As anyone reads through the threads they are subject to post after post of the worst kind of American Bashing. Even now there is a thread titled:
"America And The World Preception Of Her". People from America and around the world have chimed in on this thread and others about the arrogance of Americans and our Government. But the point I make is that it seems no one can really make good claim as to what's wrong with Americans.

The United States Government appropriates BILLIONS of dollars every year at the expense of American Tax Payers to other countries in Aid.

We have a rich pattern of different cultures running through out the entirity of the country and invite more and more people every year to come and bring what they have to our country and see what they can offer. Also at Tax Payers expenses.

The Government gives away millions of dollars every year also, to give to new immigrants that have come here, to help them get a start, to help them have medical coverage, to basically help them in general. Also with Tax Payer s monies.

We as a society of mixed Cultures are some of the most accepting in the whole of the wolrd as best as I can tell. Sure the US might have problems here and there and even some bad apples, but how can you let the few ruin your preception of the rest?

As a Tax Payer that enables people everywhere, I wonder why do people take for granted my money, then bash us?

So all that having been said the questions are:

What GOOD Reason Does Anyone Have For Disliking America, And Her People?

In The Face Of The Billions Of Dollars We Give To The Whole World Over, What Can Anyone TRULY Say About The Supposedly Arrogant And Non-Compassionate Average American? :

If Americans Are So Intolerant, How Do We Get Along Over Here With All These Different Cultures and Races?

How Well Does Any Other Country Stand Up Against The Charges Leveled At Americans If The Questions Were Turned Around?

And Finally, How Would Any Foreign Country Feel If The United States Took Away The Funding We Give It Due To Their Own Ungrateful Sentiments?

Ok, I admit it, you've totally convinced me. The United States of America is completely perfect in every way. Every American citizen gets along perfectly with every other American citizen. We are the most generous nation on the planet. We only give, and never take. We never start wars. We never invade other countries for imperialist reasons. All races in the U.S. exist in perfect harmony. Our law enforcement officers are courteous, polite, never corrupt, and always willing to protect and serve. Every American is a perfect being devoid of negativity and full of love for fellow planet dwellers. America is the greatest country in the history of time and the universe. We make no mistakes. We are never wrong. We are always right. We are what every other country should strive to be. If every country was a carbon copy of the United States, then the entire Earth would be perfect and flawless and nothing bad would happen ever again.


For anyone who doesn't know by now, the above is total sarcasm.

Johnlocke, ask a ridiculous question, get a ridiculous answer.

Actually in your ridiculous response (that's your own admission) you clearly ignore what I am saying. That America might have faults....but we're being held to a very high standard that no other country holds themselves to before making snide remarks about us. That we're doing pretty darn good for a country as young and huge and diverse as we are. Then you make a great point (that no one can dispute), we are the most generous country in the world. And lastly, you make no attempt to make any good argument as to why other people complain when we aren't that bad and they're no better.

Johnlocke



It seems to me, that just about every one who has expressed any opinion on this matter, has made it quite clear that they draw a distinction between America, her government and her people. Also, that debating a nation, even its faults, is hardly 'bashing' unless constant unfounded accusations are made (such as you have done concerning France)

...and in any event, on a site named 'America's debate', then you are going to attract criticism as well as praise. Both from within and without.

So please dry your eyes and calm down.

As I have stated Moif, The allegations concerning America are just oversights of all the good things.....and as I read your post, I noticed that once again you don't have any real reason to criticize America. Or if you did, you didn't post it.

On another note....I defy you to point out even one unfounded accusation I made about France. That should be pretty hard considering all the evidence I posted for all the reasons I HATE FRANCE. But you can try.

Anyhow, Do you have any good points to make about the comments you've made in other threads about America? Did you want to try to even answer one of the questions I posted here?

Like Nu Marx, I'm having difficulty taking your questions seriously - which I suppose is nothing new. First, Though, What's With All the Bizarre Capitlization? Are You Quoting Book Titles or Something? Okay, to look at a few of your questions - or Questions, even:


In fact, humanitarian foreign aid provided by the US government amounts to less than 1 percent of the federal budget - only a fraction of what people (yourself included, so it seems) think is spent. Among the top twenty-one industrialized nations, the US ranks last in terms of the percentage of gross national product spent on humanitarian foreign aid. We're sooo generous.


You cannot be serious. What we have is a rich pattern of discrimination against minorities, a long history of segregation and slavery, and an ongoing tradition of racial hatred. How the "rich pattern" you perceive (oh - unless you mean those "different" Western European Protestant cultures) costs taxpayers' money is beyond me.


Source?


Because "as best as I can tell", the problems and the bad apples constitute something of a majority in the US. Even those who complain about immigration - not to mention any names, johnlocke - are part of our elitist culture of rejecting "mixed culture".


Oh, I see, foreign aid is just a way of buying international gratitude - or is it obedience you're after? Never mind that a good deal of our foreign aid goes to countries which have horribly repressive regimes, which support terrorism, and which have a total disregard for human rights. I'm sure, for example, that the people of Afghanistan were very grateful for the $148 million that the Bush administrationwas throwing at the Taliban in early 2001 - in the name of "foreign aid" - or that the people of East Timor were so very, very grateful for the hundreds of millions we poured into Indonesia every year for decades (to say nothing of miliary aid) in order to facilitate their genocide. Don't get me started on Latin America (do the names Pinochet or Somoza or Martinez or Noriega or Chorezo or Batista ring any bells?) - the thousands of slaughtered Americans south of the US border are, I'm certain, posthumously grateful for our having dug their graves. And what about Africa? Southeast Asia?? The middle East???

Ach - I'm just going to assume that the balance of your questions are feeble attempts at very dark humor...


EDITED TO ADD:

As to your challenge to moif "to point out even one unfounded accusation [you] made about France", I thought of taking it on myself, but it was just too easy. On a random search I came across your posting to Hating France from July 7, 2003 at 4:10PM. Of approximately eight allegations made about France, the French, and Jacques Chirac, I could not find substantiation for one of them. Of course, the fact that you didn't provide a single source for any of your "evidence" didn't help much. Maybe you should revisit that thread and start backing up some of your claims...

Wertz,
Have trouble if you want but the proof is in the pudding....we just gave 15 billion in aid to Afrika. Here is a link on what kind of aid we do and how much we do....http://www.usaid.gov/

And yes I am serious...America has thousands of cultures and subcultures everywhere you go in America the people are diverse and different. On top of that with all the minorites living in the US yes there are attitudes of resentment and distrust but as I said before, anywhere else in the world is worse (of course I've never been to Denmark ) People hate Americans before they meet them. But here we strive to move forward and leave behind any past involving segregation and slavery. Which by the way most european countries are also guilty of having been involved in, in the past. What other country in the world do have so many people living side by side in peace with soo many Races and Cultures? I live in LA and my neighborhood is comprised of Arabs, Jews, Mexicans, Armenians, Blacks etc. and on and on and on. For all the hate crimes you speak of, I haven't seen one. But I have seen and continue to see gang war. Again, I didn't say we were perfect but you seem to dwell hard on the worst.
This is a giant country full of hope and promise. In my neighborhood people have come from all over. the poorest countries in the world, even Bangladesh. But here they got government aid and set up shop. Every small business within 3 miles around my house is owned by minorities that got help from the government. That help enabled their business and here they drive a BMW or Mercedes Benz. Then send money back to their families in the other countries...where the average yearly salary can be as low as 40 dollars a year as in Bangladesh. But of course this is the country that pillages the poor and puts down the minorities. Riiiight.

All I am left with is to believe that you just dislike America and want to see all her faults instead of embracing that which makes her wonderful.

Edited: actually I have wertz, substantiated every claim on that thread in other postings.....all except the one about Chirac. Here you go though....
this ought to work...... http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm

I'm not dwelling hard on anything. You asked a question and I answered it.


Hmmn. You should be left believing that you asked a question and that I answered it. I have been a frequent critic of some American policies and most recent American administrations, but I don't believe that anything I've ever posted implied a dislike of America - and one certainly doesn't have to go out of one's way to find fault with our last several administrations. On the contrary, I would love to see this country live up to its full potential. I would love to see it someday maybe even live up to the ideals of our Founders. I would love to take even more pride in the country of my birth than I already do.

Was it your intent in starting this thread to make circular assusations in order to characterize your opposition? "Why do you dislike the color pink?" you might ask. If someone answers "Well, it's not that bad, it doesn't go with my complexion," would your response be "Lo, I am left believing that you hate all things pink and only want to compare it with colors that clash"? Woo - convincing. Sorry, johnlocke I am not left all aquiver with guilt because your staggering argument has shown me the error of my America-bashing ways. If I see our country pursuing policies of which I disapprove, I will voice my opinion. If I see our leadership behaving in a destructive manner, I will call them on it. If I think my country can be improved, I will work to improve it. I would do the same for a friend or relative - if I cared enough about them. Why should I do less for my country?

You may wish to look at the world through impossibly perfect star-spangled glasses. Some of us take a more realistic approach. Of course, if you had heard my criticism of the Clinton administration during the nineties, you'd probably be hailing me as an American hero, rather than encouraging me to look for wonderful things. Matter of perspective, isn't it?

I feel JohnLocke has made valid points. And the response from Numarx is rude and ignorant, at the very least.
It is damned if we do and damned if we don't and I would like to see what would happen if we stopped being so generous. But first things first, the military aid would have to stop. Of course, I am sure we can get Russia, China, and certain EU nations to stop sending/selling weapons and other military support based on our example. What is the icon for "fat chance"?
This isn't likely to happen, likewise my other fantasy. That is that the next time the anti-nuclear power idiots start complaining again, we shut down all the Nuclear Power plants and let them discover just how much we are dependent on it.
It certainly seems that some of us can't see anything but the imperfections of America. Apparently there are college degrees available in fault finding and nit picking available somewhere, probably via mail order.
If there is any nation or government on earth that is perfect, someone please enlighten me. Until then, I will continue to believe that we are a good work in continual progress. My experience spans 40 years of observation, and I say we are getting, and doing, better all the time. Setbacks, errors in judgement, outright blunders will occur. That is a fact of life.

That's perfectly fine Wertz,
No one is asking you to like America because my country isn't some used car that we'll haggle for you to love. In fact I believe everyone (that lives here) should question the government all the time. I hate certain things about all Administrations (except Reagan's ) and who else besides me would be more apt to hate such a large over-bearing government, but to call her people arrogant and self absorbed or to be from another country and criticizing that which you don't understand...that's ridiculous. Moreover, While I admit America has Pro's and Con's I can't see you admitting that America ever did a good thing for anybody! Now who is it that looks at America through shrouded glasses? Maybe your negative aspect is the real mispreception. And had you criticized Clinton, yes I would have sung your praises until I realized that you don't take any sides. And don't take this personally because I mean it in the most sincere way. But you as far as I can see have never put yourself on the line taking an unpopular side because you believed in it. More just complaining about things.

Johnlocke



It is true that much of America's good points are often over looked, but I think this is probably true of most countries.

However, in reply to your question, the reason why I criticize America is because in the world today, America is the biggest single source of power. There fore, I believe, America is under an obligation to lead the way with regards to the research, planning and execution of the future, and it is failing that responsibility.

After all, is 15 billion dollars a gift if it comes with conditions?

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/whatnew/press/bush110703.htm

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/whatnew/press/bush040703.htm

This planet, (I perceive) is under a lot of pressure. Mostly from poverty, and an ever expanding birth rate. Combined, these two problems have the capacity to destroy the world as we know it since they lead directly to war, famine and pollution.

In order to stop the world from going down the toilet, we (the human race) need to work together to bring about global stability and political equilibrium.

The general reason why this is not happening is the chronic indifference of the people of the United States of America, and the specific reason is their government.

For as long as American politicians are elected to 'maintain' the American way of life, with all its ecologically dangerous habits, for as long as America will go to war to 'protect' its interests, will turn its back on international community, will ignore international treaties ont he environment, and generally hold itself aloof from the rest of the world, then I will continue to view America with critical eyes.

editted to fix link

moif,
Actually the US doees lead the world in these things....it just seems that most of the world calls us Impiracle for doing so. It is the job of the US government in reality though to make things better for Americans though. And in actuallity I believe their job is only to protect my soil with my tax dollars. Anything more seems a little tyrannical to me. There are those of us that feel free enough to make it on our own without government support.

Does 15 billion in aids relief come with attachments? I don't know for sure but I do know beggars can't be choosers. And this is not to mention the progress on the starvation front that could be made if europe hadn't stopped Genetically engineered foods from heading over there.

Johnlocke



This is true. The politicians have a mandate from the people and they must protect the nation as a part of that mandate.

But when a nation, by its very nature, is strangling world commerce and trade, as America is doing, whilst at the same time pushing forwards its own agenda with ruthless and callous disregard for the consequences, then such a nation must be prepared to be met with ill will.

A nation which has turned its back on the world, has no right to tell the rest of the world what to do... or even what to think.




Europe is spelled with a capital E.

The people who are starving in Africa, do not do so because of a shortage in food. They are starving because of war fare, oppression and extreme poverty. The answer to bringing Africa into the global community as an equal partner, does not lie in GM food aid, but in fair trade and a willingness by the richer nations to share some of their wealth.

All the charity dollars in the world will not actually help Africa.


The majority of Europeans do not wish to eat, or buy GM foods. Can you give me a reason why we should?

Because, despite all of the "freedom" rhetoric so in fashion lately, particularly in regard to free markets, everyone's freedom is not considered equal.

I must have missed the part where you admitted America had any faults. Which faults are the ones you actually recognize?

As for me I have always loved the fact that America was a melting pot and people could live together regardless of religion or race, etc. But when you look a little closer that's not really the case is it?

There are people who would like nothing better than to stop immigration and make sure English is the one national language (an unnecessary law). There are those that do everything they can to make sure there there is one religion recognized and accepted, if not practiced, by everyone which is what they are attempting by working so hard to put Christianity in our schools and our courts. These same people would go ballistic if anyone tried to add the Kuran to all school ciriculums.

There are people that want to add an amendment to the constitution that will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman...there is always someone who wants to make someone else a little less equal than they are. For their own good of course.

You say we are such generous people. If that were true this country would have no homeless or hungry kids and families. Healthcare would be easier to get. People with foodstamps wouldn't be treated with contempt at grocery stores. We wouldn't be so greedy that we would rather do away with community or social programs that improve our society just so we see an extra 5 dollars on our weekly paycheck. Five dollars to you would make no difference in your life...but five dollars from all of us may keep that after school center open or that community health clinic that provides services for people who otherwise suffer without it. Five dollars out of your paycheck could be used to make your city safer or cleaner instead. It might be keeping someone off the streets that would otherwise be stealing your car or painting gang names on your house or selling drugs to your kids.

All of that charity America gives other nations comes with strings. There is either something we want from someone or it will somehow benefit the US. Or we use it as a political tool. I don't see a lot of charity or compassion for the poor in this country. At least no more than any other country.

We have a lot of good things in this country but the America you describe in your first post is a myth. Like Platypus implied...some people are more equal than others. That is something that can only improve if you recognize it without trying to sugar coat it and pretend it's not so bad. For some people in this country it is so bad. Until you admit that you will always feel someone is bashing America for bringing it up. That goes for a lot of other points you made as well.

This is often the cost of freedom of speech. Sometimes people will send destructive remarks one way or the other, but it's nothing to get worried or upset about. If one is to look at their own record, and they are confident in their record, then it should be assurance in the face of one's record.

I personally feel that there is a tremendous amount of anti-americanism flying around presently, but it's only natural in the face of the globalization of our military. Foreign military presence, and Corporate presence only leads to a feeling of encroachment upon sovereignty, and that breeds the anti-Americanism. Just think back when it seemed like Japanese business had the noose around American business, there was quite a bit of Anti-Japanese feeling in America.

Yes, I agree with some instances of military occupation, and even agree with the action in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction are an issue, but the dangers are miniscule compared to the instability of the middle eastern region. Unfortunately Islamic law has taken a deep root in the Middle east, and that shadow might pass over Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Islamic Republics are not, as practiced, liberal democracies, or liberal republics. They are hypocritical in practice; while also denying natural rights to man. Time and time again we see the unfortunate outcome of Islamic rule. This is not to say that Islamic republics can't work to provide peace and happiness, just as democracy does not always achieve this; but they fail when they are fundamentally at fault in their recognition of liberties. Just as Mr. Hussein has denied those liberties to the people of Iraq, he no longer deserves to rule over Iraq. It may be argued otherwise, but fear permeated the mental state of the people of Iraq and killed any possibility of dissent and organized resistance. This is not to say that there were not other interests at play, but that the outcome of the action will be tremendously positive for the people in Iraq.

Anti-americanism that flies when it's not backed by legitimate facts is of great importance because it not only reaffirms the illegitimacy of those who make the claims, but for those dissenting opinions, they provide a clearer affirmation and understanding of the truth, as Mr. John Mill points out. It provides us the ability to check ourselves for faults and check the claims by others. The positive constructive outcome of the debates about the constitution would have been unmatched by any other method of non-debate. This if anything is a legitimate fault that exists in our country today. No one debates anymore: debate has been reduced to name calling. It's absolutely disgusting in my eyes.

i dont think its that no one debates, its more or less things are under scrutiny now, so relgious devotion to a group is all that really matters. I mean even if this is all wrong, iraq to the claims of anything, about lies and the such, no one of any group i think is going to admit to anything, and at best try to pass the buck and or scapegoat it off. I would go as far to say it feels like relgious people taking turns at converting each other, i can play it easy because i dont really belong to any group or political body, i dont like our current prez at all, not because he is a republican, that has nothing to do with it, but more or less i dont like him for my reasons. I think the ability to understand what in a group or nation or peoples you dont agree with or like should come out, not that hey, i dont like bush, that means i dont like america or the republican party or the church or major corporations, no, i just dont like bush. I think that a real stance on what someone agrees with or not should be there, but then its the group mind for some reason, i always wonder if i would see two dems debateing each other on this site or any two from a group. I dont think i ever will but i know for a fact those same two people dont agree eye to eye with alot of things. Sorry to go off topic admin lords it shall not happen again

The question really isn't whether America is great, or good, or sort of good, or bad. True and intelligent dissent is based on the notion that there are some things that are wrong, there are improvements to be made. We differ on what those improvements may be, but surely open debate about, and critique of, our present course, whatever that course may be, is a positive and democratic endeavor.

It's rather a given that there are plenty of good things about the US. Those of us who engage in dissent are not, for the most part, too stupid to see that - it is a question of focus and a desire for improvement. Focusing my energy on merely touting what is already right might make me feel good, but it doesn't solve any of our problems. It was through vocal and eventually violent dissent that our country was formed, in the face of the prevailing political and social ethic of the day - the English monarchy. In order to change for the better, in our lives or in the world, we must fucus on addressing the problems, not merely rest upon the parts that are good.

jmunro

What do you think of the idea, that what we are seeing today, is the direct consequence of 'instant media' ?

It occurs to me, that, where as once, a politician could be garanteed the time (most of the time) to really consider his actions, today, both the politicians and the public are being pushed by an over excited media into constant snap decisions. It occurs to me that for many people this leads to a great uncertainty which must be alleviated by doggedly taking a side, and pointing the finger at those who hesitate or take the opposite opinion.

For example, for my part, I appreciated the possible threat of WMD's, and I was glad to see Saddam Hussein removed.
However, I never believed that Bush and Rumsfeld were acting on their words, but following a different, much less 'friendly' agenda, so I spoke out against them (Bush and Rumsfeld). For that, and despite my approval of America's actions in Iraq, I was branded an 'anti American'.

Eventually I came to the conclusion, that this is because many people, and especially Americans in the contemporary political climate, have become polarized by what has happened, and how it was brought about by the politicans responsible.

After having read the PNAC site, I am well aware that the Bush administration is following a doctrine which was once thoroughly consdidered. What I am afraid of though, is that; A: PNAC represents an aggressive foreign policy.
And, B: PNAC is itself fundamentally flawed in its perception of other countries, and how they will react to American overtures.

p.s. I would have provided a link to the PNAC site, but it seems to have disapeared....

Here you go...PNAC

Wertz, if you look at TOTAL donations, the US has been number 1 (we trailed Japan druing the 90s) since 2001 ($10.9 billion, Japan is second at $9.7 billion, Germany is third at $4.9 billion). "Generosity" is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the current wave of "anti-Americanism" is a fallout of the removal of the Soviet threat. The US was once the "big brother" that kept the neighborhood bullies at bay. Now, having defeated the neighborhood bullies, and forcing them to change their ways, the US is seen as imposing its (now unwanted) will upon its neighbors.

The imposition is not necessarily factual, but it IS certainly perceived.

I think a similiar attitude comes up when you ask people which country they would want to visit (or move to). Most people cite some form of "beauty" in the desired country. They don't seem to realize that the United States contains some of the most beautiful and pristine lands to be found ANYWHERE in the world. The Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains, Yellowstone, etc etc etc.

People refuse to see the forest for the trees, instead focusing on the negatives. It is human nature.

(Aside: what the heck is the beef of GM foods in Europe? Contrary to (I guess) popular belief, GM foods are just like any other foods. They usually taste better, have longer shelf life, and use less resources to grow. I just don't understand the objection there. The argument is really, I think, against imporation of US agriculture, regardless of its GM status.)

If I were them I would say the same thing they are. "Keep those Frankenfoods to yourself!"

I think it's a very interesting topic so I started a thread about it if you want to join us.

So far, I believe the debate here has been focussing on American policies and American government, rather than on Americans. One of the reasons is probably that we've already got a thread here devoted to bashing the people of the US (though it does focus on intelligence more than arrogance). Unless you have serious objections, maybe we shouldn't let this discussion get too splintered.

As to criticism coming from outside the US, I think it's a bit arrogant for such a Francophobe as yourself to be identifying any kettles as black. And I think you are wrong. Having lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, I can say with some confidence that many - if not most - Europeans do understand America. Or, at the very least, they tend to be far better informed about American politics, policies and actions than a majority of Americans themselves. Just look at some of the non-Americans here - Alan Wood, Brunie, Julian, moif, Ultimatejoe - and compare their grasp of American political life to the guy next to you on the bus.

Further, the actions of the US government and the direction of our foreign policy could have much more impact on the rest of the world than could the actions of most other States. "Foreigners" have every reason to be wary of - or supportive of - US policies and every right to criticize them.


How could I possibly take that personally, jl? Of course I'm just a venal whining moaner who believes in nothing and lacks the character to put himself on the line for anything. You need to do some more reading, dude. Or not - I could scarcely care less, right?

I'm not about to delineate my beliefs for the sake of your spurious remark, especially as I think my passion about certain issues - and this glorious country - are self-evident elsewhere in these forums. I don't want to make this personal, so I will refrain from sharing my impressions of your contributions here.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Yes, but the TOTAL tells us very little - except that the US is very, very large and very, very wealthy. If you look at the percentage of GNP or assess our "charity" on a per capita basis, be are very miserly indeed - as a country and as a people. Generosity apparently is in the eye of the beholder. Say forty people chip in to make a donation to Amlord's Home for Wayward Girls and come up with $40. Then say johnlocke makes an individual contribution of $35. You would obviously feel that those forty guys were way more generous poor jl. Others of us may disagree.


There are several interesting comments and observations in the rest of your post which I'd like to address, but I'm rushing off to a dinner engagement. Hopefully I'll get back to them later this evening...

Ah.... you noted the little m... thanks Wertz

editted to add;

...and thanks for the link Danya.

Wertz,

I believe the questions were detailed nicely and we probably shouldn't splinter off to much but
one thing is certain, this thread was set up not to bash America, but to defend her and her people.

Further, I'm glad you saved your moral dignity by almost not responding in crass to an observation you make not like.

And finally, I love your analogy of charity but can scarcely wonder why anyone would be upset that our World's Donations were so humble compared to our GNP...is there some entitlement from third world countries to the money I work for? Or the non-third world countries that recieve my tax dollars for that matter???

My answers to your questions.

What GOOD Reason Does Anyone Have For Disliking America, And Her People?

Good is in the eye of the beholder. I am military spouse currently living in Europe and I have had the opportunity to see “America” from the outside, as such. The reasons that people here have judgments about America and her government (and to a far lesser extent, her people) are actually rather simple. First and foremost, the holier-than-thou attitudes of the government and some people are a turn-off to many. As a proud American, I find it appalling that we feel the need to “bless” America instead of “blessing” the world. Does God find us more special, more “moral”, more “right”, etc. than other countries? I do not think so and I certainly do not think anyone else has the knowledge to determine this. It is arrogance, IMO. I cannot tell you how many times, post 9-11, I have heard the words “America is the greatest country in the world”. I love my country, its wonderful people, and what we stand for, but I think this sort of talk is just silly. It’s like Bush telling “terrorists” to “bring it on”…looking for trouble. Secondary to that “holier-than-thou” attitude is the apparent American sentiment of “liberating” other countries by modeling their “new” government like ours and even wanting to be in charge of setting up/appointing that new government. That seems mighty arrogant from the outside looking in. I could spend HOURS typing out a response to your questions as to valid reasons people have for disliking certain things about America…but I don’t have time for that (sorry). These are just two MAIN examples.

In The Face Of The Billions Of Dollars We Give To The Whole World Over, What Can Anyone TRULY Say About The Supposedly Arrogant And Non-Compassionate Average American? :

You can’t say anything about the average American based upon the actions of their government (I assume you’re referring to government aid and not individual contributions). The government does not always act on behalf of the “average American”. The “average American” probably is compassionate

If Americans Are So Intolerant, How Do We Get Along Over Here With All These Different Cultures and Races?

Um, we don’t. We tolerate and “deal” but I wouldn’t exactly say we get along. Believe me, I am speaking from personal experience both as someone who’s worked in the field of diversity (with Affirmative Action) and as someone who is in an interracial marriage (and from a multicultural family herself). People don’t necessarily want to get along, they have to by nature of the ethnic makeup of our country. America’s inhabitants didn’t ask people of “other” backgrounds to come here…it is a reaction to others’ actions. You want to discuss tolerance? Did you know that in white neighborhoods, people will actually start moving (called “white flight”) when the neighborhood populations reaches EIGHT percent. Yeah, that’s mighty tolerant.

How Well Does Any Other Country Stand Up Against The Charges Leveled At Americans If The Questions Were Turned Around?

Depends on the questions you are referring to. I think the problem is that other countries KNOW they have faults and don’t go around flaunting their superiority and domination over the world in the manner that Americans (mostly American government) do/does. Belgians don’t think they are superior to Americans or anyone else (well the Flemish and Walloons sometimes act like they think they are better than one another, but that’s mostly a matter of history and “legacy”) and I’d say that the majority of countries who have the kind of world political voice that the U.S. has, realize that faults are unavoidable and those faults are part of the fabric of their country.

And Finally, How Would Any Foreign Country Feel If The United States Took Away The Funding We Give It Due To Their Own Ungrateful Sentiments?

Ask the countries that have been denied aid because their political beliefs (and religious beliefs) didn’t align with ours (or our leaders’). Ask the people of the countries who have had sanctions placed on them. Aid/funding is given not because of some sort of generosity (if that were the case, no one in this country would be without healthcare), but in looking at what we will get out of giving that aid. How does it benefit us? I don’t profess to be some sort of foreign policy expert, but I think it’s pretty obvious that money isn’t just given because of some sort of generous nature…we are in it for our own (most likely selfish) reasons.

I'm confused. So you are allowed to hate France and exclaim your hatred for France, but others who do the same "against" America are considered "ridiculous"? By your logic, wouldn't your hatred/criticisms of France be ridiculous? Or is is that no one else in the world could possibly understand America, but you can understand France?

Or is that you are unaware that you just completely contradicted yourself and weakened your arguments in the process?

Please avoid double posting. If you have something to add, you only need to go back in & edit your post. If 12 hours have passed, you may start a new post because your edit window will have closed.

It's quite simple. Nobody calls Americans arrogant because of how much they give, nor is there a sense of entitlement. However, people do get resentful when America (or Americans) say they're:



When they do far less than other countries. Stop calling yourself number one and nobody will pick on you for being arrogant.

So we are criticized for NOT being number 1 (depending upon your definition) and we are "uncaring".

If we give more internationally, we have some ulterior motive or are just flexing our "imperialist" muscles.

Let's face it, the US will be criticized no matter what it does, or gives, or protects others from.

If you're going to take a defeatist attitude then why do you participate in these discussions? It sure isn't because you want to respond to what we're saying because you either ignored or completely missed my point.



That is obviously not what I said. You are criticized for CALLING YOURSELVES NUMBER ONE (using the vernacular you seem to adhere to) when you are not. There is a big difference. Your selective citation of my previous post obscures that however.



Funny, I don't recall saying that. The only person who is painting you into a corner is you by misrepresenting or making up accusations.

Joe, welcome back to the debate!

Was my statement incorrect? Does the US not give the largest sum of foreign aid in raw dollars?

Your statement:

is false. Far less? Perhaps the argument can be made that less is given per capita, but that is not what you said.

In fact, when you factor in private aid, (in addition to public aid), the generosity of Americans to other countries becomes even greater.

Official Versus Private Foreign Aid

Look at Appendix A of that paper: it indicates that the ratio of Private Aid to public aid is highest in the US and that the US gives nearly as much in private aid as most European countries give in public aid. Meanwhile, those same European countries do not donate nearly as much as their government does on their behalf. Of course, statistics can be twisted to reflect anything you want. If you look at the numbers, though, I hardly think your claim holds water ("When they do far less than other countries").

It has already been made quite clear that this thread is for a discussion of the public face of America, the government. Private aid is NOT a factor.



Where did I say "raw dollars?" I have no recollection of typing that. Nor can I see it upon looking at my previous posts. I said "when they do far less." I made it quite clear that I was speaking in terms of per capita, which is how the rest of the world usually views donations (of the public AND private variety) in any charitable activity.

Of course you're taking that out of context horribly (and I must assume deliberately) by ignoring the preceeding statement it was a part of and the quote that it was adressing.

So if Bill Gates formed his own country and gave $10,000 in foreign aid, his country would be worshipped as the most generous in the world? How about if he gave $400, which is all it would take (per capita) to be the most generous in the world.

No, instead, the guy gives BILLIONS in charity (not foreign charity).

It illustrates the difference in Americans' attitude towards charity.

Many (if not most) Americans view it as a private issue. Europeans see it as a public issue (I guess).

Either way, charity is a collection of public AND private sources.

To exclude private charity and then say that "they (the US) do far less than other countries" paints a false picture.

The original question was:


Disliking America, and her people. It then asks about the "non-compassionate average American". How is THAT limited to public aid?

Charity is when you give and expect nothing in return. This is a very hard concept for most American's to understand, I know. So let me break it down further for you.

It is charity if we help others without getting a trade off between the people we are helping or a third party. If we are only willing to help if there is something in it for us that isn't generosity, it's business as usual.

It's charity if we help others unless and until we start to brag about it. There is nothing generous about giving something and expecting everlasting worship and praise in return. You can't buy love or respect from others. You have to earn it.

It's charity if we help unless we start using our gifts to demand favors or threaten to take them back if they don't do something we want them to later on. That would just be using wealth to manipulate the weak or needy. If you help someone and you expect them to be your slave or beholden to you as if they owe a debt that is not generosity.

There are times when we think we're being generous for helping yet we insist on using our charity the way WE think it will be best regardless of what those we are helping say is best. There is a certain arrogance when we think we understand the problems of strangers better than they do themselves. An example would be like if you decided to donate a coat to a starving family who just needs bread. Yes you donated but you didn't help the crisis because you didn't understand the problem. There is an unwillingness to listen or understand replaced with a desire to control and dictate that makes our charity a little less valuable than that coming from others sometimes. I think there is a lot of this going on in Iraq right now.

Now, I'd ask for some examples of American generosity, that passes each of the requirements above, but if you answered it would just be bragging so I won't ask. I know there must be someone we help that passes the test though.


You do realize how arrogant it is to expect to open a thread for debate about America and expect people to give only praise but no criticism to counter it. If everyone did that it wouldn't be a debate. We would all be arguing the same side of the issue. Just look at the America bashing threads and you will find lot's of people arguing in the defense of the US. What's the point of only giving one side?

So, would a donation to say, the Red Cross qualify?

Nothing is expected in return. No third party "return payment" is made.

Corporate Donations Leading our Lifesaving Efforts

A list of "evil" US companies who give millions to the American Red Cross.

Here is a list of the largest 50 charities in the US. The SMALLEST of which receives over $168 million in donations per year.

Don't suggest that Americans want a "payback" for their generosity.

When the government gives someone money (be it internationally or domestically) there are ALWAYS strings attached. Another reason NOT to put much faith in governmental charity and more into private charity.

Actually,
I clearly stated in the intro that this thread is also about the preception of so-called arrogant and selfish American people as well as government. So why not count our private donations.


And Danya,
Beggars can't be choosers in terms of any kind of aid. If people want to bite the hand that feeds them, perhaps we should just stop giving aid.

[quote=Danya,Jul 16 2003, 03:29 PM]
[/QUOTE][/b]
Charity is when you give and expect nothing in return. This is a very hard concept for most American's to understand, I know. So let me break it down further for you.

[/quote]
Your characterization of Americans is uncalled for, as well as being false. Americans are by far the most generous and giving people on the face of the earth. Personally, I'd like to see us restrict some of that giving until we have taken care of all of our own first, but hey, that's just selfish old me.

This would be one screwed up world if America decided to take all her toys and go home.

And - out of curiosity - why do you think that is the case? I've heard the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument a lot - but what do you believe motivates all that damnation?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


I've still seen no evidence of this. In the case of the US, even if our private vs. public "charity" is higher than other countries, this still says very little about Americans in general - especially considering that our official foreign aid ranks last among developed countries as a percentage of GNP. One of the reasons that our private contributions seem so generous is that we have people like Bill Gates - and Bernie Ebbers and Jack Grubman and Dennis Kozlowski and Kenneth Lay and John Rigas and Sam Waksal and Jack Welch - who can make enormous tax right-offs.

There are many good things that can be said about America and Americans, but I don't see a case for "the most generous and giving people on the face of the earth" being made by anyone here.

If we give one dime in foreign aid, without intending it to benefit the USA, we have given one dime too many.

I agree. But just as no one here chooses the who and the how much regarding aid to foreign countries I'm sure the people you think should be so grateful to you also have no choice in whether or not their leaders accept it. So what we really have going in is a bunch of stingy American's giving aid they don't want to give to a bunch of needy people who probably would have too much pride to take it if they were personally asked. Especially when, as someone said above, we only give it with strings attached.

Sounds great. I think all the posts after mine pretty much proved my point. Thanks guys.

Agreed.

We need to limit our military aid to countries that will use it so when it is necessary, they can assist us in a war when we need the assistance

Are we now only talking about military aid? Because I definitely agree. I don't believe we should be giving military aid to anyone. That is where all the 'blowback' comes from and I believe the main reason we were attacked on 9/11.

Limiting aid to those who will use it just to help the US in the future is impossible because you can't know who will use it to help you and who will eventually use it to hurt you. Especially the way we drop our aids and pick new ones depending on which way the wind is blowing.

We ought to take the position that it isn't worth making the wrong choice. If someone needs military aid badly enough and we choose to help we should help with our own troops and guns and not give them money, arms, or any other weapons. I am sure we would be much more selective in who we helped if that were the case.

For giving weapons so Israel can defend herself from hamas?

Sorry. Didn't know it was wrong to help a country defend herself.

That includes Israel. Besides, what's in it for us? (And that was rhetorical so you don't need to answer unless you feel you have to.)

Why should the U.S. help Israel in the first place? Let Israel defend itself just like its demonstrated that it can in the past.

THEN the manta will be :"America is enslaving us with Imperialistic occupation while not allowing us to defend ourselves".

Another No Win.

Wertz:

It is resentment by countries who perceive us as the "King of the Hill" to knock off. The US will be criticized (by someone) for WHATEVER action (or lack of action) it takes.

Look at the Liberia debate: if we don't go, we are ignoring the problems of others. If we go, we are inserting ourselves in a conflict outside of our interests.

Look at Iraq: If we don't go, we are bowing to tyrants, or allowing a dictator to thumb his nose at us, or allowing a dictator to brutally murder his own people. If we DO go, we are ignoring the international will, we are acting unilaterally, we are risking American lives for a limited purpose.

Every single issue has two sides and unfortunately, there are some out there who always seem to choose whatever side the US doesn't pick.

Wertz,
Here is a comparrison of private donations between citizens of the US and citizens of Canada. Yes, it's obvious and comforting that we give more than Canada. And who would have expected different? But the real reason that I posted it is that in here is a chart of American Donations. It works out real well. The only problem is that the totals are averaged so when you see the average you have to remember sometimes people give fifty bucks and sometimes they give fifty thousand bucks. You're a smart guy, you get the point.

http://www.oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_...1/20011212.html

Back to what you say about our GNP. I think I've made it quite clear that peopel are not entitled to the money, hence anything they get should be embraced with warmth and thankfulness. Anything less is the most dispicable ungratefulness.

That's a bad link, johnlocke.

I wouldn't suggest clicking it, since it wants to reset your homepage...very bad.

Plus the info isn't there. You should provide a link to the actual page.

I find it a bit difficult to accept that countries would base their entire foreign policy in relation to the US on resent. Nor do I see too much evidence of the alleged "no win" policy of the rest of the world regarding our policies. I have not yet seen much in the foreign press regarding the Liberia debate - especially in relation to what the US should or should not do, but I followed the Iraq debate quite closely.

So, okay, let's look at Iraq: You claim that "if we don't go, we are bowing to tyrants, or allowing a dictator to thumb his nose at us, or allowing a dictator to brutally murder his own people". What countries were putting forward that argument? Israel, maybe? I realize that Israel dictates US foreign policy in the Middle East, but does one rather puny country constitute a groundswell of global condemnation? As far as I could tell, pretty much everyone in the universe - apart from dubiously motivated war-mongers within the US - felt that an unprovoked invasion of Iraq would be "ignoring the international will, acting unilaterally, risking American lives for a limited purpose". This was not a no win situation, this was a win or lose situation - and we chose lose.

Every issue, of course, does have two sides, but had we chosen to pursue a diplomatic course, to give the UN inspectors another thirty days as requested, to allow that international body to contend with the enforcement of its own treaties and resolutions, then no one - outside the Bush regime and its amoral supporters - would have been damning the US. I doubt even Israel would have felt there was much of a case to made for justifying our action.

As a nation we are occasionally faced with a decision which could meet with broad international approval, which would also meet with broad approval among our own citizens, and which would be the right thing to do. The non-existent Iraqi "crisis" was one such occasion. We blew it. No one regrets the absence of Saddam Hussein - but the means and motives used to effect his disappearance were infamous - and marked a new low in the history of world politics.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

johnlocke: What amlord said.