Americans are culturally inferior

[shonagon53]

A few posts ago, someone wrote here:


"Americans are genetically superior to all others

No other country has the same level of variety in its gene pool than America. Variety in the gene pool is important for increasing the odds of survival against genetic defect. Therefore, I assert that as a whole, Americans are genetically superior to all others."


This is a very interesting statement, which clearly comes from a genetically inferior being (;-). First of all, human beings are social beings, not merely biological. When you put them together in groups, a socius and a culture emerge which are seperate and powerful entities that are more than just the sum of its parts.

As we all know, both this socius and culture play a far more important role than genes when we're thinking on the scale of entire human populations.

Well, if we take that into account, the American Empire may soon face the same fate as all previous empires, because in reality it is not a genetically diverse population, but a genetically segregationist society (here, culture and ideology already limit genetic mixing). (The Roman Empire had a far more diverse population than contemporary America--both in biological and in social terms). The per capita number of mixed marriages and kids in the US is not that much higher than in other hybrid populations (like those of Brazil, South Africa, and Europe). So I don't take the statement all too serious.

But I want to elaborate on another point. It's obvious that in the end culture decides over the strength of a population. America's rise to power was mainly due to a 19th century ideology of Progress, Utilitarianism and Racism. Later on came Imperialism. These values brought wealth and prosperity to a totally racist society, with whites and blacks absolutely segregated. When Asian immigrants were imported to do dirty work we saw the same. America's multicultural society is a very recent phenomenon. And I'm not really sure if it is an interesting kind of multiculturalism, because it is so superficial. In fact, I consider the USA to be one of the most culturally homogeneous and least diverse societies on the planet. And this leads all kinds of weaknesses.
Elements of that homogeneous culture and that unitary ideology--which you have to take an oath on to call yourself "American"--directly lead to premature death (Americans rank rather low qua overall health compared to Europeans; their Stress Society produces all kinds of strange phenomena, like massive drug abuse, incredible obesity stats, etc...). Now, premature death on a social scale is not really a great sign of genetic power. So we see that the cultural sphere directly influences the biological sphere of individuals, when we're thinking on the scale of entire populations.

But the social and cultural sphere of course also create effects within their own spheres (and in the end, these come back to the biological sphere): problems arising from the American ideology may in the long run lead to the total destruction of that genetically diverse population.
Because, when an Empire maintains its 19th century ideology (of imperialism, superiority etc...) in the 21st century, cultural anachronisms grow, which can be lethal (that's a "lesson" we have learned from history). Take gobal inequalities: the USA is by far the biggest and most arrogant consumer of all kinds of resources on this planet, per capita. Since American kids in general are just ordinary kids (socially and culturally a bit less intelligent than other people on the planet, that has been well documented), "then why are they so well off?", many people ask. Well, this global feeling of injustice in turn may lead to anti-americanism on a planetary scale which may lead to conflict, which may lead to an even bigger Stress Society, leading to even more premature death ratios etc...
The question is: can America, being a wealthy society (but with enormous internal and external inequalities) technologically keep up with the growth of anti-Americanism?
I don't think so. If America choses to keep its paranoia (cultural weakness) as its basic societal metaphor, history may prove it to be an unviable project.


Therefor, I challenge the original poster to discuss the value of culture over genes.







[Excuse me for my bad English, my native language is that of the future, so for now, my apologies ;-) ].

[Phobos]

I am not defending that other topic, but I certainly object to your topic.


the USA is by far the biggest and most arrogant consumer of all kinds of resources on this planet, per capita.


I'll agree that the US is the biggest consumer, but how does one measure arrogance? That is your personal belief.

By the way, how does the US rate on the scale of efficient use of resources? Also, how much of the US's consumed resources are redistributed to other countries? How does the US's environmental laws/technologies/restorations compare to the rest of the world (not just Europe)?


Since American kids in general are just ordinary kids (socially and culturally a bit less intelligent than other people on the planet, that has been well documented),


Please provide such documentation. As far as I know, no one has been able to find any signficant differences in intelligence between the races, different countries, etc. Sure, one can measure differences in education, but not basic intelligence. Even with education, America ranks high among the countries of the world.


"then why are they so well off?", many people ask. Well, this global feeling of injustice in turn may lead to anti-americanism


So the problem is that Americans are doing well*? Is that wrong? Would it be ok for any other country to do as well? Is it wrong that other countries benefit from what you see as America's ill-begotten advances?

* I know...it's more than that. I suppose you think it's wrong because Americans are less intelligent, less healthy, more greedy, etc. I challange you to support any of those claims with anything other than personal feelings.


... enormous internal and external inequalities...


Do you think other countries are free of this?


I don't think so. If America choses to keep its paranoia (cultural weakness) as its basic societal metaphor, history may prove it to be an unviable project.


I don't see how paranoia is America's basic societal metaphor. Please explain.

[eNtRopY]

Your ideas are arrogant and ill-founded. You have obviously never been to America. You don't know what you are talking about. You make statements which are simply false.

"whites and blacks absolutely segregated"

America is far more culturally diverse than you realize, and we have far less racism and far less social hierarchy than any of the countries I have personally travelled to (which includes most of the Western European countries). I have seen this with my own eyes.

My statement which you have quoted has been taken out of context. As everyone else here realized, it was meant as an attention getter. The statement "genetically superior" obviously got your attention. However, if you weren't such a fvcking moron, you, unlike everyone else, would have realized that my main point was that America benefits from diversity more so than any other country. Diversity is good.

Now for your moronic challenge....

Here is the value of society with diverse culture.

Go to a university in any country other than America. Go to the physics department and ask the students there what their parents do for a living. I can guarentee that you will find that close to 100% of those students come from families with educated parents. Now ask those students how many of them had jobs when they went to high school and college. You will find that close to 0% of them ever worked a day in their life before they started doing physics research. You will also find that there seems to be an attitude of being "too smart to work" amongst most non-American college students world-wide.

Now go to America and ask the same questions. You will find that the cultural background of students in science and technology fields is far more diverse in America than anywhere else. You will also find that unlike college students in other countries, we can handle going to school and working to support ourselves. Our strong work ethic is what made us the empire that you fear.

Out of curiosity, tell us which country you are from, whether or not you are a student, how many jobs you have had in your life (list their titles), and where your money comes from. If you are a college student from Europe, India or China, I am willing to bet that you never worked a day in your pathetic life.

Then answer this question. How can any country whose educated and working classes are separated by arrogance and ignorance ever hope to function harmoniously?

eNtRopY

P.S. What is my background you ask?

My father is a laborer. I improved my own financial situation by going to college. I worked in a warehouse sorting bolts while attending high school. My freshman year of college, I worked in a grocery store. Other paid jobs I had while being an undergraduate include: electronics shop salesperson, laboratory technician, student researcher, and IC design intern. I was able to work and successfully go to school. I am now in graduate school, and I never recieved any financial help from anyone. This type of education is REAL. This is an American education.

[LURCH]

What is this doing in this forum? Is there any kind of actual science coming in this thread? Perhaps you have mistaken the Forum heading for, "Other Than Science"?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by LURCH
What is this doing in this forum? Is there any kind of actual science coming in this thread? Perhaps you have mistaken the Forum heading for, "Other Than Science"?


Yes. This should be moved to the political or philosophy forum.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Your ideas are arrogant and ill-founded. You have obviously never been to America...the rest

YUP! People sure get some funny ideas about this country.

[shonagon53]

HI there again!

Don't take this all too hard. ;-)

I'm just reading the statistics.

I thought sociology and schizoanalysis were sciences. But I may be wrong.

And of course I've visited the US. It was a fine trip. But touristic trips don't really teach you anything about a country as a whole. You have to study it another way.

That's all I'm doing.


I was basically saying that culture is in the end much more important when looking at the evolution of human life in its concrete manifestations in history, than biology. I tried to illustrate that with the example of America. That's all.

Thanks for your comments.

[Monique]

About racial segregation in the States: I live in Detroit and I am probably the only white person walking over to work. I don't know the stats, but it will be close to the following: 80% of the people living in poor conditions in downdown Detroit will be blacks and 80% of people living in the suburbs are whites (the remaining are of mainly of asian origin). Talk about racial segregation not existing in the States? I am sure the same is true for other big cities.

I also do believe that Americans are not very educated what goes on outside of their countries' borders. Which was painfully obvious during the Iraq war, where Americans around me did not have a formed opinion other than they were atacked during 9/11 and should do something back. And this is at a university mind you. The aliens were discussing political issues in US history, and the americans were looking at us not being able to join the discussion (which they actually admitted).

I have been in Michigan for almost 3 years and I have no clue what goes on besides the killings in Detroit.. political news is no news here. Unless the Major is accused of throwing some illegal party ofcourse :)

Anyway, I don't want to be too negative since the States has a lot to offer to ambitious people. Americans work very hard and are well known for studying for good grades, trying to get into good universities, having huge debts and thus having to work side jobs. In Europe people are very lasy (sp?) and the highest grade they want to get is the grade that makes them pass the course (usually 5.5 out of ten). Most of the big companies are founded in the States, people get a good salary, are able to afford big cars and houses. Every country has its good and bad sides, it is easy to pick on the negative side while being ignorant of the positive things so let's keep the discussion balanced.

*moves to political forum*

[Zero]

Jeez, thanks for dumping this one on me!

[Guybrush Threepwood]

need some statistics ho heat things up[?]
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873846.html
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/default.htm

[shonagon53]

The importance of culture over genes when talking about societies as a whole.
I want to talk about that.











[About the stats you gave, as you can see, Europeans, from the EU that is, on average live 2 years longer than Americans. It's highly significant, considering that per capita GDP in the US is a bit higher than that in Europe. When we take it that on average every 10 years, a western society's population grows 1 year older, we must conclude that Europe is 20 years ahead of the US....lol]

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
Jeez, thanks for dumping this one on me!

Sorry! [6)] I was thinking about moving it to the general discussion, but since you are also mentoring that one.. better keep it political right? [:D]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
Sorry! [6)] I was thinking about moving it to the general discussion, but since you are also mentoring that one.. better keep it political right? [:D] Unfortunately, yeah...:(

[GlamGein]

First , Europe has its share of "racial" segregation and prejudice. Just ask any Turk living in Germany.
Second, America has always been a multi-cultural society. When the first Europeans settled in America, many married Native women, thus making a multi-cultural society. The people in America today are products of multi-culturalism, so the idea that people are "racially segregated" is false.
America and Americans have a vast culture. Its just easy to point out the obvious consumer aspect of american society. But what is below that aspect? Is it that Americans love to shop and buy and sell? No! Its that powerful people, ie corporate execs, get more power (which is equated with more money in the U.S.) through selling junk, and buying people out, and exploiting others.

[Monique]

If the US wasn't racially segregated, why would the court decide in favour of a point system that positively discriminates minorities? ie the University of Michigan example.

You say that the US is multi-cultural, doesn't that imply per se that the country is segregated??

In the Netherlands too we have cultural segregation, mainly by turks and people from morocco.. if you go to Amsterdam or Rotterdam you will see that certain areas are populated >80% by people from those countries. But the case is different here since there is a lack of integration on their sides and probably also a reluctance of dutch society to take them up.. I forgot: what were we discussing again?

[GlamGein]

I dont think you understand my point. And you mean affirmative action: Well, affirmative action has been decided in FAVOR of minorities, not only racial, but gender minorities, meaning women. Yes, racism and sexism abound, leading to these groups having a difficult time gaining upward social mobility. But that has nothing to do with racial segregation nor a lack of American culture.
"Race" is a fluid idea. The Irish in the 19th Century were considered black in many parts of the U.S.
The U.S. was built upon people from different cultures coming together. These people lived together, worked together. These people didn't lose their individual cultures, but they didn't stay segregated. If so, wouldn't african slaves have retained west african culture? Most times, their was not quite a blending, but a modifying of cultural beliefs and behaviors that synthesized new cultural forms. Example: Southern Black culture: Based on African and European. Cajun: based on French, Indian, African.
Your thinking is segregated if you want to lump African-Americans together, and "White"-Americans together. Economic segregation is what you are talking about, with the blacks living one place, and the whites in the suburbs. I do agree that racism abounds, but I will not give in to the idea that America forces blacks to one place, and forces whites to another, to any degree worse than Europe does with it's races.

[Shadow]

Okay, well this will be difficult so I will go through the thread over several posts. But first I'd like to say this: Shonagon, how would you like it if I made a topic saying flat out that your country is culturaly inferior? No, you wouldn't you'd be angry at me. And you would go crazy trying to prove us wrong. I hope you don't think that you can come into the Political Forum with a stron anti-american sentiment. Well here I go.

Americans are genetically superior to all others No other country has the same level of variety in its gene pool than America. Variety in the gene pool is important for increasing the odds of survival against genetic defect. Therefore, I assert that as a whole, Americans are genetically superior to all others

Yes that IS wrong, I do not know who posted that but, if that was a reason for posting this thread, it was a bad one. That is only what one person believes and I think all the other Americans here know and believe we aren't genetically superior to "all others" as you said. That means little. If you marry your cousin yeah there'll be a defect so the answer is: DONT marry your cousin. That does not call for the need of a large variety of people... unlesss your really picky [;)]




Well, if we take that into account, the American Empire may soon face the same fate as all previous empires, because in reality it is not a genetically diverse population, but a genetically segregationist society (here, culture and ideology already limit genetic mixing). (The Roman Empire had a far more diverse population than contemporary America--both in biological and in social terms). The per capita number of mixed marriages and kids in the US is not that much higher than in other hybrid populations (like those of Brazil, South Africa, and Europe). So I don't take the statement all too serious.

Really? we're an empire?! I've been waiting for this since star wars came out! [;)]

Sorry had to do that. Well here is the definition of Empire:

Noun
1. a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. b. The territory included in such a unit. 2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire. 3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the . . . Asians" (James Traub).
Etymology
Middle English, from Old French, from Latin imperium, from imper*re, to command ; see emperor.
Adjective
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a neoclassic style, as in clothing or the decorative arts, prevalent in France during the first part of the 19th century.


The United States does not rule over or dictate other countries. We did have Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is part of the United States, not a state but there has been debate about it for quite some time. Cuba is its own nation as are the Philippines. Yes we own some territories, but we dont dictate them, as some countries do or did do (WWII hitler, you know everything but just to refresh your memory) Japan was an empire, they took over Asian territories in WWII. Germany was an empire, it took over territories and countries in WWII. The United States does not. If you are talking business yes. You mention the Holy Roman Empire. Yes they were advanced for their time but look at the people that ruled. Julius Caesar... stabbed to death by senators. Alexander the Great was Great he took over a lot of land in Europe and Asia but then he kicked the bucket at an early age. They were the two of the greatest leaders of the empire and both died, although one was assasinated and one died in a more peaceful way, they could have led to the downfall. Could you imagine if Alexander the Great had actually lived another 20 or so years? I doubt they could have been stopped. And if you did research and knwo your history, then you would know that the Romans were extremely smart and they would have found a way to handle a large empire.




About racial segregation in the States: I live in Detroit and I am probably the only white person walking over to work. I don't know the stats, but it will be close to the following: 80% of the people living in poor conditions in downdown Detroit will be blacks and 80% of people living in the suburbs are whites (the remaining are of mainly of asian origin). Talk about racial segregation not existing in the States? I am sure the same is true for other big cities.


Racial Segregation doesn't exist in the US. Monigue I know you are not native to the US but do you know about the Civil Rights Movement? Did you study it? If you did, you would know segregation. Segregation is when you weren't allowed to go to the same schools as whites, when you weren't allowed in the front of the bus unless you were white, when you had to go to different drinking fountains if you weren't white. That is segregation. You say segregation is that 80% of people living in poor conditions are African American, well that could be because they dont have as good an education because let's face it, some of those people are in their 60's during the civil rights movement so theyd didnt get good schooling. Others are their children, who in turn didnt get good schooling because their parents couldnt afford it or they were born during the civil rights movement. It could be never ending, that is why people must work hard to get a good education for their children. If they dont, their children could live in poverty and their grandchildren... I think the government should help these people, with better schooling programs, money loans, etc. Another reason is, without the money, you cant go to college, so many African Americans that are in poverty cant go because they cant afford it. Without goign to college, you cant get a good job and therefore, your kids will have to be the same way. So don't go saying there is segregation in the US, because I'm sure it could be argued the same way in many countries that have racial differences.

I also do believe that Americans are not very educated what goes on outside of their countries' borders. Which was painfully obvious during the Iraq war, where Americans around me did not have a formed opinion other than they were atacked during 9/11 and should do something back. And this is at a university mind you. The aliens were discussing political issues in US history, and the americans were looking at us not being able to join the discussion (which they actually admitted).

Yes, it was on the news where I live that some college students protesting the war had thought it started before it was even sure we were going to war. Some thought that the war the were protesting was in Afghanistan...which was over. It is sad but you have to remember that they are in college and although they definetly should know more about whats going on, they are still young and they also probably dont watch the news, with homework and those college parties going on. Plus, you have to consider what they are majoring in AND you have to consider that you and the other "aliens" as you put it, are from outside the US therefore you WOULD know more on matters outside the US.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Shadow
Racial Segregation doesn't exist in the US. Monigue I know you are not native to the US but do you know about the Civil Rights Movement? Did you study it? If you did, you would know segregation. Segregation is when you weren't allowed to go to the same schools as whites, when you weren't allowed in the front of the bus unless you were white, when you had to go to different drinking fountains if you weren't white. That is segregation.

Well, maybe I used the wrong word. I meant that there is a social economic difference between the white and black community in general. Not all are equal in their position although I am sure everyone wishes they were.

Plus, you have to consider what they are majoring in AND you have to consider that you and the other "aliens" as you put it, are from outside the US therefore you WOULD know more on matters outside the US.

That is why I say that we aliens (which is an official word btw for non-immigrants) knew more about the political history of the events leading up to that war and related american political issues than the americans did.

And I agree that stating that a culture is inferior or superior to others is a bold thing to say and can only lead to hate feelings towards eachother. My opinion is that you can point out differences in order to raise awareness, but generalizing an observation can be risky..

[Shadow]

That is why I say that we aliens (which is an official word btw for non-immigrants) knew more about the political history of the events leading up to that war and related american political issues than the americans did.

Yeah sorry I should have said this but, I know alien is an official word I just prefer not to use it because it seems kinda... I dont know inappropriate, after all, we are all human [;)]


Well, maybe I used the wrong word. I meant that there is a social economic difference between the white and black community in general. Not all are equal in their position although I am sure everyone wishes they were.

*holds up a glass* Cheers.

[PeteGt]

Alright, Pete's turn.

I live in Hagerstown, MD, USA. It is not an big urban area and includes many different farms, businesses, low income, high income, and even many different races.

With this said, let me evaluate what we have seen here

I also do believe that Americans are not very educated what goes on outside of their countries' borders. Which was painfully obvious during the Iraq war, where Americans around me did not have a formed opinion other than they were atacked during 9/11 and should do something back. And this is at a university mind you. The aliens were discussing political issues in US history, and the americans were looking at us not being able to join the discussion (which they actually admitted).

Well, I also have no statistics. Though, I have about 8 different friends from all different walks of life. 3 are a college B.S. graduates, and the 5 others are only H.S. grads. I have had many discussions with every single one of these people about the war in Iraq, and they both felt that it was a good idea because of issues with Saddam and the way the humanitarian issues were being handled in Iraq. Also, we discussed many different ways our "war-like" history (as some would characterize it) can be attributed to this recent involvement. Thus, with my "small" statistical group shows that you are more than likely wrong. I do agree with this, people in the U.S. are not generally uneducated.

About the stats you gave, as you can see, Europeans, from the EU that is, on average live 2 years longer than Americans

I find this to be wrong. Average European Male age (as calculated by my TI-85): 73.8. Average U.S. Male age: 72.9.

We see here only a .9 year difference in male age.

Females in Europe: 80.3 Females in U.S.A.: 83.3

Interesting results, we have a 3 year difference in favor of U.S. females. Quite a reverse of your comment. While males are only .9 years different, I would like to see the standard deviation because i'm sure these two numbers could be statisically proven to be the same.

When we take it that on average every 10 years, a western society's population grows 1 year older, we must conclude that Europe is 20 years ahead of the US

Where did we get this from? This makes no sense to me. I usually don't ask for support for much. Though, I do find this doubtful, especially with my calculations.

If the US wasn't racially segregated, why would the court decide in favour of a point system that positively discriminates minorities? ie the University of Michigan example.

The Supreme court did not say it was okay to use "points" they did say it is okay to consider it when admitting.

You say that the US is multi-cultural, doesn't that imply per se that the country is segregated??

Just because someone says we are multi-cultural doesn't mean we are segregated. Why would it mean this? Being Multi-Cultural doesn't mean we are colorblind. Having different cultures should be celebrated. Not having them (i.e. saying we are not multi-cultural) we have become colorblind and not mindful to where we all came from.

In Hagerstown, we have a bunch of people. There is a one main Section 8 housing facility on the west end of town. This place is filled with many blacks, but also a good number of whites. I do not want to speculate the percentages because I do not like speculation without any facts.

I open up my paper everyday and have not seen any suits, hate crimes, or any racially driven malichiousness(lol, is this a word?). We all live peacful here.

I am an educated person. I am currently a student at Hood College in Frederick Maryland. I am a Senior with a major in Physics and Chemistry. I will be going to graduate school next year. I come from a middle income family who makes ends meet with a little bit extra. I put myself through college with my loans. I work two jobs right now, a Home Medical Equipment Technician, and a Laboratory Research Chemist at Hood.

Thank you,

Pete

[Phobos]

Originally posted by shonagon53
I was basically saying that culture is in the end much more important when looking at the evolution of human life in its concrete manifestations in history, than biology. I tried to illustrate that with the example of America. That's all.


I agree that culture/technology/etc. is certainly more of a significant factor for changes seen in recorded history. For more geologic (evolutionary) timescales, human culture is still pretty new (but causing a big impact to all the species of the world in a short timeframe).

[Monique]

Originally posted by Phobos
I agree that culture/technology/etc. is certainly more of a significant factor for changes seen in recorded history. For more geologic (evolutionary) timescales, human culture is still pretty new (but causing a big impact to all the species of the world in a short timeframe).

Well said.

Thus, with my "small" statistical group shows that you are more than likely wrong.

How can you have a significant difference between two small samples? I say one thing with my small sample and you say another thing with your small sample, neither one of us is more right or wrong than the other :)

And if one is multi-cultural, it implies one is made up by many cultures, one can only have many cultures if there are boundaries making them different, that is what I meant with segregation. Apparently the word is very sensitive, which is understandable.

[PeteGt]

[:)]

How can you have a significant difference between two small samples? I say one thing with my small sample and you say another thing with your small sample, neither one of us is more right or wrong than the other :)

My point. [:)]

And if one is multi-cultural, it implies one is made up by many cultures, one can only have many cultures if there are boundaries making them different, that is what I meant with segregation.

One=U.S.

The U.S. is quite multi-cultural.

I would not say boundries. A better way to say this is that there are just many different people.

Just because you are different doesn't mean people are segregated from each other. We can be totally different, but still work, play, and communicate all within the same place and with each other. In fact, I have friends like this. :-)

Look at this NY Times article if you want to talk about people who don't want to become multi-cultural.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/international/asia/24JAPA.html


Thanks.

Pete

p.s.-i like this civilized discussion. Hard to find these days.

[Monique]

I don't think that the article demonstrates a nation that doesn't want to become multi-cultural per se, since that immigrant family completely adopted the Japanese culture and was rejected by society. It is more a far-fatched nationalism.

I think it is very important to conserve the cultures and traditions of countries, and I strongly believe that an immigrant should completely integrate. That doesn't mean that immigration is bad.

In the US we have a different issue, since the native culture doesn't exist anymore due to the HUGE influx of other cultures. So yes, there is no culture in the States, it is multicultural. This corner of the street will be Polish, over there we have a Russian store, in Texas there is a Dutch store, there are Arabic communities, African communities, Bulgarian etc. The most beautifull thing I experienced in the US is the multitude of cultures all around me at the University..

I've directly worked with people from: Finland, Japan, China, Taiwan, South Africa, India, Bangladesh, Australia, Germany, Canada, Croatia, Bulgaria, Zimbabwe, Brasil, Iran, Romenia, south Korea. And I've met people from France, Belgium, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, England, Spain, Italy, Mauritius, Lithuania, Sweden. Talk about multi-cultural! But these are all non-immigrant aliens though..

[PeteGt]

I think it is very important to conserve the cultures and traditions of countries, and I strongly believe that an immigrant should completely integrate. That doesn't mean that immigration is bad.

This is where our ideals differ greatly.

So yes, there is no culture in the States, it is multicultural.

We are multi-cultural, yet we have no culture? This is an oxymoron.

I think that maybe the bigger picture needs to be looked at. Our huge diversity brings upon our own culture together. Formed of all little cultures we have our own. Kind of like bringing different reagents into a reaction to form one compound.

Though you might look at that and say, well then you're not multi-cultural, our individual compenents make us multi. No matter what. And they also bring us to be a culture amongst ourselves. A paradox if you will, but the truth.

Pete

[Monique]

Originally posted by PeteGt
This is where our ideals differ greatly.

I think that cultures and traditions are very important to hold on to. If I were to choose to move to Italy, I'd respect their culture and adjust myself to it, otherwise I wouldn't move. Those feelings also originate from the situation where there are a lot of Muslims in the Netherlands who have a very hard time integrating and are thus outsiders. You'd have to learn the countries' customs and especially language in order to survive. I like to see a multicultural world where you can feel Italian when you are in Italy, feel French when you are in France. As long as everybody is respected.


We are multi-cultural, yet we have no culture? This is an oxymoron.

I think that maybe the bigger picture needs to be looked at. Our huge diversity brings upon our own culture together. Formed of all little cultures we have our own. Kind of like bringing different reagents into a reaction to form one compound.

Though you might look at that and say, well then you're not multi-cultural, our individual compenents make us multi. No matter what. And they also bring us to be a culture amongst ourselves. A paradox if you will, but the truth.

Pete

You are right. And in this world it gets harder everyday to define a countries' culture due to a world market. The US definately has a culture because of it's multicultureness :) but it lacks the history of tradition and customs that I feel comfortable with. Here the suburbs were created in the 70s and 80s, which makes me feel that there is no culture since everything is so new and not settled down. I love to stroll down streets and see the architecture and feel the life which the city has lived..

[PeteGt]

Come to hagerstown. We have much history and can feel how we all live. Plus there are good National history venues around. E.g. Antietam battlefield.

pete

[Kerrie]

yea, we americans are the spoiled brats - to a degree, but as Monique truthfully stated, americans do work hard - and our borders are open to others who desire the opportunity to exercise free speech and a chance to work for themselves...i have had two different relatives immigrate from europe to america, and have led successful and happy lives...

as far as our inferior culture, we are only a little over 200 years old[6)]

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Kerrie
our borders are open to others who desire the opportunity to exercise free speech and a chance to work for themselves...

It is within these freedoms that the chief cause of American "segregation" may lie. Although it is true that enforced segregation has been outlawed in the United States, the freedom of the individual to self-determination remains very important. Therefore, if a white supremacist, or a Black Panther, or Muslim extremist is unwilling to interact with members of other races or beliefs, they will not be forced to do so. If a person from a different culture finds the adaptation to America's "melting pot" culture to difficult or undesirable, they also will not be forced.

Groups of such people may form their own communities, so that they may have others "of their own sort" with whom to interact. The formation of such communities could be said to constitute a sort of self-imposed segregation. Though the practice is seen as quite distasteful by most Americans, the only way to eradicate it completely would be the removal of individuals' personal freedoms.

I find it quite ironic that our culture of tolerance has put us in this position. Now, if we wish to live up to our own ideals, we must be tolerant of intolerance![8)]

[Zero]

The problem with American culture is that it is seemingly dumbed down rehash of 'real' culture.

[zoobyshoe]

If we stick exclusively to the
issue of culture and exercise
control in avoiding the temptation
of closely related subjects (which
not even the originator of this
thread was able to do), I would
have to report that I have found
many other cultures to be more
appealing than my own.

To refer to any culture as super-
ior or inferior to another is a
blanket statement so large, thick
and heavy that anyone who crawls
under it to sleep will end up
in discomfort.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Monique
Well, maybe I used the wrong word. Clarification for you and Shadow. There are two kinds of segregation:

De Jure (by law or enforced) segregation is what Shadow is describing. Laws that mandated segregation of the races. This is usually what is meant when it is just referred to as "segregation."

De Facto (in fact) segregation is what exists in some places now. This is segregation that happens on its own such as between inner cities and suburbs (Detroit was cited). No one is FORCING the races apart in this case. There are a variety of reasons for it. Someone mentioned socioeconomic status. Another reason is simple personal cultural preference. In any case, this is often cited (largely by those with a political adjenda) as being related to De Jure segregation, but it isn't. In fact, depending on the context, there is often nothing at all even wrong with it.

As for the topic of this thread... [zz)]

[Dissident Dan]

Why is this thread still going on?

[zoobyshoe]

I know what you mean. I just had
an ominous sounding metaphor and
needed someplace to dump it.

-Zoob

[teddy]

To refer to any culture as super-
ior or inferior to another is a
blanket statement so large, thick
and heavy that anyone who crawls
under it to sleep will end up
in discomfort

---- zoobyshoe

(On "are Americans are culturally inferior?" )
21st century
physics forums

Great quote Keep it up [6)] [;)] [:)]

As far as the validity of the above statement is concerned I agree with most of it.I feel that even the definition of culture is culture-dependent e.g. in western countries the work-ethic and the efficiency is simply uncomparable to most of Asian/African countries ( as EnTrOpY put it) so they see it as the most important constituent of any culture (may be rightly so,but it is always debatable).
On the other hand Asian countries boast of their conservativeness(this includes things related to restrain on things like promiscuity ,infidelty etc considered 'bad' there),more amiable and humble nature of their people.They see these as the major constituents of any culture, again debatable.

[zoobyshoe]

Yeeaaah...But I just had an
ominous sounding metaphor and
needed someplace to dump it.

[Shadow]

This thread died rather quickly...

[shonagon53]

[Someone said the notion of culture itself is culturally embedded]. When I was young, I was a cultural relativist too.
I thought the notion of culture itself was very western, and even bourgeois.
But with getting older, you come to appreciate the value of seemingly superficial things like polls and social statistics. They easily point to crosscultural and universal social thoughts and practises, they go beyond relativism, even if they only seem to scratch the surface of peoples thoughts. (I no longer believe in concepts of "deep culture").

In this context, it may be interesting to discuss the now infamous global poll which asked all kinds of questions on the theme "what the world thinks of America".
The results were incredible, to say the least ("South Koreans see the USA as their biggest threat, not North Korea", etc...pretty amazing).

I think these kinds of polls point to a general discomfort with America, which can eventually ruin its status and its might.

That's actually everything I was referring to. Culture may ruin you, in the long run.

I only used the crude statement "Americans are culturally inferior" in response to another poster who said "Americans are genetically superior". If you take it out of its context, it's a pretty lame line.

Anyway, I'm glad this thread didn't bring anything new, and that we all agree on the basic idea that America is an aggressive culture and that it should no longer get away with colonizing countries just like that. Colonizing in the deep sense of the word: forcing others to live like yourself.

The world no longer accepts this. And this is a major shift. It's now the US's turn to adapt to the world, no longer the other way round.

Thanks for the interesting comments!

[Shadow]

In this context, it may be interesting to discuss the global poll which asked all kinds of questions on the theme "what the world thinks of America".
The results were incredible, to say the least ("South Koreans see the USA as their biggest threat, not North Korea", etc...pretty amazing).


Show me this poll.

I only used the crude statement "Americans are culturally inferior" in response to another poster who said "Americans are genetically superior". If you take it out of its context, it's a pretty lame line.

If you want to go against what one person said, do not (I say this with the lack of a better word) punish other posters by insulting the many Americans on the board. Send the person that posted that statement a PM.


Anyway, I'm glad this thread didn't bring anything new, and that we all agree on the basic idea that America is an aggressive culture and that it should no longer get away with colonizing countries just like that. Colonizing in the deep sense of the word: forcing others to live like yourself.

Where did you even get that impression? we dont agree that we are an agressive culture. And I can promise you that the average American would not walk into a place in your country and begin shooting his/her mouth off saying that your country was culturally inferior and that your culture is aggressive. We dont force other to live like us. Where did you get that idea? Pay a visit to Afghanistan I can assure you they aren't upset about being free. I can't see where you get the idea we are forcing them to do anything. We pushed out the Taliban and Al Queda. We aren't dictating them.

[shonagon53]

I'm surprised you haven't seen or read or watched the poll.
Strange. Many Americans haven't.

Here's the link.
(You can watch the video, it's been aired in over 41 languages all over the world, perhaps not in the USA itself, I'm not sure).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwta/default.stm



Please, before anyone starts critizing the BBC--the poll was taken by 11 broadcasting corporations of 11 different countries and all with different political affiliations.

[shonagon53]

The poll is interesting because it included a "hidden" meta-poll. This meta-poll shows that Americans have a totally "wrong" image of what the world thinks about them. All other nations have a "right" image of what they think others think about themselves AND about America.
Americans basically think that the entire world loves them, while the entire world knows that they fool themselves by thinking that. Americans are not aware of this.
To me, this is highly significant, and a very imporatant cultural fact: a culture that doesn't stand in an open relationship with others is a threat to itself.

[Shadow]

Hahaha yeah...you are right and all americans are wrong. Tell me Shonagon what country are you from?

[shonagon53]

hey, it's not me saying this. the poll is suggesting this. you may just as well take a look at it. you can easily find the meta-poll on the page of the poll-results.


I'm from Denmark, EU.

Nice to meet you.


Which state are you from?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by shonagon53
The results were incredible, to say the least ("South Koreans see the USA as their biggest threat, not North Korea", etc...pretty amazing). Judging by the bad grammar, I'd say thats not a direct quote even though you put it in quotes. Looking at the link you posted, I don't see anything that even suggests that. Could you be more specific with your citation?The poll is interesting because it included a "hidden" meta-poll. This meta-poll shows that Americans have a totally "wrong" image of what the world thinks about them. All other nations have a "right" image of what they think others think about themselves AND about America. Thats hilarious. I repeat Shadow's objection: Show me this poll. Cite it more specifically.

THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm) story is actually self contradictory. The title says "Poll Suggests World Hostile to US" but if you scroll to the bottom you see "Attitudes towards America as a whole, however, were a lot more favourable, with 50% expressing fairly or very favourable views, as opposed to 40% of unfavourable views."

Oops.

[shonagon53]

Why can't you just visit the page? It's all there. I don't have to cite all the results in here, do I?


And about my bad grammar, I have already apologized for not speaking English that well. It's not my native language. I hope you don't judge the content of the debate on that.


The results of the poll are clear. In the section about military threats, you'll find the result that says that most non-Anglosaxon nations see America as a bigger threat to peace than North Korea.

Just check the results, please. Then we have some basis for a conversation.

[shonagon53]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Judging by the bad grammar, I'd say thats not a direct quote even though you put it in quotes. Looking at the link you posted, I don't see anything that even suggests that. Could you be more specific with your citation? Thats hilarious. I repeat Shadow's objection: Show me this poll. Cite it more specifically.

THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm) story is actually self contradictory. The title says "Poll Suggests World Hostile to US" but if you scroll to the bottom you see "Attitudes towards America as a whole, however, were a lot more favourable, with 50% expressing fairly or very favourable views, as opposed to 40% of unfavourable views."

Oops.


You find the results of the poll on the middle of the page. As you can see, the poll asked about many different things (going from cultural production to economics to military threats). You just cited a detail.


What's more, the poll shows an incredible alliance between Israel and the US. If one would leave Israel out, the results would be even worse. (Israelis are more in favor of American foreign policy than Americans themselves).

[kat]

Originally posted by shonagon53
Why can't you just visit the page? It's all there. I don't have to cite all the results in here, do I?


And about my bad grammar, I have already apologized for not speaking English that well. It's not my native language. I hope you don't judge the content of the debate on that.


The results of the poll are clear. In the section about military threats, you'll find the result that says that most non-Anglosaxon nations see America as a bigger threat to peace than North Korea.

Just check the results, please. Then we have some basis for a conversation.

Hello Shonagon53,
I think Russ was objecting to your use of quotation marks around your own statements as opposed to disparaging your grammer (at least I hope that is the case)

I also think it is not correct to state that the poll shows "that most non-Anglosaxon nations" as this poll is limited to only a handful of countries. A more truthful statement would be "of the non-Anglo-saxon nations polled, most.."

The poll is enlightening, and shows just how poor of a job our media and PR departments are doing in portraying Americans as they really are in many of the areas polled. Jordan and Korea seem to be particularly confused on several issues, Korea appears (if I'm reading correctly) to be supporting the statement that U.S. presence in that area of the country increases peace and stability and yet also claims U.S. is more dangerous...

As I had mentioned in another thread I spent a week with a group of South African teens and adults in a cultural exchange retreat, Sort of a mini Seeds-of-Peace and it was enlightening to hear some of the statements of the South African's in regards to misconceptions they had prior to coming here and getting to know a few dozen of us. It was also interesting that much of the misconceptions were due to media portrayal and that through the media we were viewed as selfish, self occupied, rich and spoiled etc, yet in interviews with reporters there were many statements similar to this:

"the camp opened her eyes to many things, especially the wrong image of Americans she had from the media. She thought everyone here would be greedy, out to get whatever they can, and were bullies.

"My concept of Americans has been revolutionized and has changed 100 percent," she said. "The people here want to give you as much as they can."

[Shadow]

And about my bad grammar, I have already apologized for not speaking English that well. It's not my native language. I hope you don't judge the content of the debate on that.

Yeah you did apologize about not speaking English the point is though, that you put that line in quotes, and it's obvious to me now (I didn't catch it before) that either the article about South Korea says nothing like that and you made that up yourself, OR that those were your opinions.

[Shadow]

I'd also like to ask Shonagonif he knew anything about the countries in that poll. Canada, although we still have a military alliance has been "upset" with us for some time about the friendly fire incidents. France is quite self explanatory. I mean, do you think people, that are led by a president that was caught giving taped conversations to Saddam, would actually like us? I'd like to see the results France got in the Normandy area, they have sense because thhey know that US troops died there. Many of our soldiers have graves there. At least they didn't forget how many of our soldiers died liberating their country.

Brazil and the US haven't been getting along for a while, so it seems that the BBC clearly wanted the majority of countries in teh poll to dislike the US. Jordan, although our ally, MANY people there do not like us because of Afghanistan and Iraq. You can even look at some posts Zargawee made a few months ago. He lives in Jordan and knows all about it. That's 4 out of 11 countries right there, I would post more but I have a busy schedule for this part of the day and I'm afraid someone else will have to post.

[shonagon53]

First, about the quotes, I think that's a detail, right? I mean the poll suggests that a majority of South Koreans see America as a bigger threat than North Korea. [Actually, more Koreans see America as the bigger threat than North Korea; not the majority but more]. Wether I put this in quotations or not, doesn't change the fact.

Ok, so that's really a detail.

About France, I can tell you quite a lot about the country. I have lived there on and off for about half my life (I'm half french).
I think the current Europe-wide (and global) anti-Americanism is not best represented by France.

France's frustration is mainly due to its past of being an Empire that's no longer there. As we all know, there's a huge number of French speaking countries around, and they're silently being Americanized. La Francofonie can't stand that really.

Also, the French have always had a difficult relation with the US, mainly because the USA didn't recognize De Gaulles efforts in the Second World war.

One thing I "advise" Anglosaxon people not to try with continental Europeans, is tell them that they were liberated only by Anglosaxons (like "if it weren't for us, you'd be speaking German", etc...). That works out very wrong. Because all they do in such a case, is point out the far greater efforts of the Russians and the Red Army.

There's even a trend nowadays in Europe, to "revise" the history of WWII in favor of the Russians. It has long been a taboo. But in retrospect, it is clear that the Russian effort was just as crucial for the liberation of Europe, than the UK-US effort. Maybe even more important.

So this all adds up. Add an arrogant man like Rumsfeld, who talks about "Old Europe", and people get angry. I mean, certainly if this comes from a man who's a simple liar and a criminal (who put Saddam in power in the first place).

But then, everybody has his own explanation for the now global wave of anti-Americanism. I tend to favor those analysts who say that anti-Americanism is the new superpower.
[PLease check the ongoing homepage with many professional analyses on Anti-Americanism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2368165.stm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2596123.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2544599.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2552875.stm


I think that's sad and that something has to be done in order to counter it. But I think it is already too late.

Anti-Americanism has never been so strong and so global. It is dangerous.



There's no region on the planet I can imagine which is favorable to the US right now (except for obvious colonies like Israel or Australia, and even Australia isn't that favorable).


Anyway, we see all kinds of new dynamics speed up. The French have increased their efforts to build a strong Europe, together with Germany, and all signs are there: it's going very very well. The EU is now more powerful than ever before. When Russia joins in 2010, the EU will be a superpower (not in the classic sense, but in the contemporary sense of the term).

I think this is for the better. It's good for the USA not to be the sole superpower, because it will ruin them in the long run.


So, long live a strong EU and a more humble USA!


[sorry, this post is a bit fuzzy, but there's so much to talk about on this topic].

[shonagon53]

Shadow?

I think it is no use to sum up all countries who have some "bad affair" with the US for some particular reason. I mean, virtually ALL countries on the planet have bad experiences with the US.

The poll is very representative.

[Shadow]

Shonogon, under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, you have freedom of speech and although you are not American, I am and I am going to act it. Think what you like, post what you like, because it is your right.

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by LURCH
It is within these freedoms that the chief cause of American "segregation" may lie. Although it is true that enforced segregation has been outlawed in the United States, the freedom of the individual to self-determination remains very important. Therefore, if a white supremacist, or a Black Panther, or Muslim extremist is unwilling to interact with members of other races or beliefs, they will not be forced to do so. If a person from a different culture finds the adaptation to America's "melting pot" culture to difficult or undesirable, they also will not be forced.

Groups of such people may form their own communities, so that they may have others "of their own sort" with whom to interact. The formation of such communities could be said to constitute a sort of self-imposed segregation. Though the practice is seen as quite distasteful by most Americans, the only way to eradicate it completely would be the removal of individuals' personal freedoms.

I find it quite ironic that our culture of tolerance has put us in this position. Now, if we wish to live up to our own ideals, we must be tolerant of intolerance![8)]

i agree with what you are stating here as a consequence of our freedoms of speech, ability to better yourself without the limitations of a caste system, freedom to choose a religion (or not), and even the opportunity to challenge the justice system...no society or culture will be perfect, however what America does strive for is liberty and justice for all...

[shonagon53]

Originally posted by Shadow
Shonogon, under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, you have freedom of speech and although you are not American, I am and I am going to act it. Think what you like, post what you like, because it is your right.


Sorry, I prefer my own constitution, which guarantees more freedoms than yours. You have Patriot Act I and II, which are really fascist Patriottismus Akten. Your freedom is very much limited.
Although you are not European, I am and I am going to act like it. Think what you like, post what you like, because it is your right.

lol

[Shadow]

Sorry, I prefer my own constitution, which guarantees more freedoms than yours. You have Patriot Act I and II, which are really fascist Patriottismus Akten. Your freedom is very much limited.

Yes snobby stuck up Europeans indeed windy. Shonogon I highly doubt that you have even read our constitution.

[Shadow]

OH and by the way shonogon your dead wrong. And you are a liar. Not every country has had bad experiences with the US so I don't know what your talking about. ANd that "russoa played a more important role in WWII" is a bunch of crap. Trying to save ungrateful france and people like you. bah humbug.

About France, I can tell you quite a lot about the country. I have lived there on and off for about half my life (I'm half french).

Whoopi your half french. I'm 25% french, one of my parents is 50% and one of their parents is 100%. Big whoop. I don't think it is anything to be proiud of. Ashamed of is more like it. How can anyone take pride in how France has behaved. Normandy is the only place that has some sense. And they don't believe the french presidents anti american lies.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Windy
And should I even bother to mention that the US is inherently superior to Europe because it was built on a foundation of equality and democracy? WE didn't have crutches like the feudal system. LOL you Europeans are a joke. You're weak, you're poor, you're flawed, and you feel good about your "culture".

HA HA HA ROFLMFAO

This is starting to turn into a very childish 'I am better than you, no I am, no I am, no I am, you are stupid, no you are, no you are' etc discussion.

As was said before, no-one is better than another but there certainly are differences between countries in the way they handle things. The Americans think the Europeans are snobby, the Europeans think the Americans are arrogant.. that is not exactly how a world-economy is run right?

Bold statements like that are not going to enlighten anyone. True, the image of the US is damaged right now, but you have the choice of voting for a government that will take action and either improve the relation with the US or will become independent of the US.

And Windy, just to enlighten you about the politics in Europe: allmost (if not all?) countries have a political system based on democracy and where I come from certainly on equality and freedom of speech, even more so than I have seen in the States (the number of strikes and demonstrations that go on in the Netherlands is quite high).

The dutch economy was actually a feature item in the Economist last year (you know, that American journal) where they celebrated the Dutch 'polder economy' and how it was the model for other countries to adapt.. the article was about 16 pages long.. Ofcourse, we all know that the government painfully but courtseously resigned over a political issue regarding a military action that happened a few years earlier in Srebrenica, which sent the economy in a downward spiral. Politics is fluids, it's dynamical. Sometimes times things are good, sometimes they go bad, the same is happening everywhere and anywhere.

So don't say we are weak, poor, flawed, if you don't actually give an argument supporting those statements, discussions are made with arguments not statements.

[Monique]

btw, let me just say that there are so many strikes and demonstrations in the Netherlands not because we live and work in poor conditions, but it is inheritantly dutch to complain about our welfare and we like to take things in our own hand to get attention :)

We actually take pride in that and it is a well published fact too :p If you wonder where, there is a book called the Undutchables, written by non-dutch outsiders, so I guess it is an independent observation.

Anyway, that just on the side.

[Monique]

From the Economist::


A place in the world
Who would argue with the Dutch?
(From The Economist print edition) May 4th 2002

The rule of common sense
From public services to social policies, the Dutch are consummate pragmatists
(From The Economist print edition) May 4th 2002

A fine place to be
Dutch business is outward-looking and open to new ideas. But further liberalisation would help
(From The Economist print edition) May 4th 2002

Model makers
For two decades, the Netherlands' “polder model” seemed to be working miracles. Now the shine has worn off. But the Dutch still have plenty going for them, argues John Peet
(From The Economist print edition) May 4th 2002

Small but perfectly formed
There are more countries in the world than there ever have been before. So is it better nowadays to be a small nation than a big one?
(From The Economist print edition) Jan 3rd 1998

*Snobbishly puts the nose in the air and awaitens to catch high winds*
[:))] [:D] [8)] [o)] [s(] [t)] [6)]

[BoulderHead]

Americans are culturally inferior
I don’t think in terms of one culture being better than another. Different groups of people find different ways to exist together and develop according to their own unique design. Those within a particular group are likely to view their own culture as superior to all others anyway, so for me the question of superiority/inferiority is meaningless, and any attempted slam of Americans (or another group) I would view as a pathetic joke.

[Monique]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don’t think in terms of one culture being better than another. Different groups of people find different ways to exist together and develop according to their own unique design. Those within a particular group are likely to view their own culture as superior to all others anyway, so for me the question of superiority/inferiority is meaningless, and any attempted slam of Americans (or another group) I would view as a pathetic joke.

Very true, we could better look at the others' strenghts and try to improve our own inperfections..

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Monique
Very true, we could better look at the others' strenghts and try to improve our own inperfections..
A most excellent idea. Differences help us to learn.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by shonagon53
First, about the quotes, I think that's a detail, right?... Wether I put this in quotations or not, doesn't change the fact. Kat had it right. My issue isn't with your grammar, its with quotes around things that aren't quotes. Thats called a LIE. I have a real problem with lies.

Again, the conclusions you reached are not supported by anything I have found on that page. If you have exact quotes that support you, cite them. Very little of what you have said can actually be found on the page I linked (I'm assuming its the one you were talking about though I'm not 100% sure).

[Astronomer107]

Shonogon, I definitely think you are entitled to your opinion. But don't you think your ideas might be a bit stereotypical? Or does the term "culturally inferior" refer to cultures that are different from yours? America is the country of immigrants, so really, there is a great mix of cultures here. I am an American and I appreciate other cultures as well, especially the Spanish culture, among others. I'm sure your culture is also very interesting . It may help if you gave Americans a chance. By the way, I don't think your native language is the language of the future, unless it is mathematical, which is the true language of the future.

[Astronomer107]

Originally posted by shonagon53


So, long live a strong EU and a more humble USA!


The United States will not be a superpower forever. Just like the Roman Empire, Spain, France, Germany, and even Russia backed down in power, the United States will be less powerful as well. It would be more beneficial for the entire world if people could put aside their differences and share equal power, but unfortunately, we don't live in this world. But, maybe after we get out of this political (and scientific, philiosophical, and theological) adolescence (if we survive), then we can all work together towards a common goal.

[pace]

Originally posted by shonagon53
Americans are culturally inferior



I don't know if it could be possible to answer that question.

Before I could make up such a decision as whether america's culture is inferior or above, I would have to divide culture in two aspects:

Broad, and Deep.

Talking broad America probably has the most diversed and variated culture going on in the world, and you gotto admit it, we're all watching it excitedly!

Talking Deep (Rooted):

Originally posted by Kerrie

as far as our inferior culture, we are only a little over 200 years old[6)]

America is still young, and you still got a way to go. Sorry. [;)]

Mixing Time(Deep) with Substance(Broad) is rather hard.

[shonagon53]

Boulderhead,
you're right, I like that idea of a moderate relativism.
However, the world is an interconnected place, and different cultures interact.
When one culture becomes the target for all other cultures, something is obviously happening.

That's all I was referring to.

So the question is, what do we do with the American Empire. I think it is a question every world citizen asks. Where do we go with this empire. How to live in it. How to help it abolish itself for its own good. These are the questions of our time.

That all cultures are inherently "equal" (not in a moral sense, but in the sense that you can't really compare them because they're simply different), is stating the obvious, I think.

Again, the question becomes different when we see that one culture is being perceived by all others, as a threat to having a good life.

[Shadow]

So the question is, what do we do with the American Empire. I think it is a question every world citizens asks. Where do we go with this empire. How to live in it. How to help it abolish itself for its own good. These are the questions of our time.

Oh, gee, here I thoguht the questions of our time were How can we achieve world peace? and how can we prevent nuclear war? And how can we stop the evils of dictators and tyrants?

NOT how can we 'abolish' the American "empire" (I already explained it wasnt but nothing gets through to you shonogon, you only take the answer you think is right) and you say for it's own good. I pray that the EU does not become the leading superpower, there is no good to come of it and if you cannot see that then you are blind.

[shonagon53]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Kat had it right. My issue isn't with your grammar, its with quotes around things that aren't quotes. Thats called a LIE. I have a real problem with lies.

Again, the conclusions you reached are not supported by anything I have found on that page. If you have exact quotes that support you, cite them. Very little of what you have said can actually be found on the page I linked (I'm assuming its the one you were talking about though I'm not 100% sure).



Sir, I'm sorry, I don't understand your problem. When I said that more South Koreans see America as a bigger threat than North Korea, I only read the results of a poll.

I'm sorry if you can't cope with that. Wether I put it in quotes or not, doesn't change the fact.

Please visit this link, and see for yourself (this is really the third and last time I ask you to do this little effort). You will see that it says: "Who is more dangerous? Q: America or North Korea?" and the answer reads: "49% of South Koreans see America as a bigger threat to peace and stability, 39% of them see North Korea as the
bigger threat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/military/global_security.stm



Wheter I put this in quotes or not, has nothing to do with the subject. Please visit the link, and talk about the subject, not about details.

How is it possible that more South Koreans see America as the biggest threat compared to North Korea? I mean, this is an incredible idea--having in mind that America sees South Korea as an ally against North Korea, having in mind that America thinks everyone agrees that North Korea is more evil than themselves, while the immediate neighbours of that country see it totally differently. I means that's a disastrous poll result!

Please let's talk about this, not about quotes.











All other conclusions I mentioned here, are directly taken from the poll. Here's my method. I open the webpage, look at the results, and transcribe them in here. Revolutionary method! I know! :-)

[shonagon53]

Originally posted by Shadow
Oh, gee, here I thoguht the questions of our time were How can we achieve world peace? and how can we prevent nuclear war? And how can we stop the evils of dictators and tyrants?

NOT how can we 'abolish' the American "empire" (I already explained it wasnt but nothing gets through to you shonogon, you only take the answer you think is right) and you say for it's own good. I pary that the EU does not become the leading superpower, there is no good to come of it and if you cannot see that then you are blind.


Of course!! Exactely! "How can we achieve world peace" is the ultimate question! That's why I started this debate. Thinking about America's role in this, is not that bad an exercise, I think.

Again, when the world sees America as the biggest threat to world peace, then the questions should be focused around the future of the American Empire, and on how to cope with it today.

World peace and the Pax Americana are virtually the same thing, today.

[shonagon53]

"Americans are culturally inferior" was of course just a title to get a debate going. Less virulent than "Americans are genetically superior", I think.



So please, let's focus on the original question.

How to cope with Empire, and what are the longterm effects of an imperial culture on both that culture itself, and on other cultures.

[Shadow]

Again, when the world sees America as the biggest threat to world peace, then the questions should be focused around the future of the American Empire, and on how to cope with it today


The biggest threat to world peace is people like you who criticize America for helping smaller countries and taking it's role as the leading superpower. Saddam had to go down, the taliban had to go down, al quedqa had to go down. Or, since you are so anti american, do you support terrorism too? We aren't the biggest threat to world peace, we are trying to make world peace. You can't have world peace with tyrants and dictators like in Iraq and liberia.

[kat]

Originally posted by Shadow
I pary that the EU does not become the leading superpower, there is no good to come of it and if you cannot see that then you are blind. *nervous laugh* we've already seen what happens when Europians become super powers and it ain't pretty...in fact I dare say many of the issues in the middle east, past and present issues in the NEW Europe and definately issues in Africa(Ivory coast, rwanda etc.) can be traced directly to actions of OLD Europe[g)] I'd also suggest that past guilt is the physicological base of which much of OLD Europes anti-Ameircan vitriol is built upon. The thought of a France-German-Russia based superpower...makes me shudder..in fact I believe I just felt the earth tremble just thinking about it. Their combined history makes the U.S. government look like a bunch of boyscouts. If that's cultural superiority they are welcomed to it.

[Zero]

This one's about done, isn't it?

[kat]

Originally posted by shonagon53
Sir, I'm sorry, I don't understand your problem. When I said that more South Koreans see America as a bigger threat than North Korea, I only read the results of a poll.

I'm sorry if you can't cope with that. Wether I put it in quotes or not, doesn't change the fact.

Please visit this link, and see for yourself (this is really the third and last time I ask you to do this little effort). You will see that it says: "Who is more dangerous? Q: America or North Korea?" and the answer reads: "49% of South Koreans see America as a bigger threat to peace and stability, 39% of them see North Korea as the
bigger threat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/military/global_security.stm



Wheter I put this in quotes or not, has nothing to do with the subject. Please visit the link, and talk about the subject, not about details.

How is it possible that more South Koreans see America as the biggest threat compared to North Korea? I mean, this is an incredible idea--having in mind that America sees South Korea as an ally against North Korea, having in mind that America thinks everyone agrees that North Korea is more evil than themselves, while the immediate neighbours of that country see it totally differently. I means that's a disastrous poll result!



Shonagon- S.Koreans don't state that they see the U.S. as a greater "threat", they state that it is more "dangerous"..subtle difference I know..but a difference none the less. It is also important to know what term "dangerous" was translated to/from in the polls, a simple study of the different linguistic meanings of the term "roadmap" as translated into other countries media and polls can be very eye opening.
I find it impacting and interesting that (according to this poll) although South Korea finds the U.S. more DANGEROUS then North Korea it also finds that U.S. presence in that area of the country "increases peace and stability". This suggest a bit of a conundrum, don't you agree?

[shonagon53]

Kat, "ok".

So you don't accept the validity of that statement. That's your choice.

I think it's only very obvious that Americans have a special "now-i'm-in-denial" button or an "i don't wanna know" mode. Because whenever anyone points to what others think about America, there's always something wrong with either the translation, the context or the content.

I think this is dangerous. Americans have been denying way too many things for way too long, with the result that today they're the most unwelcome nation on the planet.

It's not too late. But America needs a change in its mentality. Americans need to understand that when other people say "hey, stop doing this, we don't like this", that they don't have to interpret it selfindulgently as "hey, these people like us!". Americans don't read other cultures well, that's a wellknown fact in international politics and diplomacy.
In fact, it's almost hilarious to see how different American's ideas of their actions in Iraq and the actual reality on the field are, just to give an example. Afghanistan would be another example. Vietnam another.


But a certain blindness towards others is crucial in the workings of an Empire. That's well known. Only, there's a certain treshold, a certain limit, a certain breakingpoint, when you cross that, the fall is near.

I think we're seeing America nearing that point today. Anti-Americanism is an incredibly dangerous power. It is something every American should ask questions about. But real questions. This takes courage. And I admire the Americans who dare pose these questions. Many of them just aren't up to it yet.

[kat]

shonagon53 "Ok"

Since your too busy declaring blindness that you obviously missed my rather pertinant question, I'll ask it again!

I find it impacting and interesting that (according to this poll) although South Korea finds the U.S. more DANGEROUS then North Korea it also finds that U.S. presence in that area of the country "increases peace and stability". This suggest a bit of a conundrum, don't you agree?

[Zero]

Kat, I think shonagon53's post is more relevant to this thread than your specific question.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, I think shonagon53's post is more relevant to this thread than your specific question.

Lol, I was under the impression (primarily because I was addressed) that his post was in response to mine.....

Conflicting views such as displayed by the Koreans response to the 2 questions within the same poll should not be ignored when trying to dicipher a world view in regards to the U.S.. How is one "more dangerous" and yet at the same time bring "peace and stability"?
Requesting specifics on poll methodology is always a good idea, and in this case particularly important when one considers the possibility of varied methods, and terminology impacting the outcome. Understanding this and questioning isn't resorting to "now-i'm-in-denial" button or an "i don't wanna know" mode." It's appropriate and neccesary, particularly when it shows conflicting replies.

[Zero]

Sure, Kat, but I think you are missing teh forest for the trees...amd I also think he makes a good point about the blindness and 'head in the sand' attitude of Americans, although I can't show that other cultures don't do the same thing.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Sure, Kat, but I think you are missing teh forest for the trees...amd I also think he makes a good point about the blindness and 'head in the sand' attitude of Americans, although I can't show that other cultures don't do the same thing.

LOl, Zero, he makes 3 pages worth of post on a poll, specificly focusing on a statement concerning the "threat" that Korea feels from the U.S., specificly focusing on a statement that DOESN"T exist and then you find that it's not pertinent to point out that it is HE (not to mention maybe even THEY) who has his head in the sand if he cant' see the problems with (at the very least) conflicting statements from a country who's opinion your basing your argument on?

Quite honestly, Zero, if you can't see, much less identify the trees in the forest, the forest isn't very pertinent. Not to mention if you're busy burning the forest for fuel you might want to be able to identify the hardwood from the softwood eh?[;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by shonagon53
Sir, I'm sorry, I don't understand your problem. When I said that more South Koreans see America as a bigger threat than North Korea, I only read the results of a poll.

I'm sorry if you can't cope with that. Wether I put it in quotes or not, doesn't change the fact....

So you don't accept the validity of that statement. That's your choice. I say again: a quote that isn't a quote is a LIE. Stop posting LIES. I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose and intending to decieve or if you just are blinded by your bias, but either way, your continued misquoting of that report isn't helping you prove your point.

[Monique]

So to correct the problem:

The poll says:

QUOTE "49% of South Koreans view America to be more dangerous than North Korea, 39% of them view North Korea to be more dangerous".

So Shonagon53, don't interpret or change the wording of the poll when you put it in quotation marks.

For reference: this is the wrong way to quote the results: "Who is more dangerous? Q: America or North Korea?" and the answer reads: "49% of South Koreans see America as a bigger threat to peace and stability, 39% of them see North Korea as the bigger threat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/military/global_security.stm

[shonagon53]

Originally posted by kat
shonagon53 "Ok"

Since your too busy declaring blindness that you obviously missed my rather pertinant question, I'll ask it again!


Kat, I agree, I didn't read your statement carefully.

That's a strange combination indeed, although not necessary a contradiction.

They see America as more dangerous and still as a stabilizing factor. This doesn't logically imply they see North Korea as a "destabilizing" factor. Since the poll didn't ask about that, we don't know.

But it's indeed odd to see America as being dangerous and stabilizing at the same time. However, I think this ambiguity is one of the most pertinent aspects of people's relations with the US. On the one hand they admire it for many things, on the other hand, they abhorr it.









[I should have read your comment more carefully.]

[shonagon53]

Originally posted by Monique
So to correct the problem:

The poll says:

QUOTE "49% of South Koreans view America to be more dangerous than North Korea, 39% of them view North Korea to be more dangerous".

So Shonagon53, don't interpret or change the wording of the poll when you put it in quotation marks.

For reference: this is the wrong way to quote the results: "Who is more dangerous? Q: America or North Korea?" and the answer reads: "49% of South Koreans see America as a bigger threat to peace and stability, 39% of them see North Korea as the bigger threat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/military/global_security.stm






Lol, still about that quote?

There must be a linguistic particularity about the thing. In my native language, there's not so much stress on "quotes" between "quotation marks". If I had know that this would be a crux in a far broader debate, I wouldn't have made the "mistake" (is it ok to use quotation marks for the word "mistake", if I want to stress the relativity of the term and in order to imply a certain irony? In my language we can do it this way. It's not a quote but a "hyphenation"--I'm not sure if I spelled "hyphenation" correctly.).

Ok.

So one more time. I quoted something that couldn't be quoted because it wasn't literally mentioned in the text on the webpage, so I quoted a transcription or a translation of the original message which I made up in my own mind, but which semantically equals the original message and I shouldn't have done this. I agree.

Can we now continue the discussion.

I suggest we stop talking about that regretful mistake of the quote here.






Kat is right about the accuracy of the poll. It has to be read carefully. But about possible translation errors: the poll was translated into Korean by bilingual Korean-English speakers. 11 national TV networks can't afford to make translation mistakes. And considering the BBC has a long tradition of airing and working on over 20 languages, Korean included, I think doubts about it may be a detail.

I mean, we must see things in perspective. The fact alone that such a unique poll is being organized is highly significant. Let's not waste too much time over technical details. These people are professional poll makers. I trust their expertise.


Let's now interpret the poll.

Or let's talk about why anti-American is dangerous, justified, necessary, evil or just there.

[Shadow]

if you want to do that, make another topic.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
LOl, Zero, he makes 3 pages worth of post on a poll, specificly focusing on a statement concerning the "threat" that Korea feels from the U.S., specificly focusing on a statement that DOESN"T exist and then you find that it's not pertinent to point out that it is HE (not to mention maybe even THEY) who has his head in the sand if he cant' see the problems with (at the very least) conflicting statements from a country who's opinion your basing your argument on?

Quite honestly, Zero, if you can't see, much less identify the trees in the forest, the forest isn't very pertinent. Not to mention if you're busy burning the forest for fuel you might want to be able to identify the hardwood from the softwood eh?[;)]

You miss my point...I think you should BOTH stop talking about it.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Zero
You miss my point...I think you should BOTH stop talking about it.

I suppose you were refering to the pool. I can say the same thing.
I watched both the "genetic superior" thread and this one. This thread is by far an endless debate with no conclusion. So please people (and I mean Kat, Shadow and Shonagon since you are the main oponents here) tell me what do you understand by culture. Do you mean "lets talk about some pool untill the world ends" or do you mean something like "let see what America gave to the world science, literature, ... compared to Europe"?

[shonagon53]

Lol, Europe gave America to the world...

[Shadow]

Not the Europe you live in, and not people like you. An Italian (Christopher Columbus) Sailed for Spain and discovered it and the British colonized it, and the Pilgrims also came over.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
Not the Europe you live in, and not people like you.
What is that supposed to mean?

[Monique]

Originally posted by Shadow
Not the Europe you live in, and not people like you. An Italian (Christopher Columbus) Sailed for Spain and discovered it and the British colonized it, and the Pilgrims also came over.

Well well, what he meant is that America is mostly made up of Europeans, not necessarily which country founded it. You know btw that New York City was founded by the Dutch? The Dutch were the first to trade stocks?

[Shadow]

You know btw that New York City was founded by the Dutch? The Dutch were the first to trade stocks?

Yes I do, in fact, I live by one of the oldest dutch setllements. The settlement itself is gone of course, but one building is still here, it is actually still used. It's an old church that the Sutch built. And yes, I know that they were the first to trade stocks.

[Shadow]

By people like you I meant that they didn't found the "New World" with his attitude, and they didn't worship him. He says AMericans are Culturally inferior and acts like he is superior? Has no one noticed this? His attitude and what he says in his posts make it clear he thinks that he is superior. So that is what I meant when I said we werent founded by people like him, and we weren't founded by people in his area/countries anyways.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
By people like you I meant that they didn't found the "New World" with his attitude, and they didn't worship him. He says AMericans are Culturally inferior and acts like he is superior? Has no one noticed this? His attitude and what he says in his posts make it clear he thinks that he is superior. So that is what I meant when I said we werent founded by people like him, and we weren't founded by people in his area/countries anyways.

I see you as trying to say that he doesn't have a right to speak because of his opinion and national origin.

[GENIERE]

Shadow, I believe Shonagon feels inferior rather than superior. His (her?) distasteful bias is probably due to his country being dominated by other countries during most of its existence before it was liberated by the USA.

Zero is misinterpreting you, what's new?

I see you as trying to say that he doesn't have a right to speak because of his opinion and national origin.

[Zero]

*edited for being off-topic and rather rude, if I do say so myself!*

[Zero]

On second thought, this thread is done...someone can start a new one, and try again, if they wish.