge that gulf, grow up, and take some notice in what they're government and business interests are doing abroad.


Jumping from “American uses its power and influence globally to protect its interests” to “America is a world spanning empire” is where you continue to fail. German, Japan and South Korea all have thousands of US troops stationed within their boarders. I am quite certain none consider themselves colonies or territories of the United States.

Stationing troops in an ally’s borders does not make one an empire.

Insinuating others have the same power or influence but choose not to use it globally is the second place you fall down. Show us the country that has an equivalent base of power and influence that by choice, an altruistic one, does not exert that power for their own national interests abroad.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:14:01 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241181
Sure. The U.S. is more free than Canada when it comes to speech, while Canada is the more tolerant country in terms of religion.


How is telling certain religions to "shut-up" the same as "more tolerant"?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 02:19:51 PM
Its worth pointing out that several nations with US troops and bases in them don't WANT the US to go. There are, of course, conflicts between factions of citizens of those nations and the governments, but we can assume that's hardly universal else the democratic process would have seen the removal of the US long ago... Germany and South Korea, for example, are both democratic nations with bases and troops.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: KenHR;241009

But anyway I thought the original post was about individuals expressing these ideas, not about state-sponsored anything.  So is this thread meant to piss on rah-rah patriot types who don't think their country can do any wrong, or is it to piss on the state as a whole?  Or is everyone just confusing the individual with the state?


It's about American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is a belief that individuals have that is fostered by the state, that in turn drives, enables or shapes state action in the wider world.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 02:23:17 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241191
It's about American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is a belief that individuals have that is fostered by the state, that in turn drives, enables or shapes state action in the wider world.


I cannot parse this paragraph into a meaningful statement.

Please rephrase.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 02:23:28 PM
Quote from: S'mon;240982
I agree it's stoked by the manipulative.  Re slipping laws past the people - true, and something like McCain-Feingold is an abomination, but here in the UK over the past 10 years the 'Unwritten Constitution has been trashed and we now have a totalitarian State, albeit a soft totalitarianism.  I can't see that happening so easily in the US.
I think you underestimate how much of that soft totalitarianism has taken hold in the US as well.  Some of the laws passed and actions taken since 9/11 frankly horrify me, and were I not far too poor, I'd be finding somewhere else to live.

Sure, so long as you're not brown and Arab you're probably fine, for now.  I find that cold comfort however.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241194
I think you underestimate how much of that soft totalitarianism has taken hold in the US as well.  Some of the laws passed and actions taken since 9/11 frankly horrify me, and were I not far too poor, I'd be finding somewhere else to live.


I'm willing to send you a nickel if you pack up and leave.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 02:28:05 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241195
I'm willing to send you a nickel if you pack up and leave.


I thought you were better than that.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241197
I thought you were better than that.


Ok, how about a dime?

I'd offer more, but I have to take into account the tax increases Obama is going to place on me.



More seriously, sometimes I can't resist being an ass and taking the easy snark response
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:34:19 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241078
I'm curious - how many of those countries are in thrall to us? I mean, we have troops in Germany. Are they part of the American Empire?

These are honest questions - has America pulled off being an Empire without actually being an Empire? If so, how does it affect the comparisons?


America has plenty of countries in thrall to it. For example, by installing puppet dictators (Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and Augusto Pinochet are three well-known historical examples), by rapacious corporate exploitation in countries with weak or corrupt governments, by the afore-mentioned military bases, by the funding and support of insurgent groups against governments they don't like, by control of international institutions like the World Bank that poorer countries rely on, and by a system of strong alliances like NATO that were signed under a fair bit of duress.

As for Europe, Western Europe is in thrall to America because America and Russia threatened a massive war with one another for fifty years, with Europe as the main battlefield. The Europeans were forced to choose which master they wanted. The nuclear aspect of the war was actually good for Europeans, because it meant that more military assets would be devoted to destroying America and Russia, whereas in a conventional war, the two sides would be driving tanks through Bavaria.

So really, America is a pretty conventional empire in how it functions. It allows local political autonomy in exchange for tribute (preferential tariffs, assent to protect American intellectual property, etc.) and adherence to strict alliance with America.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 02:35:29 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241181
Sure. The U.S. is more free than Canada when it comes to speech, while Canada is the more tolerant country in terms of religion.

Yeah, well, tolerance is a funny thing. I tolerate that my neighbor is prejudiced. Does my tolerance cancel out his intolerance?

It's a strange thing to measure, and use as a measure, IMHO.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241183
Show us the country that has an equivalent base of power and influence that by choice, an altruistic one, does not exert that power for their own national interests abroad.

More thread to parse, but I was with this particular post until right here.

We do exert our power all over the place, generally in our self interests. That does not, IMHO, make us Empire. Perhaps soft empire or some other term is needed.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:42:17 PM
Quote from: Engine;241124
I believe so, but only if you purposely distort the meaning of the word "empire" to include figurative or non-literal meanings: with the death of imperialism worldwide, America needed a way to spread its influence and economy without use of force, and - intentionally or otherwise - that way turned out to be cultural exports. Rather than send tanks and guns, we sent McDonalds and Levi jeans, and by that standard, for some while, we won the war of empire. But no empire lasts forever, and our economic empire will last comparatively briefly, and that's only if you don't believe it's already ended.


Engine, dear boy, for over _sixty_years_ America has been engaged in a series of wars, both directly and by proxy. Vietnam, Grenada, Beirut, Straits of Malacca, Panama, Iraq 1, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 are the direct ones, while America covert funding is found in such wonderful things as Iran-Contra, the funding of Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, the ongoing military support for Israel and Egypt, equipping the Pakistani and Taiwanese militaries, the Angolan civil war, the Congolese civil wars, the South African Apartheid movement, the Kenyan civil conflicts, assassinating the duly elected president of Chile, and so on.

Coca-Cola's great and all, but the rapacious exploitation of weak governments and developing societies by corporations is only one part of America's exercise of power. There's been a lot of "hard power" thrown around in the last half-century. Because it's all happened overseas, the American people don't seem to really notice it, and they have bought into this idea that American culture is the origin of their power over others. That is simply untrue.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:44:18 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241136
Hell, in Canada they have government agents posting messages on websites that are racist, then have the site owners hauled before the HRC for having those statements on their sites (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=422ae2ae-2482-4e6b-a34b-a301ce4a3c95&p=1)!


Congratulatons on linking to the example I mentioned earlier. Should you investigate further, you would realise that Dean Steacy is under investigation by the RCMP and has been censured by others in the government for that very action.

Try to keep up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 02:48:16 PM
Canada went for a few years hauling a bunch of people up before various Human Rights Commissions for quiet the range of hate speech.

Most if not all of these have been dropped or overturned. However when one considers the legal fees and the air of government hostility that this has engendered- I'd say the mood of free speech has cooled.

But I expect much the same or worse to happen here if Obama wins the next election.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:48:35 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241208
Congratulatons on linking to the example I mentioned earlier. Should you investigate further, you would realise that Dean Steacy is under investigation by the RCMP and has been censured by others in the government for that very action.

Try to keep up.


So the HRC was abusing its power?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241183
German, Japan and South Korea all have thousands of US troops stationed within their boarders. I am quite certain none consider themselves colonies or territories of the United States.


Your examples are two countries America conquered, and one that it created, all of which have had occupying military forces within them for fifty-plus years and you don't see how they are dependent on the US...

Wow.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 02:51:09 PM
Quote
So really, America is a pretty conventional empire in how it functions.


Except that America has no emperor,empress,king or queen.  The United States is a repersentative republic.  Do we pick some idiots to represent us?  We sure do, but none of them is Emperor.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:52:03 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241204
More thread to parse, but I was with this particular post until right here.

We do exert our power all over the place, generally in our self interests. That does not, IMHO, make us Empire. Perhaps soft empire or some other term is needed.


Just FYI, I wasn't arguing that the USA is an empire. I was simply pointing out that we do what we do because we can. Those who aren't don't because they can't. There are not countries that could influence their national interests abroad but choose not to because of altruistic reasons.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241206
Engine, dear boy, for over _sixty_years_ America has been engaged in a series of wars, both directly and by proxy.

Indeed we have, and I should have pointed it out. It's strange, because we don't occupy the nations we blow up or fight in, except inasmuch as we then make deals to leave bases there and so on. But it's all very much more restrained than the old "go there, take over" imperialism that one associates with imperialism. People have been using the term "soft" to describe it, and I think that works.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241206
Because it's all happened overseas, the American people don't seem to really notice it, and they have bought into this idea that American culture is the origin of their power over others. That is simply untrue.

We really do notice it; I just think the use of military force and the use of culture are two different things. Believing in one doesn't mean we think the other doesn't exist.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241215
Except that America has no emperor,empress,king or queen.  The United States is a repersentative republic.  Do we pick some idiots to represent us?  We sure do, but none of them is Emperor.
Wow.  That's just, wow.  

*headdesk*
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241200
America has plenty of countries in thrall to it. For example, by installing puppet dictators (Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and Augusto Pinochet are three well-known historical examples), by rapacious corporate exploitation in countries with weak or corrupt governments, by the afore-mentioned military bases, by the funding and support of insurgent groups against governments they don't like, by control of international institutions like the World Bank that poorer countries rely on, and by a system of strong alliances like NATO that were signed under a fair bit of duress.

As for Europe, Western Europe is in thrall to America because America and Russia threatened a massive war with one another for fifty years, with Europe as the main battlefield. The Europeans were forced to choose which master they wanted. The nuclear aspect of the war was actually good for Europeans, because it meant that more military assets would be devoted to destroying America and Russia, whereas in a conventional war, the two sides would be driving tanks through Bavaria.

So really, America is a pretty conventional empire in how it functions. It allows local political autonomy in exchange for tribute (preferential tariffs, assent to protect American intellectual property, etc.) and adherence to strict alliance with America.


Yes, because NATO is just like a colony.... :huhsign:
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 02:53:51 PM
Quote
German, Japan and South Korea all have thousands of US troops stationed within their boarders. I am quite certain none consider themselves colonies or territories of the United States.


Quote
Your examples are two countries America conquered, and one that it created, all of which have had occupying military forces within them for fifty-plus years and you don't see how they are dependent on the US...


The US created South Korea?  I think liberated from an oppresive Japanese Empire is a more accurate description.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241193
I cannot parse this paragraph into a meaningful statement.

Please rephrase.


American exceptionalism is a belief that people have. People have this belief for various reasons. Some of these reasons, some of the most important reasons in fact, are that the American state encourages people to have them. It does so through propaganda - politicians, media and educational institutions all teach Americans that America is unique in certain ways amongst all the states of the world.

The American state encourages this because it enables the state to get away with doing things that it would otherwise have trouble doing, like engaging in fifty-plus years of warfare against opponents who don't threaten America, or torturing people without trials (which started long before Bush), and so on.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241213
Your examples are two countries America conquered, and one that it created, all of which have had occupying military forces within them for fifty-plus years and you don't see how they are dependent on the US...

Wow.


So they consider themselves colonies of the United States?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:54:34 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241212
So the HRC was abusing its power?


One member of it was, sure. So what? He is being punished for doing so. What grand point are you attempting to draw from it?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241215
Except that America has no emperor,empress,king or queen.  The United States is a repersentative republic.  Do we pick some idiots to represent us?  We sure do, but none of them is Emperor.


The Romans had an empire long before they had an "emperor" to run it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241223
American exceptionalism is a belief that people have. People have this belief for various reasons. Some of these reasons, some of the most important reasons in fact, are that the American state encourages people to have them. It does so through propaganda - politicians, media and educational institutions all teach Americans that America is unique in certain ways amongst all the states of the world.

The American state encourages this because it enables the state to get away with doing things that it would otherwise have trouble doing, like engaging in fifty-plus years of warfare against opponents who don't threaten America, or torturing people without trials (which started long before Bush), and so on.


Plain old nationalism found in pretty much every country in the world that's not splintered.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241183
German, Japan and South Korea all have thousands of US troops stationed within their boarders. I am quite certain none consider themselves colonies or territories of the United States.


Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241213
Your examples are two countries America conquered, and one that it created, all of which have had occupying military forces within them for fifty-plus years and you don't see how they are dependent on the US...

1. That's not what he said. "Dependent on the US" does not equal "consider themselves colonies or territories."

2. The US didn't conquer Germany or Japan; the Allies occupied them. And neither "depend" on the US, although Japan would be sad if we stopped buying their stuff. So would Germany, I suppose. But they don't depend on us, and they're not our colonies or territories.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 02:58:32 PM
J. Arcane: If you find it some foolhardy of me to think that America is a representative republic and not an empire, please explain the following:

After the November election, the leaders in this country will changed based upon the will of its citizens.  What other empires operate in this way?  If you think Bush is the Emperor (or if not him whoever else you think is), why wouldn't he simply hold onto his position by force, or install a puppet while remaining the power behind the throne (like Putin)?  

I find it amazing that you find it amazing that I don't think America has an emperor.  Please explain further.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 02:59:28 PM
Quote from: Engine;241219
Indeed we have, and I should have pointed it out. It's strange, because we don't occupy the nations we blow up or fight in, except inasmuch as we then make deals to leave bases there and so on. But it's all very much more restrained than the old "go there, take over" imperialism that one associates with imperialism. People have been using the term "soft" to describe it, and I think that works.


It's almost identical to the way the British functioned, and there's no ambiguity about whether they were an empire or not. I don't see any reason to ameliorate or soften the word. America is a hegemonic empire.

Quote
We really do notice it; I just think the use of military force and the use of culture are two different things. Believing in one doesn't mean we think the other doesn't exist.


On behalf of the rest of the world: We are less interested in Levi's jeans than which country you (America) are planning to plunge into bloodshed and warfare for your personal benefit this week.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 03:01:44 PM
The UK still has a substantial troop presence in Germany.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241230
J. Arcane: If you find it some foolhardy of me to think that America is a representative republic and not an empire, please explain the following:

After the November election, the leaders in this country will changed based upon the will of its citizens.  What other empires operate in this way?  If you think Bush is the Emperor (or if not him whoever else you think is), why wouldn't he simply hold onto his position by force, or install a puppet while remaining the power behind the throne (like Putin)?  

I find it amazing that you find it amazing that I don't think America has an emperor.  Please explain further.
Are you a child?  Are you what, 12?  That's about the most pathetically idiotic semantic non-answer I've ever seen.

It's completely fucking irrelevant to the discussion, and smacks of an emptyheaded, uneducated drone, desperately reaching into the bowels of his blank slate of a memory for a response to those far more intelligent than him, and by intelligent, I mean high school educated.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 03:02:50 PM
I have no problem saying the US conquered Germany and Japan.  Just don't forget 2 important things:

WHY- Japan attacked us and Germany immediately followed with a declaration of war (off topic,one of history's great what if's is what would have happend if Hitler had not dones so)

What the US did after its conquest- We did not annex territory or make our former enemies our slaves.  Rather, we sent them a fortune in aid to rebuild their ruined economies and became allies, not ruler and ruled.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:03:07 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241221
Yes, because NATO is just like a colony.... :huhsign:


There are relations other than colonial ones that an empire may take. India was not a "colony" of great Britain.

Quote from: wulfgar;241222
The US created South Korea?  I think liberated from an oppresive Japanese Empire is a more accurate description.


Then you're wrong! Korea was let loose during the collapse of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but South Korea was created by the Korean War.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:04:05 PM
I hope those NATO countries know that they are American colonies and subjects of our mighty empire. It might be news to them but Pseudoephedrine has spoken!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241233
The UK still has a substantial troop presence in Germany.


Imperialistic bastards!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:05:04 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241233
The UK still has a substantial troop presence in Germany.


I think when it comes down to it, the US could remove all its troops from overseas (and greatly tick those nations off in so doing I might add)- and they'd still call us an Empire.

After all, there's all that Indian, Mexician, French, etc and whatever land that we made into States.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241238
I hope those NATO countries know that they are American colonies and subjects of our mighty empire. It might be news to them but Pseudoephedrine has spoken!


Ah, we're in the "strawman" phase.

I never said they were "colonies". Find a quote where I did, you dishonest idiot.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 28, 2008, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241231
On behalf of the rest of the world: We are less interested in Levi's jeans than which country you (America) are planning to plunge into bloodshed and warfare for your personal benefit this week.


Because a bunch of yo's on an RPG Message Board can do anything about it?  How is anyone here determining US policy (beyond a vote and hoping that the pol we put in office can/will actually do what they've promised to do)?

I mean, really, I'm not picking on you, Pseudo - I agree with some of what you say, and find the rest of it well-argued -but this is where these threads get ridiculous.  Criticize people who blindly preach the party line, sure...debate is always healthy, and people on both sides might come away learning something.  But big blanket statements like this accomplish nothing.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:07:23 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241237
Then you're wrong! Korea was let loose during the collapse of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but South Korea was created by the Korean War.


Ummm... South Korea was invaded to start the Korean war....
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 03:08:50 PM
Quote
but South Korea was created by the Korean War.


So who did North Korea invade to start the Korean War?

And since North Korean started the Korean war, wouldn't that mean they made South Korea?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241245
So who did North Korea invade to start the Korean War?

And since North Korean started the Korean war, wouldn't that mean they made South Korea?


How can one look at this period of History, and not consider the fact that most of it wasn't driven by the US- but was driven by the Soviet Union. A nation that the label of Empire fits very well?

Such tunnel vision.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 03:11:20 PM
Quote
Korea was let loose during the collapse of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere


You do know that's code for Japanese Empire, right?  Or can you name any other countries that prospered under Japanese "partnership"?

And the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" collapsed because the Allied powers, primarily the United States, defeated it militarily.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241237
There are relations other than colonial ones that an empire may take. India was not a "colony" of great Britain.


lol... serious?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
Quote from: KenHR;241243
Because a bunch of yo's on an RPG Message Board can do anything about it?  How is anyone here determining US policy (beyond a vote and hoping that the pol we put in office can/will actually do what they've promised to do)?

I mean, really, I'm not picking on you, Pseudo - I agree with some of what you say, and find the rest of it well-argued -but this is where these threads get ridiculous.  Criticize people who blindly preach the party line, sure...debate is always healthy, and people on both sides might come away learning something.  But big blanket statements like this accomplish nothing.


Mate, Americans are responsible for their government and the things it does. It's not a nice thing to say because many Americans don't like their government, but they're all responsible for it, just as I bear some of the responsibility for all the stupid shit the Canadian government's done (which is why I favoured its recent apology to aboriginals over residential schooling).

Americans especially have responsibility for the things their government does, because it does so many of them to maintain their way of life, rather than for any moral principle or dire necessity. If the American government is so unresponsive to people that citizens have no control and no real influence over it, then you've reached the revolutionary threshold.

So either America needs a revolution, or Americans are responsible for the terrible shit their government does. I'm fine either way, as a non-American, but it's the choice at hand.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241242
Ah, we're in the "strawman" phase.

I never said they were "colonies". Find a quote where I did, you dishonest idiot.


Oh, so they are just some imperial province instead?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241231
It's almost identical to the way the British functioned...

Really? I guess I should ask what period of British Imperialism you're referring to, and which actions of the US you're referring to, because British Imperialism, say, prior to 1880 or so, worked very differently than US behavior in the last 40 years.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241231
I don't see any reason to ameliorate or soften the word. America is a hegemonic empire.

Well, there's no doubt the US is a hegemony, although we're certainly not unique in that respect [although we're, uh, "more hegemonic" than nations with less influence, certainly!]. Empire is less well-defined, and I haven't personally seen a definition here that's been agreed-upon well enough to make bald statements about.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241231
On behalf of the rest of the world: We are less interested in Levi's jeans than which country you (America) are planning to plunge into bloodshed and warfare for your personal benefit this week.

No, you're not, or you wouldn't all buy so many Levi's jeans [metaphorically-speaking]. Also, you might want to watch that "speaking for the rest of the world" thing, because it's silly.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:19:01 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241248
How can one look at this period of History, and not consider the fact that most of it wasn't driven by the US- but was driven by the Soviet Union. A nation that the label of Empire fits very well?

Such tunnel vision.


Actually, I agree the Soviet Union was an empire.

Can you point me to the Soviets on this thread telling me that it wasn't an empire? Can you direct me to where the Soviets are on this thread saying that people who don't like the Soviet empire are just envious of it?

Because if you can't, I'd rather talk with the Americans about the American empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241253

So either America needs a revolution, or Americans are responsible for the terrible shit their government does. I'm fine either way, as a non-American, but it's the choice at hand.


For one who hates "American Exceptionalism" he sure has enough of his own "Exceptionalism" to tell Americans what they should do in their "best interests".

I suppose you wish you country had the power to actually influence that wish of yours.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:22:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241250
lol... serious?


Yes, you idiot.

India was in a dependent relationship to Britain, but not a colonial one. Britain didn't settle thousands of British citizens there permanently as it did in its colonies (Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa). India is better described as either a protectorate, a special economic territory, or a set of subject states.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:25:16 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241258
For one who hates "American Exceptionalism" he sure has enough of his own "Exceptionalism" to tell Americans what they should do in their "best interests".

I suppose you wish you country had the power to actually influence that wish of yours.


CavScout, we already covered this, you dumb cunt. Try to remember what happened earlier in the thread. I mean, you can even go back and read it if you do forget.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241250
lol... serious?


I do have to say, that for some reason, many of the ex-British 'colonies' don't seem to resent us that much compared to others throughout history. People with more historical knowledge than me might know why better than me.

It's probably tea. It all comes down to tea.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241257
Because if you can't, I'd rather talk with the Americans about the American empire.


I'd rather you give us Americans your plan for how we could have contained or defeated the Soviet Union without all those little things you so decry.

What is the proper response for a 'non-empire' under the conditions presented?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241260
Yes, you idiot.

India was in a dependent relationship to Britain, but not a colonial one. Britain didn't settle thousands of British citizens there permanently as it did in its colonies (Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa). India is better described as either a protectorate, a special economic territory, or a set of subject states.


So you're are going to argue India was just a territory and not a colony, eh? What was the British Colonial Authority doing overseeing India for?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: Engine;241256
Really? I guess I should ask what period of British Imperialism you're referring to, and which actions of the US you're referring to, because British Imperialism, say, prior to 1880 or so, worked very differently than US behavior in the last 40 years.


British behaviour in India after the Portugese and Dutch were driven out, until either the Mutiny or the development of the British Raj is actually fairly similar. The British were engaged in a variety of corporate activities with a series of fragmented states. Over time, through a combination of covert activity, proxy military engagements, financial and technologial support to favoured allies, they managed to bring most of the country under the sway of the East India Company (who maintained a small handful of actual British in the country at any given time) through the use of local rulers with nominal power who depended on EIC support for anything and everything.


Quote
Well, there's no doubt the US is a hegemony, although we're certainly not unique in that respect [although we're, uh, "more hegemonic" than nations with less influence, certainly!]. Empire is less well-defined, and I haven't personally seen a definition here that's been agreed-upon well enough to make bald statements about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire is as good a place to start as any.

Quote
No, you're not, or you wouldn't all buy so many Levi's jeans [metaphorically-speaking]. Also, you might want to watch that "speaking for the rest of the world" thing, because it's silly.


That was a bit silly, I admit. But what I'm trying to say is that America thinks that the rest of the world sees Hollywood and its various consumer products and mostly cares about that. That's not really true. Especially outside of the West and the richer parts of Asia, people mostly see the American empire in action funding insurgencies, funding warlords, dropping bombs on them and so on.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 03:31:38 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241200
America has plenty of countries in thrall to it. For example, by installing puppet dictators (Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and Augusto Pinochet are three well-known historical examples), .


Ok, I know the Shah was a puppet dictator, or at least that's what I learned in school so it.must.be.true. (in other words, I've had better things to do with my time than fact check that one in detail... so I've accepted it on faith... sue me), and to be honest, while I know who Pinochet is, I've never really had cause to research how, exactly he came to power.

But Saddam Hussein?

I'm sorry, but I will call bullshit. We may have USED Saddam at one point, but he was well entrenched and unless the CIA is suddenly possessed of godlike powers to alter events magically without being anywhere near the scene, we had nothing at all to do with his taking power.

Let me sum up as best I can.

The british set up a King of Iraq in... lets say the 1930's or so since I'm too lazy to actually look up the date. Recently as human events go anyway.  He dies, his son dies and his grandson is pretty much it by... um... 1950's or so.

In comes the Ba'athists. Now these guys are aetheistic semi-communists, and they consider the king to be a puppet of britian and, like any power hungry thugs they decided that it gave them a moral right to pretty much tear down the kingdom and set themselves up in power.

Saddam was, at that time, just another murderous thug and, as it happens, a Ba'athist.  

Now... since this is old memories rather than fresh research, there was a car accident somewhere in there that killed a prince/heir thing... but really its unrelated to the direct events. The ba'athists murdered their way into power without the help of the US, and Saddam murdered his way up the ranks without... again, the help of the US.. up to and including when he finally murdered his mentor and the honcho of the entire party to take control for himself... in the 1970's. He was well entrenched in his power by the time the US gets involved supporting him against Iran, which had gotten pretty anti-US and is, I should remind you, bigger and with more infrastructure than Iraq has/had.

Puppet dictator? Not at all.  Did we use him? Certainly, but we neither created his power, nor did we really ever have any control over him.   Without either of those two conditions there is no real rational way we can apply the term 'Puppet' to the very real 'dictator'.  He was a rabid dog, and at best we threw raw meat towards Iran to get him to run that way when it served our purpose.  And when the raw meat ran out... well then we had to do something like you would any time you are stuck in a room with a rabid dog. One of you's got to go.

If you MUST score points, please use facts. Stop trying to bulk them up with bullshit.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:33:02 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241267
What was the British Colonial Authority doing overseeing India for?


A mistake in paperwork routing I'm sure.

I think Pseudoephedrine is being literal without being knowledgeable. It wasn't colonized so it wasn't a colony, and is either unaware or ignoring the fact that the meaning of colony had shifted in the 19th and early 20th century.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 28, 2008, 03:33:48 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241257


Can you point me to the Soviets on this thread telling me that it wasn't an empire? Can you direct me to where the Soviets are on this thread saying that people who don't like the Soviet empire are just envious of it?



There may not be 'Soviets' on this thread or on this forum , but there seem to be several who are  sympathetic with either socialism or communism...or even are Socialists at heart.

- Ed C.




(Whats funny is that good 'ol SMURF on the goldenrod and Fluffy - an admitted Socialist is much more fun to talk with. He and I tend to like the same movies and both enjoy a good GURPS game)
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241267
So you're are going to argue India was just a territory and not a colony, eh? What was the British Colonial Authority doing overseeing India for?


The British Colonial Authority is simply the name of the part of the British government responsible for its overseas holdings. What is the "Central Intelligence Agency" at the centre of?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241272
A mistake in paperwork routing I'm sure.

I think Pseudoephedrine is being literal without being knowledgeable. It wasn't colonized so it wasn't a colony, and is either unaware or ignoring the fact that the meaning of colony had shifted in the 19th and early 20th century.



But fuck, if you have allies and troops stationed overseas you are an empire! I can't believe people write books that say India was a colony (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/India-From-Ancient-Economy-to-British-Colony.id-5460.html)!

Some even dare to define colony as: "a territory under the immediate political control of a state." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony)

Punks, the lot of 'em!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241265
I'd rather you give us Americans your plan for how we could have contained or defeated the Soviet Union without all those little things you so decry.

What is the proper response for a 'non-empire' under the conditions presented?


What "conditions presented"?

You mean, "What should America have done to fight the Soviet Union"? That's such a broad and abstract question it's meaningless.

If you want to talk about specifics though, let's talk about specifics. America shouldn't've killed Salvador Allende and then backed Augusto Pinochet through all of his murderous reign. It shouldn't have encouraged revolutionaries in Guatemala to torture and murder people. It shouldn't have backed the Shah in Iran.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241269
British behaviour in India after the Portugese and Dutch were driven out, until either the Mutiny or the development of the British Raj is actually fairly similar.
Okay, so the way the British functioned in India made them an Empire? And this is compared to the US in the last 40 years? Because honestly, there's really not much comparison between the two.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241269
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire is as good a place to start as any.
Yes. I particularly like, "Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire, and other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors."

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241269
But what I'm trying to say is that America thinks that the rest of the world sees Hollywood and its various consumer products and mostly cares about that. That's not really true. Especially outside of the West and the richer parts of Asia, people mostly see the American empire in action funding insurgencies, funding warlords, dropping bombs on them and so on.
I don't think I'm prepared to make assessments as to what "the rest of the world" thinks or feels, if such an assessment is even remotely valid in the first place. I think it's presumptuous as hell to make claims like this, particularly when the person making the assessment isn't "outside of the West."
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241277
You mean, "What should America have done to fight the Soviet Union"? That's such a broad and abstract question it's meaningless.



You provided a list of military action that you used to make the claim the US is an Empire.

What would you have done in their place? And if that's too broad and abstract a question for you- the original charge was too broad and abstract in the first place.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:41:37 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241274
The British Colonial Authority is simply the name of the part of the British government responsible for its overseas holdings. What is the "Central Intelligence Agency" at the centre of?


Intelligence gathering...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241272
A mistake in paperwork routing I'm sure.

I think Pseudoephedrine is being literal without being knowledgeable. It wasn't colonized so it wasn't a colony, and is either unaware or ignoring the fact that the meaning of colony had shifted in the 19th and early 20th century.


Colony has a variety of meanings, sure. However, it normally means a territory under the direct control of another state. India fits that definition only at the end of its span under the British, after the collapse of the British Raj. First it was under the control of the EIC, then under the various puppet rulers who were agglomerated into the Raj who in turn answered to the EIC and eventually the British government, and only after the Raj's misrule, it became directly administered by Britain.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241281
You provided a list of military action that you used to make the claim the US is an Empire.

What would you have done in their place? And if that's too broad and abstract a question for you- the original charge was too broad and abstract in the first place.


I'm uninterested in playing "Sim America". Imagining what America could have done differently does not make the real America any less an empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:43:38 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241283
Colony has a variety of meanings, sure. However, it normally means a territory under the direct control of another state. India fits that definition only at the end of its span under the British, after the collapse of the British Raj. First it was under the control of the EIC, then under the various puppet rulers who were agglomerated into the Raj who in turn answered to the EIC and eventually the British government, and only after the Raj's misrule, it became directly administered by Britain.


And so it became a Colony.

Wow, I'm glad you got there. Otherwise that whole Gandhi thing was, like, seriously overplayed, you know. Seriously.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:44:59 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241285
And so it became a Colony.

Wow, I'm glad you got there. Otherwise that whole Gandhi thing was, like, seriously overplayed, you know. Seriously.


Ok... that was good for one helluva laugh.

/tiphat
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 03:47:43 PM
Fuck, all I need now is Pseudoephedrine to bust out a "Rest of the world=GI Joe, the United States=Cobra" and my day will be complete.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: Engine;241280
Okay, so the way the British functioned in India made them an Empire? And this is compared to the US in the last 40 years? Because honestly, there's really not much comparison between the two.


The corporate aspects certainly are comparable. In both cases, large ruthless corporations exploited political instability to increase their advantage. In both cases, home governments colluded with those corporations to help destabilise the local governments.

What is a key difference in your view? And why is this difference key?

Quote
Yes. I particularly like, "Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire, and other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors."


OK, so what economic and political factors do you think we need to take account of here that we aren't?

Quote
I don't think I'm prepared to make assessments as to what "the rest of the world" thinks or feels, if such an assessment is even remotely valid in the first place. I think it's presumptuous as hell to make claims like this, particularly when the person making the assessment isn't "outside of the West."


Why? I don't know about you, but I can see polls everyday showing the rest of the world's opinion of America in the shitter, country by country, region by region. Foreign media often reports on what America's up to in its region, and what America's military ventures are.

C'mon Engine, comrade. You've got to show that I'm making a mistake, not just imply that there's some fuzziness here.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 03:51:04 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241284
I'm uninterested in playing "Sim America". Imagining what America could have done differently does not make the real America any less an empire.


So you're uninterested in how the US could have avoided the tools of Empire (assuming that is true for the moment) when in conflict with another Empire?

Very nice, you get to claim the high ground for yourself without providing any reasoned options for those you condemn. You must be proud of yourself for that touch of cleverness.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241264
I do have to say, that for some reason, many of the ex-British 'colonies' don't seem to resent us that much compared to others throughout history. People with more historical knowledge than me might know why better than me.

It's probably tea. It all comes down to tea.
Really, I always got the impression that for many of the colonies, including our own, the British really weren't that terribly oppressive.

Frankly the American Revolution always seemed a bit silly compared to most, really more about some rich white guys pissed off about their taxes getting the rest of the rabble riled up enough to put up a half hearted fight, while the British just said "Eh, fuck it, not worth the effort, we're a bit too busy elsewhere at the moment" and basically let them win.

Of course, 200+ years of propoganda somehow twist that into some great victory for democracy in the world, when really, it was a bunch of bored intellectuals sitting around drinking way too much coffee.

Really, it's the coffee that's the problem.  Same thing that gets the Arabs worked up.  You find any heavy coffee drinking culture and they tend to get pretty riled up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:52:45 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241285
And so it became a Colony.

Wow, I'm glad you got there. Otherwise that whole Gandhi thing was, like, seriously overplayed, you know. Seriously.


Gleichman, stop being a troll.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on August 28, 2008, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241291
Gleichman, stop being a troll.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

American Empire, indeed.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 03:56:04 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241289
So you're uninterested in how the US could have avoided the tools of Empire (assuming that is true for the moment) when in conflict with another Empire?

Very nice, you get to claim the high ground for yourself without providing any reasoned options for those you condemn. You must be proud of yourself for that touch of cleverness.


Whether I, as immortal president of America without responsibility to Congress, could have prevented it from becoming an empire while fighting the Soviet Union, really has nothing to do with our discussion about whether America is an empire right now or what that has to do with American exceptionalism.

I'm glad to see that you've conceded that America is an empire though.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 03:57:37 PM
If we are an empire, damnit, where are my dancing girls?!?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;241294
Pot. Kettle. Black.

American Empire, indeed.


Actually, CavScout and gleichman have both already agreed that America is an empire. CavScout thinks it's fine to be an empire because he has the moral standards of Chinese fascist scum, while gleichman wants me to take over America and free it from its empire.

What we're doing now is details. They accidentally assented to the existence of an American empire, so they're trying to drag in a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to cover that up so they can go home feeling like they "won" the debate.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 04:01:20 PM
Quote from: Spike;241297
If we are an empire, damnit, where are my dancing girls?!?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReXt4l9r2pA
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288
What is a key difference in your view? And why is this difference key?

Britain actually administrated India under the auspices of the India Office: the Crown ruled British India - directly, at least after 1858 - which is a profound difference from any US action I can think of.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288
OK, so what economic and political factors do you think we need to take account of here that we aren't?

I think the political factor of "ruling" probably has a lot going for it, don't you? Otherwise, we usually use the term "cultural imperialism" or "economic imperialism," to show we're using the term "imperialism" in the more figurative, looser sense, which doesn't require arms and ruling and whatnot.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288
Why? I don't know about you, but I can see polls everyday showing the rest of the world's opinion of America in the shitter, country by country, region by region.

And I see the balance sheets that say they're still buying our stuff, irrespective of that, so it's hard for me to decide which they care more about.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288
C'mon Engine, comrade. You've got to show that I'm making a mistake, not just imply that there's some fuzziness here.

Um, no, I don't. I know you're probably more accustomed to speaking with people who desperately need to show you've made an error, but I genuinely am only saying, "There's fuzziness here, so stop being absolutist." I completely agree with you that there is widespread sentiment overseas that the US ought to stop invading people; there's no doubt about that. It's speaking for the world, and judging relative import, that I find logically untenable.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 28, 2008, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: Spike;241297
If we are an empire, damnit, where are my dancing girls?!?


Spike - I think you got my script page by mistake. (Let me look at that)


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 04:04:42 PM
I'm still waiting on somebody to tell me who the Emperor is that leads this American Empire.  And if you say George W. Bush, please explain what other emperors had a term limit.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 04:08:02 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288
The corporate aspects certainly are comparable. In both cases, large ruthless corporations exploited political instability to increase their advantage. In both cases, home governments colluded with those corporations to help destabilise the local governments.

Proof. Of. Collusion.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288
Why? I don't know about you, but I can see polls everyday showing the rest of the world's opinion of America in the shitter, country by country, region by region. Foreign media often reports on what America's up to in its region, and what America's military ventures are.

Their opinion in the shitter, and deciding why they think it to be so, are completely different, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, aspects. IOW, you're making a leap. A few, actually.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 04:08:49 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241290
Really, it's the coffee that's the problem.  Same thing that gets the Arabs worked up.  You find any heavy coffee drinking culture and they tend to get pretty riled up.


Hmm. Caffeine. Tea has about the same amount as coffee. I think we're onto something!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241296
I'm glad to see that you've conceded that America is an empire though.


Assuming something is true for a moment to see if you had anything other than bile to hurl is not admitting America is an Empire.

As is, all you offer is the boiler plate anti-america rant.

Bored now.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 04:18:43 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241309
Hmm. Caffeine. Tea has about the same amount as coffee. I think we're onto something!
Nah.  It varies of course by variety, some teas get pretty strong, but generally speaking tea's the milder of the two, both caffeine wise, and in the way the caffeine gets taken by the body.

Coffee is a mean, bitter drug, that gets you all wound up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241288


C'mon Engine, comrade. You've got to show that I'm making a mistake, not just imply that there's some fuzziness here.


The burden of proof is always on the accuser.  If he's telling you that you haven't proved it yet, then that means you have to work harder.

I know, I know... that's an americanism...

But I like it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: Engine;241303
Britain actually administrated India under the auspices of the India Office: the Crown ruled British India - directly, at least after 1858 - which is a profound difference from any US action I can think of.


The Provisional Authority in Iraq is a recent example. The post WW2 occupations of Japan and West Germany are other examples, with America directly ruling Japan for 7 years, and West Germany for 4 years.

Prior to the half-century of the cold war, there was the beginnings of the American empire, which included the conquest of the Philippines, Hawai'i, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

Quote
I think the political factor of "ruling" probably has a lot going for it, don't you? Otherwise, we usually use the term "cultural imperialism" or "economic imperialism," to show we're using the term "imperialism" in the more figurative, looser sense, which doesn't require arms and ruling and whatnot.


"Ruling" is an ambiguous term here. If an American corporation can dictate laws and terms to its host government, but only does so on issues that directly concerns it, what is its relative power to its host government? Does it "rule" that government? Well, it certainly does on the things it cares about.

A real example: Up here in Canada, there has been a massive swell of support for decriminalising the possessing of marijuana, possibly even legalising it. However, every time we do get close to doing so, agents of the American government (specifically its ambassador to Canada) threaten to wreck our economy by closing the borders. Our drug policy then, is not really controlled by our domestic government, but by American domestic drug policy (which, as an aside, is itself insane).

Quote
And I see the balance sheets that say they're still buying our stuff, irrespective of that, so it's hard for me to decide which they care more about.


You can buy things from people without liking them.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 04:23:44 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241308
Proof. Of. Collusion.


What do you want for proof?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 04:25:25 PM
Quote from: Spike;241316
The burden of proof is always on the accuser.  If he's telling you that you haven't proved it yet, then that means you have to work harder.

I know, I know... that's an americanism...

But I like it.


The better phrase is that "The burden of proof is always on the one asserting a positive", i.e. that the negative never carries the burden as it's impossible to prove a negative.

In this case, one would have to a make strong case that America must defined as Empire and nothing else.

To that, first Empire would have to defined. That hasn't been done, only links to a number of articles that list what may or may not be characteristics of an Empire. Such a definition must be complete and specific enough that other types of governments would fail to match.

Pseudoephedrine hasn't even attempted this, and so fails out of the gate.

After that he'd have to show how the US meets all those conditions while non-empires fail one or more.

After that, and only after- a real debate can begin. Likely starting with how valid the defintion put forth is.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241315
Nah.  It varies of course by variety, some teas get pretty strong, but generally speaking tea's the milder of the two, both caffeine wise, and in the way the caffeine gets taken by the body.

Coffee is a mean, bitter drug, that gets you all wound up.


I hate tea, personally. But the moment i cut down from about 8 cups of coffee a day at work to 1 and the rest being de-caff, i can't tell you how much better i felt (after a week or so of evil headaches).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241315
Nah.  It varies of course by variety, some teas get pretty strong, but generally speaking tea's the milder of the two, both caffeine wise, and in the way the caffeine gets taken by the body.

Coffee is a mean, bitter drug, that gets you all wound up.

It's why I drink Coke :D
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 04:27:20 PM
Quote from: Spike;241316
The burden of proof is always on the accuser.  If he's telling you that you haven't proved it yet, then that means you have to work harder.

I know, I know... that's an americanism...

But I like it.


Spike, I know you don't like it when I break into philosophy, so let me assure you that doubts as well as arguments require justification (Wittgenstein, On Certainty).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 04:30:44 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241321
In this case, one would have to a make strong case that America must defined as Empire and nothing else.


No I wouldn't. My point isn't that America is only an empire and nothing else. You're confusing an exclusive statement with an inclusive one. America is an empire and many other things as well (a state, a superpower, a country involved in the system of strong alliances that characterise intra-Western foreign relations after WW2).

Gleichman, if you didn't think America was an empire, you shouldn't have agreed that it was.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241320
What do you want for proof?

I don't know. You threw it out there. So provide some background information about what you consider collusion, and what you consider ruthless. Then illustrate how:
[LIST=A]


I don't mean this sarcastically, but take your time. I'm interested to see what you answer and I don't want it to be off the cuff. You will be graded on coherence, relevance, and accuracy.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 04:33:06 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241332
Gleichman, if you didn't think America was an empire, you shouldn't have agreed that it was.


Can you read English?

Do you undestanding the meaning of the term "assuming for the moment.." in debate?


And I'm sorry, but if you can't provide a good defintion for the term Empire to make your case- you shouldn't attempt to make the case.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 28, 2008, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241282
Intelligence gathering...


Ehhh...that was part of their job, but certainly not the entirety.  The CIA's covert ops division (which covers paramilitary operations, sponsoring of coups, etc., not intel gathering or espionage) has always been the half that got the lion's share of the budget and personnel.  And after Tenet's departure and the restructuring of US intelligence agencies, intel gathering is now handled primarily by the military's own intelligence arms, which have always been wholly separate from the CIA.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 04:34:08 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
The Provisional Authority in Iraq is a recent example.

Yeah, but it's just not very much like the India Office. Its causes and effects and goals are utterly dissimilar.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
The post WW2 occupations of Japan and West Germany are other examples, with America directly ruling Japan for 7 years, and West Germany for 4 years.

History isn't my strongest subject, so you'll have to forgive me, but was the occupation of Japan and Germany and their provisional governments something undertaken by the United States, or by the Allies?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
"Ruling" is an ambiguous term here.

My apologies: I mean "administration by a foreign nation." You're apparently including, "[a] corporation [which] can dictate laws and terms to its host government." I'm not including corporate influence, which is a very different beast from government action. That said, hey, it's all "America:" whether it's the American government or some American corporation doesn't make the action less American, but I think the blame for poor action lies with the corporation itself, and not its home nation as a whole.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
A real example: Up here in Canada, there has been a massive swell of support for decriminalising the possessing of marijuana, possibly even legalising it. However, every time we do get close to doing so, agents of the American government (specifically its ambassador to Canada) threaten to wreck our economy by closing the borders.

You cannot imagine this is something unique to the US treatment of the Canadian government, can you? This is what neighbors and trading partners do all the time, American or otherwise. Shit, this is what should happen! Neighbors ought to negotiate, even up to and including closing borders with each other. Although individual cases can and should be judged on their merits, I don't think a case can be made that the US is doing something wrong [or unique] in leveraging its influence with a neighbor.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 04:39:54 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
The Provisional Authority in Iraq is a recent example. The post WW2 occupations of Japan and West Germany are other examples, with America directly ruling Japan for 7 years, and West Germany for 4 years.

Didn't the Allies "rule" West Germany in the aftermath? And you'll note that this occupation, regardless of by whom it was achieved, ended...what..almost 60 years ago, right?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
Prior to the half-century of the cold war, there was the beginnings of the American empire, which included the conquest of the Philippines, Hawai'i, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

I don't know about the others, but the last was, for year, trying to actually voluntarily become a part of the "empire" - but has failed to do so. We suck at Empire.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
"Ruling" is an ambiguous term here. If an American corporation can dictate laws and terms to its host government, but only does so on issues that directly concerns it, what is its relative power to its host government? Does it "rule" that government? Well, it certainly does on the things it cares about.

Is the use of force by the US government involved?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
A real example: Up here in Canada, there has been a massive swell of support for decriminalising the possessing of marijuana, possibly even legalising it. However, every time we do get close to doing so, agents of the American government (specifically its ambassador to Canada) threaten to wreck our economy by closing the borders. Our drug policy then, is not really controlled by our domestic government, but by American domestic drug policy (which, as an aside, is itself insane).

Really? So we're an Empire because we want to be able to keep goods out of our country that we consider illegal? I mean, let's leave aside the argument of whether or not legalization of marijuana is smart (I happen to think most drugs should be legal - crazy right-wing nut-job that I am).

The US is not telling Canada they can't do what they want, only that there will be consequences. This is Empire, now?

I could see if we threatened to invade and topple your hippy regime, but this?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
You can buy things from people without liking them.

But wasn't the gist of your point that they didn't care about our cultural exports (ie Levi's)? Seems they care so much about them that they will buy them from us even when they dislike us. Christ, I won't go to Jewel (food store) anymore because of something a manger told me 14 years ago...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 04:41:20 PM
I am aware of the proving a negative aspect of it, but we don't base our legal system on that for what are, I'm sure, very good reasons.

I KNOW asking the accuser to prove their case is based on sound legal thinking, and as most accusations are incidentally 'positives'... as in 'you did X' or, as in this case 'you are X' it manages to nicely encompass both.

Most attempts to accuse the US of Imperialism fall short for one of two reasons:

1: They rely on redefining Imperialism in ways that the US explicitely meets.  The Law works on absolutes for a reason.  While this is not a court of law, the process of accusation very much resembles one. To have violated some principle, some standard that principle or standard, like a law, must be clearly defined before hand... for the same reasons.  I could redefine Imperialism until I could accuse my own skin of Imperialistic tendencies towards my internal organs.  I'd be stupid to do so, but that is essentially the sort of behavior you get when you refuse to stick to clearly defined terms in legal, or legalistic behavior.  

2: Often historical artifacts are brought up such as our 'adventure' in the phillipines. This, in an of itself is hardly dirty pool, but in using these examples they restrict themselves exclusively to very narrow windows in time when our behavior most closely aligns with their accusation while ignoring the fact that our long term behavior in those same regions works quite against their case.

It is perfectly permissable, obviously, to restrict a discussion of British Imperialism in India to a time when Britian was actually in India. But no one discusses British Imperialism as a 'current state of affairs', which they do with the US.  If hte US is engaged in Imperialism, then you can't use four years in Germany or seven years in Japan as 'proof positive', because the fact that you willfully ignore the fact that our 'imperialistic behavior' voluntarily ended after such short spans of times is, in essence, counter-proof that our efforts were driven by Imperialism.  Is the Phillipines a puppet state of the US? Were we ousted from teh phillipines by a foriegn power? By the people of the Phillipines?   No? THen in what way does the Phillipines illustrate the US is engaged in Imperialistic behavior?  

Hawai'i makes for an interesting case in the debate. Guam could be used as an even MORE interesting case. There is some serious debate to be had in both cases, and they COULD be used to demonstrate an Imperialistic expansion, certainly. Counter cases could be made about why they shouldn't count, but its hardly an open and shut case for the defense.

On the other hand, the fact that Germany, Japan and the Phillipines are all independent nations that are fully capable, and at times willing, of opposing the US's interests makes a powerful case for the... forgive me... defense. Yet the prosecution keeps bringing them up because they want to restrict their use to an artificially narrow slice of time.

But I'm making hash of this...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241177
Then you confirm our exceptionalism on this point. I know you meant it kind of snarky, but really, this is a fundamental point.


Yeah, America has genuine religious freedom, Canada doesn't.  Nor do most European countries.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 04:46:39 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241248
How can one look at this period of History, and not consider the fact that most of it wasn't driven by the US- but was driven by the Soviet Union.


The Korean War was more complicated than that.

First, when the Americans occupied Korea they had no idea how to establish and maintain order, so they let the Japanese colonial administrators and police keep running things for a while. This turned many Koreans against the Americans.

This in turn led the only cohesive force in Korea - the guys who had been resisting the Japanese all along - to turn to the communists for support. The Americans, who hadn't a clue about Korean politics, responded by bringing in a corrupt businessman Syngman Rhee, who had sat out the Japanese occupation in the U.S., and letting him run the place.

Rhee's regime, which was rife with former collaborationists and violently quelled political opposition, was understandably unpopular among those who had resisted the Japanese, particularly since most Koreans wanted an truly independent government after decades of occupation, not a foreign puppet.

The lead-up to the Korean War was not a shining example of democratic virtues being supported by the West.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241306
I'm still waiting on somebody to tell me who the Emperor is that leads this American Empire.  And if you say George W. Bush, please explain what other emperors had a term limit.


You can't possibly be that dim.

Who was the Emperor who led the British Empire?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 04:50:08 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241344
Yeah, America has genuine religious freedom, Canada doesn't.  Nor do most European countries.

In all fairness and to be clear, I was not making this point. I was actually looking at Speech - and how the the Freedom of expression in the US, in the end, is generally deemed to be especially for the stuff people don't like.

So allowing someone to spew hatred is protected. Perhaps that is unique. Anyone?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 04:50:39 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241345
The Korean War was more complicated than that.


Everything is more complicated than that. So why should we accept anything in isolation?

That was the point of my post, one that you seem to have missed in your effort to point out yet more complications.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 04:52:13 PM
One thing about American imperialism is that in war America is generally very good at ensuring that client state militaries are not asked to bear a greater proportionate burden than are American troops, and usually much less.  Whereas when my country had an empire, Britain tended to feed auxiliaries into the meat grinder along with the British Tommies.   I think the light burden which the American empire imposes on friendly/client nations helps to reduce resentment.  EU subventions cost the UK a lot more than does our alliance with the US.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241194
I think you underestimate how much of that soft totalitarianism has taken hold in the US as well.  Some of the laws passed and actions taken since 9/11 frankly horrify me, and were I not far too poor, I'd be finding somewhere else to live.

Sure, so long as you're not brown and Arab you're probably fine, for now.  I find that cold comfort however.


I thought Bush was all 'No racial profiling'?  My impression is that in the US you now have things like warrantless wiretaps, in the UK we have 42 days detention without charge, and no free speech.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: KenHR on August 28, 2008, 04:56:24 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
A real example: Up here in Canada, there has been a massive swell of support for decriminalising the possessing of marijuana, possibly even legalising it. However, every time we do get close to doing so, agents of the American government (specifically its ambassador to Canada) threaten to wreck our economy by closing the borders. Our drug policy then, is not really controlled by our domestic government, but by American domestic drug policy (which, as an aside, is itself insane).


We've had domestic drug and immigration enforcement policies affected by Mexico...this happens.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241351
I thought Bush was all 'No racial profiling'?  My impression is that in the US you now have things like warrantless wiretaps, in the UK we have 42 days detention without charge, and no free speech.
Dude, we've got indefinite detention without charge.  You really know nothing of Guantanamo?  Or do you just not care, because they must all be Islamists since they're mostly brown people?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 28, 2008, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241347
So allowing someone to spew hatred is protected.

Kind of. If you say, "Nigger" while beating up someone who is black, and you are not black, your hatred is no longer protected: you will be charged not just with the beating, but with a hate crime, as well. And don't we have laws against things like telling someone you hate them for being black/Jewish/stupid/whatever? I'm not sure. I hope not.

That said, law is one thing: culture is another. I wrote once, at great length, about what's happened to the word "nigger" in this nation, how, irrespective of government action, it is simply culturally unacceptable to use the word, even if you're not using it as a pejorative. I don't want to relive the fight that followed, but it's worth pointing out that, whatever our legal protections might be, our cultural tolerance for intolerance is very, very low.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241211

But I expect much the same or worse to happen here if Obama wins the next election.


I doubt it - I don't live in the US and maybe I'm over-optimistic, but it seems like the US has a very strong commitment to free speech which doesn't exist elsewhere.  The rest of the Anglosphere used to have British-style "free speech by default", but that's been stamped out with 'hate speech' laws.  The US has always regulated speech through social ostracism and sacking people (eg James Watson), not through jailing them.  If the US loses that too I'd say it's dead as a free nation, but I don't think it very likely.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241345
The Korean War was more complicated than that.

The lead-up to the Korean War was not a shining example of democratic virtues being supported by the West.


The run up to Vietnam was even uglier, but then most of the worst sins for that one falls on the French.

However, as a case for Imperialism,  Vietnam is the better example. The US didn't go to Korea to establish Empire. The French, however, went to Vietnam to 'preserve' theirs.

In both cases the US made some stupid choices that made matters worse, but that does not, in any way, prove Imperialism, or in fact Exceptionalism... just that... amazingly enough, governments, made of people, are capable of making mistakes, often tragic ones.

An not one single person, nor nation, is immune.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 05:04:51 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241359
I doubt it - I don't live in the US and maybe I'm over-optimistic, but it seems like the US has a very strong commitment to free speech which doesn't exist elsewhere.


Hate speech laws and various other laws constraing speech are very much in favor on the Left. I expect us to drift in the direction of the rest of the world under Obama.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 05:06:01 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241354
Dude, we've got indefinite detention without charge.  You really know nothing of Guantanamo?  Or do you just not care, because they must all be Islamists since they're mostly brown people?


Please do some research before you bring in that old talking point canard.

The Guantanamo situation is far more complex than your simplistic summation up there.  If you start bringing up inhumane detention conditions I'll be forced to ask you exactly how you think prisoners, regardless of location, should be housed.

And nobody wants to get into that here...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Ian Absentia on August 28, 2008, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241211
But I expect much the same or worse to happen here if Obama wins the next election.
I suspect that you expect Christians to be thrown to lions if Obama wins.  No news there.

!i!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241215
Except that America has no emperor,empress,king or queen.  The United States is a repersentative republic.  Do we pick some idiots to represent us?  We sure do, but none of them is Emperor.


The US empire closely resembles the Athenian-led Delian League in its pre-Athenian Empire phase.  Countries can have empires without an Emperor, look at Rome ca 50 BC.  Also, much of the Roman empire consisted of client kingdoms, with military bases.  

I'm kind-of ambivalent re whether the American empire is a good thing.  Bush has been a terrible President and has discredited America in the eyes of the rest of the world; but during the Cold War the US empire was probaby valuable in countering the Communists.  And I have a sentimental attachment to continued Anglosphere global domination.  On balance though I think the US and the world would be better off with the US scaling back its empire considerably and taking a much less aggressive/offensive stance.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:14:35 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241264
I do have to say, that for some reason, many of the ex-British 'colonies' don't seem to resent us that much compared to others throughout history. People with more historical knowledge than me might know why better than me.


Well, I think we kinda replaced most of the natives (US, Australia, Canada, to an extent New Zealand and South Africa) with Brits, didn't we?  So it's not surprising they don't resent us that much.  Indians I know seem to resent the British Empire a fair bit.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: Engine;241338
You cannot imagine this is something unique to the US treatment of the Canadian government, can you? This is what neighbors and trading partners do all the time, American or otherwise. Shit, this is what should happen! Neighbors ought to negotiate, even up to and including closing borders with each other. Although individual cases can and should be judged on their merits, I don't think a case can be made that the US is doing something wrong [or unique] in leveraging its influence with a neighbor.



So what if Canada said it would shut off the supply of oil to the U.S. unless every state legalized gay marriage. How well would that go down in the U.S.?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: Engine;241357
Kind of. If you say, "Nigger" while beating up someone who is black, and you are not black, your hatred is no longer protected: you will be charged not just with the beating, but with a hate crime, as well. And don't we have laws against things like telling someone you hate them for being black/Jewish/stupid/whatever? I'm not sure. I hope not.

Agreed. And I'm one who thinks it's an silly approach. But you are correct. However, you can not be brought before any tribunal for standing in Bughouse Square ranting about the Jewish conspiracy, the militant blacks, or the illegal aliens overrunning the country.

Quote from: Engine;241357
That said, law is one thing: culture is another. I wrote once, at great length, about what's happened to the word "nigger" in this nation, how, irrespective of government action, it is simply culturally unacceptable to use the word, even if you're not using it as a pejorative. I don't want to relive the fight that followed, but it's worth pointing out that, whatever our legal protections might be, our cultural tolerance for intolerance is very, very low.

Agreed. But this is a different dimension to the discussion.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241333
I don't know. You threw it out there. So provide some background information about what you consider collusion, and what you consider ruthless. Then illustrate how:
[LIST=A]
  • Large ruthless corporations exploited political instability to increase their advantage.
  • The US Government colluded with those corporations to help destabilise the local governments.


I don't mean this sarcastically, but take your time. I'm interested to see what you answer and I don't want it to be off the cuff. You will be graded on coherence, relevance, and accuracy.


Fair enough. The most well-documented example I'm aware of, and so the one I'll use, is the role of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala.

Here's the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

The important section there is the "History in Central America" section.

A brief summary: The UFCO spends the early 20th century building up incredible amounts of power in Central America, including in Guatemala. It is an American corporation that specialises in fruit export from those regions, but it comes to dominate the post office, land registration and other government functions of the republics down there. We get the term "banana republic" from its extensive manipulation of local government.

The UFCO spent the late 40's and early 50's lobbying the Truman and Einsenhower administrations to topple the democratically elected regime in Guatemala by claiming that the Guatemalan government was going to align itself with the Soviets. The regime was interested in breaking the power of the UFCO, and wanted to distribute UFCO uncultivated land to aboriginal people (amongst other things). In 1954, the CIA backed Honduras-based Guatemalan military officers who overthrew the regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

Now, United Fruit didn't manage to successfully exploit this coup due to various internal problems, but it did try to, and it remained in Guatemala until 1972.

Off the UFCO wiki page, you can find further information abouts its activities in Central America, including the Banana Massacre and the like.

"Inevitable Revolutions" by Walter LaFeber (Norton, 1993) goes into more detail about the role of the UFCO, the American government, and Central America.

That's one well-attested example of the sort of thing I'm describing.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 05:20:21 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241368
So what if Canada said it would shut off the supply of oil to the U.S. unless every state legalized gay marriage. How well would that go down in the U.S.?

Remember that statue falling in Baghdad? What's your equivalent?

I kid. IMHO, it would lead to a trade war. Which is all well and good. The only issue for me is the legality with repsect to global interests drilling in Canada presently...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:22:18 PM
Quote from: Engine;241338
Yeah, but it's just not very much like the India Office. Its causes and effects and goals are utterly dissimilar.


What sorts of similarities are you looking for them? I'm pointing to functional similarities. The nature of history is such that looking for similar causes for things in different eras is near impossible. It's much more useful to look for similar structural or functional features.

Quote
History isn't my strongest subject, so you'll have to forgive me, but was the occupation of Japan and Germany and their provisional governments something undertaken by the United States, or by the Allies?


Japan was occupied by the Americans solely. Germany was a joint effort, but America was the predominant power amongst the allies. For example, it was the US that held the Nuremburg trials.

Quote
My apologies: I mean "administration by a foreign nation." You're apparently including, "[a] corporation [which] can dictate laws and terms to its host government." I'm not including corporate influence, which is a very different beast from government action. That said, hey, it's all "America:" whether it's the American government or some American corporation doesn't make the action less American, but I think the blame for poor action lies with the corporation itself, and not its home nation as a whole.


Most nations have laws in place to prevent their citizens and corporations from doing things outside the bounds of their country that would be illegal within it. Heck, even America has these sorts of laws. If the American government does not enforce its own laws, it certainly has to take responsibility for choosing not to.

Quote
You cannot imagine this is something unique to the US treatment of the Canadian government, can you? This is what neighbors and trading partners do all the time, American or otherwise. Shit, this is what should happen! Neighbors ought to negotiate, even up to and including closing borders with each other. Although individual cases can and should be judged on their merits, I don't think a case can be made that the US is doing something wrong [or unique] in leveraging its influence with a neighbor.


It's certainly no Guatemala, but it is fucking annoying and pushy.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 28, 2008, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241349
One thing about American imperialism is that in war America is generally very good at ensuring that client state militaries are not asked to bear a greater proportionate burden than are American troops, and usually much less.  Whereas when my country had an empire, Britain tended to feed auxiliaries into the meat grinder along with the British Tommies.   I think the light burden which the American empire imposes on friendly/client nations helps to reduce resentment.  EU subventions cost the UK a lot more than does our alliance with the US.


The reason for the use of 'auxiliaries' (and Dominion troops in particular would object to that term I suspect), as favoured also by the Romans, is that historically Britain did not have a large army until WWI and indeed the army wasn't a popular career choice. Money went on the navy and as much as possible the UK avoided land warfare on a large scale. When a large British army was necessary for an extended period it contributed greatly to the impoverishment of the UK.

I suspect if American governments could have a greater contribution from other countries to their wars they'd happily feed 'auxiliaries' into the meat grinder. There is less of a sense of obligation or indeed enthusiasm for American allies to do so than the Commonwealth though.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 05:25:44 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241370
Fair enough. The most well-documented example I'm aware of, and so the one I'll use, is the role of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala.

Here's the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

The important section there is the "History in Central America" section.

A brief summary: The UFCO spends the early 20th century building up incredible amounts of power in Central America, including in Guatemala. It is an American corporation that specialises in fruit export from those regions, but it comes to dominate the post office, land registration and other government functions of the republics down there. We get the term "banana republic" from its extensive manipulation of local government.

The UFCO spent the late 40's and early 50's lobbying the Truman and Einsenhower administrations to topple the democratically elected regime in Guatemala by claiming that the Guatemalan government was going to align itself with the Soviets. The regime was interested in breaking the power of the UFCO, and wanted to distribute UFCO uncultivated land to aboriginal people (amongst other things). In 1954, the CIA backed Honduras-based Guatemalan military officers who overthrew the regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

Now, United Fruit didn't manage to successfully exploit this coup due to various internal problems, but it did try to, and it remained in Guatemala until 1972.

Off the UFCO wiki page, you can find further information abouts its activities in Central America, including the Banana Massacre and the like.

"Inevitable Revolutions" by Walter LaFeber (Norton, 1993) goes into more detail about the role of the UFCO, the American government, and Central America.

That's one well-attested example of the sort of thing I'm describing.

Thanks pseudo - I'm about to leave work, but I'll look at it. Just FYI - for some reason I was locked on Iraq (I think I was talking about that at that portion of the thread and got mixed up), so I was looking for something about that.

But I will take a look at what you provided.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:28:00 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241347
In all fairness and to be clear, I was not making this point. I was actually looking at Speech - and how the the Freedom of expression in the US, in the end, is generally deemed to be especially for the stuff people don't like.

So allowing someone to spew hatred is protected. Perhaps that is unique. Anyone?


Once again, it's a matter of practice vs. formal freedom. In America, your boss can fire you for saying something that he doesn't like, even if you don't say it at work. You can spew all the hatred you want, so long as you do it in the comfort of your home (look at the "free-speech" zones that are found all over American universities, outside the political party conventions, and so on).

In Canada, the space for free speech is much larger. Your boss can't fire you for saying whatever you please on your spare time, nor can anyone prevent you from protesting something pretty much wherever you please. However, in exchange for that freedom, we try to discourage violent hate speech. To say that one is "more free" than the other is quixotic.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241354
Dude, we've got indefinite detention without charge.  You really know nothing of Guantanamo?  Or do you just not care, because they must all be Islamists since they're mostly brown people?


As I understand it, Guantanomo is a purely overseas operation, right?  The US govt can't arrest someone in New York and ship them to Guantanomo?  As I understand it, it was specifically designed to subvert/get around US legal protections.  So I , sitting here in London, could be kidnapped and shipped to Guantanamo if I were a suspected terrorist.  But my father in law, sitting in the US, could not be.  Or am I mistaken?  Also, AFAIK the legal position is unaffected by skin colour.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 05:33:27 PM
In practice you can sue your boss for firing you unfairly, and pointing to political rallies and universities as prime examples of how life works for US Citizens as a norm is disingenius as best.

For example, I work under a bit more restrictions than most people regarding free speech as a result of my job.  However, I am still protected in that I can pretty much say what I want, vote for or support who I want, even publicly.

What I can not do, however, is position myself as a spokesman (or even give the appearance of being a spokesman) for my employer.  That is protecting their rights, not infringing mine.

You can point out the problems with our current legal system and how hard it can be the david vs the goliath... but that doesn't change the fact that you still have the right to say what you want and not get fired for it.

Having lived in America most of my life, I have never encountered one of these so called 'free speech zones' you speak of.  Should I start telling you what life is like in Canada now?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:33:40 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241377
As I understand it, Guantanomo is a purely overseas operation, right?  The US govt can't arrest someone in New York and ship them to Guantanomo?  As I understand it, it was specifically designed to subvert/get around US legal protections.  So I , sitting here in London, could be kidnapped and shipped to Guantanamo if I were a suspected terrorist.  But my father in law, sitting in the US, could not be.  Or am I mistaken?  Also, AFAIK the legal position is unaffected by skin colour.


American citizens have been in it and no, being in America itself is no protection.

There aren't really any consistent legal guidelines on its operation. What happened was they rounded the people up, shipped them there, and _then_ started making up the law for it. This is why the Supreme Court has been constantly busy these past years.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:34:48 PM
Quote from: Spike;241379

Having lived in America most of my life, I have never encountered one of these so called 'free speech zones' you speak of.  Should I start telling you what life is like in Canada now?


You did earlier, Mr. "No religious freedom".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 05:38:25 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241377
As I understand it, Guantanomo is a purely overseas operation, right?  The US govt can't arrest someone in New York and ship them to Guantanomo?  As I understand it, it was specifically designed to subvert/get around US legal protections.  So I , sitting here in London, could be kidnapped and shipped to Guantanamo if I were a suspected terrorist.  But my father in law, sitting in the US, could not be.  Or am I mistaken?  Also, AFAIK the legal position is unaffected by skin colour.


Actually, there is a long standing body of law behind the use of Guantanomo, but you are correct that you can not be shipped out of the US to Gauntanomo.

When I say long standing I don't mean, as is often implied 'bush presidency' but long standing as in 'going back to the founding of this country'.

It gets increasingly complex from there, but there are specific legal protections the detainees have that are different than ones a US citizen receives, but to qualify... if you like that term, requires a narrow set of circumstances.

The reason that it's been 'five years with no charges' is less we want to hold people indefinitely and more the long legal wrangling to determine exactly what legal catagories detainee's fall under. Compounding the problem is the fact that Congress hasn't bothered to ratify the afghanistan action as a 'legal' War, and the fact that we are still fighting over there... meaning it is an ongoing action. POW's are not required to be released, nor charged, during ongoing hostilities... but that takes us back to that pesky congressional thing. They aren't being detained because they are criminals, per se, but because they are hostile combatants and holding them is more humane that shooting them.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:38:38 PM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;241373
The reason for the use of 'auxiliaries' (and Dominion troops in particular would object to that term I suspect), as favoured also by the Romans, is that historically Britain did not have a large army until WWI and indeed the army wasn't a popular career choice. Money went on the navy and as much as possible the UK avoided land warfare on a large scale. When a large British army was necessary for an extended period it contributed greatly to the impoverishment of the UK.

I suspect if American governments could have a greater contribution from other countries to their wars they'd happily feed 'auxiliaries' into the meat grinder. There is less of a sense of obligation or indeed enthusiasm for American allies to do so than the Commonwealth though.


I was thinking specifically of the US treatment of the Australians in Vietnam.  If they'd been sent to Hue rather than Nuey Dat they'd probably still be making 'Gallipoli' type films about it. :D
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241381
You did earlier, Mr. "No religious freedom".


Did I say Canada had no religious Freedom?

I mean, I know in this thread I've only posted one or two times before... and never to say that.

Oh, wait. I know... I'm an American, therefore we are all the same to you, right?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:42:40 PM
Quote from: Spike;241385
Did I say Canada had no religious Freedom?

I mean, I know in this thread I've only posted one or two times before... and never to say that.

Oh, wait. I know... I'm an American, therefore we are all the same to you, right?


Whoops, sorry, my bad.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Spike on August 28, 2008, 05:45:46 PM
This entire thread is made up of 'Bad'.

Seriously, the entire point could be considered a 'group attack' on RPG.net, and the defense can't decide if its weak, overly intellectualiod (me?) or on the counterattack...

One more won't hurt.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 28, 2008, 05:46:54 PM
Quote from: Spike;241383
Actually, there is a long standing body of law behind the use of Guantanomo, but you are correct that you can not be shipped out of the US to Gauntanomo.


Right, that's what I thought.  I understand it's based on prisoner of war/illegal combatant precedents, but there's a problem in that many inmates were not captured on battlefields by US forces, but as a result of rendition.

I'm not a fan of Guantanamo, but I can't see how it directly infringes the rights of US citizens within the US.  Whereas the British government can now hold anyone for 42 days with no charge, ie no habeas corpus.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 28, 2008, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: Spike;241387
This entire thread is made up of 'Bad'.

Seriously, the entire point could be considered a 'group attack' on RPG.net, and the defense can't decide if its weak, overly intellectualiod (me?) or on the counterattack...

One more won't hurt.


No worries then.

It seems like folks have mostly accepted that there's an American empire, and the question to go onto is whether it's mostly good or mostly bad.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241388
Right, that's what I thought.  I understand it's based on prisoner of war/illegal combatant precedents, but there's a problem in that many inmates were not captured on battlefields by US forces, but as a result of rendition.

I'm not a fan of Guantanamo, but I can't see how it directly infringes the rights of US citizens within the US.  Whereas the British government can now hold anyone for 42 days with no charge, ie no habeas corpus.
According to the administration, any citizen, for basically any reason they want, can be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and detained there.  Additionally, a law was passed effectively denying habeas corpus to said detainees, which was only finally declared unconstitutional by a slim vote by the Supreme Court in June.

EDIT: There's also quite a few folks who've been in Gitmo a hell of a lot longer than 42 days.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on August 28, 2008, 06:17:00 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241388
Right, that's what I thought.  I understand it's based on prisoner of war/illegal combatant precedents, but there's a problem in that many inmates were not captured on battlefields by US forces, but as a result of rendition.

I'm not a fan of Guantanamo, but I can't see how it directly infringes the rights of US citizens within the US.  Whereas the British government can now hold anyone for 42 days with no charge, ie no habeas corpus.


Has it happened yet?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 06:18:20 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241392
It seems like folks have mostly accepted that there's an American empire,


Keep saying that. Maybe you can get yourself to believe it even.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 28, 2008, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241392
No worries then.

It seems like folks have mostly accepted that there's an American empire, and the question.......................



Um,...nope.

 No 'we' haven't.

America may have a lot of influence and a very pervasive pop culture - but its not an empire.

Though there are some political candidates who appear to like the trappings of that this week.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on August 28, 2008, 06:30:25 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241299
Actually, CavScout and gleichman have both already agreed that America is an empire. CavScout thinks it's fine to be an empire because he has the moral standards of Chinese fascist scum, while gleichman wants me to take over America and free it from its empire..
This is such bullshit. Please show exactly where the two of them defined America as an empire.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241299

What we're doing now is details. They accidentally assented to the existence of an American empire, so they're trying to drag in a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to cover that up so they can go home feeling like they "won" the debate.

Then lets get detailed.

You need to define what an empire is and then explain why the United States of America is one. While you are at it please tell us who the Emperor of America is, since an empire by default should require an Emperor, and explain what restrictions (term limits, democratic voting process) that Emperor has.

I don't think you can do it. Why? Because so far you've only brought up talking points that regularly make the rounds of coffeeshop pseudointellectuals who know fuck-all about history or American government and just enjoy the current fad of masturbatorially bashing America in order to prop up their incorrect worldview.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 28, 2008, 06:32:13 PM
Quote from: Koltar;241405
Um,...nope.

 No 'we' haven't.


There is a bright side here. Using that statement of Pseudoephedrine as a measure of his grip on reality...

...I can safely say that lumping everything else he says into the fantasy world bucket would be a good bet.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Joshua Ford on August 28, 2008, 06:37:38 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241384
I was thinking specifically of the US treatment of the Australians in Vietnam.  If they'd been sent to Hue rather than Nuey Dat they'd probably still be making 'Gallipoli' type films about it. :D


True, but that comes back to there being less of a sense of 'our troops' to dispose of and approval from the populace for helping the mother country - if you're relying on people being nice and offering you support however, you can't afford to piss them off by making them face worse than your own men. And the British didn't do that either, whatever Mel Gibson might want us to think. I just got the impression you suggested the US took this course because of altruism, rather than necessity. If you look at the history of the British Army the treatment of the men was generally little better than that of allies.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 28, 2008, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;241408
.........................talking points that regularly make the rounds of coffeeshop pseudointellectuals who know fuck-all about history or American government and just enjoy the current fad of masturbatorially bashing America in order to prop up their incorrect worldview.


Wow.

No comment from me.

I just love that comment from Jeff.

 I gotta think of a way to work that into an argument in real away-from-the-keyboard life sometime.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on August 28, 2008, 06:45:45 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241306
I'm still waiting on somebody to tell me who the Emperor is that leads this American Empire.  And if you say George W. Bush, please explain what other emperors had a term limit.


The British Empire had leaders with term limits. British Prime Ministers had a lot more say about governing the Empire than even Queen Victoria.

The Romans, apart from a very brief period covering about four emperors, had no plan of succession. New emperors were chosen, first by the Senate and then by the army.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 06:59:52 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241299
Actually, CavScout and gleichman have both already agreed that America is an empire. CavScout thinks it's fine to be an empire because he has the moral standards of Chinese fascist scum, while gleichman wants me to take over America and free it from its empire.

What we're doing now is details. They accidentally assented to the existence of an American empire, so they're trying to drag in a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to cover that up so they can go home feeling like they "won" the debate.


Puh-lease. Where have I agreed that America is an empire? It's one thing to be a jealous and envious prick, but why add lying douche-bag to your arsenal?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 07:04:21 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241318
"Ruling" is an ambiguous term here. If an American corporation can dictate laws and terms to its host government, but only does so on issues that directly concerns it, what is its relative power to its host government? Does it "rule" that government? Well, it certainly does on the things it cares about.

A real example: Up here in Canada, there has been a massive swell of support for decriminalising the possessing of marijuana, possibly even legalising it. However, every time we do get close to doing so, agents of the American government (specifically its ambassador to Canada) threaten to wreck our economy by closing the borders. Our drug policy then, is not really controlled by our domestic government, but by American domestic drug policy (which, as an aside, is itself insane).


I'd suggest bitching at your impotent government and not getti all hysterical because some American said "we're better than you"... I mean shit, if America says jump and your country jumps, Americans should have the right to say "we're better than you".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on August 28, 2008, 07:08:13 PM
The bigger the better. Mah strength is as the strength of ten because mah hort is puah.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 28, 2008, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;241264
I do have to say, that for some reason, many of the ex-British 'colonies' don't seem to resent us that much compared to others throughout history.
It's because in general the British involved the locals in the administration of the country. So much so, that even when they did bring in foreigners, they weren't British but Indian foreigners.

Naturally they keep the highest positions for themselves, but nonetheless, a majority of the people the population would meet in day-to-day life - the planning clerks, the police officers, the tax collectors, the town mayors and so on - were people of their own ethnic and national background, or if not, at least weren't from the imperial masters, but were fellow subjects.

Actually involving the locals in the day-to-day running of their country does wonders to stop them hating you. Of course, it also means that you're dispensable, since after all they can run things without you and don't need you. This is why the French and Portugese and Belgians and Dutch and Germans and so on did not, as far as was possible, let the locals do anything much at all. Their theory was that if the locals couldn't run anything without them, they'd want them to stay.

It turns out that your colonies or satellite states will always want you to go, the only difference involving them in things makes is that you get to part as friends, and the place won't be such a mess after you're gone. This is why ex-British colonies are generally okay, while ex-French (etc) colonies are generally a dreadful mess, and why they tend to be warmer towards the British than other former imperial masters get.

Notice that even within the former British Empire, there are areas which got more or less locals involved in the administration, and the areas with less are more likely to be a mess now and also more likely to be hostile to Britain - compare Zimbabwe to South Africa, Pakistan to India.

Observe that the US satellite state of Iraq, much of the administration is being done by US companies, much of the work by US workers. Even the French and Belgians at least trusted the locals to make them lunch and break rocks to make bridges; the US doesn't. So I predict that the future US-Iraqi relationship will not be friendly.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 07:31:45 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241429
It's because in general the British involved the locals in the administration of the country. So much so, that even when they did bring in foreigners, they weren't British but Indian foreigners.

Naturally they keep the highest positions for themselves, but nonetheless, a majority of the people the population would meet in day-to-day life - the planning clerks, the police officers, the tax collectors, the town mayors and so on - were people of their own ethnic and national background, or if not, at least weren't from the imperial masters, but were fellow subjects.

Actually involving the locals in the day-to-day running of their country does wonders to stop them hating you. Of course, it also means that you're dispensable, since after all they can run things without you and don't need you. This is why the French and Portugese and Belgians and Dutch and Germans and so on did not, as far as was possible, let the locals do anything much at all. Their theory was that if the locals couldn't run anything without them, they'd want them to stay.

It turns out that your colonies or satellite states will always want you to go, the only difference involving them in things makes is that you get to part as friends, and the place won't be such a mess after you're gone. This is why ex-British colonies are generally okay, while ex-French (etc) colonies are generally a dreadful mess, and why they tend to be warmer towards the British than other former imperial masters get.

Notice that even within the former British Empire, there are areas which got more or less locals involved in the administration, and the areas with less are more likely to be a mess now and also more likely to be hostile to Britain - compare Zimbabwe to South Africa, Pakistan to India.

Observe that the US satellite state of Iraq, much of the administration is being done by US companies, much of the work by US workers. Even the French and Belgians at least trusted the locals to make them lunch and break rocks to make bridges; the US doesn't. So I predict that the future US-Iraqi relationship will not be friendly.


Little harder to run shit form the home office when it takes three months for your messages to get there.

We'll not even talk about how Iraq is not a colony or territory of the US, unlike most of the British forays into their empire building.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 28, 2008, 07:32:47 PM
Quote from: S'mon;241365
I'm kind-of ambivalent re whether the American empire is a good thing.  Bush has been a terrible President and has discredited America in the eyes of the rest of the world; but during the Cold War the US empire was probaby valuable in countering the Communists.  And I have a sentimental attachment to continued Anglosphere global domination.
The thing is that in time it'll no longer be Anglosphere. The US splitting off from Britain and establishing its own empire is a bit like the split of Roman Empire into West and East. Even after the West fell, the Eastern Roman Empire lived on, but went from being Roman to being Greek. As times goes on, the US has become less and less like Britain, and this will only continue.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 07:36:31 PM
Quote
So I predict that the future US-Iraqi relationship will not be friendly.

It's already shaping up to be less than friendly, what with the Iraqi government asking us to get the hell out and all.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 07:40:44 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241437
It's already shaping up to be less than friendly, what with the Iraqi government asking us to get the hell out and all.


But wait! I thought we was an empire!?!? Why would they have a say?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 28, 2008, 07:43:19 PM
Quote
But wait! I thought we was an empire!?!? Why would they have a say?

They apparently don't.  What with Bush's response of "I don't feel like it."
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 07:54:27 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;241443
They apparently don't.  What with Bush's response of "I don't feel like it."


That's odd, since they've just signed a deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082701577.html).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 07:59:24 PM
Quote
I'm kind-of ambivalent re whether the American empire is a good thing. Bush has been a terrible President and has discredited America in the eyes of the rest of the world;


There are things I like about Bush, there are a lot of things I don't like about him.  That being said, the bit about how he's discredited the US in the eyes of the world gets repeated very often but is really not true.  

If that was the case, why have many European countries (Germany and France for example) moved towards a closer relationship with the US???  In 2003 both of those nations strongly opposed going into Iraq (largely because of under the table sweetheart deals with Saddam imho).  Now they have both elected leaders who are largely pro-American and seeking to improve relations with the supposedly offensive to Europeans President Bush.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 28, 2008, 08:01:54 PM
Quote
Who was the Emperor who led the British Empire?


Umm...the Royal Family.  At the time America got out of the British Empire it was King George III specifically.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on August 28, 2008, 08:03:29 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241429
Observe that the US satellite state of Iraq.....


Go look up the definition of "satellite state" and then explain to us how Iraq fits the definition relating to the United States.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 09:20:07 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241371
Remember that statue falling in Baghdad? What's your equivalent?

I kid. IMHO, it would lead to a trade war. Which is all well and good. The only issue for me is the legality with repsect to global interests drilling in Canada presently...


I'm more interested in how typical Americans would react. Would they denounce it as unwelcome meddling in America's domestic laws? Would they regard it as an unfriendly act?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 28, 2008, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;241408
While you are at it please tell us who the Emperor of America is, since an empire by default should require an Emperor, and explain what restrictions (term limits, democratic voting process) that Emperor has.



Roman Empire (Republic era)

British Empire

Both democracies. And the two greatest empires the world has seen.

Is history a completely foreign subject to people who play fantasy games? Honesty, this is about the fourth time this has come up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 28, 2008, 09:37:45 PM
Empire:


or as Websters says:
 a (1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2): the territory of such a political unit b: something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2: imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

Not matter how you parse it, you can't fit America into it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 28, 2008, 09:39:15 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241473
I'm more interested in how typical Americans would react. Would they denounce it as unwelcome meddling in America's domestic laws? Would they regard it as an unfriendly act?

My guess, a little of both - with a healthy dose of those who think it's silly we are resisting when, after all, it's The Right Thing to Do (tm). So that's why I went with a more general, state-like approach.

Because my guess is that kind of issue would be all over the place - or didn't you see our reference to schizophrenia.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 29, 2008, 01:05:40 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241392

It seems like folks have mostly accepted that there's an American empire


No, most Americans don't think of America as possessing an empire, and most American posters here follow that, as I'd expect.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 29, 2008, 01:08:47 AM
Quote from: Joshua Ford;241412
True, but that comes back to there being less of a sense of 'our troops' to dispose of and approval from the populace for helping the mother country - if you're relying on people being nice and offering you support however, you can't afford to piss them off by making them face worse than your own men. And the British didn't do that either, whatever Mel Gibson might want us to think. I just got the impression you suggested the US took this course because of altruism, rather than necessity. If you look at the history of the British Army the treatment of the men was generally little better than that of allies.


I agree with your points - and certainly I don't concur with the Mel Gibson POV - I'm not saying the US approach is altruistic, I'm saying it's smart.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 01:14:26 AM
Quote from: S'mon;241539
I agree with your points - and certainly I don't concur with the Mel Gibson POV - I'm not saying the US approach is altruistic, I'm saying it's smart.


Completely off tangent: What's the deal with the Gibson remarks? What did he say?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 29, 2008, 01:15:06 AM
Quote from: wulfgar;241450
There are things I like about Bush, there are a lot of things I don't like about him.  That being said, the bit about how he's discredited the US in the eyes of the world gets repeated very often but is really not true.  

If that was the case, why have many European countries (Germany and France for example) moved towards a closer relationship with the US???  In 2003 both of those nations strongly opposed going into Iraq (largely because of under the table sweetheart deals with Saddam imho).  Now they have both elected leaders who are largely pro-American and seeking to improve relations with the supposedly offensive to Europeans President Bush.


"Has discredited" = "reduced the credit of".  I think you're probably right that Merkel and Sarkozy are less reflexively anti-American than their predecessors.  Sarkozy seems to be the French version of a neoconservative.  But they want to build bridges with the US for practical reasons of national self interest, not from a deep seated love of the US.  

Look, the Tiannanmen Square massacre discredited China in the eyes of the world, but we just had an Olympics there, which nobody boycotted.  These are not absolutes.  And the US is not a global pariah, that's not what I meant.  However, before the Iraq war the USA did have a degree of 'moral credit' with many people of other nations, and that has been greatly reduced.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 02:01:10 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;241408
This is such bullshit. Please show exactly where the two of them defined America as an empire.


Pay attention, Jeffy. CavScout's argument is that America's empire is no worse than any other. Gleichman's is that the US would be justified in having an empire since the Soviet Union did.


Quote
Then lets get detailed.

You need to define what an empire is and then explain why the United States of America is one. While you are at it please tell us who the Emperor of America is, since an empire by default should require an Emperor, and explain what restrictions (term limits, democratic voting process) that Emperor has.


An empire is simply a polity that exercises hegemony and control over other polities.

This "Who is the Emperor?" bullshit is simply that. You're confusing an empty title with a function. The American government maintains its empire. The Athenian empire, for example, had no "Emperor" and neither did the Romans ("Imperator" is not a formal title in the Roman empire; the term "Emperor" is a label applied by later historians)

Quote
I don't think you can do it. Why? Because so far you've only brought up talking points that regularly make the rounds of coffeeshop pseudointellectuals who know fuck-all about history or American government and just enjoy the current fad of masturbatorially bashing America in order to prop up their incorrect worldview.


Don't just say it, Jeffy prove it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 02:04:46 AM
Quote from: CavScout;241422
Puh-lease. Where have I agreed that America is an empire? It's one thing to be a jealous and envious prick, but why add lying douche-bag to your arsenal?


When you stopped arguing that America was an empire and started arguing that it was justified in using its wealth, power and influence to dominate other countries.

Here's an example of that:

Quote from: CavScout;241423
I'd suggest bitching at your impotent government and not getti all hysterical because some American said "we're better than you"... I mean shit, if America says jump and your country jumps, Americans should have the right to say "we're better than you".


Fortunately, it's also an example that shows you to be lacking in any scruples or morality whatsoever.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 02:10:10 AM
Quote from: S'mon;241536
No, most Americans don't think of America as possessing an empire, and most American posters here follow that, as I'd expect.


They're getting caught up in the argument and acknowledging it without realising it. Once again, I'd point to gleichman telling us that America would be justified in using the tools of Empire because the Soviets did, and CavScout glorying in America being able to tell other countries what to do. Their opinions seem so incoherent and bizarre because they're trying to maintain two simultaneously exclusive sets of beliefs.

1) America is not an empire because empires are bad and America isn't
2) America is justified in having an empire because of power politics and history

They point to the first set of beliefs whenever I start talking about an American empire, while I keep on pointing to the second.

You'll notice neither one of them has repudiated the Guatemala thing. My guess is their tack will be some prolix variation on "Too bad for the Guatemalans"
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 29, 2008, 02:23:46 AM
You know, America could be unique, but I hope not, I mean... look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&NR=1).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 02:32:39 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241554
You know, America could be unique, but I hope not, I mean... look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&NR=1).


Is that the Chasers?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 29, 2008, 02:42:35 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241555
Is that the Chasers?
Yeah.

Hard to tell if Americans are genuinely more ignorant than people around the world. It's like that comment earlier about Americans being more outraged and offended by things generally than British or Australians - the media is selective in who it presents (not much comedy in talking to smart people) and the internet is not that representative, either.

Jurgen Hubert's comment (he posts on sjgames forums a lot, and has a blog) was that it's not that Americans are stupider than other peoples, it's just that smart or stupid they're louder, so the stupid people are more noticeable. That makes sense to me.  

I mean, I know guys like Nox, gleichman, CavScout and Morrow in my personal and work life, it's just that people tell them to shut the fuck up and... well, they do. It's not as effective online, though still more effective than rpg.net et al give credit for. Probably people they know personally tell them to shut the fuck up, too, and people on political sites, which is why they post their political screeds in off topic sections of rpg sites, in the hopes that the Geek Social Fallacies will protect them.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 29, 2008, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: CavScout;241540
Completely off tangent: What's the deal with the Gibson remarks? What did he say?


They're referring to Gibson's demonization of the British in Braveheart and The Patriot.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 29, 2008, 03:04:37 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241554
You know, America could be unique, but I hope not, I mean... look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&NR=1).


I used to do that at parties when I was in Europe and people would start bitching at me about how Americans didn't know anything about the world.

I'd say things like "I'm from Seattle, what state is that in?"  or "I'm from Washington state, which is one of how many states in the union?"  Far more wrong answers than right.  And the shit my students thought was true about America, no wonder we get so many immigrants.  Way too many Europeans think America is just like TV.

One guy in Scotland said all he knew about America is that we suck.  He also "knew" that we have 64 states, our anthem is America the Beautiful, and that we're all pansies who see therapists.  I told him I knew some guys in Montana who love to hear that.  he didn't know what Montana was.  I told him it was the 62nd state.

Anyways, that's all editing tricks.  They never show you the dozens of people who pop out answers rapidly.  I'd of been like "united states, united kingdom, ukraine, uruguay, uganda, uzbekistan (sp?), gimmie a second I'm sure I can think of another..." and thus never made it to air.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Kyle Aaron on August 29, 2008, 03:45:10 AM
Quote from: Jackalope;241562
And the shit my students thought was true about America, no wonder we get so many immigrants.  Way too many Europeans think America is just like TV.
Presumably they think it's more like, say, The Cosby Show than Law & Order: SVU. I mean, I'm sure there must be more murders depicted on current US TV series and in movies than actually occur in the US...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 29, 2008, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Jackalope;241559
They're referring to Gibson's demonization of the British in Braveheart and The Patriot.


In Braveheart it's "The English".  "The British" was a concept invented by Scottish king James VI, when he became also King James I of England (and Wales), in order to tie together both realms.  This is why the last line of Braveheart "And won their freedom - forever" makes sense - England never did manage to dominate Scotland; 'Britain' has been a union of equals, with the Scots often dominating (as at present, with a Scottish Prime Minister, heavily Scottish government, and political & fiscal structures giving Scotland disproportionate funding and political power).  Ireland conversely did not voluntarily join with England in a union of equals - although Ireland had Parliamentary representation she was always very much junior to England.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 29, 2008, 08:25:30 AM
Quote
Roman Empire (Republic era)

British Empire


Hmmmm.   I always thought in the Republic Era, you know the era that came before the Empire Era, that Rome was well, a Republic.  According to you it was Republic-Empire and then an Empire-Empire.  Interesting.

As far as the British, no there weren't any term limits on the King or Queen.  Yes, the power of the monarchy has diminished over time, but for much of the history of the British Empire it was undoubtedly the monarch calling the shots.  While in most ways a parlimentary system now, the United Kingdom still retains some elements of its more "Imperial" days- notably the Royal Family, including the Queen who although not the head of government remains the head of state.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 29, 2008, 08:29:48 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241372
What sorts of similarities are you looking for them?

I suppose I'm looking for similarities which support your thesis, and I'm not seeing those in British India vs...well, America's last 40 years, I guess is the comparison.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241372
Most nations have laws in place to prevent their citizens and corporations from doing things outside the bounds of their country that would be illegal within it. Heck, even America has these sorts of laws.

I don't think that's what they're worried about, do you? I would think their concern is with their northern neighbor, with whom they've traditionally maintained an open border, legalizing something Americans can very easily bring back across the border and sell to its citizens. This would be a major issue, requiring a completely different treatment of the Canadian border and vastly more internal enforcement.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 29, 2008, 09:27:41 AM
Quote from: wulfgar;241591
Hmmmm.   I always thought in the Republic Era, you know the era that came before the Empire Era, that Rome was well, a Republic.  According to you it was Republic-Empire and then an Empire-Empire.  Interesting.



The Roman Republic had an empire. An empire is not a form of domestic government - it's a state's posture, relations, and status in the wider world.

Quote


As far as the British, no there weren't any term limits on the King or Queen.  Yes, the power of the monarchy has diminished over time, but for much of the history of the British Empire it was undoubtedly the monarch calling the shots.  



No, you're wrong. Queen Victoria did not call the shots. She was a figurehead. She was a fucking recluse for almost twenty years, and things went just swimmingly for the British Empire. Palmerstone, Disraeli, and Gladstone ran the British Empire - elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy.

Dude, Star Wars is just a movie. Empires are not evil. They are not by necessity tyrannical. They can be democratic. They can be good. The Roman Empire of the Antonines was one of the most secure, prosperous, civilized eras of humanity.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 29, 2008, 09:34:25 AM
Quote from: Engine;241592
I would think their concern is with their northern neighbor, with whom they've traditionally maintained an open border, legalizing something Americans can very easily bring back across the border and sell to its citizens. This would be a major issue, requiring a completely different treatment of the Canadian border and vastly more internal enforcement.



Just to clarify, the proposal in Canada was to decriminalize marijuana. That doesn't mean it would be legal to sell and purchase. It means that possession of marijuana would carry a fine, but no criminal penalty or record. In the same way that speeding and littering carry fines, but no criminal penalty.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241548
Pay attention, Jeffy. CavScout's argument is that America's empire is no worse than any other. Gleichman's is that the US would be justified in having an empire since the Soviet Union did.



Pseudoephedrine argument is that Empires don't exist.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: StormBringer on August 29, 2008, 10:03:59 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;240596
Nonetheless, there are differences, which could be discussed by CavScout if he'd deign to reply to the OP instead of just trying to make me his StormBringer for this thread.
He's not going to, so you might as well give in to your inner StormBringer and start slapping him around a little.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: StormBringer on August 29, 2008, 10:33:00 AM
Quote from: J Arcane;240878
Since you're not around much, I'll give you the benefit of the following heads up:  You will never get a straight honest answer about anything from CavScout.  Ever.  You may as well call up talk radio shows at random, because that seems to be what he spends most of his time parroting.

Or to put it more succinctly:  Please don't feed the troll.
Yeah, I learned my lesson on that one.  I might throw the occasional scrap here and there, but it's really not worth talking at CavScout.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 10:35:22 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241549
When you stopped arguing that America was an empire and started arguing that it was justified in using its wealth, power and influence to dominate other countries.

Here's an example of that:

Fortunately, it's also an example that shows you to be lacking in any scruples or morality whatsoever.


Except, where is the part where I agree it's an empire? Epic fail my envious fuck-wit friend.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 10:37:07 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241548
Pay attention, Jeffy. CavScout's argument is that America's empire is no worse than any other. Gleichman's is that the US would be justified in having an empire since the Soviet Union did.


Neither have said America was an empire... I know you've had to redefine what empire means for your "arguments", but really, do you need to redefine reality too?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 10:38:47 AM
Quote from: CavScout;241640
Except, where is the part where I agree it's an empire? Epic fail my envious fuck-wit friend.


You should start pulling up those pic of Baghdad Bob again.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 29, 2008, 10:41:32 AM
Quote
You should start pulling up those pic of Baghdad Bob again.


Agreed.

My favorite comment is how Korea wasn't liberated from the Japanese Empire by the Allies.  It simply popped into being when the Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed....for some reason or other.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: StormBringer on August 29, 2008, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241090
Do those countries have to be in thrall to the U.S. to be part of an empire? I don't believe so. To me, a good definition of an empire is a state with global economic and political interests, with the means and demonstrated willingness to assert those interests with armed force or the threat of force. They don't have to be oppressive.
Which raises the further question, if those other countries 'willingly' follow whatever the empire says, aren't they thralls?  The US might not have steely eyed soldiers ready to dispense harsh justice in the streets of Berlin or Rome, but if they largely follow our lead in most things, isn't that about the same thing?

So, which is the current indicator of an empire, the threat of force, or the threat of withdrawing support?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 10:45:23 AM
Quote from: wulfgar;241645
Agreed.

My favorite comment is how Korea wasn't liberated from the Japanese Empire by the Allies.  It simply popped into being when the Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed....for some reason or other.


I guess he has confused "a country that looks after its self interests", which I said the US and all countries that can do, and redefined empire to include that. Or maybe, he challenged me by saying if I woke up this morning and brushed my teeth I was agreeing to America being an empire. I did brush my teeth...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 10:47:03 AM
Quote from: wulfgar;241645
Agreed.

My favorite comment is how Korea wasn't liberated from the Japanese Empire by the Allies.  It simply popped into being when the Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed....for some reason or other.


The only Left Leaning poster here who is honest and upfront is Balbinus. I must give him all due respect.

The rest of the Leftests play games like this, or just hurl insults.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 29, 2008, 10:48:26 AM
Now, this is simply getting annoying. Far too much of this conversation seems to rest on the idea that if we can simply agree America is an Empire, the case will be made for its evil ways, because Empires Are Bad, M'kay? People resist calling America an Empire for the same reason, but yet very little has been meaningfully said about what it is to be an Empire. Definitions have been offered, but not discussed, and not agreed-upon, and never, ever used. So the discussion has become about rhetoric, semantics, and personalities, none of which have anything to do with America...well, not in the useful way, anyway.

Pseudoephedrine, you'll forgive me, but you're the most adamant and competent representative for your position, so I'm going to pick on you. Your thesis appears to be, "American is an empire." That's a fine thesis, for now if nothing else, although a thesis more directly influencing the issues involved might be preferable. [Say, "America is a predatory international negotiator, undermining sovereignty for its own purposes."] But whatever your thesis is, could you state it, and then define the terms you're using to mean it? For instance, if your thesis is, "America is an Empire," you'll want to define America [its government? its corporations? its population? some combination?], and certainly to define Empire. I would think you'd also want to include some kind of time period to be discussed: if you mean "is" to indicate "today," that's going to be very different from "the last four decades."

Maybe - maybe - if the discussion can be phrased in rational, meaningful terms, the responses will tend more toward the rational and meaningful, themselves. The more personality creeps in, the less evident reason is, and while it's fine to hone our relative positions on the Arguing Geeks Hierarchy, I think we all know Sifu finds that worthless.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: StormBringer on August 29, 2008, 10:52:03 AM
Quote from: gleichman;241106
I certainly would agree that the Bush administration focus on that was a huge error both of judgement and of PR.
Yes, it is a bit of a faux pas in the PR department, eh wot?

Look, I dig my country, but they invented information, passed it off as accurate to the public and other countries, then destroyed an undercover agent's career when her husband dared to point out the truth.

Huge error in PR?  Fuck you.  That was one of the lowest points in the nation's history.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241558
Yeah.

Hard to tell if Americans are genuinely more ignorant than people around the world. It's like that comment earlier about Americans being more outraged and offended by things generally than British or Australians - the media is selective in who it presents (not much comedy in talking to smart people) and the internet is not that representative, either.

Jurgen Hubert's comment (he posts on sjgames forums a lot, and has a blog) was that it's not that Americans are stupider than other peoples, it's just that smart or stupid they're louder, so the stupid people are more noticeable. That makes sense to me.  

I mean, I know guys like Nox, gleichman, CavScout and Morrow in my personal and work life, it's just that people tell them to shut the fuck up and... well, they do. It's not as effective online, though still more effective than rpg.net et al give credit for. Probably people they know personally tell them to shut the fuck up, too, and people on political sites, which is why they post their political screeds in off topic sections of rpg sites, in the hopes that the Geek Social Fallacies will protect them.


Ahh, an internet warrior telling others how he is so much stronger than the others. Fuck, he only left out the "in real life, my dad would so kick his dad's ass!"
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;241656
Look, I dig my country, but they invented information, passed it off as accurate to the public and other countries, then destroyed an undercover agent's career when her husband dared to point out the truth.


I'm afraid I consider all your points here to be distorted information and/or lies.

But hey, I can understand you wishing to push your own sins onto others.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Engine;241652
Pseudoephedrine, you'll forgive me, but you're the most adamant and competent representative for your position, so I'm going to pick on you. Your thesis appears to be, "American is an empire." That's a fine thesis, for now if nothing else, although a thesis more directly influencing the issues involved might be preferable. [Say, "America is a predatory international negotiator, undermining sovereignty for its own purposes."] But whatever your thesis is, could you state it, and then define the terms you're using to mean it?


He's unable to define his terms. He's just tossing stuff out almost randomly.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: shalvayez on August 29, 2008, 11:08:30 AM
Hey, can one of you European RPGers help me and my family defect to Serbia or Germany or Norway, I'm embarassed to be an American.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 11:19:00 AM
Quote from: shalvayez;241666
Hey, can one of you European RPGers help me and my family defect to Serbia or Germany or Norway, I'm embarassed to be an American.


You must be one of those Michelle Obama Americans, only proud when they are getting what they want.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 29, 2008, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: gleichman;241659
He's unable to define his terms. He's just tossing stuff out almost randomly.

Whether or not that's true, I think he's perfectly capable of defining his terms. He's a really bright, well-spoken, well-educated guy, whatever one might think of the conclusions he's drawn from his education. If he's turned to rhetoric and personality, it's because he's swimming in it; I thought perhaps a life preserver might be in order.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 11:27:34 AM
Quote from: Engine;241677
Whether or not that's true, I think he's perfectly capable of defining his terms. He's a really bright, well-spoken, well-educated guy, whatever one might think of the conclusions he's drawn from his education. If he's turned to rhetoric and personality, it's because he's swimming in it; I thought perhaps a life preserver might be in order.


Agreed. He can certainly define the terms. His definition though is just so broad and all-encompassing; it’s hard to see who isn’t an empire using it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 11:28:14 AM
Quote from: Engine;241677
Whether or not that's true, I think he's perfectly capable of defining his terms. He's a really bright, well-spoken, well-educated guy, whatever one might think of the conclusions he's drawn from his education. If he's turned to rhetoric and personality, it's because he's swimming in it; I thought perhaps a life preserver might be in order.


We'll see if you're right.

But I bet he makes little to no effort to define his terms or frame his statements. That and lying about what other people have said is all that I've noticed about him. It would be quite the change.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: CavScout;241679
Agreed. He can certainly define the terms. His definition though is just so broad and all-encompassing; it’s hard to see who isn’t an empire using it.


He effectively admitted that he couldn't put a defintion out that which didn't match even something broad like "State" or "Nation with Treaties".

Thus why I said his real point is that Empires don't exist.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 11:31:42 AM
Quote from: gleichman;241684
Thus why I said his real point is that Empires don't exist.


In today's world they don't, they certainly have in the past.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 12:52:03 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241550
They're getting caught up in the argument and acknowledging it without realising it. Once again, I'd point to gleichman telling us that America would be justified in using the tools of Empire because the Soviets did, and CavScout glorying in America being able to tell other countries what to do. Their opinions seem so incoherent and bizarre because they're trying to maintain two simultaneously exclusive sets of beliefs.

1) America is not an empire because empires are bad and America isn't
2) America is justified in having an empire because of power politics and history

They point to the first set of beliefs whenever I start talking about an American empire, while I keep on pointing to the second.

You'll notice neither one of them has repudiated the Guatemala thing. My guess is their tack will be some prolix variation on "Too bad for the Guatemalans"

Or, perhaps, you misread what they are saying. IMHO, they are simply saying that the fact that America exerts it influence all over the world in order to support it's self interest does not make it an Empire.

When you redefine the terms of Empire to include the "tools of empire," you're bound to get push back from folks who want to know in what ways you would have reacted without using the "tools of empire" - because, frankly, using a subset of "tools of empire" does not make one an Empire.

Hence, Engines request for more clarification and, to some extent and not as eloquently, my requests for more illumination. Because, as I said up thread, tossing around Empire but really meaning something like Empire, but not Empire, is going to lead to exactly this kind of discussion.

Understand this is not to say that America has done, is doing, and will continue to do, on occasion, shitty things that resemble Empire. Perhaps Americans do not think the US is Empire in the literal sense simply because the common understanding of Empire includes ruling over the territory.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;241648
Which raises the further question, if those other countries 'willingly' follow whatever the empire says, aren't they thralls?  The US might not have steely eyed soldiers ready to dispense harsh justice in the streets of Berlin or Rome, but if they largely follow our lead in most things, isn't that about the same thing?

So, which is the current indicator of an empire, the threat of force, or the threat of withdrawing support?
Or, by what you seem to be implying here, willing alliance?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: StormBringer on August 29, 2008, 01:23:58 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241758
Or, by what you seem to be implying here, willing alliance?
Sure, but at what point does 'willing alliance' become 'don't piss the boss off'?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;241769
Sure, but at what point does 'willing alliance' become 'don't piss the boss off'?

Don't ask me - I piss the boss off on a regular basis.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: StormBringer on August 29, 2008, 01:43:26 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241771
Don't ask me - I piss the boss off on a regular basis.
In other words, you can hitch your wagon to the fastest horse, but when do the subtle threats of the horse owner to take his stuff back undermine the 'I choose to go where ever the horse wants to'?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 29, 2008, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;241769
Sure, but at what point does 'willing alliance' become 'don't piss the boss off'?

I think that raises a fascinating question: what responsibility do more powerful nations have to balance their influence with those of less powerful nations? Is there some reason America shouldn't use its foreign influence exploitatively? Isn't that what being more powerful is for, to give one more ability to influence one's conditions?

In my mind, it's less clear-cut than that; I think America deserves to gain some of the benefits of its status, but not at the expense of undue harm against those less powerful. I think everyone probably would agree with that; it's what constitutes "undue" that people disagree about.

Many people - and I'm speaking globally, not of the board - believe America should not only use its power to its own benefit, but has a responsibility to use that power to benefit other nations, to actually invest our government's resources in improving their lot. Sometimes, this is done through favorable trade agreements, sometimes through disaster relief, and sometimes through throwing bomb everywhere. I'm not sure it's a good idea to start with; the addition of bombs in there when they're not absolutely necessary seems like a bad idea to me.

Some people believe America should act entirely selfishly, using its own power to improve our lot only. I'm hard-pressed to think of a logical argument against this, except to say that it seems really, really shortsighted, since part of having good friends - and having friends is really useful - is sometimes helping them out. I think goodwill from the rest of the world is worth something. I'm not sure how much, but something.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 29, 2008, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241566
Presumably they think it's more like, say, The Cosby Show than Law & Order: SVU.


They think it's like Friends.  I had one advanced student, Petr, who I did individual tutoring with.  That meant we went out and had lunch together and chatted (in English) a lot, and I got paid for it.  He was a system's engineer or some such, very technical, educated white collar work involving computers and a water processing plant or something.  He was maybe 30 or so.  

He wanted to learn English and move to America, because in Prague he could only afford a small apartment.  That was a big deal to him, to have a lot of space of his own.  He thought in New York, he could afford a HUGE apartment, because everyone on TV has a huge apartment, like on Friends.  He saw himself as being in the same class of skilled workers that the friends cast is, and assumed he'd be able to afford a similiar sized apartment.

He was pretty heartbroken when I told him that none of the characters on that show could actually afford the apartments they lived in or the clothes they wore, and that was pretty much a universal truth of American TV.

But yeah, I heard a lot of Czechs talk about America, and toss in the phrase "like on Friends."
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 03:08:56 PM
Quote from: Engine;241781
Many people - and I'm speaking globally, not of the board - believe America should not only use its power to its own benefit, but has a responsibility to use that power to benefit other nations, to actually invest our government's resources in improving their lot. Sometimes, this is done through favorable trade agreements, sometimes through disaster relief, and sometimes through throwing bomb everywhere. I'm not sure it's a good idea to start with; the addition of bombs in there when they're not absolutely necessary seems like a bad idea to me.

Some people believe America should act entirely selfishly, using its own power to improve our lot only. I'm hard-pressed to think of a logical argument against this, except to say that it seems really, really shortsighted, since part of having good friends - and having friends is really useful - is sometimes helping them out. I think goodwill from the rest of the world is worth something. I'm not sure how much, but something.

Here's my guess - that from the view of the citizens of the US, it's "we should use our power as positively as we can to the benefit of other nations - but if pressed, our self interests will take precedence."

It's why you see schizophrenic things like conquering Iraq while sending aid all over the world.

Like we said, we're schizophrenic.

Would you quit saying that? People think we're silly.

Why should we care what people think?

Oh shut-up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: Engine;241592

I don't think that's what they're worried about, do you? I would think their concern is with their northern neighbor, with whom they've traditionally maintained an open border, legalizing something Americans can very easily bring back across the border and sell to its citizens. This would be a major issue, requiring a completely different treatment of the Canadian border and vastly more internal enforcement.


That wasn't in reference to the dope thing. That was in reference to American corporations going overseas and doing terrible things that would be illegal in America. That's against the law in America, but the American government rarely enforces that law. The main use of those laws is to bust paedos right now, not to punish American corporate malfeasance overseas, even though they cover both sorts of actions (and many more besides).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Engine on August 29, 2008, 03:53:23 PM
Ah. I think things would get really messy if we started doing that universally, don't you? For one thing, we're going to need American police around the world, checking everything out [by the Home Office standards]. It's going to be tough to pay the US minimum wage everywhere in the world, too.

That said, selective enforcement seems to be problematic, as well, if not least because I have no idea where you'd draw the line. Personally, I don't think the American government ought to be enforcing its laws on its citizens when those citizens are outside its borders, but that's a complex issue, too.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: Engine;241823
Personally, I don't think the American government ought to be enforcing its laws on its citizens when those citizens are outside its borders, but that's a complex issue, too.


He's going to be doing this endlessly you know.

Toss out some horrid thing or the other and pretending (i.e. hoping others fall for it) that defines an Empire, it pure 100% dodge. An honest actor here would define his terms. Something he's been avoiding from the start.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241645
Agreed.

My favorite comment is how Korea wasn't liberated from the Japanese Empire by the Allies.  It simply popped into being when the Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed....for some reason or other.


You may be surprised to learn that the Allies did not invade Korea and fight the Japanese forces there, but rather, simply accepted their surrender after the overall surrender of Japan. American forces weren't even on the Korean penninsula until almost a month after the war was over. By that time, there was a provisional Korean government that was attempting to speak on behalf of the country that was ignored by America and the Soviet Union, who set up their own puppet governments.

So, I suppose my question to you is, why are you so historically ignorant? Between this and the "Empires need an emperor" line, you seem to be about as dumb as they come.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241642
Neither have said America was an empire... I know you've had to redefine what empire means for your "arguments", but really, do you need to redefine reality too?


You need to pay attention to the consequences of the positions you advocate. I know you normally don't because your main mode of argument is the repetition of talking points against strawmen. You should try though.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 29, 2008, 04:02:53 PM
Quote
You may be surprised to learn that the Allies did not invade Korea and fight the Japanese forces there, but rather, simply accepted their surrender after the overall surrender of Japan


No that doesn't suprise me at all, because I already knew that.  The allies didn't invade Norway either, but that doesn't mean they didn't liberate the Norwegians from the Germans.  The Japanese stopped ruling the Koreans because the Allies defeated the Japanese.  Sounds like liberation to me.

For an analogy, let say terrorists take over your house and hold you hostage in the bedroom.  Other members of the terrorist group are holding your family members hostage in the kitchen.  Police storm in and take down the terrorists in the bedroom- setting you free.  The guys in the kitchen give up.  In my book the Police freed all the hostages.  In your book, they didn't free the hostages in the kitchen, the terrorists there simply gave up for some reason.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 29, 2008, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241748
Understand this is not to say that America has done, is doing, and will continue to do, on occasion, shitty things that resemble Empire. Perhaps Americans do not think the US is Empire in the literal sense simply because the common understanding of Empire includes ruling over the territory.


I think it's more simple than that. Judging by the posters here, the thinking is:

Empire = bad

USA is not bad

Therefore, USA =/= Empire


Like I said, Star Wars has a lot to answer for. Once you get past the notion that Empires are bad, you can start to look at the issue rationally. Just as this prominent historian has done (http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Rise-Fall-American-Empire/dp/0143034790/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220040020&sr=8-2).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: wulfgar on August 29, 2008, 04:06:08 PM
I'd also point out that it's the goal of good military leadership to defeat the enemy without having to fight him everywhere.  This was an essential part of Allied strategy in the Pacific, as evidenced by the island hopping campaigns.  Most Japanese forces, especially the army, never fought the Allies.  Yet, they were all defeated.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 04:14:17 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241829
I think it's more simple than that. Judging by the posters here, the thinking is:

Empire = bad


I have no such opinion, considering that to be open to an interesting exchange.

But Empire hasn't been defined, so the exchange is impossible.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:15:29 PM
Quote from: Engine;241652
Now, this is simply getting annoying. Far too much of this conversation seems to rest on the idea that if we can simply agree America is an Empire, the case will be made for its evil ways, because Empires Are Bad, M'kay? People resist calling America an Empire for the same reason, but yet very little has been meaningfully said about what it is to be an Empire. Definitions have been offered, but not discussed, and not agreed-upon, and never, ever used. So the discussion has become about rhetoric, semantics, and personalities, none of which have anything to do with America...well, not in the useful way, anyway.

Pseudoephedrine, you'll forgive me, but you're the most adamant and competent representative for your position, so I'm going to pick on you. Your thesis appears to be, "American is an empire." That's a fine thesis, for now if nothing else, although a thesis more directly influencing the issues involved might be preferable. [Say, "America is a predatory international negotiator, undermining sovereignty for its own purposes."] But whatever your thesis is, could you state it, and then define the terms you're using to mean it? For instance, if your thesis is, "America is an Empire," you'll want to define America [its government? its corporations? its population? some combination?], and certainly to define Empire. I would think you'd also want to include some kind of time period to be discussed: if you mean "is" to indicate "today," that's going to be very different from "the last four decades."


I did define this earlier on this thread. An empire is a polity that exercises direct political control over some other polities, and hegemony over many others. The hegemonic polity in question is the complex of institutions in American society that comprise its economic and political aspects - the American government and its multinational corporations, in brief. They are part of a complex because personnel, money, and material circulate systematically between the two.

This empire is something that has evolved over the past century and a half or so (since the Mexican-American war, really), but that became particularly acute only with the end of WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, the process of empire-building has not abated.

Since the end of the Cold War, the forces of the American Empire have devoted their energy to finding new enemies and new concerns to justify the power they were able to seize during the Cold War. Threats to the American Empire as presented to the American people as threats to the existence of America itself. As an example, the supposed "''peace dividend" which American citizens would gain at the end of the Cold War never materialised.

I personally am mostly concerned about the American Empire now, but I see no problem in pointing to its past misbehaviour as reasons to be suspicious of it now and in future. Pace CavScout, I do not want an American Empire, or a Canadian Empire or a British one, or a Russian one or any other empire in the world.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241824
He's going to be doing this endlessly you know.

Toss out some horrid thing or the other and pretending (i.e. hoping others fall for it) that defines an Empire, it pure 100% dodge. An honest actor here would define his terms. Something he's been avoiding from the start.


Gleichman, you're a whiny little troll who has serious reading comprehension issues. I defined what I meant by "empire" earlier on this very thread. Quit sniveling.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 04:20:25 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241840
Gleichman, you're a whiny little troll who has serious reading comprehension issues. I defined what I meant by "empire" earlier on this very thread. Quit sniveling.


The defintion you just gave matches (and you admitted that it matched) other types of States besides that of Empire.

It's worthless.

Be more detailed. Show how the US fits this defintion and how other defined States do not.

Show some honestly and intelligence.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 29, 2008, 04:23:57 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241829
Like I said, Star Wars has a lot to answer for. Once you get past the notion that Empires are bad, you can start to look at the issue rationally. Just as this prominent historian has done (http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Rise-Fall-American-Empire/dp/0143034790/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220040020&sr=8-2).


In fairness, the Empire in Star Wars is only an Empire because that was the common trope of pulp space opera.  Ming the Merciless, Emperor of Mongo, and countless others just like him, definitely informed the world of Star Wars.

Those pulp Empires were, in turn, a reflection of the real empires of their time: Germany, Italy, Japan.  The fascist states.

Tryingt o blame the bad name empires have gotten in the last century on Star Wars is a bit ridiculous.  Art imitates life dude, not the other way around.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241748
Or, perhaps, you misread what they are saying. IMHO, they are simply saying that the fact that America exerts it influence all over the world in order to support it's self interest does not make it an Empire.

When you redefine the terms of Empire to include the "tools of empire," you're bound to get push back from folks who want to know in what ways you would have reacted without using the "tools of empire" - because, frankly, using a subset of "tools of empire" does not make one an Empire.


I don't think America is using a "subset" of those tools though. Direct territorial expansion, occupation, invasion, covert operations, economic domination including predatory trade deals, these are the things it does to foreigners.

Frankly, what I must admit annoys me is that if it were any country _other_ than America doing this, there wouldn't even be a question that it was an empire. We can easily, and fairly uncontentiously, point to an emerging Chinese empire in South-East Asia built up using identical means (in fact, modeled after American and European empire-building).

Quote
Hence, Engines request for more clarification and, to some extent and not as eloquently, my requests for more illumination. Because, as I said up thread, tossing around Empire but really meaning something like Empire, but not Empire, is going to lead to exactly this kind of discussion.

Understand this is not to say that America has done, is doing, and will continue to do, on occasion, shitty things that resemble Empire. Perhaps Americans do not think the US is Empire in the literal sense simply because the common understanding of Empire includes ruling over the territory.


Hawaii, the American Southwest, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Iraq during the Provisional Government, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Japan, Germany.

America really has, in the past century and a half, taken territory and ruled it. Not all of it is incorporated into the political boundaries of America itself like Hawaii or what used to be Northern Mexico was, but it has still exercised direct control over them.

I agree that Americans do not think that America has an empire. I think this is because of a conscious and sustained effort on behalf of the forces of American Empire to distract, co-opt, or subvert their own population. How many Americans really know about the Philippines, or Guatemala, or the assassination of Salvador Allende, or UNOCAL, or really, any of this imperial stuff? How many of those that do aren't already co-opted and working for one of the forces of the American empire - a multinational corporation, a government agency, whatever?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 04:33:31 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241829
I think it's more simple than that. Judging by the posters here, the thinking is:

Empire = bad

USA is not bad

Therefore, USA =/= Empire


Like I said, Star Wars has a lot to answer for. Once you get past the notion that Empires are bad, you can start to look at the issue rationally. Just as this prominent historian has done (http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Rise-Fall-American-Empire/dp/0143034790/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220040020&sr=8-2).

I just want to make sure I'm clear.

If one does not think America is Empire, one must consider Empire to be bad. And if one considers Empire bad, one can not analyze the issue rationally.

Here, in response to your prominent historian, I'm going to pull some quotes from a Princeton International Relations professor John Ikenberry, who seems to really dislike the current administration and it's foreign policy...
Quote
No one disagrees that U.S. power is extraordinary. It is the character and logic of U.S. domination that is at issue in the debate over empire. The United States is not just a superpower pursuing its interest; it is a producer of world order. Over the decades -- with more support than resistance from other nations -- it has fashioned a distinctively open and rule-based international order. Its dynamic bundle of oversized capacities, interests, and ideals constitutes an "American project" with unprecedented global reach. For better or worse, other states must come to terms with or work around this protean order.


Quote
The United States has pursued imperial policies, especially toward weak countries in the periphery. But U.S. relations with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia cannot be described as imperial, even when "neo" or "liberal" modifies the term. The advanced democracies operate within a "security community" in which the use or threat of force is unthinkable. Their economies are deeply interwoven. Together, they form a political order built on bargains, diffuse reciprocity, and an array of intergovernmental institutions and ad hoc working relationships. This is not empire; it is a U.S.-led democratic political order that has no name or historical antecedent.

So it's not just a bunch of irrational screechers who object, there are many who agree with the amazing level of influence and projection of power, but do not apply the term Empire, at least not unmodified, to the US.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:35:06 PM
Quote from: wulfgar;241828
No that doesn't suprise me at all, because I already knew that.  The allies didn't invade Norway either, but that doesn't mean they didn't liberate the Norwegians from the Germans.  The Japanese stopped ruling the Koreans because the Allies defeated the Japanese.  Sounds like liberation to me.


The Korean Provisional Government and the Korean resistance movements were already driving the Japanese out in the period between when the Japanese surrendered to the Americans and the Americans showing up. If you recall what started this red herring bullshit argument was when I said that Korea existed prior to the Allies creating North and South Korea, and that's simply true - the Korean provisional government, and the existence of a Korean resistance movement, were operating long before the Allies showed up.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241841
The defintion you just gave matches (and you admitted that it matched) other types of States besides that of Empire.


Name one other "type of state" that does this.

Quote
It's worthless.

Be more detailed. Show how the US fits this defintion and how other defined States do not.

Show some honestly and intelligence.


Hegemony is an exclusive trait. There is one hegemon in any given sphere of influence. I'm beginning to think you really do have serious reading comprehension problems. You don't notice when I define things, you don't seem to understand the words I use (or the words others use, often), you don't realise what the things you write yourself mean, and you seem to have trouble following the logic of a written argument, or constructing a logically valid argument yourself.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:41:38 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241853
So it's not just a bunch of irrational screechers who object, there are many who agree with the amazing level of influence and projection of power, but do not apply the term Empire, at least not unmodified, to the US.

... In its relations to the developed countries.

Edit: Anymore.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 04:47:45 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241856
Name one other "type of state" that does this.


That isn't for me to do, it's for you to define your terms and what is and is not a Empire.

You did for example state this:

"America is an empire and many other things as well (a state, a superpower, a country involved in the system of strong alliances that characterise intra-Western foreign relations after WW2)."

So you're going to have to explain to us how Empire is distinct from "A State, A Superpower, a country involved in the system of strong alliances that characterise intra-Western foreign relations after WW2, etc.



Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241856

Hegemony is an exclusive trait.


That's it? Influence and Power exceding that of other nations is your one defining trait for Empire.

You're a joke.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Fritzs on August 29, 2008, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: Jackalope
He wanted to learn English and move to America, because in Prague he could only afford a small apartment. That was a big deal to him, to have a lot of space of his own. He thought in New York, he could afford a HUGE apartment, because everyone on TV has a huge apartment, like on Friends. He saw himself as being in the same class of skilled workers that the friends cast is, and assumed he'd be able to afford a similiar sized apartment.


That's no suprise... but IMO majority of Czechs talking about moving to USA want that "big" house in suburban area. Also one would argue that with money you earn in USA you can buy huge aparment in Prague, but no... Huge apartment in USA is probably cheaper than huge aparment in Prague... Anyway, I never understood people who wanted huge appartment, I would be happy with little room and kitchen...

Quote from: Jackalope
But yeah, I heard a lot of Czechs talk about America, and toss in the phrase "like on Friends."


Yeah, what do you expect...? If you watch TV you are bombarded with these kind of shows, so you assume it's like that...  If Czech (or Canadian, or Russian or whatever) TV stations broadcasted more harem anime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem_(genre)), there will be lots of nerdy guy studying japanese and wanting to move to Japan to get all that chicks.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 04:53:40 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241859
That isn't for me to do, it's for you to define your terms and what is and is not a Empire.

You did for example state this:

"America is an empire and many other things as well (a state, a superpower, a country involved in the system of strong alliances that characterise intra-Western foreign relations after WW2)."

So you're going to have to explain to us how Empire is distinct from "A State, A Superpower, a country involved in the system of strong alliances that characterise intra-Western foreign relations after WW2, etc.


I already did. Once again, you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. An empire is a polity that dominates other polities through direct political and economic control. A state doesn't necessarily do this, a superpower is a label for a type of state that can do so without serious challenge from other states, and if you can't tell "allies" from "imperial subjects" then you simply don't know what these terms mean.

Quote
That's it? Influence and Power exceding that of other nations is your one defining trait for Empire.

You're a joke.


Actually, I described several much more exclusive features for an empire as well. Once again, gleichman, you don't seem to be capable of reading the words I'm actually writing.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 29, 2008, 05:03:34 PM
Usually the one saying America is an "empire" or a "hegemony" are the people that are the angry young men(but boring as hell) types at parties.  
 While they whine , complain and exclaim about that topic ...the supposedly 'right-wing' guys have found a nice supposedly 'liberal' brunette young woman at the party. They chat a little, find out they both follow the same TV shows and both like RPGs...and then they leave the party. Then they,....

 Oops sorry - what was the argument again??

- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 05:04:29 PM
Quote from: Koltar;241867
Usually the one saying America is an "empire" or a "hegemony" are the people that are the angry young men(but boring as hell) types at parties.  
 While they whine , complain and exclaim about that topic ...the supposedly 'right-wing' guys have found a nice supposedly 'liberal' brunette young woman at the party. They chat a little, find out they both follow the same TV shows and both like RPGs...and then they leave the party. Then they,....

 Oops sorry - what was the argument again??

- Ed C.


I don't think you realise how disgusting a character you appear to others.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 29, 2008, 05:24:29 PM
...and do you realize that constantly calling a country an "empire" when it isn't one  is pretty disgusting?

If said country was an "Empire" then it would have destroyed Japan at the end of World War II - it didn't. Instead, that country (the U.S.A.) helped that country get back on its find and actually acted quite kindly to the defeated former enemy nation.


Flirting with a nice brunette at a party is a much more worthwhile pursuit then running down or bad-mouthing a GOOD country at that same hypothetical party.



- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 05:33:32 PM
Quote from: Koltar;241874
...and do you realize that constantly calling a country an "empire" when it isn't one  is pretty disgusting?

If said country was an "Empire" then it would have destroyed Japan at the end of World War II - it didn't. Instead, that country (the U.S.A.) helped that country get back on its find and actually acted quite kindly to the defeated former enemy nation.


Quite kindly indeed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation_and_Amusement_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Rape

Quote
Flirting with a nice brunette at a party is a much more worthwhile pursuit then running down or bad-mouthing a GOOD country at that same hypothetical party.


You're the very spitting image of the kind of American foreigners dislike. Sex-obsessed, stupid, incurious, and self-righteous.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 05:46:30 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241864
Actually, I described several much more exclusive features for an empire as well. Once again, gleichman, you don't seem to be capable of reading the words I'm actually writing.


I think it more likely that you're incapable of clearing writing.

Try again. Put them in bullet points please you half bake moron. You do know what bullet points are?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241878
I think it more likely that you're incapable of clearing writing.

Try again. Put them in bullet points please you half bake moron. You do know what bullet points are?


So you do have trouble reading sentences written in your native language.

Well, that explains a great deal.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241884
So you do have trouble reading sentences written in your native language.

Well, that explains a great deal.


Well ok then...

Guys (i.e. the others in this thread), I'm out this and putting Pseudoephedrine on my ignore list. He's doing nothing but playing games- I'd suggest you do the same. He's in this only to hear himself talk.

His hateful response to a joke post by Koltar and his avoidance speaks all that one needs to know of him.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 29, 2008, 06:19:02 PM
Quote from: gleichman;241889
Well ok then...

Guys (i.e. the others in this thread), I'm out this and putting Pseudoephedrine on my ignore list. He's doing nothing but playing games- I'd suggest you do the same. He's in this only to hear himself talk.

His hateful response to a joke post by Koltar and his avoidance speaks all that one needs to know of him.


Actually, I'm capable of speaking quite politely to the non-autistic participants on this thread: Skach and Engine, for example.

But cheers! Don't let the door hit your unwelcome ass on the way out.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on August 29, 2008, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241868
I don't think you realise how disgusting a character you appear to others.


Sad and funny simultaneously.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on August 29, 2008, 06:54:38 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241868
I don't think you realise how disgusting a character you appear to others.


Obviously, Pseudoephedrine is demonstrating jealousy towards Koltar's successes with the ladies.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 07:11:25 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241826
You may be surprised to learn that the Allies did not invade Korea and fight the Japanese forces there, but rather, simply accepted their surrender after the overall surrender of Japan. American forces weren't even on the Korean penninsula until almost a month after the war was over. By that time, there was a provisional Korean government that was attempting to speak on behalf of the country that was ignored by America and the Soviet Union, who set up their own puppet governments.

So, I suppose my question to you is, why are you so historically ignorant? Between this and the "Empires need an emperor" line, you seem to be about as dumb as they come.


How does what you just wrote contradict his statement of "Korea [was] liberated from the Japanese Empire by the Allies"? Shit, we had to nuke two cities to get them to give up and give up places like Korea. Sounds an awful lot like they were liberated. You make it sound like the Japanese gave the place up on their own.

Calling someone dumb after you just said, "They didn't liberate Korea. Japan just gave it up to those who conquered them after they surrendered!" is rather foolish, eh?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 29, 2008, 07:13:07 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;241909
Obviously, Pseudoephedrine is demonstrating jealousy towards Koltar's successes with the ladies.


He's demonstrated a lot of interesting traits in this thread.

Gamesmanship, but with poor sportsmanship.
Jealousy
Lack of humor.
Dishonesty
Inability to examine any subject outside of a warped polticial view.


Quite the list. He must be proud of himself.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 07:13:15 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241827
You need to pay attention to the consequences of the positions you advocate. I know you normally don't because your main mode of argument is the repetition of talking points against strawmen. You should try though.


Again, where did I agree to your conclusion that America is an empire? I've advocated nations look after their own interests. Are you going to claim that makes one an empire?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 07:43:47 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241876
Quite kindly indeed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation_and_Amusement_Association

Interesting - it was created by the Japanese out of fear, then dismissed by the US. How does this support Empire? I mean, wouldn't it be more imperial to subjugate the conquered populace through this very method of systematic demeaning action?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241876
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Rape

Interesting, the majority of that brief article is about Australians:
Quote
"A former prostitute recalled that as soon as Australian troops arrived in Kure in early 1946, they 'dragged young women into their jeeps, took them to the mountain, and then raped them. I heard them screaming for help nearly every night'."[59][60] The Allied occupation forces suppressed news of its criminal activities, on September 10 1945 SCAP "issued press and pre-censorship codes outlawing the publication of all reports and statistics 'inimical to the objectives of the Occupation'."[61]

Is Australia Empire?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241876
You're the very spitting image of the kind of American foreigners dislike. Sex-obsessed, stupid, incurious, and self-righteous.

You are the very spitting image of the kind of foreigner Americans dislike. Image obsessed, over-zealous, arrogant, and self-righteous.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 29, 2008, 07:50:23 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241847
I don't think America is using a "subset" of those tools though. Direct territorial expansion, occupation, invasion, covert operations, economic domination including predatory trade deals, these are the things it does to foreigners.

Frankly, what I must admit annoys me is that if it were any country _other_ than America doing this, there wouldn't even be a question that it was an empire. We can easily, and fairly uncontentiously, point to an emerging Chinese empire in South-East Asia built up using identical means (in fact, modeled after American and European empire-building).

See, that's the thing. I rarely hear about China's rising "Empire." I hear a lot about the rising influence, power, etc of China. But rarely do I hear "empire."

I will admit, however, to turning off political discussion for some time because of the screeching of the campaign season. Last couple times around I screeched. Now I'm old and cynical (and have no real horse in the race), and so I'm hibernating...

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241847
America really has, in the past century and a half, taken territory and ruled it. Not all of it is incorporated into the political boundaries of America itself like Hawaii or what used to be Northern Mexico was, but it has still exercised direct control over them.

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies - the shifting time frames and issues. I certainly think that when America lacked much power outside this hemisphere, it tried to act like an Empire - Ironically.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;241847
I agree that Americans do not think that America has an empire. I think this is because of a conscious and sustained effort on behalf of the forces of American Empire to distract, co-opt, or subvert their own population. How many Americans really know about the Philippines, or Guatemala, or the assassination of Salvador Allende, or UNOCAL, or really, any of this imperial stuff? How many of those that do aren't already co-opted and working for one of the forces of the American empire - a multinational corporation, a government agency, whatever?

This is one of the places you lose me (along with responding a bit harshly to Koltar and some other places), because it takes an awful lot of construction to hold up the framework you're presenting...
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 29, 2008, 07:57:01 PM
For a humorous take on all of this (for those of you who have a sense of humor) please check out the new thread up in the Role Playing section.

Thank You.

- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 07:59:31 PM
Is he suggesting that the mere act of expanding your borders makes you an empire? When Canada sent troops to put down the Oka Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_crisis), were they acting "imperially" by controlling territory someone else wanted? Heck, Canada had to over-run their own natives, the so called First Nations. I suppose, by not giving back the land, they are holding onto their little Canadian Empire.

I've even heard that some Canada imperial troops are in Iraq helping secure the expansion of the empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 29, 2008, 11:33:27 PM
Quote from: Jackalope;241843

Tryingt o blame the bad name empires have gotten in the last century on Star Wars is a bit ridiculous.  Art imitates life dude, not the other way around.


I used Star Wars because I can only assume most of the folks on this board don't read any history and have heads full of pop-culture SF/Fantasy. How else to explain the persistent assertions here that an empire must have an emperor?

I mean, Nial Ferguson is a well-known, best-selling historian. He's one of the foremost authorities on global economics and the British Empire. In a discussion about the history of empires, it's hard to give any credibility to people who are totally ignorant of Ferguson's work, ignorant of the Roman and British Empires, and ignorant of history in general. Everyone here who thinks that an empire must have an emperor, must be oppressive, must conquer by force and rule by fear, is simply betraying his lack of education.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 29, 2008, 11:44:19 PM
Quote
The United States is not just a superpower pursuing its interest; it is a producer of world order.


So were the Roman Empire and British Empire. The Roman Empire saw the longest sustained period of peace and security the world has known. As for the British Empire, the United States benefited tremendously from the Pax Britannia (courtsey of the Royal Navy) that promoted and protected global trade in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 11:46:35 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241974
So were the Roman Empire and British Empire. The Roman Empire saw the longest sustained period of peace and security the world has known. As for the British Empire, the United States benefited tremendously from the Pax Britannia that promoted and protected global trade in the 19th and early 20th centuries.


Since Pseudoephedrine won't define empire, outside of anything the US does = empire, perhaps you will take a stab at it.

What constitutes an empire to you?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 29, 2008, 11:54:48 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;241969
I used Star Wars because I can only assume most of the folks on this board don't read any history and have heads full of pop-culture SF/Fantasy. How else to explain the persistent assertions here that an empire must have an emperor?


While the one poster who has been saying it is wrong technically, it's hardly just some weird, pop-culture definition. I mean, you might consider Princeton (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=empire) pop-culturish... but:
Noun


Even the Oxford English Dictionary states:


Even historians break the Roman Republic from the Roman Empire when Julius Caesar took power as dictator for life.

So, while I agree that technically you don't need an emperor to be an empire, history and many definitions do define it that way.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 30, 2008, 12:20:54 AM
Every empire is unique, and doesn't fit the profile of the empires that came before it. By the standards of earlier empires, the Spanish Empire wasn't an empire. By the standards of earlier empires, the British Empire was not an empire. By the standards of earlier empires, the USA is not an empire. But if the USA today is not an empire, than it's impossible for an empire to exist in today's world and we need to come up with a new term for a hegemon with global reach. But why come up with a new term, when each empire has always been unique to its era?

Quote from: CavScout;241980

Even historians break the Roman Republic from the Roman Empire when Julius Caesar took power as dictator for life.



That's when the Roman state itself went from being a republic to being governed by a dictator, and later emperor. But the Roman republic had an empire. The historians I'm familiar with cite the king of Pergamum bequething his kingdom to Rome (133 B.C.) as the beginning of a true Roman empire. It was this imperialism, with its spoils of war and permanent armies loyal to generals, that destroyed the Republic.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 12:22:31 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241990
Every empire is unique, and doesn't fit the profile of the empires that came before it. By the standards of earlier empires, the Spanish Empire wasn't an empire. By the standards of earlier empires, the British Empire was not an empire. By the standards of earlier empires, the USA is not an empire. But if the USA today is not an empire, than it's impossible for an exist in today's world and we need to come up with a new term for a hegemon with global reach. But why come up with a new term, when each empire has always been unique to its era?


So, the strongest nation/state of the time is an "empire"?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 12:25:23 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241990
That's when the Roman state itself went from being a republic to being governed by a dictator, and later emperor. But the Roman republic had an empire. The historians I'm familiar with cite the king of Pergamum bequething his kingdom to Rome (133 B.C.) as the beginning of a true Roman empire. It was this imperialism, with its spoils of war and permanent armies loyal to generals, that destroyed the Republic.


I suggest re-reading what I wrote. I was simply pointing out the idea of what constitutes an empire is not relegated to pop-culture influence peeps. I also not you, conveniently, ignore basic, well-known dictionary definitions.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Haffrung on August 30, 2008, 12:37:11 AM
Quote from: CavScout;241992
So, the strongest nation/state of the time is an "empire"?


Nope. Here's a summary from a review of Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire (http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Rise-Fall-American-Empire/dp/0143034790/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220067957&sr=8-2):

1. Absolute dominance in military power (which appears likely to persist for the foreseeable future).
2. Nearly absolute dominance in current economic power (which appears likely to diminish in relative terms over the next few decades).
3. Preeminence in cultural power (derived in part from the dominance of the English language and in part from the size and success of the US economy

If you don't understand the difference between strongest state and a hegemon, then I've got better things to do than to educate you. Try reading some history books.

Here's another quote from a review of Colossus, one which seems very appropriate for this thread:

My primary question about Ferguson's approach is more semantic than substantive. Although empires of the past have often done good as well as bad, the term has been so demagogued that it is difficult to have a rational discussion once you use the word "empire." Moreover, because the U.S. has no settlers, only expats and professionals who do relatively short overseas tours and then come home, America today is really quite different from Britain in its imperial heyday. I would use the word "hegemon" because, while still offensive to some of the illiterati, it is fully accurate, and it describes the kind of role that the United States needs to play to fulfill the role set out for it by this Scottish historian.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on August 30, 2008, 12:44:10 AM
Hegemon - sounds like an anime CCG. As in a distant cousin to "Pokemon" and "Digimon".

I can see the slogan for the cartoon show now : "Gotta conquer them all!"

- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 01:19:48 AM
I am confused now... they are both claiming you can't use the past definition of empire but that America is clearly an empire today. Saying empire means whatever you need it to mean as to encompass America seems pretty damm self-serving.

I'd almost say some are confusing foreign policy with empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 30, 2008, 01:24:15 AM
Quote from: CavScout;242006
Saying empire means whatever you need it to mean as to encompass America seems pretty damm self-serving.


That's exactly what they are doing, and what I've said they were doing. Empire is just a throw away term for "big and powerful'. Nothing more.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 01:33:12 AM
Quote from: gleichman;242007
That's exactly what they are doing, and what I've said they were doing. Empire is just a throw away term for "big and powerful'. Nothing more.


Heck, in reality, you will be hard-pressed to make a case of an American hegemony. You really can't say the US controls what Canada or Mexico do, our neighbors, and we certainly can't make the world follow along on anything we want to do.

There was a reason the US had to fall back on the "coalition of the willing" when the empire and hegemony that is America couldn't get the UN to do what it wanted.

Can the US influence foreign policy, sure it can. But so can the British or the French for example.

The US is certainly powerful, but it is not monolithic on the world stage.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: S'mon on August 30, 2008, 05:59:47 AM
Quote from: Koltar;241874
...and do you realize that constantly calling a country an "empire" when it isn't one  is pretty disgusting?


I think this is why most Americans won't consider an America an empire - the very word is digusting to them.

I don't think empires are digusting.  I don't think the British empire was digusting, though whether it was a good thing on balance is debatable.  It's debatable whether the current American global hegemony is a good thing overall, but I'd say it was much better than having Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Communist China as the hegemon.

Edit: One reason why the USA is seen as a Hegemonic power (ie an imperial power which does not normally directly rule its client states) is that it does not allow other states to have an independent foreign policy.  Britain discovered that with the 1956 Suez crisis - prior to Suez we considered ourselves an independent nation, after Suez (when Eisenhower forced the UK, France & Israel to end our war with Egypt) we realised we were a client state.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on August 30, 2008, 11:02:26 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;241990
Every empire is unique, and doesn't fit the profile of the empires that came before it. But why come up with a new term, when each empire has always been unique to its era?



So, the term "Empire" is applied whenever enough of the vocal masses decide it should be applied, right! The "Empire" being democratically elected by popular application, that is.

Hell, even S'mon is able to give the entire popular declaration a positive spin!

Obviously, we need to get with the program.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: gleichman on August 30, 2008, 11:04:42 AM
Quote from: S'mon;242034
Britain discovered that with the 1956 Suez crisis - prior to Suez we considered ourselves an independent nation, after Suez (when Eisenhower forced the UK, France & Israel to end our war with Egypt) we realised we were a client state.


Please, it was much more complex than that and involved many other nations exerting significant pressure. Those three were effectively isolated by the rest of the entire world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_War#End_of_hostilities
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: S'mon;242034
I think this is why most Americans won't consider an America an empire - the very word is digusting to them.

I don't think empires are digusting.  I don't think the British empire was digusting, though whether it was a good thing on balance is debatable.  It's debatable whether the current American global hegemony is a good thing overall, but I'd say it was much better than having Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Communist China as the hegemon.

Edit: One reason why the USA is seen as a Hegemonic power (ie an imperial power which does not normally directly rule its client states) is that it does not allow other states to have an independent foreign policy.  Britain discovered that with the 1956 Suez crisis - prior to Suez we considered ourselves an independent nation, after Suez (when Eisenhower forced the UK, France & Israel to end our war with Egypt) we realised we were a client state.


While an "empire" is not inherently good or bad, when folks in this thread are attributing empire to America they are doing so to highlight her in the most negatives of light. Just go back and read Pseudoephedrine's posts. Her examples of proof of American Empire are mainly some "evil" historical event America was involved in.

Also, even you do this, is the effort to redefine terms to so as to include America in their definitions. You’ve redefined hegemony to mean empire. You’ve then redefined hegemony to mean any state that gets others to do what it wants. You find one example of the US doing this, then you declare it a hegemony and hence an empire.

Of course, you’ll ignore the many things the US fails to achieve diplomatically.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 03:20:29 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241916
How does what you just wrote contradict his statement of "Korea [was] liberated from the Japanese Empire by the Allies"? Shit, we had to nuke two cities to get them to give up and give up places like Korea. Sounds an awful lot like they were liberated. You make it sound like the Japanese gave the place up on their own.

Calling someone dumb after you just said, "They didn't liberate Korea. Japan just gave it up to those who conquered them after they surrendered!" is rather foolish, eh?


Liberating Korea implies that the Americans somehow fought the Japanese for it, or made some sort of conscious effort to free it from Japanese control. The Americans never contested Japanese control of Korea - by the time they came to Korea, the Japanese were already retreating, and the Korean provisional government was trying to take control of the country. The Japanese didn't "give up" Korea to the Americans - the Americans refused to recognise the provisional Korean government and simply split the country with the Soviets.

A similar example is Manchuria, where the Chinese Communists took advantage of the Japanese preoccupation with America to occupy the territory. The Allies didn't really "liberate" Manchuria. The closest they came to directly contesting the Japanese was a post-Japanese surrender small-scale invasion of a part of the hinterland of Manchuria to prevent the Chinese nationalists from capturing the territory.

Another example would be Roman Britain, which isn't "liberated" from Roman rule by the Germanic invaders attacking Rome, except insofar as the legions are pulled out to the continent and the British left to fend for themselves.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 03:27:05 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242135
Liberating Korea implies that the Americans somehow fought the Japanese for it, or made some sort of conscious effort to free it from Japanese control.


I'd say nuking a few cities to get them to give up their conquered territory counts as "liberation".

That you have continued on this path of tortured word re-definition is telling.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 03:37:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241919
Again, where did I agree to your conclusion that America is an empire? I've advocated nations look after their own interests. Are you going to claim that makes one an empire?


I've already explained what an empire is earlier on this thread, you twit.

I find it absolutely bizarre that you can simultaneously hold the beliefs that America is a superpower, that it uses its power to pursue its national interest by invading other countries and exercising hegemonic power over others, that it is justifed to do so... and that it is not an empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241927
Interesting - it was created by the Japanese out of fear, then dismissed by the US. How does this support Empire? I mean, wouldn't it be more imperial to subjugate the conquered populace through this very method of systematic demeaning action?


This was in response to Koltar's claim that the invading Americans treated the Japanese "kindly". I honestly don't know why you'd think it would be "more imperial" to keep on raping than not. Empires are political and economic entities. They do whatever builds or maintains their power. If allowing their soldiers to rape systematically will do that, then they'll let that happen. If stopping them from raping is in their benefit, then they'll do that.

Quote
Interesting, the majority of that brief article is about Australians:

Is Australia Empire?


Er, in case you were unaware, the Australians were part of the British empire at the time. They're still part of its successor organisation, the Commonwealth.

This isn't really connected to the rest of the empire stuff though, and trying to draw it in confuses it. This was in response to Koltar's claim that the American occupation forces treated the Japanese "kindly".

Quote
You are the very spitting image of the kind of foreigner Americans dislike. Image obsessed, over-zealous, arrogant, and self-righteous.


Skach, you're usually pretty reasonable, but that's just childish. Koltar is simply a disgusting person. If he weren't semi-conservative, I doubt you'd even be defending him. Engine and Serious Paul are far more respectable examples of Americans, or even just American conservatives. It's a bit like what Pundit says about lawncrappers in RPGs, except Koltar's a lawncrapper in politics (Gleichman is too, for that matter). Don't fall into the Geek Social Fallacies.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 03:55:08 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242138
I've already explained what an empire is earlier on this thread, you twit.


That really doesn't answer the question, "Where did I agree to your conclusion that America is an empire?"

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242138
I find it absolutely bizarre that you can simultaneously hold the beliefs that America is a superpower, that it uses its power to pursue its national interest by invading other countries and exercising hegemonic power over others, that it is justifed to do so... and that it is not an empire.


The rest of us find it bizarre that you think that pretty much anything America does makes it an empire.

Since British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Poland and Denmark participated in the invasion of Iraq, are they too empires? They were pursuing their national interests by invading another country. Are members of NATO little empires since, pursuing their national interests, they are involved in Afghanistan? Russia must certainly now be labeled an empire for pursuing its national interests by invading its neighbor, Georgia.

See, you’ve simply defined any nation acting in its own self interests an empire. It’s not only bizarre, it’s stupid. You must live in bizzaro-world where only the United States looks to its national interests outside of its own borders.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:06:10 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;241929
See, that's the thing. I rarely hear about China's rising "Empire." I hear a lot about the rising influence, power, etc of China. But rarely do I hear "empire."


Er, ok? It's an uncommon word outside of historiography and political philosophy. Do you not think China is building an empire, or do you just simply wish to state for the record that the collection of arrangements China is forming throughout the wider world is not imperialistic?

Quote
This is one of the places you lose me (along with responding a bit harshly to Koltar and some other places), because it takes an awful lot of construction to hold up the framework you're presenting...


Yes, I do have arguments that rely on other arguments. Everyone does. What exactly do you object to?

Do you not think that people who are in power want to stay in power? Do you not think that Americans would react with outrage, and possibly more serious consequences, if informed of the immoral things that powerful people in their country do, and have done?

I mean, if you Americans are going to have an empire (and you will for the foreseeable future) I would rather that the American people be well-informed about it, and what it's up to, so that they can prevent or ameliorate its worst behaviours. I mean, doesn't it strike you as odd that you needed a foreigner on the internet to tell you about America's internationally infamous behaviour in Guatemala?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242142
This was in response to Koltar's claim that the invading Americans treated the Japanese "kindly". I honestly don't know why you'd think it would be "more imperial" to keep on raping than not.


I'll guess you concur that Canada is an empire, by sending its troops to places like the Congo to "kindly" help the natives there by raping them (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088). Or that Canadian imperial troops were "kindly" helping Bosnians while raping them (http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html). Or how "kindly" imperial Canadians were "kindly" helping Somalis by all offering all kinds of help, "including torture, murder, and rape (http://programs.ssrc.org/gsc/gsc_quarterly/newsletter5/content/graybill/)".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: CavScout;241932
Is he suggesting that the mere act of expanding your borders makes you an empire? When Canada sent troops to put down the Oka Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_crisis), were they acting "imperially" by controlling territory someone else wanted? Heck, Canada had to over-run their own natives, the so called First Nations. I suppose, by not giving back the land, they are holding onto their little Canadian Empire.


Actually, I did object to the response to the Oka Crisis, and it was Canada acting to increase the state's power at the expense of another polity.

Did you have a point beyond poorly attempting to lure me into hypocrisy, and a rather shoddy "tu quoque"?

Quote
I've even heard that some Canada imperial troops are in Iraq helping secure the expansion of the empire.


Then you're incorrect. They're in Afghanistan, collaborating with the American empire, and I'm not pleased that they are there either. Please try to get the facts of your extremely poor attempts at "tu quoque" straight.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on August 30, 2008, 04:12:15 PM
Quote
Do you not think that people who are in power want to stay in power? Do you not think that Americans would react with outrage, and possibly more serious consequences, if informed of the immoral things that powerful people in their country do, and have done?

Honestly, I don't think most of America gives a shit.  Look at how Iran-Contra played out.  I mean, the prez in power got away scott free, is a national hero to much of the right, the public elected his VP to president, and one of the key military guys involved is now a nationalyl syndicated radio celebrity.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:12:42 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242146
I'll guess you concur that Canada is an empire, by sending its troops to places like the Congo to "kindly" help the natives there by raping them (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088). Or that Canadian imperial troops were "kindly" helping Bosnians while raping them (http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html). Or how "kindly" imperial Canadians were "kindly" helping Somalis by all offering all kinds of help, "including torture, murder, and rape (http://programs.ssrc.org/gsc/gsc_quarterly/newsletter5/content/graybill/)".


Please get your facts straight: Canada is part of an empire, not an empire itself. And yes, I certainly agree that its soldiers act badly and should be punished to the full extent of the law for their criminal misbehaviour. Do you have a point other than that? What does this have to do with American conduct? Do you think that one rapist exonerates another rapist by existing?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242147
Actually, I did object to the response to the Oka Crisis, and it was Canada acting to increase the state's power at the expense of another polity.

Did you have a point beyond poorly attempting to lure me into hypocrisy, and a rather shoddy "tu quoque"?



Then you're incorrect. They're in Afghanistan, collaborating with the American empire, and I'm not pleased that they are there either. Please try to get the facts of your extremely poor attempts at "tu quoque" straight.


Ahhh... so when America does it, it's empire building. When others do it, they just couldn't help themselves. Must be nice to define things that way.

PS: There is no need to "lure" you into hypocrisy, your posts do that quite well on their own.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242150
Please get your facts straight: Canada is part of an empire, not an empire itself. And yes, I certainly agree that its soldiers act badly and should be punished to the full extent of the law for their criminal misbehaviour. Do you have a point other than that? What does this have to do with American conduct? Do you think that one rapist exonerates another rapist by existing?


Odd, you used episodes of rape by American soldiers to disputer this claim by Koltor:
Quote
If said country was an "Empire" then it would have destroyed Japan at the end of World War II - it didn't. Instead, that country (the U.S.A.) helped that country get back on its find and actually acted quite kindly to the defeated former enemy nation.


Funny, how its all about the "soldiers" when it's Canada. When it's American soldiers it's American Imperial Policy.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;242148
Honestly, I don't think most of America gives a shit.  Look at how Iran-Contra played out.  I mean, the prez in power got away scott free, is a national hero to much of the right, the public elected his VP to president, and one of the key military guys involved is now a nationalyl syndicated radio celebrity.


Once you strip the political demagoguery away, you can stare at the hard horror that an American President was implicated in trying to free American hostages. The horror, the fucking horror.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242143
That really doesn't answer the question, "Where did I agree to your conclusion that America is an empire?"


Cav, you really need to patch those holes in your memory. I said it was implicit in the positions you had agreed to. You simply refuse to follow the logic of the positions you've stated or agreed with that are posted on this very thread.

If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed that I defined "empire" way back as being a polity that directly controls another polity through economic or political means. You'd agreed that America does that, and that it's right to do that, you just don't want to call that "empire", I guess because it would hurt your feelings or something.

Quote
The rest of us find it bizarre that you think that pretty much anything America does makes it an empire.


Especially because I haven't said that "pretty much anything America does" makes it an empire. Its political, military and international economic behaviour over the past century and a half have gradually made it an empire. You're back at strawmen now.

Quote
Since British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Poland and Denmark participated in the invasion of Iraq, are they too empires? They were pursuing their national interests by invading another country. Are members of NATO little empires since, pursuing their national interests, they are involved in Afghanistan? Russia must certainly now be labeled an empire for pursuing its national interests by invading its neighbor, Georgia.


I totally agree that Russia is trying to re-establish an empire. I don't see how Russia trying to re-establish an empire means that America doesn't have one though. Are you under the impression that there can be only one empire at a time? There are at least three on the earth today: America has an empire, Russia and China are racing to build or rebuild theirs.

Quote
See, you’ve simply defined any nation acting in its own self interests an empire. It’s not only bizarre, it’s stupid. You must live in bizzaro-world where only the United States looks to its national interests outside of its own borders.


CavScout, it's pretty clear that you're just ignoring whenever I define empire - this is the third or fourth time I've given the same definition on this thread - because you think you can win rhetorical points. It's pretty obvious and kind of silly.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242137
I'd say nuking a few cities to get them to give up their conquered territory counts as "liberation".

That you have continued on this path of tortured word re-definition is telling.


America wasn't fighting a war of liberation, it was fighting a war of self-defense.  America wasn't too concerned about freeing Korea or Manchuria until after Pearl Harbour.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242154

CavScout, it's pretty clear that you're just ignoring whenever I define empire.


Not ignored, rejected. You're "definition" of empire is simply "anything America does to support its national interests".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:31:05 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242152
Odd, you used episodes of rape by American soldiers to disputer this claim by Koltor:


"Koltar". And indeed, I disputed the "kindly" part of that statement.

Quote
Funny, how its all about the "soldiers" when it's Canada. When it's American soldiers it's American Imperial Policy.


That's a hilarious attempt to salvage a point from a failed "tu quoque".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:35:16 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242151
Ahhh... so when America does it, it's empire building. When others do it, they just couldn't help themselves. Must be nice to define things that way.


Who said they couldn't help themselves? I hold the Canadian government morally responsible for collaborating with American military adventures in Afghanistan. You're really straining now. You're drawing bizarre conclusions that pretty clearly just don't follow from what I've said.

Quote
PS: There is no need to "lure" you into hypocrisy, your posts do that quite well on their own.


I'm sure you hope they do.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242158
Not ignored, rejected. You're "definition" of empire is simply "anything America does to support its national interests".


#4: An empire is a polity that exercises control of another polity through economic or political means.

In fact, I've never said that the sole fact of American pursuing its "national interests" makes it an empire. If you didn't have a memory like swiss cheese, you might remember that I said that ordinary Americans have a set of interests that are not the imperial interests of its powerful people.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242157
America wasn't fighting a war of liberation, it was fighting a war of self-defense.  America wasn't too concerned about freeing Korea or Manchuria until after Pearl Harbour.


Weird... America wasn't worried about Japanese expansion... wonder why they did things like embargo oil exports to Japan or the freezing of Japanese assets prior to Pearl Harbor. Weird, America took a lot of hostile actions prior to being bombed by Japan.

Historians note the US opposition to Japanese imperialism is what led the Japanese to attack the US.
Quote
In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan’s expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan. As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242159
"Koltar". And indeed, I disputed the "kindly" part of that statement.

That's a hilarious attempt to salvage a point from a failed "tu quoque".


There is nothing hilarious about it. It just a point to highlight your fervent "America is the devil" attitude that permeates everything you've posted so far in this thread.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242160
Who said they couldn't help themselves? I hold the Canadian government morally responsible for collaborating with American military adventures in Afghanistan. You're really straining now. You're drawing bizarre conclusions that pretty clearly just don't follow from what I've said.



But wait, if they are just an imperial province how can they be held accountable?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 04:45:57 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242161
#4: An empire is a polity that exercises control of another polity through economic or political means.


Pretty much any nation that has influence outside of its own borders.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242161
In fact, I've never said that the sole fact of American pursuing its "national interests" makes it an empire. If you didn't have a memory like swiss cheese, you might remember that I said that ordinary Americans have a set of interests that are not the imperial interests of its powerful people.


No to you it's just the fact that America is good and it and/or is one of the country's that can do it is what makes it an empire in your eyes.

Again, definition rejected.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 04:58:22 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242162
Weird... America wasn't worried about Japanese expansion... wonder why they did things like embargo oil exports to Japan or the freezing of Japanese assets prior to Pearl Harbor. Weird, America took a lot of hostile actions prior to being bombed by Japan.

Historians note the US opposition to Japanese imperialism is what led the Japanese to attack the US.


So to sum up your position, it's that America was an unjustified aggressor in WW2 that did everything in its power to provoke Japan into military conflict?

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Also, how does it square with your oft-stated belief that America acts in its own national interests, since presumably the fate of SE Asia wasn't crucial to American well-being at the time?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242165
But wait, if they are just an imperial province how can they be held accountable?


Well, they aren't an imperial province, as we covered earlier in this thread. You really need to pay attention here, since this is one of a series of mistakes you're making by clearly forgetting the things I've said. That's inexcusable since you can just go back and read them if you do forget.

Also, even if they were "an imperial province" that wouldn't excuse anything. Are you unfamiliar with how responsibility works?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242163
There is nothing hilarious about it. It just a point to highlight your fervent "America is the devil" attitude that permeates everything you've posted so far in this thread.


Why are you putting something I didn't say in quotes? I don't think America is the devil. You're really failing to understand anything here.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 05:07:50 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242166
Pretty much any nation that has influence outside of its own borders.


If you don't understand the difference between "influence" and "control", you may wish to crack open that OED you were showing off earlier in this thread.

Quote
No to you it's just the fact that America is good and it and/or is one of the country's that can do it is what makes it an empire in your eyes.


No, actually it's the very reason I just gave. You're not very good at this mind-reading stuff.

Quote
Again, definition rejected.


You're getting confused here. Your challenge wasn't that you didn't like my definition, because you didn't seem to notice it until the fourth time I posted it. Rather, you were claiming that I hadn't posted one at all, which I pretty clearly have. I'm not putting this forth for your (meaningless, ill-informed) approval.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 30, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242142
This was in response to Koltar's claim that the invading Americans treated the Japanese "kindly". I honestly don't know why you'd think it would be "more imperial" to keep on raping than not. Empires are political and economic entities. They do whatever builds or maintains their power. If allowing their soldiers to rape systematically will do that, then they'll let that happen. If stopping them from raping is in their benefit, then they'll do that.

See, in a way, I agree with you - that is, "they" do whatever builds and maintains power. But not only Empires do this (and this, I think, is Cav Scouts point) so it can't be a measure of Empire. It's simply a nation doing what nations do.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I see this as a characteristic, among many, of empire. Your implied assumption seems to be that the Americans stopped the raping (and prostitution) to build and maintain power. It's this that possibly causes so many objections and is why, IMHO, other people are bringing in this "Empire"=Bad" stuff.

Perhaps a different way to ask the question is this:

You've described many characteristics of Empire, some of which apply to the actions of non-empires as well. Is there a specific characteristic of a nation that separates it as Empire from all others?

[QUOTE="Pseudoephedrine;242142]Skach, you're usually pretty reasonable, but that's just childish.[/QUOTE]
Well, thanks - never actually expected that from you.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242142
Koltar is simply a disgusting person. If he weren't semi-conservative, I doubt you'd even be defending him.

You might be surprised. I tend to look a little deeper than some designation like liberal or conservative.

I'm sorry you feel like you do about Koltar. My point was that I'd bet there are many people who would say almost the exact same, or at least closely related, things about you. I have called you some pretty nasty things - but a try to stay away from calling someone a "disgusting person" from the kinds of things he's said.

Eh - to each his own.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242142
Engine and Serious Paul are far more respectable examples of Americans, or even just American conservatives. It's a bit like what Pundit says about lawncrappers in RPGs, except Koltar's a lawncrapper in politics (Gleichman is too, for that matter). Don't fall into the Geek Social Fallacies.

Well, thanks for the warning. I'll take it under advisement. Though I agree that Engine and Serious Paul are more than respectable examples of Americans - even though I disagree with them on things on occasion.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242145
Do you not think China is building an empire, or do you just simply wish to state for the record that the collection of arrangements China is forming throughout the wider world is not imperialistic?
I take their actions a piece at a time. As far as I can tell, and with admittedly too little information to make a bold declaration, I would not call China "Empire." They may aspire to be - remains to be seen.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242145
Yes, I do have arguments that rely on other arguments. Everyone does. What exactly do you object to?

I think I might have referred to it in previous posts. There seems to be a lot of period shifting and some loose definitions. So it requires a lot of duct tape to hold it all together as one grand assertion of America as Empire.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242145
Do you not think that people who are in power want to stay in power?

Sure - which has nothing to do, specifically, with Empire.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242145
Do you not think that Americans would react with outrage, and possibly more serious consequences, if informed of the immoral things that powerful people in their country do, and have done?

Not necessarily. We're surprisingly pragmatic. But in general, it's the same response in that it has nothing to do, specifically, with Empire.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242145
I mean, if you Americans are going to have an empire (and you will for the foreseeable future) I would rather that the American people be well-informed about it, and what it's up to, so that they can prevent or ameliorate its worst behaviours.

We don't have an Empire. You admit it as much by using "If," crrect? Sorry, couldn't help it given how you're taken some people saying things like "let's say for the sake of argument" and you using that as some kind of admission that they agree with you.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242145
I mean, doesn't it strike you as odd that you needed a foreigner on the internet to tell you about America's internationally infamous behaviour in Guatemala?

Look - I'm willing to admit that I did not know about UFCO. But let's be honest - and this is the where some of the issue might be. It happened 50 years ago. It was not occupied. It remains unoccupied by the US. How does it apply as an example of Empire.

Hawaii? I'm all ears. It's one of the few. It's why, I think, Mr. Gleichman thought it might be an interesting discussion.

And this is what I mean by hanging a lot on a questionable framework.

Does that help?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 05:47:23 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242171
So to sum up your position, it's that America was an unjustified aggressor in WW2 that did everything in its power to provoke Japan into military conflict?


I didn’t think you could raise your previous douchebaggery to a higher level. I can see I had underestimated your ability at being a douchebag. My bad.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242171
That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Also, how does it square with your oft-stated belief that America acts in its own national interests, since presumably the fate of SE Asia wasn't crucial to American well-being at the time?


Who said it wasn’t in American interests to oppose Japanese expansionism?

I can understand why you have to flail about like this but it does make you look stupid.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242172
Well, they aren't an imperial province, as we covered earlier in this thread. You really need to pay attention here, since this is one of a series of mistakes you're making by clearly forgetting the things I've said. That's inexcusable since you can just go back and read them if you do forget.


So they aren't really part of an empire then.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242172
Also, even if they were "an imperial province" that wouldn't excuse anything. Are you unfamiliar with how responsibility works?


If someone is forced to do something they didn't want to do, how can they really be responsible?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on August 30, 2008, 05:54:15 PM
Regardless of anything else, Pseudo, I just wanted you to know that while it's been a crazy weekend - perhaps the craziest of the summer - I'm going to read up on UFCO at some point. I appreciate the links and hope you don't regret it when I come back with a bunch of questions that, to you, will probably seem like conservative right wing talking points....
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 05:54:35 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242176
If you don't understand the difference between "influence" and "control", you may wish to crack open that OED you were showing off earlier in this thread.


Actually no, I understand the difference. It is you who thinks that American influence equals American control.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242172
No, actually it's the very reason I just gave. You're not very good at this mind-reading stuff.


Mind-control, no, seeing what this drivel you’ve been posting means, yes.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242172
You're getting confused here. Your challenge wasn't that you didn't like my definition, because you didn't seem to notice it until the fourth time I posted it. Rather, you were claiming that I hadn't posted one at all, which I pretty clearly have. I'm not putting this forth for your (meaningless, ill-informed) approval.


Defining empire to mean “anything the US does” is not exactly defining empire. It’s just you telling us the US is an empire. You haven’t defined empire so much as declared America to be one.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 06:09:00 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242198
Actually no, I understand the difference. It is you who thinks that American influence equals American control.


No I don't. When did I say that it did? This is more fraudulent mind-reading.

Quote
Defining empire to mean “anything the US does” is not exactly defining empire. It’s just you telling us the US is an empire. You haven’t defined empire so much as declared America to be one.


#5 An empire is a polity that exercises direct control of another polity through political or economic means.

My guess is I get into the low double digits with you still trying to claim I haven't defined what an empire is.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242201
No I don't. When did I say that it did? This is more fraudulent mind-reading.


So you are not saying America controls others by their influence? Without that control, can’t really be an empire now, can they?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242201
#5 An empire is a polity that exercises direct control of another polity through political or economic means.


Since America doesn’t exercise control, they don’t fit that definition either.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242201
My guess is I get into the low double digits with you still trying to claim I haven't defined what an empire is.


IQ?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242196
So they aren't really part of an empire then.


You may be surprised to learn that the entire world isn't part of the American empire. Different polities relate to America in different ways. Some are subject to it in an imperial fashion, some are part of its hegemony, some are bound by treaties of one sort or another with it, and others are ignored by, or ignore it.

We already clarified earlier in the thread that America relates to most the developed West as a hegemon specifically, though it has historically related to parts of it as an empire. It certainly uses the countries of which it is the hegemon to help it maintain its empire.

Quote
If someone is forced to do something they didn't want to do, how can they really be responsible?


Why do you assume the Canadian government didn't want to do it? They profit from the American empire as much as anyone else. The Canadian people generally weren't in favour of it, but we're in a similar situation to the Yanks regarding our ability to change the institutions of government.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on August 30, 2008, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242203
So you are not saying America controls others by their influence? Without that control, can’t really be an empire now, can they?


You don't actually seem capable of understanding the concept of distinguishing between two things, intuitive as that might be for most of us. The American government has many tools at its disposal. On some people it uses its influence, on some people it exerts control.

I really don't see why you find this so difficult to understand.

Quote
Since America doesn’t exercise control, they don’t fit that definition either.


You're simply factually wrong there. Examples have already been provided for that on this thread. And you say "either" as if I'd offered another definition somewhere along way, instead of that just being a rewrite of the ones I posted above. Pay attention and stop forgetting everything just because it's on the previous page of the thread.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 06:49:47 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242204
You may be surprised to learn that the entire world isn't part of the American empire. Different polities relate to America in different ways. Some are subject to it in an imperial fashion, some are part of its hegemony, some are bound by treaties of one sort or another with it, and others are ignored by, or ignore it.

We already clarified earlier in the thread that America relates to most the developed West as a hegemon specifically, though it has historically related to parts of it as an empire. It certainly uses the countries of which it is the hegemon to help it maintain its empire.


So, which is it? Is Canada part of an empire or not? It is you who said, “Canada is part of an empire (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=242150&postcount=430)”. If so, which empire. If the America “Empire”, then Canada really can’t be responsible for what the Americans make them do, right?

Which is it? They part of an Empire or not? Are they controlled by someone else or are they acting on their free will? Are they responsible for their actions, as an independent nation, or are they patsy of a greater empire who has no control on what they do?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242204
Why do you assume the Canadian government didn't want to do it? They profit from the American empire as much as anyone else. The Canadian people generally weren't in favour of it, but we're in a similar situation to the Yanks regarding our ability to change the institutions of government.


You need to make up your mind. Either Canada is part of a greater empire or they are an independent nation capable of influencing their national interests outside of their borders.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 06:51:57 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242206
You don't actually seem capable of understanding the concept of distinguishing between two things, intuitive as that might be for most of us. The American government has many tools at its disposal. On some people it uses its influence, on some people it exerts control.

I really don't see why you find this so difficult to understand.


You're simply factually wrong there. Examples have already been provided for that on this thread. And you say "either" as if I'd offered another definition somewhere along way, instead of that just being a rewrite of the ones I posted above. Pay attention and stop forgetting everything just because it's on the previous page of the thread.


So we are back to any country that exerts influence for its national interests is an empire? Make up you mind. Is it exerting influence? Is it exerting control? Or is it just "what America does"?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 30, 2008, 07:39:16 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242206
I really don't see why you find this so difficult to understand.


He's a disingenuous fuckwit who is making no attempt to understand.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 07:41:36 PM
Quote from: Jackalope;242221
He's a disingenuous fuckwit who is making no attempt to understand.


I think you are in the wrong thread. We are talking about Pseudoephedrine's American Empire not George Lucas' Imperial Empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 30, 2008, 07:50:06 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242222
I think you are in the wrong thread. We are talking about Pseudoephedrine's American Empire not George Lucas' Imperial Empire.

Doesn't matter what we're talking about, the constant remains that you are a disingenuous fuckwit who makes no attempt to understand any point not spoon-fed to you by a right-wing pundit.

I seriously doubt you're even capable of actual independent reasoning.  I've seen no evidence you can think for yourself.

Now make your predictable little joke.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 08:02:45 PM
Quote from: Jackalope;242225
Doesn't matter what we're talking about, the constant remains that you are a disingenuous fuckwit who makes no attempt to understand any point not spoon-fed to you by a right-wing pundit.

I seriously doubt you're even capable of actual independent reasoning.  I've seen no evidence you can think for yourself.

Now make your predictable little joke.


You calling me a joke after comparing your cause to the Smurfs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=242220&postcount=238) is delicious. Most delicious.

I am your Gargamel, bitch.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 30, 2008, 09:04:15 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242226
I am your Gargamel, bitch.


An inept, ineffective perpetual foil that always loses?

Damn straight you are.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 09:29:17 PM
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6711/gargamelandazraelfromthhi1.jpg)
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on August 30, 2008, 10:05:13 PM
'Disingenuous' implies that somebody actually knows what they're doing.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Jackalope on August 30, 2008, 10:51:25 PM
Quote from: droog;242248
'Disingenuous' implies that somebody actually knows what they're doing.

It's starting to look more and more like he's just a moron, exactly clever enough to outwit himself.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on August 30, 2008, 11:56:54 PM
Quote from: Jackalope;242252
It's starting to look more and more like he's just a moron, exactly clever enough to outwit himself.


Don't hate because Cobra has the better uniforms.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: John Morrow on August 31, 2008, 02:24:09 AM
Mark Steyn, who might just have some good reasons to doubt how safe free speech is in Canada (http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm), writes about Sarah Palin:

   What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I'm not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin' Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhOTk2YTU0NWY4ZjY5ODNhZTgyOWZkNjY5YjFlMmY=)
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: macd21 on September 01, 2008, 07:02:24 AM
Quote from: CavScout;242211
So we are back to any country that exerts influence for its national interests is an empire? Make up you mind. Is it exerting influence? Is it exerting control? Or is it just "what America does"?


Not exactly, but a country can become an empire by exerting its influence for its national interests. Historically, Empires had clear and easily defined borders. Later, as the global economy took shape, empires had varying levels of control within and beyond their territories.

Take, for example, the British Empire. By the early 1900s, they had probably the greatest empire the world had ever seen. But within their territories, they had varying levels of control. Some areas were almost completely autonomous, others little more than supply depots and military bases. Take, for example, the Irish Free State - technically part of the empire, but enjoyed showing the Brits the finger whenever possible. It even entered into a disastrous economic war with the UK. On the other hand, the Brits had a huge amount of influence over South America, due to its economic and financial clout. When the Brits said jump, the SA governments said "how high" while already 3 feet in the air.

The Empire's power was not limited to its territories alone. It had plenty of client states, dependant allies etc. But, of course, it also exerted its influence over other empires (French, American etc). These empires were not part of the British Empire, no matter how often they did what the Brits asked of them - because they were powers in their own right.

These days, it is far easier and more cost effective to exert power over other coutries without making them formally part of your country (ie invading them). However, this does not mean that empires do not still exist, it just means that they've become more subtle. It is far more difficult to determine whether a country is part of the (for example) American Empire than it was the British, but in truth I think that the situation is not all that different. An American ambassador can exert more control over some countries than a British governor could exert over some of their possessions.

Determining whether a country is part of the American Empire or not is somewhat subjective, but is essentially determined by how much power it has to say "no". And Americal has shown a willingness in the past to deal harshly with its 'possessions' who say no - Panama, for example. A number of other 'subtle' empires are beginning to emerge. The Russians are clearly trying to reestablish control over its border nations and have warned that their ambitions extend beyond those countries. The Chinese have started to make a move on Africa. Venezuala is attempting to create a mini-empire in SA. And the EU has spread its empire across Eastern Europe over the past two decades, gobbling up former Russian territories.

The nature of empires have changed with the changing nature of globla economics. The old model of empire was no longer profitable. The new form is cheaper and allows for just as much influence and control as the old one.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on September 01, 2008, 09:27:15 AM
But this seems a bit disingenuous, because the very thing that determines Empire - control - is conveniently so subtle that it's not true but kind of true enough, making it possible to apply "Empire" to anyone doing the same things.

In reality, the word becomes meaningless, like so much these days, by being over-applied. It's used as shorthand, but then becomes used as synonym when it's really not.

For example, it might be true that the British had varying levels of sway over it holdings. And trust me when I say someone is free to correct me as IANAHistorian, but weren't there many cases where it held outright control? So  while in some cases it was much like the relationship between countries and America today, in others it was outright Empire, thus earning the term. But about the only actual place that seems to describe the US is Hawaii, perhaps Puerto Rico.

It's one of the reasons I'm hesitant to throw the term at the Russians to Chinese. I think they'd like to be Empires. I think they, like the US, probably use many tools similar to those of Empire. But I'm not so sure about the conquering, occupation, and direct authority other territories.

So, for the history/geopolitical majors out there, what were the British holdings under direct control? What portion of the Empire was it? What are the American ones? What portion are they? When were they established? What's their state at this point? For those saying it's not Empire, what percentage would it take? Is Hawaii enough to declare Empire? Is the argument that it's not, now, Empire? How do places like Puerto Rico fit into this?

I ask these questions in good faith, not as snark.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: macd21 on September 01, 2008, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;242664

So, for the history/geopolitical majors out there, what were the British holdings under direct control? What portion of the Empire was it? What are the American ones? What portion are they? When were they established? What's their state at this point? For those saying it's not Empire, what percentage would it take? Is Hawaii enough to declare Empire? Is the argument that it's not, now, Empire? How do places like Puerto Rico fit into this?


It depends on what you mean by 'control'. And and what point does is a territory no longer considered to be part of the Empire? For example, Canada - long considered part of the empire. But for much of its history, it was no more influenced by the British government than it is by the American government today. Its membership of the Empire was more a matter of tradition than reality. When did Ireland leave the Empire? When it became the Irish Free State (it still had a governor, but he was effectively powerless)? Or when it declared itself a Republic? What about Northern Ireland? It had (effectively) and autonomous government, but still considered itself part of the Empire - and when territory was wracked with violence, the UK sent in troops and dissolved the government, restoring control to London.

And, of course, the British Empire is only one example of a system of Empire. There are plenty of others, often with their own differing methods of controlling and administering their territories. The American model (if you assume it to be a model of empire) is to support (sometimes install) administrations that will support american goals. Sometimes, if an administration begins to oppose American goals, troops will be sent in to replace it. At other times, the US will simply throw their support behind another local faction who will remove the troublesome elements - much as an older empire might have hired local mercenaries to deal with troublesome natives, then rewarded the mercenaries with power.

You claim that my definition of the term Empire is too lax, but I think that your definition is too strict. Modern empires use different means to control their subject nations than in previous regimes, but their control, while often subtle, is real and often violent. Actually, subtle probably isn't the right word - covert and not in the eye of the media, might be more appropriate.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on September 01, 2008, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;242664
But this seems a bit disingenuous, because the very thing that determines Empire - control - is conveniently so subtle that it's not true but kind of true enough, making it possible to apply "Empire" to anyone doing the same things.

In reality, the word becomes meaningless, like so much these days, by being over-applied. It's used as shorthand, but then becomes used as synonym when it's really not.

For example, it might be true that the British had varying levels of sway over it holdings. And trust me when I say someone is free to correct me as IANAHistorian, but weren't there many cases where it held outright control? So  while in some cases it was much like the relationship between countries and America today, in others it was outright Empire, thus earning the term. But about the only actual place that seems to describe the US is Hawaii, perhaps Puerto Rico.

It's one of the reasons I'm hesitant to throw the term at the Russians to Chinese. I think they'd like to be Empires. I think they, like the US, probably use many tools similar to those of Empire. But I'm not so sure about the conquering, occupation, and direct authority other territories.

So, for the history/geopolitical majors out there, what were the British holdings under direct control? What portion of the Empire was it? What are the American ones? What portion are they? When were they established? What's their state at this point? For those saying it's not Empire, what percentage would it take? Is Hawaii enough to declare Empire? Is the argument that it's not, now, Empire? How do places like Puerto Rico fit into this?

I ask these questions in good faith, not as snark.
I'm sorry dude, but this response smacks of the dictionary myth.

Words are not static entities that march through the centuries unchanged.  Language doesn't work that way, never has, never will.

You're essentially appealing to the same non-existant mythical authority one does when arguing that some term is "not a real word".

Words change, the only definition of any given word is what it means today as it is used, not what it meant 100 years ago.

And really, this isn't even a total meaning change as you imply, it's simply focusing on one core aspect of the concept (control over other polities), while adapting others to the changing times (the means of control).  And as has been demonstrated in this thread, you may not be a historian, but it seems some actual historians are indeed operating under that definition.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 01, 2008, 12:32:52 PM
More of the "you can't really define what an empire means today" which is quickly followed up with "but America is one!".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on September 01, 2008, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;242696
I'm sorry dude, but this response smacks of the dictionary myth.

Words are not static entities that march through the centuries unchanged.  Language doesn't work that way, never has, never will.

You're essentially appealing to the same non-existant mythical authority one does when arguing that some term is "not a real word".

Words change, the only definition of any given word is what it means today as it is used, not what it meant 100 years ago.

And really, this isn't even a total meaning change as you imply, it's simply focusing on one core aspect of the concept (control over other polities), while adapting others to the changing times (the means of control).  And as has been demonstrated in this thread, you may not be a historian, but it seems some actual historians are indeed operating under that definition.
It can smack you any way it wants. The point is that when one uses the term Empire, it can apparently mean several things. It seems to me that many of the behaviors outlined in this thread are practiced by any number of entities, so which is the unique one that makes America among all of them the Empire?

Is it that it can do so more solidly than the others? Is it because it can do it with more tools than the others? These seem a bit...loose. So I search for something that someone can point to and say "This America does (EDIT: Removed "to the exclusion of all other nations" because I'm not sure it matters except to the side discussion about whether it's uniquely an Empire) this and that is what makes it Empire." Now we've danced around the authority over others, which seems to me to be to be a major component. Especially given how most of the others seem to be more prevalent actions.

Then we might just have to agree to disagree because while I can see why folks who want to use empire-like assignations, I'm "tighter" in my use of the word. It appears this, meaning the disagreement of the use of the word Empire, is not relegated to obscure forums about niche hobbies (sorry Pundy). It appears to be a debate even in "academic" circles.

My guess is we could do this for weeks, both pointing out this authority (including the dictionary) or that expert (including academics at various institutions), and both be honest. So unless someone says something about my position I feel the need to elucidate, I'll leave it at as agree to disagree over the level of control required to be considered Empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on September 01, 2008, 12:47:50 PM
Quote
It can smack you any way it wants. The point is that when one uses the term Empire, it can apparently mean several things. It seems to me that many of the behaviors outlined in this thread are practiced by any number of entities, so which is the unique one that makes America among all of them the Empire?

So point me to any country on this Earth that still possesses the same level of influence, political will, and control over other polities and countries that the US can exert?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 01, 2008, 12:51:01 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;242706
So point me to any country on this Earth that still possesses the same level of influence, political will, and control over other polities and countries that the US can exert?


So, being the strongest makes one an empire?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on September 01, 2008, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: J Arcane;242706
So point me to any country on this Earth that still possesses the same level of influence, political will, and control over other polities and countries that the US can exert?

I don't know how much I get in line with CavScout, But your response does make me ask much the same. Because America can and does influence other countries, both cooperative and uncooperative, using a wide range of tools (what many term soft or hard power) more than any other nation does not make it an empire. One could claim the same about how OPEC controls oil and uses it as a tool to sway other nations to do as they wish - they are not an empire, or at least nobody I've heard of calls them one, at least not without a modifier like "Oil Empire."

So, again, I go back to the overriding feature of Empire (to me) - that of direct authority over another nation (polity I think y'all are saying). I've said Hawaii, which, IIRC was a sovereign kingdom before it was overthrown, and Puerto Rico before it was lost by the Spanish in the war, are interesting examples. I'm looking for the more recent examples - which I'd guess actually exist.

Otherwise, I'm much more inclined to use the term hegemony - seems more accurate at this point. Ironically, I could see it carrying much more negative connotations - but that's just me.

Note: this is separate from Pseudo's more expansive definition which includes other subjects of interest.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 01:08:26 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;242664
It's one of the reasons I'm hesitant to throw the term at the Russians to Chinese. I think they'd like to be Empires. I think they, like the US, probably use many tools similar to those of Empire. But I'm not so sure about the conquering, occupation, and direct authority other territories.

Both Russia and China have imperial holdings. Tibet is an example of a famous Chinese one. The recent Georgian war is an example of Russian

Quote
So, for the history/geopolitical majors out there, what were the British holdings under direct control?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

Quote
What portion of the Empire was it?

It varied over time, as one might expect with any entity that spanned four centuries. India went from being indirectly under British political control through the East India Company, to being directly under British political control after the 1857 Indian Mutiny,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_rule_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

It would be fair to say that the British government had direct political control over most of their non-white imperial subjects, while they gradually relinquished direct political control of their white subjects in exchange for hegemony over them, probably at least partly as a result of the American revolution. They substituted economic control (Britain was responsible approximately 1/4 of all world trade in 1880).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Britain#Breakdown_of_Pax_Britannica_and_New_Imperialism

Quote
What are the American ones?

The American empire tends to emphasise economic control of polities rather than political control. It has in the past been more interested in political control though (following the Spanish-American war and during the Cold War).

In the modern day, Afghanistan is an example of an imperial possession of America where direct political control is exercised, because its government exists only at its behest (One could point to the popular joke that Hamid Karzai is the "mayor of Kabul"). It requires American money, American soldiers, and American expertise (Hamid Karzai and other members of the Afghani government are American-educated) to continue to operate. While the American government will respect some requests from the Afghanis, the Afghani government cannot make the Americans actually do anything unless the Americans want to.

Israel is an example of how American economic control works. Israel is hooked on American money, and has a variety of Zionist organisations in the US who raise private funds for it, recruit for its military, and lobby the American government to maintain the financial relationship. America began this behaviour under Harry Truman after concerns about Soviet support for Zionism were brought to him.

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm gives a few simple facts on the money and where it goes. The WRMEA is fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic.

Without American money, Israel would not be able to maintain as expensive a military as it does. The exact benefits America gets from Israel are complicated to explain and have changed over time. Throughout the Cold War, for example, the Soviets were thought to be more popular amongst the Arabs. Nowadays, of course, Israel serves as an invaluable ally in the American war on terror, often capable of taking more direct action than the US itself could afford to, and better geographically positioned to keep an eye on the Middle East.

Quote
What portion are they? When were they established? What's their state at this point?

These are fairly large questions. Without claiming to agree totally with it, here's the wikipedia article entry on it:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire

They do a fair job of summing up the evidence and the reasons for and against believing that America has an empire.

BTW: In the terminology of that article, I am asserting a "social democratic" theory of empire, more or less, with some elements from the "super-imperialism" theory (that is, that foreign elites of the same sort that lead America into being an empire collaborate with their counterparts in America to maintain America's empire for their own self-benefit, however they may wish to define that).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on September 02, 2008, 01:25:31 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242917
Israel is an example of how American economic control works. Israel is hooked on American money, and has a variety of Zionist organisations in the US who raise private funds for it, recruit for its military, and lobby the American government to maintain the financial relationship. America began this behaviour under Harry Truman after concerns about Soviet support for Zionism were brought to him.

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm gives a few simple facts on the money and where it goes. The WRMEA is fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic.

Without American money, Israel would not be able to maintain as expensive a military as it does. The exact benefits America gets from Israel are complicated to explain and have changed over time. Throughout the Cold War, for example, the Soviets were thought to be more popular amongst the Arabs. Nowadays, of course, Israel serves as an invaluable ally in the American war on terror, often capable of taking more direct action than the US itself could afford to, and better geographically positioned to keep an eye on the Middle East.



You know, the Great Jewish Money Conspiracy has been around since Moses was a baby, but this is the freshest take on it so far.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 01:36:15 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;242921
You know, the Great Jewish Money Conspiracy has been around since Moses was a baby, but this is the freshest take on it so far.


But dude, "The WRMEA is fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic"! :p
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 01:39:45 AM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242917
Israel is an example of how American economic control works. Israel is hooked on American money, and has a variety of Zionist organisations in the US who raise private funds for it, recruit for its military, and lobby the American government to maintain the financial relationship. America began this behaviour under Harry Truman after concerns about Soviet support for Zionism were brought to him.

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm gives a few simple facts on the money and where it goes. The WRMEA is fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic.

Without American money, Israel would not be able to maintain as expensive a military as it does. The exact benefits America gets from Israel are complicated to explain and have changed over time. Throughout the Cold War, for example, the Soviets were thought to be more popular amongst the Arabs. Nowadays, of course, Israel serves as an invaluable ally in the American war on terror, often capable of taking more direct action than the US itself could afford to, and better geographically positioned to keep an eye on the Middle East.


Hell, sounds like you are saying Israel is the empire and the United States is the imperial province sending money back to the throne.
:hmm:
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on September 02, 2008, 01:50:29 AM
Quote from: CavScout;242924
But dude, "The WRMEA is fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic"! :p


That is just sauce for this Canadian goose.

Oh, and by the way, congrats on the Bruins outplaying the Vols tonight. When we missed a 34 yard filed goal in overtime, we signed our Official Suck papers.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 04:23:19 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;242921
You know, the Great Jewish Money Conspiracy has been around since Moses was a baby, but this is the freshest take on it so far.


The Israeli government != Jews in general. It's a bit bizarre on your part to make such an association. I suppose it serves as the explanation of why you can't distinguish criticism of the Israeli government (and not even anti-Zionist criticism at that!) from anti-semitism though.

Of course, because in the end you're just parroting a talking point, you didn't bother to devote the effort to notice that Israel is ultimately subservient to the US in the relationship I'm talking about, not in charge of it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 04:25:56 PM
Quote from: CavScout;242929
Hell, sounds like you are saying Israel is the empire and the United States is the imperial province sending money back to the throne.
:hmm:


If it sounds like that to you, it is only further proof that you are an ignoramus.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on September 02, 2008, 05:45:57 PM
Quote from: Pseudointellectual;243262

Of course, because in the end you're just parroting a talking point.


When you have any original thoughts on a subject you espouse, please let us all know. We'll throw a party.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;243307
When you have any original thoughts on a subject you espouse, please let us all know. We'll throw a party.


3/10. You're punching in the dark now, Jeffy.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on September 02, 2008, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243308
3/10. You're punching in the dark now, Jeffy.


I'm not the one who brought up The Great Jewish Money Conspiracy as proof of an American Empire, fuck-o.

And quit being jealous of Koltar, its unseemly.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on September 02, 2008, 06:04:39 PM
Whoah.....wait a minute.
 Whats all this talk of Zionist-this and Zionist-that.??

Hate to say it, but over-use of that terminology is usually an indicator of subtle anti-semitism no matter how much soneone tries to say otherwise.


Oh and my apologies If I haven't responded to a lot of individual bits of back & forth on here. I emptied or wiped out my Ignore list last night. Pseudo was one of the 3 people on it.  

Now I don't have anybody on my IL any more.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 06:19:56 PM
Quote from: Koltar;243316
Whoah.....wait a minute.
 Whats all this talk of Zionist-this and Zionist-that.??

There is no talk of "Zionist-this and Zionist-that". I said that a particular piece of criticism wasn't "anti-Zionist", and that's been the only mention of the term.

Edit: Correction: I used once more in reference to the self-descriptions of groups like AIPAC.

Quote
Hate to say it, but over-use of that terminology is usually an indicator of subtle anti-semitism no matter how much soneone tries to say otherwise.

Are you accusing me of being an anti-semite? If so, come out and say it. Your principle there is also ludicrous, considering that Israeli political discourse uses the term "Zionist" pretty regularly. Why do you hold prejudices that would make Israelis anti-semites?

Quote
Oh and my apologies If I haven't responded to a lot of indidual bits of back & forth on here. I emptied or wiped out my Ignore list last night. Pseudo was one of the 3 people on it.

Boo hoo.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243321

Are you accusing me of being an anti-semite? If so, come out and say it. Your principle there is also ludicrous, considering that Israeli political discourse uses the term "Zionist" pretty regularly. Why do you hold prejudices that would make Israelis anti-semites?


And for his next act he will explain why white folk calling black folk niggers is acceptable because black folk sometimes call other black folk niggers too!

Remember, all tickets are non-refundable and there is a two drink minimum.

:banghead:
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 06:27:30 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;243312
I'm not the one who brought up The Great Jewish Money Conspiracy as proof of an American Empire, fuck-o.


Oh, I touched a nerve! Jeffy's angry!

Sorry mate, but you're the only one talking about Jewish conspiracies here. Can you talk about Israel without suddenly bursting out about "The Great Jewish Money Conspiracy"? I know I can, but this is the second time you've brought it up unprompted.

Quote
And quit being jealous of Koltar, its unseemly.


1/10. You're still swinging away, and you're going wider and wider each time.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 06:31:47 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243323
And for his next act he will explain why white folk calling black folk niggers is acceptable because black folk sometimes call other black folk niggers too!

Remember, all tickets are non-refundable and there is a two drink minimum.

:banghead:


For the audience: Notice how Jeffy and Cav burst into racial slurs without prompting?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 06:34:39 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243324
Oh, I touched a nerve! Jeffy's angry!

Sorry mate, but you're the only one talking about Jewish conspiracies here. Can you talk about Israel without suddenly bursting out about "The Great Jewish Money Conspiracy"? I know I can, but this is the second time you've brought it up unprompted.


Ummm, you are the one who linked the United States, Israel and money with the statement, "Israel is hooked on American money, and has a variety of Zionist organizations in the US who raise private funds for it, recruit for its military, and lobby the American government to maintain the financial relationship". You link to articles that basically say Israel is stealing or hoodwinking money from the United States.

But hey, stick to your claim of "I never said anything about a Jewish money conspiracy".
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243326
For the audience: Notice how Jeffy and Cav burst into racial slurs without prompting?


You'll be telling us how Jews aren't a race next, right?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243329
You'll be telling us how Jews aren't a race next, right?


It's an ethnicity, actually; a way of life related to a specific set of subpopulations of humanity. You are aware that people can convert to Judaism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity

Christ, first you're hurling around racial slurs, then you're trying to pick Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephard alike) out as a race? Shall I throw you a shovel so you can dig yourself in deeper?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 06:50:53 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243327
Ummm, you are the one who linked the United States, Israel and money with the statement, "Israel is hooked on American money, and has a variety of Zionist organizations in the US who raise private funds for it, recruit for its military, and lobby the American government to maintain the financial relationship". You link to articles that basically say Israel is stealing or hoodwinking money from the United States.

But hey, stick to your claim of "I never said anything about a Jewish money conspiracy".


"Basically say" and "actually say" are two very different things. I suspect you used the first because you can't actually demonstrate the second based on anything I've said or linked to, and thus you're trying to get away with smearing me without any evidence that I believe the things you seem to wish I believed.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:04:38 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243331
It's an ethnicity, actually; a way of life related to a specific set of subpopulations of humanity. You are aware that people can convert to Judaism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity

Christ, first you're hurling around racial slurs, then you're trying to pick Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephard alike) out as a race? Shall I throw you a shovel so you can dig yourself in deeper?


So I was right then. Thanks.

PS: When linking Wikipedia, you should check and see if there are articles that counter the point you are trying to make.

Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew):

Quote
A Jew is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites or Hebrews of the ancient Middle East. The ethnicity and the religion of Judaism, the traditional faith of the Jewish nation, are strongly interrelated, and converts to Judaism are both included and have been absorbed within the Jewish people throughout the millennia.


Quote
Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.


But then again, those who try to differentiate the religion from the racial aspects, do so because they are anti-semitic.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:12:18 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243338
So I was right then. Thanks.


Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Now, can you actually explain how thinking that Judaism is an ethnicity rather than a race is anti-semitic? I mean, you didn't actually _prove_ anything by saying "You're going to say Judaism isn't a race". Here's a related question: Why are Ashkenazi and Sephardi, two subpopulations related more closely by custom than genetics, a "race"?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:13:38 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243333
"Basically say" and "actually say" are two very different things. I suspect you used the first because you can't actually demonstrate the second based on anything I've said or linked to, and thus you're trying to get away with smearing me without any evidence that I believe the things you seem to wish I believed.


I only said "basically" to distinguish you from those who are openly anti-semitic and the others, like you, who want to pretend they are not.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:15:20 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243340
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


I was certainly right twice today.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:17:07 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243338
So I was right then. Thanks.

PS: When linking Wikipedia, you should check and see if there are articles that counter the point you are trying to make.

Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew):


So your argument is that because the wikipedia article on Judaism uses the term "ethnicity" I am incorrect to refer to Jews as an "ethnicity"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

Quote
But then again, those who try to differentiate the religion from the racial aspects, do so because they are anti-semitic.


Especially Jews it seems, since they allow conversion to the religion.

This is easily the most desperately pathetic argument you've mustered yet.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:19:50 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243341
I only said "basically" to distinguish you from those who are openly anti-semitic and the others, like you, who want to pretend they are not.


I can see why you like roleplaying - you've got an active imagination.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:21:00 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243346
I can see why you like roleplaying - you've got an active imagination.


Not quite as much as yours. As I still don't see this American Empire.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on September 02, 2008, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243338


But then again, those who try to differentiate the religion from the racial aspects, do so because they are anti-semitic.


Substitute Islam here and what do you get?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on September 02, 2008, 07:24:18 PM
(http://redherringsociety.org/redherring.jpg)
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:25:16 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243347
Not quite as much as yours. As I still don't see this American Empire.


It's good to know that I can at least keep you on topic by letting you talk yourself into a corner. Now that I've found out this interesting fact about you though, I'm loathe to let it go.

How long have you thought that Jews were a race CavScout? Was it about the same time you starting hurling irrelevant racial slurs casually?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on September 02, 2008, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: droog;243349
(http://redherringsociety.org/redherring.jpg)


Is that good with Bacon and Bagels??


Its almost dinner time here in Ohio.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:27:20 PM
Droog> This fish is too delicious to give up right now. Look at CavScout squirming to get himself out of this one.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:29:03 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;243348
Substitute Islam here and what do you get?


Substitute Arab and according to the United States Supreme Court, both Arab and Jew are considered races regarding racial discrimination.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:31:37 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243354
Substitute Arab and according to the United States Supreme Court, both Arab and Jew are considered races regarding racial discrimination.


Note to the audience: CavScout has shown several times that he has trouble with equivocal words. Don't use "get" or "take" for example - it will only confuse him and lead to a stream of wild accusations and racist slurs.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:34:47 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243355
Note to the audience: CavScout has shown several times that he has trouble with equivocal words. Don't use "get" or "take" for example - it will only confuse him and lead to a stream of wild accusations and racist slurs.


That was a good dodge, almost Matrix-like. Almost.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on September 02, 2008, 07:35:32 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243354
Substitute Arab and according to the United States Supreme Court, both Arab and Jew are considered races regarding racial discrimination.


Erm, many, many Muslims aren't Arabs. But you knew that (i hope).
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:37:07 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;243358
Erm, many, many Muslims aren't Arabs. But you knew that (i hope).


Did I say they were?

I simply stated that under the law, in the US, both Arab and Jew are considered a race regarding racial discrimination laws.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on September 02, 2008, 07:39:22 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243359
Did I say they were?

I simply stated that under the law, in the US, both Arab and Jew are considered a race regarding racial discrimination laws.


ILed. There, i said it. I feel dirty. :(
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243357
That was a good dodge, almost Matrix-like. Almost.


You can only say things like "good dodge...Almost" if you actually rebut things I say. For example, you still haven't given us an explanation of why you suddenly broke out into irrelevant racial slurs earlier in the thread; you still haven't explained why I am anti-semitic for saying that Judaism is an ethnicity; why you think race and religion are inseparable in Judaism; or how you reconcile the identity of race and religion in your views on Judaism with the position, held by Jews, that conversion to Judaism is possible?

Wriggle little fish, wriggle.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:42:46 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;243360
ILed. There, i said it. I feel dirty. :(


C'mon dude, he's an amusing little idiot who's so desperate to try to win arguments that he's willing to say anything. Ignore the content, which is mostly vacuous nonsense that I doubt even he sincerely believes, and laugh at the contortions of logic he puts himself through.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:45:46 PM
Oh no! They don't like the answers so they pretend not to see them. Nice.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:46:56 PM
Anyhow, since all my opponents in this thread have shown themselves to either be racist, autistic, illiterate, or Koltar, I declare myself the winner. I shall happily return to answering reasonable questions from Engine and Skach in a reasonable and polite manner, while continuing to abuse CavScout mercilessly so long as it amuses me.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:49:01 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243363
Oh no! They don't like the answers so they pretend not to see them. Nice.


We saw your answer. It was just totally inadequate.

If he was asking about Arabs, he would have written "Arabs". He wrote "Muslims". Answer the question he asked, not the one you wish he asked, you scabrous dick-rash.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on September 02, 2008, 07:49:34 PM
You can't declare the winner of a thread - you're not the one who started it.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:49:35 PM
lol

Keep dodging.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:51:03 PM
Quote from: Koltar;243367
You can't declare the winner of a thread - you're not the one who started it.


- Ed C.


I took possession of it. It's now part of my digital empire!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:51:34 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243366
We saw your answer. It was just totally inadequate.

If he was asking about Arabs, he would have written "Arabs". He wrote "Muslims". Answer the question he asked, not the one you wish he asked, you scabrous dick-rash.


Does it matter? The Supreme Court has ruled that Jew is a race for the purposes of racial discrimination laws. It also included Arab. Whether Muslim is, or is not, is irrelevant to the claim being made by you.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243368
lol

Keep dodging.


Who needs to dodge? You're not throwing any punches.

Once again, CavScout, why did you use irrelevant racist language? Why do you think that race and religion are inextricable in Jews when even Jews don't? Why do you think that the position that Judaism is an ethnicity is anti-semitic?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 07:53:16 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243370
I took possession of it. It's now part of my digital empire!


An empire about as relevant as Canada, which explains your jealousy and envy of all things American.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: One Horse Town on September 02, 2008, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243362
C'mon dude, he's an amusing little idiot who's so desperate to try to win arguments that he's willing to say anything. Ignore the content, which is mostly vacuous nonsense that I doubt even he sincerely believes, and laugh at the contortions of logic he puts himself through.


Well, he's been on ignore almost since he's been here - which is why i feel dirty for looking and replying on this thread.

I sincerely put out a call for Erik Boille to return. There was someone with class! and in the rpg section too. Which is where i'm going, post haste! :)
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on September 02, 2008, 07:54:18 PM
Whatever happened to Erik?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on September 02, 2008, 07:56:02 PM
Quote from: droog;243376
Whatever happened to Erik?


Was that the WARHAMMER-guy? Maybe he got obsessed with the new edition of the rules. Its a pretty think hardback book.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 07:56:26 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243371
Does it matter? The Supreme Court has ruled that Jew is a race for the purposes of racial discrimination laws. It also included Arab. Whether Muslim is, or is not, is irrelevant to the claim being made by you.


Why are you no longer using the definition of Judaism given in the wikipedia article you linked to? When did the Supreme Court of the United States become the supreme authority of Jews internationally? Why should we read its decision that Judaism is a race as exclusive of all other definitions of Judaism? Do you know what they meant when they said "race" in that decision?

You're not on the ropes - you're unconscious on the mat.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:00:08 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243374
An empire about as relevant as Canada, which explains your jealousy and envy of all things American.


Still trying to get back to that? I've got you pinned on this racism thing, you disgusting little piece of shit pretending to be a human being. No wonder that a racist would-be-sophist like you can't understand the idea of a moral principle. Lacking the sort of basic morality that a human being has, you can only imagine that the humans are driven by the sort of base, brute emotions you are capable of.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:00:38 PM
Whatever you need to tell your self so you can feel better being an anti-semite. I am sure you'll quibble and say Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate the Jewish race too.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;243375
Well, he's been on ignore almost since he's been here - which is why i feel dirty for looking and replying on this thread.

I sincerely put out a call for Erik Boille to return. There was someone with class! and in the rpg section too. Which is where i'm going, post haste! :)


Head to, good sir. I've got things sufficiently under control here.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243381
Still trying to get back to that? I've got you pinned on this racism thing, you disgusting little piece of shit pretending to be a human being. No wonder that a racist would-be-sophist like you can't understand the idea of a moral principle. Lacking the sort of basic morality that a human being has, you can only imagine that the humans are driven by the sort of base, brute emotions you are capable of.


Keep trying dumb ass. You got exposed as an anti-semite and now are flailing about trying to divert attention.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:02:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243382
Whatever you need to tell your self so you can feel better being an anti-semite. I am sure you'll quibble and say Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate the Jewish race too.


I notice that one of us agrees with the concepts and structures of Hitler's thought, and one of us doesn't. Oddly enough, the one whose thought is basically of the same sort as Hitler's is you, you turgid and dessicated lump of canine excrement.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:04:06 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243384
Keep trying dumb ass. You got exposed as an anti-semite and now are flailing about trying to divert attention.


Hah!

Once again, you green-veined and amputated cock full of recycled embalming fluid from a necrophiliac taxidermist, I charge you to demonstrate how the positions I hold are anti-semitic.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: David R on September 02, 2008, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243364
.... so long as it amuses me.


Amuses us, you selfish/jealous bastard. That's always been your problem. You never acknowledge your audience.

Regards,
David R
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:05:28 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243385
I notice that one of us agrees with the concepts and structures of Hitler's thought, and one of us doesn't. Oddly enough, the one whose thought is basically of the same sort as Hitler's is you, you turgid and dessicated lump of canine excrement.


So, you do disagree that he was trying to kill off the Jewish race?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: David R;243387
Amuses us, you selfish/jealous bastard. That's always been your problem. You never acknowledge your audience.

Regards,
David R


I'm trying! See those helpful notes I've been leaving periodically? Also, I'm stepping up the hilarity of my insults for your sakes!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:06:55 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243386
Hah!

Once again, you green-veined and amputated cock full of recycled embalming fluid from a necrophiliac taxidermist, I charge you to demonstrate how the positions I hold are anti-semitic.


Working the dictionary hard I see.

Explain why you hate the Jews? Why do you think they are hoodwinking the Americans out of money?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243388
So, you do disagree that he was trying to kill off the Jewish race?


I think he was trying to kill all the Jews, and I also think that Hitler thought that the Jews were a race, much as you think. I think Jews are an ethnicity.

As the fires of hell burn your racist, pounded-downy-soft ass hairs, you shall at least have something to make small talk with him about.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243391
I think he was trying to kill all the Jews, and I also think that Hitler thought that the Jews were a race, much as you think. I think Jews are an ethnicity.

As the fires of hell burn your racist, pounded-downy-soft ass hairs, you shall at least have something to make small talk with him about.


I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

Anti-semite. Why don't you link some more conspiracies linking Jews and money. Then you can act surprised when folks call you on it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:14:09 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243390
Working the dictionary hard I see.


Attain but the most minimal literacy in English, and you too may be capable of some of my execrative feats.

Quote
Explain why you hate the Jews? Why do you think they are hoodwinking the Americans out of money?


I don't. We covered this earlier. I think America is economically dominating Israel for its own geopolitical ends. An entire nation of retards, trained for fifty years each in the arts of casuistry and the hermeneutics of rhetoric, would be required to catalogue and explain the twists and turns of your "logic" to get from the one position to the other.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:16:15 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243392
I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.


Not for lack of effort!

Quote
Anti-semite. Why don't you link some more conspiracies linking Jews and money. Then you can act surprised when folks call you on it.


If you had any evidence, you would have presented it by now. It can be concluded by all that you are empty-handed, a position you were last in prior to your discovery of masturbation.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:19:13 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243393
I don't. We covered this earlier. I think America is economically dominating Israel for its own geopolitical ends. An entire nation of retards, trained for fifty years each in the arts of casuistry and the hermeneutics of rhetoric, would be required to catalogue and explain the twists and turns of your "logic" to get from the one position to the other.


One wonders why you linked to a conspiracy article then... hell, you had to add this disclaimer yourself, "fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic". Wonder why you had to try and get out infront of that one... no I don't.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243397
One wonders why you linked to a conspiracy article then... hell, you had to add this disclaimer yourself, "fairly critical of Israel, but it's not anti-semitic". Wonder why you had to try and get out infront of that one... no I don't.


Of course you don't, because you were waiting for the first opportunity to hurl accusations of anti-semitism. I was attempting to inoculate myself against you, just as one would vaccinate one's self against a disgusting and unpleasant infection of the brain, a contagious stupidity.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:31:11 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243398
Of course you don't, because you were waiting for the first opportunity to hurl accusations of anti-semitism. I was attempting to inoculate myself against you, just as one would vaccinate one's self against a disgusting and unpleasant infection of the brain, a contagious stupidity.


Or you knew that you were sourcing and displaying anti-semitism. Yep. That's sounds about right.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: jeff37923 on September 02, 2008, 08:36:06 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243324
Oh, I touched a nerve!



Just my funny bone.

I remember about a year ago when you first popped up here and began posting that you proudly proclaimed you enjoyed marching with anarchists up in Canada with an American flag held high because it garnered you attention and pissed off your peer group. Every post made on this site is similar to that hunger for wrong attention given to a petty annoyance, especially when that wrong attention is because you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the position that you claim to support.

You are the internet equivalent of a child proud of belching at the dinner table who then declares the he didn't do it so that he can garner attention for simultaneously being crude and lying about being responsible for the crudeness.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:40:50 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243399
Or you knew that you were sourcing and displaying anti-semitism. Yep. That's sounds about right.


That sounds right only in the fever dreams induced by a prolapsed rectum that afflict a shithead like you.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on September 02, 2008, 08:43:12 PM
There you go again with the name-calling.

 You and Jackalope should exchange lists so you don't duplicate each other.

- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:52:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;243401
Just my funny bone.

I remember about a year ago when you first popped up here and began posting that you proudly proclaimed you enjoyed marching with anarchists up in Canada with an American flag held high because it garnered you attention and pissed off your peer group. Every post made on this site is similar to that hunger for wrong attention given to a petty annoyance, especially when that wrong attention is because you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the position that you claim to support.

I've been here for a couple of years now. In fact, the date I joined is listed on those little profiles we all have on the side of our posts. This shows the level of factual accuracy we can expect from you.

To correct your half-remembered and fairly inaccurate rendition, I marched around with Iraq war-protesters in February of 2003 with an American flag with Batman on it in a heroic pose, because I found it funny to do so and had been given the flag as a gift the previous Christmas but had not otherwise put it to use. When questioned by others about the flag, I used it as an opportunity to explain that I thought that their rhetoric was overly anti-American, and that it was only the government that was vicious and corrupt.

I fail to see how this is relevant though, except to demonstrate that even when I was a libertarian years ago, I was already in possession of the conceptual structure that would eventually lead me to give up that position.

Quote
You are the internet equivalent of a child proud of belching at the dinner table who then declares the he didn't do it so that he can garner attention for simultaneously being crude and lying about being responsible for the crudeness.

This is the equivalent of a shoddy Malaysian sweatshop imitation of the insults I've been slinging. I'll give it a 4/10 because it lacks serious grammatical errors other than indistinct clauses and therefore represents the best effort you are capable of.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: Koltar;243403
There you go again with the name-calling.

 You and Jackalope should exchange lists so you don't duplicate each other.

- Ed C.


If you put that lump of flesh that holds up your beard to better use, Koltar, you might realise what kind of scum CavScout is, and why he deserves such vitriol.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 08:59:00 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243406
If you put that lump of flesh that holds up your beard to better use, Koltar, you might realise what kind of scum CavScout is, and why he deserves such vitriol.


You see, anyone who calls it out on its anti-semitism must be bad.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: J Arcane on September 02, 2008, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243406
If you put that lump of flesh that holds up your beard to better use, Koltar, you might realise what kind of scum CavScout is, and why he deserves such vitriol.
At this juncture, I've come to the conclusion that Koltar basically spends his entire life seeking to act the part of That Guy on a level heretofore unwitnessed on this Earth.  

He's the ultimate fatbeard, the Platonic form against which all other fatbeards fall short.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243408
You see, anyone who calls it out on its anti-semitism must be bad.


Koltar hasn't called me an anti-semite yet. He has insinuated that I am, but he's far too cowardly to actually say it. Unlike you, he at least realises that a direct assertion requires evidence, something you both lack.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: David R on September 02, 2008, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243404

This is the equivalent of a shoddy Malaysian sweatshop imitation of the insults I've been slinging.


Fuck you asshole. Our sweatshops are anything but shoddy. In fact we pride ourselves on the quality of work of our slave labour. Hell, our pirated DVDs are the best in the world. None of that "taped from the cinema" shit for us and by extension you - judging from the amount of tourist who flock to said stalls. We do you guys a favour and this is how you repay us ? Ungrateful sod.

Regards,
David R
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:05:27 PM
Quote from: David R;243415
Fuck you asshole. Our sweatshops are anything but shoddy. In fact we pride ourselves on the quality of work of our slave labour. Hell, our pirated DVDs are the best in the world. None of that "taped from the cinema" shit for us and by extension you - judging from the amount of tourist who flock to said stalls. We do you guys a favour and this is how you repay us ? Ungrateful sod.

Regards,
David R


Please accept my heartfelt apology. I by no means meant to insult the fine slave labour of Malaysia by associating it with Jeffy.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 09:08:56 PM
It's not surprising seeing this anti-semitism flowing out of Canada. It's been increasing in Canada (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/32045/edition_id/597/format/html/displaystory.html) and was only a matter of time before those hailing from there exhibited on the forums.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243421
It's not surprising seeing this anti-semitism flowing out of Canada. It's been increasing in Canada (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/32045/edition_id/597/format/html/displaystory.html) and was only a matter of time before those hailing from there exhibited on the forums.


It's unsurprising to see a racist like you holding a private individual responsible for the behaviour of a society or group he dislikes. How many Arabs did you advocate killing after 9/11?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: David R on September 02, 2008, 09:15:01 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243418
Please accept my heartfelt apology. I by no means meant to insult the fine slave labour of Malaysia by associating it with Jeffy.


Just don't let it happen again. I get touchy when my country is depicted inaccurately.

Regards,
David R
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 09:17:45 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243430
It's unsurprising to see a racist like you holding a private individual responsible for the behaviour of a society or group he dislikes. How many Arabs did you advocate killing after 9/11?


Far fewer than the Jews you want to see exterminated.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:18:55 PM
Quote from: David R;243431
Just don't let it happen again. I get touchy when my country is depicted inaccurately.

Regards,
David R


As a pledge of good faith, I promise in future to buy all my slave-made goods from Malaysia! Not a Chinese toy, nor Guinean chocolate bar shall come to me but through the Straits of Malacca and the immature yet deft fingers of its underfed but proud inhabitants!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:24:37 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243433
Far fewer than the Jews you want to see exterminated.


1/10. My charge was genuinely offensive, yours merely cliche. I know that the lack of a forebrain is not really your fault - Momma shouldna mistaken you for another septic abscess and tried to scrape you out with a toothbrush abandoned by one of her johns in a mad rush after seeing her in good light - but please, do try a little harder than you are now. We can't keep the conversation interesting for our audience if all you can do is repeat, repeat, repeat yourself. It's not masturbation after all, you're going to have to switch it up once in a while.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 09:26:00 PM
My poor Canadian... really, that's all you got?
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: David R on September 02, 2008, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243434
...the immature yet deft fingers of its underfed but proud inhabitants!


Well they are not exactly immature or even native (inhabitants) we ...ahem...rely heavily on foreign labour, but in the interest of diplomatic relations with Canada, I accept your gesture in the spirit it was given in.

Regards,
David R
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:29:52 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243439
My poor Canadian... really, that's all you got?


It's considerably better than anything you've pulled out so far. However, I am attempting to calibrate the quality of my insults so that they are proportionate to the thing they address. Meager-minded idiots get meager insults.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 09:31:44 PM
If you can't keep it up, just like the empire portion of this thread, it's ok to give up again.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: David R;243441
Well they are not exactly immature or even native (inhabitants) we ...ahem...rely heavily on foreign labour, but in the interest of diplomatic relations with Canada, I accept your gesture in the spirit it was given in.

Regards,
David R


Let peace reign once more, so that we may turn our collective attention to the garbage-juice-drinking racist hydrocephalic cretins to be found elsewhere on this thread!
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:33:51 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243444
If you can't keep it up, just like the empire portion of this thread, it's ok to give up again.


Hah! And now your strategy becomes apparent. Having lost every other argument in this thread, you hope to wait for me to tire.

It's a vain hope, you pathetic error of natural law.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 09:35:23 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243447
Hah! And now your strategy becomes apparent. Having lost every other argument in this thread, you hope to wait for me to tire.

It's a vain hope, you pathetic error of natural law.


You lost when you first posted in this thread you obstinate cesspit-full of vomitous chicken waste.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: CavScout;243449
You lost when you first posted in this thread you obstinate cesspit-full of vomitous chicken waste.


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm glad you find me so worthy of emulation. Unfortunately, you are a publicly reviled and scorned tumour on the foreskin of this forum, a calcite accretion of idiocy in the forum's bladder, an utterly vile person who wastes electrons with every tap of his keyboard, and therefore, while it is hilarious to everyone else and myself that I am insulting you, no one really finds your replies particularly funny. They are too clearly the actions of an ape.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Koltar on September 02, 2008, 09:41:54 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243413
Koltar hasn't called me an anti-semite yet. He has insinuated that I am, but he's far too cowardly......


I haven't called you that - because I honestly don't know if you are one or not.

It is true that in the past when I've seen the terminiology that you used in an erlier post - its usually an indicator that the person is anti-semitic.  (Ususually a well-educated one...but still an anti-semite)

So it has nothing to do with "cowardice" , I just don't have all the facts about you yet.  Tho I am starting to remember you were that guy with the bald-headed avatar that spewed a lot of nonsense in the Roleplaying section last spring.


- Ed C.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: droog on September 02, 2008, 09:45:08 PM
Take care when you argue with lamebrains lest you become a lamebrain yourself.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: CavScout on September 02, 2008, 09:57:10 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;243451
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm glad you find me so worthy of emulation. Unfortunately, you are a publicly reviled and scorned tumour on the foreskin of this forum, a calcite accretion of idiocy in the forum's bladder, an utterly vile person who wastes electrons with every tap of his keyboard, and therefore, while it is hilarious to everyone else and myself that I am insulting you, no one really finds your replies particularly funny. They are too clearly the actions of an ape.


You twisted collection of unimpressive knob cheese. Your just an anti-American race-card-playing Canadian pissed they are not a state in our Union. Get over it.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: James J Skach on September 02, 2008, 10:00:16 PM
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242917
The American empire tends to emphasise economic control of polities rather than political control. It has in the past been more interested in political control though (following the Spanish-American war and during the Cold War).

See this right here? I have no problem with "economic empire" or other such modified versions. I think the difference is that you don't see a difference between political (re: enforced) control, and economic "control." I see a world of difference - depending on the level of economic "control."

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;242917
In the modern day, Afghanistan is an example of an imperial possession of America where direct political control is exercised, because its government exists only at its behest (One could point to the popular joke that Hamid Karzai is the "mayor of Kabul"). It requires American money, American soldiers, and American expertise (Hamid Karzai and other members of the Afghani government are American-educated) to continue to operate. While the American government will respect some requests from the Afghanis, the Afghani government cannot make the Americans actually do anything unless the Americans want to.

Is it picking nits to point out that it's actually NATO, under the auspices of the UN, that runs Afghanistan?

Forgive me if I don't get into some of the aspects given the degeneration of the discussion from both sides. But thanks for the attempt at answering some of my questions.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: Pseudoephedrine on September 02, 2008, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;243463
See this right here? I have no problem with "economic empire" or other such modified versions. I think the difference is that you don't see a difference between political (re: enforced) control, and economic "control." I see a world of difference - depending on the level of economic "control."


I would agree that's a key distinction between our points of view.

Quote
Is it picking nits to point out that it's actually NATO, under the auspices of the UN, that runs Afghanistan?


It's the same situation as with the Afghani government. The American presence is essential to the existence of the mission itself. No Americans would mean no NATO deployment, partly due to American hegemony in NATO, partly due to various problems or gaps in the militaries of the other NATO members. American electronic surveillance (from drones, satellites, etc.) is of tremendous value to the other militaries, for example. If something exists and acts only due to the actions of another thing, that second thing is in control, even if it chooses not to exercise its control fully and arbitrarily.

Quote
Forgive me if I don't get into some of the aspects given the degeneration of the discussion from both sides. But thanks for the attempt at answering some of my questions.


No worries. I am a bit sorry that CavScout popped in to poison the discussion.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: himsati on September 03, 2008, 12:12:01 AM
I'll stick my 2 cents in to answer the original question...
 
EDIT: Okay, there's about 25 cents here after I finished, apologies...
 
What makes the USA "different" from other countries, and in a way that might cause a certain attitude to develop by US Citizens and also by other countries in how they view the USA?
 
I have some thoughts on how it got that way...
 
1) This is a country that is only a few hundred years old, made up entirely of immigrants (aside from Native American Indians who were here thousands of years ago).
 
2) This is a country that when it was just an itsy bitsy colony decided they didn't like the rule of the then currently governing country and basically said "screw you".  Taking a few bits and pieces of government they like, they came up with something rather different than anything else currently in play.  They overthrew the government and put into play this new system.
 
3) They went on to expunge any debts they had with other countries and several of those countries temporarily wound up in debt to the US until the US expunged such records.
 
4) This is a country that set a certain bar (for good or ill).  The vast majority of other countries compare their military, their money, their healthcare, etc. to the USA.  If their money is worth more against the dollar they feel they are doing well, if their healthcare is considered better than the United States, they are doing well.  It isn't so much that the USA is best at everything, but for the longest time in the last few centuries it quickly became the standard for measurement of prosperity and how well-off a country is in many areas.
 
5) This is a country that stepped in during two World Wars and from overseas managed to do quite a lot.  WWI seriously increased US economic power, including lots of loans to the Allied Powers.  WWII setup the US as a major world player and a lot of advances that the USA got the benefit of...  of course, the USA didn't stop at WWII and other conflicts did not go as smoothly (Vietnam for example) and several more recent incursions where the USA has "stepped in" to work with other countries ... Yeah, the USA has a rep as a "buttinksy" but it was a rep developed by other countries originally asking the USA to step in numerous times.
 
6) This is a country that has people with radically different ethnic/cultural/philosophical/religious backgrounds and beliefs living and working in the same community.  More so than any other country in the world... Many of these different belief systems have often led to war between groups in other parts of the world; and though it has at many times led to violence in the USA, it has only once led to the kind of warfare seen in so many other countries hosting these same belief systems (the US Civil War).
 
7) This is a country that loves to liberally "borrow" from any other culture that has an impact on it.  I find it funny when my fellow US Citizens make fun of other cultures and then it has to be pointed out that we begged, borrowed and stole about a half a zillion ideas from them and incorporated them into the melting pot of US culture.  We have the hardest language in the world to learn because every rule has about a million exceptions, but almost every culture on Earth can find a few words of American English that they know and identify with.  This is a big part of our freedom here, we liberally take the best of what we find from every other culture, country and religion on Earth and incorporate it into our own melting pot; there is no restrictions against it, nothing that says if we do this we will burn, go to a bad place, or that it is illegal to do so.
 
The USA has, like it or not, done a whole lot in a relatively short period of time (the regions of Canada and the USA as civilized cultures have the shortest history on Earth, along with Australia I believe).  Some of it probably was pure luck, some of it was the same attitude that was called on to assist other countries early in the 20th century and that may have given a lot of us "Americans" a rather big head certainly.
 
So the USA is a young upstart, a rebel, an "indie" if you will (not trying to start that thread into here, just the statement seems to fit), so yes there are those Americans who take their national sense of pride to heights residents of other countries tend to think is more than a little nuts.  
 
Personally, I'm an "American" and pretty darn proud of that.  I love the fact that the majority of my fellow citizens get the concept of seeing greatness in other places around the world and accepting that into our own unique culture.  I love the fact that my neighbor and I can have completely different worldviews and yet I'm not worried about him declaring war on me tomorrow or blowing up my house one day this week in the name of a belief that is simply different from mine.  I'm not especially proud of the fact that my country butts in everywhere it can, especially when it is asked not to do so (I get why we do it, I just don't think we go about it the best way possible perhaps, and we could use to be a little less "slick" in our approach).  I'm not thrilled that USA pride sometimes goes WAY overboard, or that we can't decide whether or not we like immigration and that we often forget that we all came from somewhere else, and that a piece of that exists within who we are even today.
 
So I'm as proud to be an American as I hope every Swedish, Dutch, British, German, French, Australian, Canadian, Turkish, New Zealander, Armenian, Columbian, Peruvian, Czech, Egyptian, Grecian, Haitian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Lebanese, Macedonian, Ethiopian, Estonian, Moroccan, Micronesian, Nigerian, Romanian, Swiss, Zambian and more (hope I spelled them all at least close to correct) are of their own countries.  We ain't no better, but we ain't no worse!
 
Sorry for the length, just got to writing... and ... Wow, I feel all patriotic and shiny, I need go play a superhero game ... :D
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: macd21 on September 04, 2008, 03:45:13 AM
Quote from: himsati;243515

1) This is a country that is only a few hundred years old, made up entirely of immigrants (aside from Native American Indians who were here thousands of years ago).

 
True. Though there are plenty of other countries that are as young or younger and many (South America) mostly consist of immigrants. I'm also not sure what is so special about that?

Quote from: himsati;243515

2) This is a country that when it was just an itsy bitsy colony decided they didn't like the rule of the then currently governing country and basically said "screw you".  Taking a few bits and pieces of government they like, they came up with something rather different than anything else currently in play.  They overthrew the government and put into play this new system.

 
Again, true, but the same could, again, be said of most of the coutries in the world today, including some of the western ones. Most of the world was colonialised, most of the countries defeated their colonial masters and created new governments.

Quote from: himsati;243515

3) They went on to expunge any debts they had with other countries and several of those countries temporarily wound up in debt to the US until the US expunged such records.


Er, so? Thats just normal economics and politics.

Quote from: himsati;243515

4) This is a country that set a certain bar (for good or ill).  The vast majority of other countries compare their military, their money, their healthcare, etc. to the USA.  If their money is worth more against the dollar they feel they are doing well, if their healthcare is considered better than the United States, they are doing well.  It isn't so much that the USA is best at everything, but for the longest time in the last few centuries it quickly became the standard for measurement of prosperity and how well-off a country is in many areas.


America is the most powerful country in the world. Of course other countries compare themselves to the US. This has only been the case since the fall of the British Empire, before that people compared themselves to the UK. People used to compare their military to that of the USSR. Also, few countries compare their healthcare to that of the USA, most look to European countries. As the US has increasingly become just one power among many, more and more people compare their countries to the Chinese, the EU and now (again) Russia.
 
Quote from: himsati;243515

5) This is a country that stepped in during two World Wars and from overseas managed to do quite a lot.  WWI seriously increased US economic power, including lots of loans to the Allied Powers.  WWII setup the US as a major world player and a lot of advances that the USA got the benefit of...  of course, the USA didn't stop at WWII and other conflicts did not go as smoothly (Vietnam for example) and several more recent incursions where the USA has "stepped in" to work with other countries ... Yeah, the USA has a rep as a "buttinksy" but it was a rep developed by other countries originally asking the USA to step in numerous times.


Yes, America fought in two world wars. Their participation in the second one is something to be proud of. They came out of both wars as winners (moreso than any other country).

Quote from: himsati;243515

6) This is a country that has people with radically different ethnic/cultural/philosophical/religious backgrounds and beliefs living and working in the same community.  More so than any other country in the world... Many of these different belief systems have often led to war between groups in other parts of the world; and though it has at many times led to violence in the USA, it has only once led to the kind of warfare seen in so many other countries hosting these same belief systems (the US Civil War).


Yes... much like the UK. Which hasn't had a Civil War caused by racism.

Quote from: himsati;243515

7) This is a country that loves to liberally "borrow" from any other culture that has an impact on it.  I find it funny when my fellow US Citizens make fun of other cultures and then it has to be pointed out that we begged, borrowed and stole about a half a zillion ideas from them and incorporated them into the melting pot of US culture.  We have the hardest language in the world to learn because every rule has about a million exceptions, but almost every culture on Earth can find a few words of American English that they know and identify with.  This is a big part of our freedom here, we liberally take the best of what we find from every other culture, country and religion on Earth and incorporate it into our own melting pot; there is no restrictions against it, nothing that says if we do this we will burn, go to a bad place, or that it is illegal to do so.


English was spread across the globe by the English, not America. Cultural borrowing is nothing new. And while the American ideal may be to freely incorporate many cultures, American society has again and again resisted such fiercely, trying to keep outside influences to a minimum (see building of fence between US and Mexico and previous attempts to keep out the Chinese, Irish, Slavs, Mediterraneans etc etc in previous generations). Its no different than any other society that receives a large influx of immigrants (see UK, France, Germany, Saudia Arabia).

Quote from: himsati;243515

The USA has, like it or not, done a whole lot in a relatively short period of time (the regions of Canada and the USA as civilized cultures have the shortest history on Earth, along with Australia I believe).  Some of it probably was pure luck, some of it was the same attitude that was called on to assist other countries early in the 20th century and that may have given a lot of us "Americans" a rather big head certainly.


Which is due to colonialism. The USA, Canada and Australia... the South American countris (mustn't forget them, just because they have slightly darker skin than us!) were found later by the 'civilised' cultures, then conquered, any native cultures butchered and/or subjugated. Again, nothing really unusual here.
 
Quote from: himsati;243515

So the USA is a young upstart, a rebel, an "indie" if you will (not trying to start that thread into here, just the statement seems to fit), so yes there are those Americans who take their national sense of pride to heights residents of other countries tend to think is more than a little nuts.  

 
American patriotism isn't really unusual either, for all the complaining people do about it. Lots of countries have patriotic populations, especially powerful ones. See the Chinese, the Russians... the French. When the British Empire was at its height, they believed they had the right to conquer the world and civilise it.

Quote from: himsati;243515

Personally, I'm an "American" and pretty darn proud of that.  I love the fact that the majority of my fellow citizens get the concept of seeing greatness in other places around the world and accepting that into our own unique culture.  I love the fact that my neighbor and I can have completely different worldviews and yet I'm not worried about him declaring war on me tomorrow or blowing up my house one day this week in the name of a belief that is simply different from mine.  I'm not especially proud of the fact that my country butts in everywhere it can, especially when it is asked not to do so (I get why we do it, I just don't think we go about it the best way possible perhaps, and we could use to be a little less "slick" in our approach).  I'm not thrilled that USA pride sometimes goes WAY overboard, or that we can't decide whether or not we like immigration and that we often forget that we all came from somewhere else, and that a piece of that exists within who we are even today.
 
So I'm as proud to be an American as I hope every Swedish, Dutch, British, German, French, Australian, Canadian, Turkish, New Zealander, Armenian, Columbian, Peruvian, Czech, Egyptian, Grecian, Haitian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Lebanese, Macedonian, Ethiopian, Estonian, Moroccan, Micronesian, Nigerian, Romanian, Swiss, Zambian and more (hope I spelled them all at least close to correct) are of their own countries.  We ain't no better, but we ain't no worse!


See, thats the thing - just about everything you've said in the above can be said about residents of every other country. There are patriotic people in just about every nation in the world. The main difference seems to be the (perceived) American assumption that they are 'different' (by which they mean superior) and unique, whereas many people look at America and see a society they do not want to copy. Americans are perceived as trying to lord their cultures over others, ignoring the many huge flaws in American society. It annoys people when Americans claim their way of doing things is superior, when they see so much in America that they don't like.
Title: American Exceptionalism
Post by: himsati on September 04, 2008, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: macd21;244110
True. Though there are plenty of other countries that are as young or younger and many (South America) mostly consist of immigrants. I'm also not sure what is so special about that?

I should have clarified in my original post, sorry. The USA is historically often referred to within and by other countries as a "melting" pot. Few countries have such a large and diverse range of interacting cultures, religions, ethnicities all under a single form of government and economic structure (for good or ill). Any one of the majority of the other 200+ countries, territories, etc. can geographically fit inside of one of the larger states (provinces) of the USA. It is a huge geographic area, with a hugely diverse population. There are other really large countries yes, and there are other very diverse countries, but how many are both and to such a large extent?
 
Quote from: macd21;244110
The main difference seems to be the (perceived) American assumption that they are 'different' (by which they mean superior) and unique, whereas many people look at America and see a society they do not want to copy. Americans are perceived as trying to lord their cultures over others, ignoring the many huge flaws in American society. It annoys people when Americans claim their way of doing things is superior, when they see so much in America that they don't like.

I sincerely doubt anyone (myself included) will argue those points there, but my post had nothing to do with "explaining" what exceptionalism from the USA was or defending the American attitude. It was just providing information for those from outside the USA that may not be familiar with some of those historical factors.
 
In reference to the other parts of your response; you are also correct, many countries have experienced (or still do) some of the various specific parts of my posting. But it is the unique way in which the USA experienced them together that I'm pointing towards as part of how the "USA" attitude got to where it is. Not defending it, and not saying no one else experienced any of it, not saying that other countries don't have many of the same bits and pieces of what I mentioned in their own ways.
 
Hope that helps clear up my intention a bit...