Barnard17

No, it's an observation. Stop playing the victim card, the very fact that you're so determined to take offence is indicative of the attitude being referred to in Ulysses' post.

If it had been an American making the comment about vaguely generalised British posting habits it would have been chuckled at and largely ignored. In discussions such as this or those critical of a governments actions, in the six and a half years I've been active in political debates on the internet it will nearly always be an American (and usually the same select group of individual American's within the community, rather than all participating American's as a whole) that decides to take an indirect comment as an affront to their national pride. The fact you're trying to start an argument to negate that point means either a) you conform to that stereotype (so to argue that it's untrue out of a sense of national pride would make it largely impossible for you to formulate a convincing argument) or b) you're trolling. Need I suggest that in either instance there's not much point in continuing this line of conversation?

__________________

Neapolitan

Barnard17:

So I joke around a bit but like they say the is more truth said in jest. Yes it is disheartening for someone to say something negative about our own country or your fellow countrymen (Americans in this case)

You're from England right, if I said I was an Anglophile would that make me an authority of English culture and whatever I say is more accurate then a person who lives in England? You would know that wouldn't be the case. Would you think that a person from England has a wider, more accurate perception of the country they live in? People don't like to hear something negative coming off like it the Gospel truth, because they know it's a misconception, and it should apply to everyone in that group, that is why people don't like stereo-types, they don't like being pigeon-hole and that is why I don't care for the comment. So I say something silly in response, that to me is better then how you respond, I'm none of those things you say about me.

This thread is about Nationalism, but they're other things to talk about like Culture and History ect. I'm interested about Ireland saving Western culture then Irelands nationalism - I think there more there to talk about.

__________________

Ulysses

I'm not sure how that's relevant. I'm not claiming to be an authority on American 'culture' or know more about America than Americans. You're confusing two separate issues here. Whilst I may not know more about America than Americans, I perhaps know more, or have more experience, of being on the receiving end of American Nationalism than any American.

As for pigeon-holing and stereotyping, I've not said that all Americans are like this. What I actually said, initially, was that out of all the Nationalism I've observed and experienced, the bulk of it came from Americans. There's not actually any real stereotyping there. Also, stereotyping is is usually born from pre-conceived assumptions and ideas and generalisations, whereas my comment was actually born from experience and wasn't suggesting that all Americans are like this.

With all due respect, I disagree. Your response was fairly typical of what I was talking about in the first place. My honest experience of Americans, whether face to face or online, is that they aggrandise their country and their interpretation of their culture far more anyone else, often is a very weird chest beating macho way, but at the same time are incredibly sensitive to the even the slightest criticism.

That may be so, but as you said yourself, this thread is about Nationalism. That's why people are talking about experiences and understandings of Nationalism. Culture and history - whether real or imagined - may inform and influence Nationalism, but they're not the same things.

__________________
The Fields of Mars

Barnard17

No, but neither would it make it explicitly any less valid. We live in an international community where nation-states have heavy day to day influence on other nation states and modern media, especially the internet, breaks down boundaries created by geography. Foreign policy decisions have a global effect, as can internal economy decisions. Not to mention that an important aspect of political development is being able to observe and discuss the merits and demerits of domestic policy decisions made in another state as commentators can still provide an informed critique on the effects their having and also compare them to their own and other states similar domestic policies. As I established in my first post in the thread, I view society as a global community of human beings and have little concern for the specifics of the bizarre national communities people arbitrarily attach themselves to.

That's not even vaguely what Ulysses stated nor inferred.

Then don't act like you are.

__________________

Ulysses

This point is something that's often lost on many of the Americans I've known on international boards that touch on politics. They've been at a loss as to why non-Americans take an often critical interest in American politics. It's a combination of what you've explained here and the fact that, for various reasons, America has elbowed its way into the spotlight of the world stage. It's a nonsense to think that when you place yourself in the spotlight - and America does place itself in the spotlight - that you're only going to get applause but not boos.

It's baffling to me how many Americans can beat their chest as to being the only 'super power' in the world, a position maintained with a bewildering and alarming amount of troops and bases in outside of America, but at the same time be overly sensitive when people are unhappy with this state of affairs. It seems like there's a massive disconnect with the way many Americans see their country and how many non-Americans see it.

For example, I'm sure everyone in Europe is familiar with the internet argument that America saved everyone single-handedly in WWII, as a result made the world safe in it's self-appointed role as policeman of the world. My reality is that, and it's a reality shared by many my age, I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s fully expecting to die in a nuclear holocaust purely because of our status as 'America's runway'.

Again, I want to highlight the fact that England/Britain/UK has its faults, as does everywhere else. The point is that it's less likely to see a non-American aggrandising their country the way that Americans do. This is something that I see, rightly or wrongly, as being cultural and part of the fabric of American identity.

As I said earlier, there's nowhere in the Western World that flag waves like America does. America has a sense of Nationalism that is unknown anywhere else in the world outside of sports events. Compare it to England, where Nationalism is practically a dirty word and is often viewed with suspicion. Compare it to Britain where there's some peculiar and ill-founded divide as to which British countries are, for want of a better word, 'allowed' or 'encouraged' to promote Nationalism in tandem to 'Britishness'. Compare it to Europe where Nationalism is very often tempered with a sense of caution born out from the spectre of the past. Compare it to the Eastern World where expressions of Nationalism, whether it's from Russia, China or North Korea &c., are somehow 'wrong' or 'threatening' to the West and in particular America.

__________________
The Fields of Mars

Barnard17

Yeah, in such discussions American tend forget a few things.
Firstly old friend Russky did a hell of a lot more in combating and countering Nazi expansion than America did and it was only really by merit of the logistical headache and geographic stretch coupled with bitter winters that the Germans weren't able to be more decisive on the Western front.
Secondly up to the second world war the European powers were exceptionally powerful. It was as a result of the second world war this power was lost with industrial centres and entire cities decimated, which America barely got a glimpse of themselves, and the backbone of European economies collapsing as entities within the empires sought self declaration.
Thirdly, America was very clever (I doubt intentionally or maliciously so) in waiting so long to engage because it enabled the European powers to decimate each other while Germany got it's war machine into full swing. If America had entered the conflict much sooner it would have led to a much more decisive opposition to Germany, Japan may never have even had a chance to get involved and the scale of the war arena would have been much smaller.

Not that I have to tell you personally, but a common espousal of American national pride is the "yeah well we saved your ass in the war" so I thought I'd throw in on that chip.

This is quite simple: expression of nationalism from the listed states (albeit not so much Russia these days) is because the parades and such are organised propaganda fests largely involving people who are hired to be there and people who are forced to stand there waving a flag. They're not true displays of the sort of nationalist sentiment that, for example, you'd see at a Presidential inauguration. They're brainwashing.

__________________

Barnard17

Yes. Human rights in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's massively different. I'm a bit amazed you even have to ask.

__________________

Ulysses

For whatever reason, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not sure why you're raising the issue of human rights as I was specifically talking about the nurturing of nationalism and China's human rights record isn't directly connected, or at least not as directly connected in the way that you're now suggesting, or at least suggesting that I was suggesting.

If anything, a (despicable) human rights record undermines any point you've made earlier about "brainwashing". China's approach, of you're taking the 'humans rights' tact isn't 'brainwashing', it's more an iron fist in a barely velvet glove.

If a(nother) country can foster a similarly visable and vocal sense of patriotism without the (known) human rights record that China and do it in a way where peer pressure - "you're not a 'real' American", "America: love it or leave it", "the American way or the highway" and so on - not to mention political and media influence the government doesn't have stamp down hard in the way that China does. In a sense, America has been better at brainwashing than any totalitarian or authoritarian state as it's achieved similar aims with a veneer of liberty.

To illustrate this, I'm sure you must be aware of the hysteria that's been on many politically-themed messages boards since Obama first ran, throughout the elections and since. Look at the way political discussion is often divided, particularly when it's coming from the right: how this isn't American, how that isn't American and so on.

__________________
The Fields of Mars