Full Version: Is the US fundamentally different...
I was reading the following article from National Review Online and it contained some recent poll numbers comparing the US with certain European countries:
The Last Christian Nation
So the US is among the most religious countries in the world. It is, on average, twice as religious as our European contemporaries.
Even Brits think the US is a "threat to world peace". Of course we knew that the Germans and the French thought so, but the British are even more apt to think this way...
So Americans are proud to be American. The same certitude is not held by the citizens of these other countries.
So American are, on average:
-More religious
-Much more proud of their country (or at least being a citizen of their country)
-Thought of by our "allies" to be a threat to world peace.
Is the US fundamentally different than Europe? Are Americans fundamentally different in their outlook than citizens of Europe?
The Last Christian Nation
QUOTE
The most striking illustration of American exceptionalism is a bar chart of polled responses to the statement: "Religion plays a very important role in my life." Nearly 60 percent of Americans responded affirmatively. The corresponding figures for other nations were: Britain — 33; Italy — 27; Germany — 21; France — 11. Among postindustrial non-Muslim nations, and ignoring one or two outliers like Buddhist Thailand, we are probably the most-religious people in the world.
So the US is among the most religious countries in the world. It is, on average, twice as religious as our European contemporaries.
QUOTE
It is, of course, as Queen Elizabeth the First remarked, important to distinguish between the clamor of a faction and the voice of the people. There are good reasons to think, though, that next Thursday's demonstrators will speak, or yell, for a huge number of Britons. Asked by pollsters a few days ago if America poses a threat to world peace, 55 percent of respondents in Britain replied "Yes." This was actually more than in France (52) or Germany (45). We have got into the way of thinking that the U.S. and Britain are together here, the rest of the Western world there. In anti-Bush sentiment, though, as well as on the matter of religious faith, it is increasingly the case that Britain is over there with the others, not over here with us. And the two things are connected. If you talk to Britons about Bush, not many words are spoken before you hear expressions like "cloying religiosity," "sanctimonious self-righteousness," "Bible Belt fundamentalist," and so on. The antiwar sentiment we shall see on display in London next week is fueled largely by the idea that Britain is being dragged along in a moralistic crusade led by a dimwitted religious nut bent on converting the heathen at sword point.
Even Brits think the US is a "threat to world peace". Of course we knew that the Germans and the French thought so, but the British are even more apt to think this way...
QUOTE
Economist poll: "Are you proud to be...?" American — 80 percent, British — 51, French — 35, German — 19
So Americans are proud to be American. The same certitude is not held by the citizens of these other countries.
So American are, on average:
-More religious
-Much more proud of their country (or at least being a citizen of their country)
-Thought of by our "allies" to be a threat to world peace.
Is the US fundamentally different than Europe? Are Americans fundamentally different in their outlook than citizens of Europe?
I think we are different and that difference is seeming to widen. france, germany england have been adopting socialism-lite increasingly. America,by and large, still holds the capitalistic-self-reliance-religious-freedom sentiments as one of many realities in what makes this country work. while france is looking to "vanillarize" religion by denying the wearing of religious symbols, Americans ( a good majority) still hold dear their symbols. It is in the rise of disrepect between religious ideologies that the Euros are upping the position of "if you can't play nice you get it taken away," rather than take the stand to teach or punish those who would be so extreme as to want what they want when they want it. Everyone loses under this policy, bitterness ensues and militantcy starts to fester.
The arguement can be made that symbols seperate us. They only seperate us where respect is null and void. Coming to this country for regious freedom and freedom in general is at the very soul of America. The promise of America was that it granted every religion its freedom. It was within the very Christian beliefs that this idea of religious freedom came to root. It's sad that this has become trendy to deny. Freedom CLEARLY wasn't rooted in Islamic beliefs, we can see how Islam treats the idea of religious freedoms in predominately Islamic coutries. It wasn't based on any other ideology either. I certainly do not want America to aspire to European values regarding these issues.
Freedom under this Christian Nation granted and does its level best in furthering the equality of everyone. Respect is key and unfortunately for those who find that respect unfamiliar, it should be enforced not overlooked.
The arguement can be made that symbols seperate us. They only seperate us where respect is null and void. Coming to this country for regious freedom and freedom in general is at the very soul of America. The promise of America was that it granted every religion its freedom. It was within the very Christian beliefs that this idea of religious freedom came to root. It's sad that this has become trendy to deny. Freedom CLEARLY wasn't rooted in Islamic beliefs, we can see how Islam treats the idea of religious freedoms in predominately Islamic coutries. It wasn't based on any other ideology either. I certainly do not want America to aspire to European values regarding these issues.
Freedom under this Christian Nation granted and does its level best in furthering the equality of everyone. Respect is key and unfortunately for those who find that respect unfamiliar, it should be enforced not overlooked.
QUOTE
So Americans are proud to be American. The same certitude is not held by the citizens of these other countries.
I don't think that means that the citizens of those countries aren't happy to be where they are. The people of Europe generally, from what I understand, tend to be less nationalistic than Americans. It's a psychological effect, for better or for worse, of the second World War.
That doesn't mean that we are fundamentally different, though. Experiences, just as with humans, cause nations to grow and change. It's reasonable to think that at some point our experiences will bring us closer together.
I have lived in several European countries as well as having lived in the US for almost 20 years. I think it's a mistake to lump all Europeans together when talking about this topic. Fo example, Germans are not very nationalistic at all. It is considered bad form, for obvious reasons. This may be the only positive effect resulting from the Nazis. Germans are very careful about nationalism and other similar issues.
France on the other hand is quite nationalistic, though not nearly as much as the US. The joke about the French (even in France) is that they don't need to learn any other languages, since they already speak the most perfect language there is.
So you see, they have some of that "we're #1" feeling as well.
What is sad, is that most European countries really looked up to the US until recently. We've really squandered our good will, and constantly saying "we're the best" isn't helping all that much.
Having lived in all these places I can honestly tell you that no place is "the best". Every place has good points and bad points, and the same goes for the people inhabiting the countries.
I have come to believe that patriotism and religion are the cause of most wars. If we accepted our neighbours and their beliefs as different but equally valid it would eliminate a lot of bloodshed. Of course that is impossible if one is "proud to be an (insert your country/religion here)"
Fundamentally we are all human beings and all a product of the society we live in.
France on the other hand is quite nationalistic, though not nearly as much as the US. The joke about the French (even in France) is that they don't need to learn any other languages, since they already speak the most perfect language there is.
So you see, they have some of that "we're #1" feeling as well.
What is sad, is that most European countries really looked up to the US until recently. We've really squandered our good will, and constantly saying "we're the best" isn't helping all that much.
Having lived in all these places I can honestly tell you that no place is "the best". Every place has good points and bad points, and the same goes for the people inhabiting the countries.
I have come to believe that patriotism and religion are the cause of most wars. If we accepted our neighbours and their beliefs as different but equally valid it would eliminate a lot of bloodshed. Of course that is impossible if one is "proud to be an (insert your country/religion here)"
Fundamentally we are all human beings and all a product of the society we live in.
I agree that the word "fundamentally" is a bit too strong. I cannot deny the two main points here, that Americans tend to be much more religious than the citizens of other developed nations with representative governments, and that they tend to be much more patriotic that the citizens of those nations as well.
As far as being thought of as a threat to world peace, well, maybe this has something to do with the sheer, overwhelming power of the United States. I don't know how many Europeans think of the government of the United States as genuinely evil as much as somewhat clumsy and naive.
As far as being thought of as a threat to world peace, well, maybe this has something to do with the sheer, overwhelming power of the United States. I don't know how many Europeans think of the government of the United States as genuinely evil as much as somewhat clumsy and naive.
The United States is fundamentally different to Denmark, where I live. Because, although many Danes do look up to, and emulate certain aspects of the USA, very few Danes subscribe to the basic idea's which America has come to represent (at least to us). Owning guns, the death sentence, the religous 'hysteria' and the overwhelming pride of Americans is generally looked upon with disdain by most Danes. That America also stands for freedom and liberty is becoming less and less obvious...
For most of my adult life I have accepted this as the way things are, so much so that its quite hard to figure out why. I've read Americans claiming that Europeans are jealous but I reject this totally. What many these Americans don't take into account is what lies at the core of contemporary European life and what has formed our ways of thinking in the last century or so.
Europe has always been a battle ground. For thousands of years it has been witness to one war after another. So many that in the entire history of the continent before the second world war, there are said to be no more than fourteen years where there was not a war happening.
I can't say for certain, but I would wager that the reason most Europeans no longer believe in religon, symbols or national pride as Americans do, is because unlike the Americans, we have had to live with the natural out come of them.
Its easy to be a patriot when all that requires is you wave your flag and shout 'hell yeah!' when ever the US marine corp marches by, or the President addresses the nation in a polished suit against a sterile back drop...
Its some thing else when your home is bombed, your crops are lost and the adult men of your family have marched off to war, never to be seen again, and foreign troops are marching through your streets. Its very hard to harbour feelings of national pride when your mother is dragged out into the street to be raped by a group of soldiers. Especially if those soldiers are supposed to be defending you.
Look to the lasting trauma generated by the American civil war, then multiply it by two thousand years...
In 1940 Denmark was annexed by Germany. Although it was by far one of the easiest occupations of the war, Denmarks population did not appreciate being annexed, and the lessons of the experience are etched deeply into the Danish pysché. The soul destroying sight of collaboration, the reality of the black market, and the loss of law and rights all contributed to the Danish/ European perception of nationalism.
The same thing can be said for the French (need to wonder why they are so nationalist?) and the Dutch, and the (especially) the Poles. We are all aware of where nationalism and the beleif in one's own nation lead. And we reject it. We learned that lesson the hard way. There is not one nation in Europe which wishes to fight another war... witness the demonstrations in Great Britain (USA's closest ally) in these days of GW Bush's visit.
This is not necessarily a good thing either. I'm not saying that. Our passive nature led to the most appalling crimes to be perpetrated in the Balkans, but at the same time, I can understand why Europes leaders were reluctant to get involved. The Balkans have always been a trouble spot and quite frankly, we've given the lives of so many young men for them in the past that (IMHO) many European leaders did not care to walk that path again.
The last time Europe intervened in Balkan politics it led to the first world war and the battle of the Somme... (1,000,000 deaths in one battle!) as well as the rise of the Soviet Union, and the later rise to power of Adolf Hitler...
It is against this back drop one must consider Europe's attitude to war. Not just in the Balkans, but in every instance. Europe actually has more men under arms than the USA, but we do not have the capacity to wage international war any more. Neither logistically or politically. I myself served in the military for four years, but I did so in the clear understanding that I was serving my country as a defence against the Warsaw pact. At no point were we willing to strike first, and my entire military education was based upon the concept of a Soviet or Polish invasion.
In the mean time, we are called socialist as if this were some sort of affliction, but once again, the reality of life in Europe is being ignored... (through ignorance or spite?)
Europe is crowded. It is not the wide open nation that America is where people drive to the corner shop. It is a small continent which has been cultivated for centuries. There have been drops in the population over the years as war, famine and disease took their toll, but since the second world war the population density has steadily risen until today, it is becoming a serious problem.
Add to this the massive increase in immigration which Europe has suffered in the last few decades and what you get is a shortage of housing and the inevitable steadily rising prices... It has taken me almost four years to find a decent flat in my city...
Once upon a time... in the not so distant past, this would have led to a war but today people are coping with these problems by trying to adapt to them with social laws.
Whether its socialism or not, makes no difference to us, since we do not think of it in such terms. We have problems and we make the best solutions we can to alleviate those problems. We have state run social systems designed to help people survive by sharing some of the collective wealth. Socialism? perhaps, but do you know a better way?
Looking at our worst critics, the Americans, I do not see a nation of compassion that takes care of its weaker members at all. I see a country which lets its poor live in squalor and poverty and which refuses to acknowledge the problems it is stroing up for future generations.
That makes no difference to me though (except that I don't take criticism well). What happens in the future of Denmark is my concern, and that means understanding how the world works around us, and identifying with cold certainty who is making the waves which rock our boat... cause its not a big boat.
Although I can actually respect the Americans (though its easier for me to appreciate the Americans for who they were, ather than who they now are) I have no desire to live in America. I am certainly not jealous.
For most of my life, I have been poor, and suffering from medical problems. The Danish state helped me survive for almost ten years whilst I struggled with illness and school until finally I am now able (thanks also to the free medical service) to finally work and make my own way in the world.
The fundamental difference, as I understand it, between America and Europe (especially Denmark) is that in America, I would not have had that help.
For most of my adult life I have accepted this as the way things are, so much so that its quite hard to figure out why. I've read Americans claiming that Europeans are jealous but I reject this totally. What many these Americans don't take into account is what lies at the core of contemporary European life and what has formed our ways of thinking in the last century or so.
Europe has always been a battle ground. For thousands of years it has been witness to one war after another. So many that in the entire history of the continent before the second world war, there are said to be no more than fourteen years where there was not a war happening.
I can't say for certain, but I would wager that the reason most Europeans no longer believe in religon, symbols or national pride as Americans do, is because unlike the Americans, we have had to live with the natural out come of them.
Its easy to be a patriot when all that requires is you wave your flag and shout 'hell yeah!' when ever the US marine corp marches by, or the President addresses the nation in a polished suit against a sterile back drop...
Its some thing else when your home is bombed, your crops are lost and the adult men of your family have marched off to war, never to be seen again, and foreign troops are marching through your streets. Its very hard to harbour feelings of national pride when your mother is dragged out into the street to be raped by a group of soldiers. Especially if those soldiers are supposed to be defending you.
Look to the lasting trauma generated by the American civil war, then multiply it by two thousand years...
In 1940 Denmark was annexed by Germany. Although it was by far one of the easiest occupations of the war, Denmarks population did not appreciate being annexed, and the lessons of the experience are etched deeply into the Danish pysché. The soul destroying sight of collaboration, the reality of the black market, and the loss of law and rights all contributed to the Danish/ European perception of nationalism.
The same thing can be said for the French (need to wonder why they are so nationalist?) and the Dutch, and the (especially) the Poles. We are all aware of where nationalism and the beleif in one's own nation lead. And we reject it. We learned that lesson the hard way. There is not one nation in Europe which wishes to fight another war... witness the demonstrations in Great Britain (USA's closest ally) in these days of GW Bush's visit.
This is not necessarily a good thing either. I'm not saying that. Our passive nature led to the most appalling crimes to be perpetrated in the Balkans, but at the same time, I can understand why Europes leaders were reluctant to get involved. The Balkans have always been a trouble spot and quite frankly, we've given the lives of so many young men for them in the past that (IMHO) many European leaders did not care to walk that path again.
The last time Europe intervened in Balkan politics it led to the first world war and the battle of the Somme... (1,000,000 deaths in one battle!) as well as the rise of the Soviet Union, and the later rise to power of Adolf Hitler...
It is against this back drop one must consider Europe's attitude to war. Not just in the Balkans, but in every instance. Europe actually has more men under arms than the USA, but we do not have the capacity to wage international war any more. Neither logistically or politically. I myself served in the military for four years, but I did so in the clear understanding that I was serving my country as a defence against the Warsaw pact. At no point were we willing to strike first, and my entire military education was based upon the concept of a Soviet or Polish invasion.
In the mean time, we are called socialist as if this were some sort of affliction, but once again, the reality of life in Europe is being ignored... (through ignorance or spite?)
Europe is crowded. It is not the wide open nation that America is where people drive to the corner shop. It is a small continent which has been cultivated for centuries. There have been drops in the population over the years as war, famine and disease took their toll, but since the second world war the population density has steadily risen until today, it is becoming a serious problem.
Add to this the massive increase in immigration which Europe has suffered in the last few decades and what you get is a shortage of housing and the inevitable steadily rising prices... It has taken me almost four years to find a decent flat in my city...
Once upon a time... in the not so distant past, this would have led to a war but today people are coping with these problems by trying to adapt to them with social laws.
Whether its socialism or not, makes no difference to us, since we do not think of it in such terms. We have problems and we make the best solutions we can to alleviate those problems. We have state run social systems designed to help people survive by sharing some of the collective wealth. Socialism? perhaps, but do you know a better way?
Looking at our worst critics, the Americans, I do not see a nation of compassion that takes care of its weaker members at all. I see a country which lets its poor live in squalor and poverty and which refuses to acknowledge the problems it is stroing up for future generations.
That makes no difference to me though (except that I don't take criticism well). What happens in the future of Denmark is my concern, and that means understanding how the world works around us, and identifying with cold certainty who is making the waves which rock our boat... cause its not a big boat.
Although I can actually respect the Americans (though its easier for me to appreciate the Americans for who they were, ather than who they now are) I have no desire to live in America. I am certainly not jealous.
For most of my life, I have been poor, and suffering from medical problems. The Danish state helped me survive for almost ten years whilst I struggled with illness and school until finally I am now able (thanks also to the free medical service) to finally work and make my own way in the world.
The fundamental difference, as I understand it, between America and Europe (especially Denmark) is that in America, I would not have had that help.
As I see it...
Patriotism: In Western Europe, patriotism is to us attached to a geographic area and not to ideals. We have had fairly unchanging borders since 1648 and have come to strongly identify a country and the area. It seems to me that Americans associate more strongly with a way of life - the borders of the USA have been more fluid - so although America has a geographic location, it is less strongly associated with that location than with certain values and beliefs. It is not possible to be unScottish - you are either Scottish because you were born within the geographical boundaries of Scotland (or moved there and claimed citizenship) or you are from another country (England, France, Germany). There are no Scottish ideals to follow. You CAN be unAmerican despite being born in America, if you do not adhere to the ideals (which are all very good).
The difference between governmental style: Either you believe that everyone has the freedom & duty to manage their own lives, or you believe that the state should act as a safety net for the poor and disabled. In Britain, the concept of paying for health care is rather shocking, wheras in America it is quite normal. We do of course pay for the health system, but through taxes, so in essence, the rich HAVE to subsidise the healthcare of the poor. So we accept a greater level of governmental invasion into our private lives that forces us to pay taxes to provide a welfare state than do Americans. I cant say whether this is good or bad....
Religion: Has caused too many wars in Europe to ever be fully trusted. Organised religion has traditionally held much more political power in Europe than in the US, so in a sense by encouraging a more secular society, we prevent undue interference in our political establishments by organised religious groups. However, I feel it is highly unfair to say that Europe does not respect the rights of religious groups - it is merely that people feel that to keep society comfortable we shouldn't go and shout our beliefs from the rooftops, because chances are, someone else will have a historical reason to dislike that religion.
Incidentally, looking at the whole of the last thousand years, Christianity has easily been the most intolerant religion. SoCaliente1 is being extremely unfair to Islam - which has always held that although other religions are wrong, tolerance and gentle conversion are the way to perservere. Yes, over the last century that has not been the case in certain countries - Saudi Arabia for example, but a few isolated incidents do not mean that Islam is a basically intolerant religion. I don't mean to say that Christianity is based on intolerance, it isn't, but Christian countries have easily matched Islamic countries in terms of brutality towards those who do not conform.
And yes, there is a perception that Americans think themselves better than anyone else - and that they either ignore or are ignorant of their countries faults....but I know more than a few Brits who claim that the British Empire brought civilisation to the unenlightened (and ignore the slaughter) or French who believe that they alone developed culture...Americans get the blame because they're this century's superpower. Every country that has dominated its neighbours gets the same treatment......if Scotland ruled the world, I'd probably be fairly proud about it, just as everyone else would resent my country for being on top.
Patriotism: In Western Europe, patriotism is to us attached to a geographic area and not to ideals. We have had fairly unchanging borders since 1648 and have come to strongly identify a country and the area. It seems to me that Americans associate more strongly with a way of life - the borders of the USA have been more fluid - so although America has a geographic location, it is less strongly associated with that location than with certain values and beliefs. It is not possible to be unScottish - you are either Scottish because you were born within the geographical boundaries of Scotland (or moved there and claimed citizenship) or you are from another country (England, France, Germany). There are no Scottish ideals to follow. You CAN be unAmerican despite being born in America, if you do not adhere to the ideals (which are all very good).
The difference between governmental style: Either you believe that everyone has the freedom & duty to manage their own lives, or you believe that the state should act as a safety net for the poor and disabled. In Britain, the concept of paying for health care is rather shocking, wheras in America it is quite normal. We do of course pay for the health system, but through taxes, so in essence, the rich HAVE to subsidise the healthcare of the poor. So we accept a greater level of governmental invasion into our private lives that forces us to pay taxes to provide a welfare state than do Americans. I cant say whether this is good or bad....
Religion: Has caused too many wars in Europe to ever be fully trusted. Organised religion has traditionally held much more political power in Europe than in the US, so in a sense by encouraging a more secular society, we prevent undue interference in our political establishments by organised religious groups. However, I feel it is highly unfair to say that Europe does not respect the rights of religious groups - it is merely that people feel that to keep society comfortable we shouldn't go and shout our beliefs from the rooftops, because chances are, someone else will have a historical reason to dislike that religion.
Incidentally, looking at the whole of the last thousand years, Christianity has easily been the most intolerant religion. SoCaliente1 is being extremely unfair to Islam - which has always held that although other religions are wrong, tolerance and gentle conversion are the way to perservere. Yes, over the last century that has not been the case in certain countries - Saudi Arabia for example, but a few isolated incidents do not mean that Islam is a basically intolerant religion. I don't mean to say that Christianity is based on intolerance, it isn't, but Christian countries have easily matched Islamic countries in terms of brutality towards those who do not conform.
And yes, there is a perception that Americans think themselves better than anyone else - and that they either ignore or are ignorant of their countries faults....but I know more than a few Brits who claim that the British Empire brought civilisation to the unenlightened (and ignore the slaughter) or French who believe that they alone developed culture...Americans get the blame because they're this century's superpower. Every country that has dominated its neighbours gets the same treatment......if Scotland ruled the world, I'd probably be fairly proud about it, just as everyone else would resent my country for being on top.
A good article which contrasts the European vs. the US stance on things:
Anti-American European?: Read This
I think for many Europeans, this rings true. Security above freedom. Equality above opportunity. Neither position is necessarily always the correct one, but there are distinct difference between the American outlook versus that of Europe.
Anti-American European?: Read This
QUOTE
For one thing, Europeans really value security-state benefits, for instance-whereas we very much prefer liberty and independence. We prefer to take risks, since risk-taking has often been beneficial in our lives. By contrast, Europeans seem to have experienced so much disruption and insecurity during the past 200 years, that one can hardly blame them for preferring a few generations of stability, security, and predictability.
I have often noted in European inns and elsewhere that ordinary Europeans like to keep to the way they have been doing things, and don't like to hear new methods suggested, even if they would be helpful. By contrast, we Americans are constantly giving each other — and welcoming — advice on new, labor-saving methods. And we love to try new things. Tocqueville noticed this 170 years ago. He attributed it to shortages on the frontier; everybody learned to improvise, to do it themselves.
Again, Europeans really do have a passion for equality that seems odd and unnatural to Americans. Perhaps this passion arises from harsh memories of the feudal class system. Yet where in nature is equality the rule? Not in snowflakes, leaves, or human talents, ambitions, personal efforts, or luck. Human beings are not equal (the same); each is unique. Still, Europeans seem mad for equality.
For instance, if a plan were proposed guaranteeing everyone the same outcome, Europeans would prefer it, even though that plan required that everyone would receive less than in a more dynamic system. By contrast, Americans would enthusiastically prefer a more dynamic system, in which the benefits of all would constantly be rising, even though the dynamism meant that some would receive more, and some less.
Europeans prefer equality at the cost of stasis. Provided that all have fair and open opportunity, Americans prefer dynamic growth, at the cost of strict equality of outcomes. Europeans watch equality like a hawk. Americans guard opportunity — and the chance to excel.
Correspondingly, Europeans seem to suffer from spasms of envy. They don't like others getting ahead of them. They clutch to their breast century-old privileges given their families or guilds. They are protective of advantages, even at the cost of the common good. The way workers strike and otherwise disrupt daily life in Europe illustrates this.
There many jokes about the power of envy in Europe. A European peasant is told by a genie that he will be given whatever he wishes for, on condition that his neighbor will receive twice as much. Instantly, the peasant chooses: "Take out one of my eyes."
Envy is also a reality in America, of course; but its social role is much diminished. As long as there is economic growth and dynamism, and open opportunity, individuals give themselves over to the pursuit of their own happiness, in their own way, without comparing their personal outcomes overmuch with those of others. In families, one brother goes this way, another another, a third in a still different direction. As long as each is happy doing what he does, why should Joe be envious of Peter or Paul?
In the same spirit, it makes no sense for Europe to be envious of America, or the reverse. Each sees aspects of life in the other that are far preferable to the alternatives at home. For instance, café life in Europe is far more satisfactory than in America, and no doubt in daily life Europeans eat far better (especially in Italy and France). We Americans love traveling in Europe for its superiorities. But many of us would not have the patience to live there for too long a time, since we miss a certain openness and social permeability.
Even so, the way that life in Europe is organized around food and conversation is very tempting to Americans, especially artists and writers. For myself, I think the "celestial banquet" will be more like a dinner in Rome or Umbria or Tuscany than any meal I have ever had in America.
I have often noted in European inns and elsewhere that ordinary Europeans like to keep to the way they have been doing things, and don't like to hear new methods suggested, even if they would be helpful. By contrast, we Americans are constantly giving each other — and welcoming — advice on new, labor-saving methods. And we love to try new things. Tocqueville noticed this 170 years ago. He attributed it to shortages on the frontier; everybody learned to improvise, to do it themselves.
Again, Europeans really do have a passion for equality that seems odd and unnatural to Americans. Perhaps this passion arises from harsh memories of the feudal class system. Yet where in nature is equality the rule? Not in snowflakes, leaves, or human talents, ambitions, personal efforts, or luck. Human beings are not equal (the same); each is unique. Still, Europeans seem mad for equality.
For instance, if a plan were proposed guaranteeing everyone the same outcome, Europeans would prefer it, even though that plan required that everyone would receive less than in a more dynamic system. By contrast, Americans would enthusiastically prefer a more dynamic system, in which the benefits of all would constantly be rising, even though the dynamism meant that some would receive more, and some less.
Europeans prefer equality at the cost of stasis. Provided that all have fair and open opportunity, Americans prefer dynamic growth, at the cost of strict equality of outcomes. Europeans watch equality like a hawk. Americans guard opportunity — and the chance to excel.
Correspondingly, Europeans seem to suffer from spasms of envy. They don't like others getting ahead of them. They clutch to their breast century-old privileges given their families or guilds. They are protective of advantages, even at the cost of the common good. The way workers strike and otherwise disrupt daily life in Europe illustrates this.
There many jokes about the power of envy in Europe. A European peasant is told by a genie that he will be given whatever he wishes for, on condition that his neighbor will receive twice as much. Instantly, the peasant chooses: "Take out one of my eyes."
Envy is also a reality in America, of course; but its social role is much diminished. As long as there is economic growth and dynamism, and open opportunity, individuals give themselves over to the pursuit of their own happiness, in their own way, without comparing their personal outcomes overmuch with those of others. In families, one brother goes this way, another another, a third in a still different direction. As long as each is happy doing what he does, why should Joe be envious of Peter or Paul?
In the same spirit, it makes no sense for Europe to be envious of America, or the reverse. Each sees aspects of life in the other that are far preferable to the alternatives at home. For instance, café life in Europe is far more satisfactory than in America, and no doubt in daily life Europeans eat far better (especially in Italy and France). We Americans love traveling in Europe for its superiorities. But many of us would not have the patience to live there for too long a time, since we miss a certain openness and social permeability.
Even so, the way that life in Europe is organized around food and conversation is very tempting to Americans, especially artists and writers. For myself, I think the "celestial banquet" will be more like a dinner in Rome or Umbria or Tuscany than any meal I have ever had in America.
I think for many Europeans, this rings true. Security above freedom. Equality above opportunity. Neither position is necessarily always the correct one, but there are distinct difference between the American outlook versus that of Europe.
QUOTE
So the US is among the most religious countries in the world. It is, on average, twice as religious as our European contemporaries
Interesting food for thought--who might also place religion so high on their list? Why, the Muslim countries around the world. Perhaps this has something to do with their animosity towards us? Or perhaps we are much more similar than we might think?
QUOTE
Incidentally, looking at the whole of the last thousand years, Christianity has easily been the most intolerant religion.
In what way are you speaking? the crusades? The witch burnings? When, in recently times has there been "govt or state sponsored" killings, torturing, imprisonments in the name of Jesus? Maybe Islam has YET to catch up to MODERN times.
QUOTE
SoCaliente1 is being extremely unfair to Islam
how so?
QUOTE
Yes, over the last century that has not been the case in certain countries - Saudi Arabia for example, but a few isolated incidents do not mean that Islam is a basically intolerant religion.
Saudi Arabia is 100% muslim. Visiting infidels (non- muslims) are strictly forbidden to enter certain cites. What city, town does the US strictly forbid as off limits to any religions? even the Vatican allows ALL regions to enter.
QUOTE
I don't mean to say that Christianity is based on intolerance, it isn't, but Christian countries have easily matched Islamic countries in terms of brutality towards those who do not conform.
yes and in what century?
Hmm...I have seen a much different picture in re: to Britain's support for Bush, The Iraq war and the general views of the US being chatted about in the news lately than the one Amlord has supplied.
read me
My father and I discussed this ages ago...would the British public grow more anti-war if Iraq proved to be more of a risk that what was originally thought? And it has hasn't it..and the British have instead turned their attitudes around on the matter. Heightened violence, death and casualties have instead caused greater support amongst the British. Why is that? It is because it brings back the pain and remembrance of the lives British soldiers have already given to that area of the world...it reminds many that their sacrifices have been for naught..and it hurts. Iraq and Britain have a very long history as Britain does with all of the ME and Britains for the most part do not feel guilty for their role...rather I think they feel slighted. I think the upsurge of attacks by those who represent the fanatical, unreasonable and untamable defiance to western reasoning and stabilizing in the region will and can only make Britains feel a greater need to take control.
Unlike our poor president who has been politically harmed by the lack of control and mission completion in Iraq.... Blair seems to have been helped.
Yes of course American's are fundamentally different but we also share many of the same ideals with others too.
I have to completely disagree with the idea that Europeans are not patriotic. Europeans are extremely patriotic but for some reason have become to believe that for the most part expressing such an attitude is considered to be arrogant. They are suppressed patriots
Germany is a perfect example of my theory.
I would go on about it but i am always getting in trouble around here for topic deviation.
read me
My father and I discussed this ages ago...would the British public grow more anti-war if Iraq proved to be more of a risk that what was originally thought? And it has hasn't it..and the British have instead turned their attitudes around on the matter. Heightened violence, death and casualties have instead caused greater support amongst the British. Why is that? It is because it brings back the pain and remembrance of the lives British soldiers have already given to that area of the world...it reminds many that their sacrifices have been for naught..and it hurts. Iraq and Britain have a very long history as Britain does with all of the ME and Britains for the most part do not feel guilty for their role...rather I think they feel slighted. I think the upsurge of attacks by those who represent the fanatical, unreasonable and untamable defiance to western reasoning and stabilizing in the region will and can only make Britains feel a greater need to take control.
Unlike our poor president who has been politically harmed by the lack of control and mission completion in Iraq.... Blair seems to have been helped.
Yes of course American's are fundamentally different but we also share many of the same ideals with others too.
I have to completely disagree with the idea that Europeans are not patriotic. Europeans are extremely patriotic but for some reason have become to believe that for the most part expressing such an attitude is considered to be arrogant. They are suppressed patriots
Germany is a perfect example of my theory. I would go on about it but i am always getting in trouble around here for topic deviation.
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 18 2003, 01:13 AM)
I have no desire to live in America. I am certainly not jealous.
SNIP
The Danish state helped me survive
SNIP
The fundamental difference, as I understand it, between America and Europe (especially Denmark) is that in America, I would not have had that help.
SNIP
The Danish state helped me survive
SNIP
The fundamental difference, as I understand it, between America and Europe (especially Denmark) is that in America, I would not have had that help.
Moif, that is an excellent analysis you give.
I have lived in the US and I have lived in Europe. Living in the US is very nice, for a variety of reasons that would be off topic here, so don't knock it till you've tried it ;-)
You say that you can respect the Americans...I have some problems with that. Often people in this country behave like spoiled rich children. I have very little respect for that. However, this is a big place, with lots of different people, and there are also very intelligent and compassionate people.
I think that most people in this country live a sheltered life but have their hearts in the right place. Unfortunately they are badly misinformed. I have seen very few outright calleous people here. In fact, in everyday life people here are much nicer than in say, Germany or worse, France.
Of course, the US is big, as I keep saying, and my experience is somewhat limited to California.
QUOTE
The promise of America was that it granted every religion its freedom. It was within the very Christian beliefs that this idea of religious freedom came to root. It's sad that this has become trendy to deny. Freedom CLEARLY wasn't rooted in Islamic beliefs, we can see how Islam treats the idea of religious freedoms in predominately Islamic coutries.
SoCaliente_1 - you're original post states that freedom isn't rooted in religious beliefs, but is in Christian beliefs. Both religions take the same view of other religions - that they are wrong BUT we should tolerate those who worship other religions and attempt to convert them. This is the religious tolerance it is NOT religious freedom . The concept of religious freedom has not arisen from any religious views, it arises from secular philosophy.
Personally I do not believe that ANY religous belief can be given credit for the freedoms that people enjoy in America.
Now, your other point was that Islamic countries use suppression, torture etc in modern times and that Christian countries do not and have not for centuries. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but are not a large number of South American countries Catholic? There has been plenty of torture and suppression carried out there in modern times AND the name of Jesus has (albeit occasionally) been invoked. Governments do not torture in the name of Islam, or Jesus or anyone else but to retain power.
In a dictatorial regime such as Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud have to sell themselves as being Islamic to retain public support. Therefore an obvious target for persecution are non-Muslims, who are also blamed for crimes and all the ills that Saudi Arabia suffers. This is to direct public hostility away from their (extremely decadent) rulers.
Mnay predominantly Muslim countries are at least tolerant of others beliefs (i.e. you can worship, but not convert others) BECAUSE that is what Islam directs. It IS NOT as progressive (IMO) as religious freedom , but to say that religious freedom arises from Christianity is not true - ('do not worship false idols').
The USA enjoys religious freedom because it has NOT allowed religion to have too great a say in its constitution. This is markedly different from European countries, where Christian roots can be clearly seen in the constitutional makeup.
Moif, thank you for your detailed analysis. I find it so enlightening when you and some of our other international members take the time to talk in detail about international issues.
Perhaps, but experience can alter the way in which we view the world, which is why I think that funadamentally is too strong a word when talking about our differences.
There is no denying that in our current era, we are very different, but as time moves on and the United States grows in population, she may look to Europe for answers...or she may not. It's hard to say, but I contend that future experience could bring us closer together ideologically.
I get the impression that I'm taking the question for debate a little bit too literally though. I'm hung on that word: "fundamentally," and all that I can think about is that humans are fundamentally the same, and we build on our experiences. If Amlord is asking if Europe and America are profoundly different right now than I would answer, yes. In some ways, we are clearly different.
Edited to fix my italics
QUOTE
Looking at our worst critics, the Americans, I do not see a nation of compassion that takes care of its weaker members at all. I see a country which lets its poor live in squalor and poverty and which refuses to acknowledge the problems it is stroing up for future generations.
Perhaps, but experience can alter the way in which we view the world, which is why I think that funadamentally is too strong a word when talking about our differences.
There is no denying that in our current era, we are very different, but as time moves on and the United States grows in population, she may look to Europe for answers...or she may not. It's hard to say, but I contend that future experience could bring us closer together ideologically.
I get the impression that I'm taking the question for debate a little bit too literally though. I'm hung on that word: "fundamentally," and all that I can think about is that humans are fundamentally the same, and we build on our experiences. If Amlord is asking if Europe and America are profoundly different right now than I would answer, yes. In some ways, we are clearly different.
Edited to fix my italics
Different compared to whom?
It's just occured to me, the on the scale of the world, the US and Europe are actually quite similar!
Which two are more similar in terms of culture, language and even religion (although intensity of worship does vary).
US / Europe (and I'm including the UK, although most people in Britain would debate how 'European' the UK actually is)
US / India
US / China
US / Russia (for purposes of my argument, Russia is being considered Asian, because it certainly isn't what you would consider 'typical' Europe)
US / Japan
US / Indonesia (3rd largest country in the world)
US / North Africa
US / Middle East
US / West Africa
US / Sub-Saharan Africa
US / East & South Africa
I have deliberately missed out Australia and Canada, because in terms of culture, language etc, they're really a hybrid of US / UK cultures.
Now, some might say that, as a 'melting pot' that the USA has aspects of all of the above, which is true. However, I would submit that the USA has a dominant culture - and that that culture is closer to 'European' than anywhere else.
So in relative terms, I'd say they're not too different at all!
(looks worried and leaves the room)
It's just occured to me, the on the scale of the world, the US and Europe are actually quite similar!
Which two are more similar in terms of culture, language and even religion (although intensity of worship does vary).
US / Europe (and I'm including the UK, although most people in Britain would debate how 'European' the UK actually is)
US / India
US / China
US / Russia (for purposes of my argument, Russia is being considered Asian, because it certainly isn't what you would consider 'typical' Europe)
US / Japan
US / Indonesia (3rd largest country in the world)
US / North Africa
US / Middle East
US / West Africa
US / Sub-Saharan Africa
US / East & South Africa
I have deliberately missed out Australia and Canada, because in terms of culture, language etc, they're really a hybrid of US / UK cultures.
Now, some might say that, as a 'melting pot' that the USA has aspects of all of the above, which is true. However, I would submit that the USA has a dominant culture - and that that culture is closer to 'European' than anywhere else.
So in relative terms, I'd say they're not too different at all!
(looks worried and leaves the room)
QUOTE(nikachu @ Nov 20 2003, 12:37 PM)
I have deliberately missed out Australia and Canada, because in terms of culture, language etc, they're really a hybrid of US / UK cultures.
I can't speak for Australia, but your observation about Canada is patently untrue. Canadian culture has been heavily influenced by America and Britain, and also France, the First Nations, and the emerging social dynamics that are created through the conflict of the three founding nations here.
Is America really like Europe? Not at all. America is the only country that has embraced neo-liberalism from top to bottom.
Okay, yes I forgot to mention France and the indigenous peoples, which was stupid of me.
I don't think that makes my comment patently untrue though. French influence is confined to specific areas and the rest is still very similar to UK / US culture - when compared to the rest of the world which was the point of my post.
Taking my own country - I feel Scotland to be fundamentally different from England in a million highly significant ways. (The Scots are much better ) - however anyone outside Britain would probably find it hard to tell the difference - difference is relative.
I believe Hong Kong adopted economic neoliberalism under UK rule, but I wasn't very sure what neoliberalism is, as all the definitions I found varied a lot...can anyone define 'neoliberalism' for me?
Now I'm going to get aussies yelling at me too. I'm sorry, all you colonials have valid cultures and aren't just hybrids of US/UK cultures..happy?
I don't think that makes my comment patently untrue though. French influence is confined to specific areas and the rest is still very similar to UK / US culture - when compared to the rest of the world which was the point of my post.
Taking my own country - I feel Scotland to be fundamentally different from England in a million highly significant ways. (The Scots are much better
) - however anyone outside Britain would probably find it hard to tell the difference - difference is relative.I believe Hong Kong adopted economic neoliberalism under UK rule, but I wasn't very sure what neoliberalism is, as all the definitions I found varied a lot...can anyone define 'neoliberalism' for me?
Now I'm going to get aussies yelling at me too. I'm sorry, all you colonials have valid cultures and aren't just hybrids of US/UK cultures..happy?
nikachu...well I have no say in how Ultimatejoe meant to use the term neo-liberalism...so I will not speak for him.
Yet generally speaking the term is used today to classify capitalism...globalisation and the free market free trade approach. It is a confusing term and use of it to me also because free markets and free trade are anything but new...or neo.
Yet generally speaking the term is used today to classify capitalism...globalisation and the free market free trade approach. It is a confusing term and use of it to me also because free markets and free trade are anything but new...or neo.
[QUOTE]SoCaliente_1 - you're original post states that freedom isn't rooted in religious beliefs, but is in Christian beliefs.[/QUOTE]
true. no other religion was represented in the numbers that christians were at the time of the american revolution. unless you can show otherwise.
[QUOTE]This is the religious tolerance it is NOT religious freedom . The concept of religious freedom has not arisen from any religious views, it arises from secular philosophy.[/QUOTE]
and "tolerance" is a bad thing? how? the beginnings of this country were based on freedoms, religious and otherwise. the founding fathers were not Muslim, Hindu, or other. they were christian.
[QUOTE]Personally I do not believe that ANY religous belief can be given credit for the freedoms that people enjoy in America.[/QUOTE] personally you can believe what you like. we're free to do that.
[QUOTE]Now, your other point was that Islamic countries use suppression, torture etc in modern times and that Christian countries do not and have not for centuries[/QUOTE] yes, apostates can be punished under Sharia law.
[QUOTE] Now, correct me if I am wrong, but are not a large number of South American countries Catholic? There has been plenty of torture and suppression carried out there in modern times AND the name of Jesus has (albeit occasionally) been invoked.[/QUOTE] yes, there are so.american countries where the majority of it's citizens are "jesus-belief" based. But you would definitely need to prove this. Don't confuse the acts on governmental communism with the christian based populace [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Governments do not torture in the name of Islam[/QUOTE] They don't? these are a few of the countries that operate under islamic law. afghanistan pre-war, saudi arabia, under ISLAMIC law women can be stoned for adultery. apostates are routinely punished.
edit: im not sure why the quote thingy is not working. what did i do wrong?
true. no other religion was represented in the numbers that christians were at the time of the american revolution. unless you can show otherwise.
[QUOTE]This is the religious tolerance it is NOT religious freedom . The concept of religious freedom has not arisen from any religious views, it arises from secular philosophy.[/QUOTE]
and "tolerance" is a bad thing? how? the beginnings of this country were based on freedoms, religious and otherwise. the founding fathers were not Muslim, Hindu, or other. they were christian.
[QUOTE]Personally I do not believe that ANY religous belief can be given credit for the freedoms that people enjoy in America.[/QUOTE] personally you can believe what you like. we're free to do that.
[QUOTE]Now, your other point was that Islamic countries use suppression, torture etc in modern times and that Christian countries do not and have not for centuries[/QUOTE] yes, apostates can be punished under Sharia law.
[QUOTE] Now, correct me if I am wrong, but are not a large number of South American countries Catholic? There has been plenty of torture and suppression carried out there in modern times AND the name of Jesus has (albeit occasionally) been invoked.[/QUOTE] yes, there are so.american countries where the majority of it's citizens are "jesus-belief" based. But you would definitely need to prove this. Don't confuse the acts on governmental communism with the christian based populace [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Governments do not torture in the name of Islam[/QUOTE] They don't? these are a few of the countries that operate under islamic law. afghanistan pre-war, saudi arabia, under ISLAMIC law women can be stoned for adultery. apostates are routinely punished.
edit: im not sure why the quote thingy is not working. what did i do wrong?
QUOTE(bucket @ Nov 20 2003, 02:33 PM)
Yet generally speaking the term is used today to classify capitalism...globalisation and the free market free trade approach. It is a confusing term and use of it to me also because free markets and free trade are anything but new...or neo.
This is really not true. Neoliberalism does not mean capitalism. Capitalism means capitalism. Neoliberalism is a political philosophy that eschews government intervention in society and places an emphasis on the market for the most part. It is a philosophy that is highly individualistic in terms of rights, but sees no distinction from one individual to the next.
Ultimatejoe...
I never stated that neoliberalism means and only means capitalism. Never made out as if the two words were interchangeable..I actually listed a slew of words. I agree and understand that it is in fact a philosophy..yet I do not understand how neoliberalism exists without capitalism ?
It is a term not used much here in the US and if you asked Americans to classify what political philosophy you have described with your brief description you just gave most would think libertarianism.
Also now that you have given us a vague understanding of what you meant with the term...neoliberlaism..I can disagree with you and say that America has not braced neoliberalism top to bottom and much of the current happenings in our world of trade proves my point. Besides...neoliberalism is hardly contained and restricted to any one nation or culture...that is actually the heart of it's beliefs is it not?
edited to add ...
SoCaliente_1 you have to open tags butted up to each other... after the words of yours...
Don't confuse the acts on governmental communism with the christian based populace
I never stated that neoliberalism means and only means capitalism. Never made out as if the two words were interchangeable..I actually listed a slew of words. I agree and understand that it is in fact a philosophy..yet I do not understand how neoliberalism exists without capitalism ?
It is a term not used much here in the US and if you asked Americans to classify what political philosophy you have described with your brief description you just gave most would think libertarianism.
Also now that you have given us a vague understanding of what you meant with the term...neoliberlaism..I can disagree with you
and say that America has not braced neoliberalism top to bottom and much of the current happenings in our world of trade proves my point. Besides...neoliberalism is hardly contained and restricted to any one nation or culture...that is actually the heart of it's beliefs is it not?edited to add ...
SoCaliente_1 you have to open tags butted up to each other... after the words of yours...
Don't confuse the acts on governmental communism with the christian based populace
QUOTE(SoCal)
They don't? these are a few of the countries that operate under islamic law. afghanistan pre-war, saudi arabia, under ISLAMIC law women can be stoned for adultery. apostates are routinely punished.
Doesn't this also occurs in the bible? I remember most of the 10 commandments are punishable by death. True Christian fundamentalism is just as frightening as Islamic fundamentalism.
I believe as someone wrote previously; that Islam has been stuck in the middle ages in some countries. There was once a time when the Islamic nations were far more advanced than their Christian counterparts. And, of course, the Jews were far better off before the first crusade, when Muslims were in possession of Jerusalem than after, when the crusade was successful. But that's old history.
QUOTE(nikachu)
Now I'm going to get aussies yelling at me too. I'm sorry, all you colonials have valid cultures and aren't just hybrids of US/UK cultures..happy?
You're lucky you said that! But in the case of Australia, it's almost true. We were a little England for a very long time... possibly up until World War II, when American GIs came here with the intention of using us as a staging base with an eye on Japan. We were practically abandoned by the English, so we praised the Americans that they'd be willing to guard us from what we saw as a threat from Japan. They won us over with gifts and charm, and when they left, the bellies of our women were all swollen...
That left a lasting influence in our culture. Other important influences came from a later influx of migrants; mainly Italian and Greek. Later came Asians. All this has created an Australian culture unique in itself.
Personally, I often see American patriotism as a form of arrogance. Occasionally it's touching. Often its boisterous.
If sense I don't make it's because tired am I.
I think the responses had more to do with how the original questions were phrased than any true difference of national pride or religion. For example, a European would respond very differently to the phrase,"are you proud to be a (insert nationality)". We've grown accustomed to the slogan, 'Proud to be an American', but a European would be likely to construe that phrase as arrogant. That doesn't diminish their personal pride in their country. Ask them,"Do you love your country?", and I would expect more Europeans than Americans would respond affirmatively.
Regarding religion, it's true I didn't know any Italians who were regular church attenders, but I'd bet 99 percent of bloodline Italians (in Italy) take their christenings and catholic first communion very seriously. There is a tribute to the Madonna on every third street corner in every little village, and religious symbols decorate public areas, which we would never, never-ever allow to stand in our public areas here. I am absolutely certain Italians love their Pope more than we generally love our religious figureheads. I can't say I understand the results to the poll. Even the atheists in Italy consider themselves to be Catholic.
Regarding religion, it's true I didn't know any Italians who were regular church attenders, but I'd bet 99 percent of bloodline Italians (in Italy) take their christenings and catholic first communion very seriously. There is a tribute to the Madonna on every third street corner in every little village, and religious symbols decorate public areas, which we would never, never-ever allow to stand in our public areas here. I am absolutely certain Italians love their Pope more than we generally love our religious figureheads. I can't say I understand the results to the poll. Even the atheists in Italy consider themselves to be Catholic.
As has been mentioned previously, my parents both come from Italy. I can tell you that though they don't attend church regularly, they do take religion very seriously. When I set the table, the cutlery isn't allowed to form a cross, accidentally or not. When my mother makes pizza, the dough always has a cross cut on it just before she leaves it to rise. And I would probably get yelled at if I ever leave a loaf of crusty bread on its back.
This is the same with every Italian I've met. I'm a deist, and I hate the pomp and ceremony of high church. But I can't help but cross myself when I enter a church ( though we no longer cross ourselves when we pass a church in the street), or follow all the silly little rules I mentioned earlier. And the same applies to every Italian I've met here in Australia. My grandmother still goes to church every week.
I can't say much about that. I've heard very little said about the pope by Italians, other than some anti-papish sentiments regarding his holiness's vast wealth, or his failing health...
But I can tell you that they'd love "their Pope" a lot more if he wasn't a Pole.
As far as patriotism goes, I think Italians have a lot more pride for their own particular regions or provinces than they have for their entire country. But not by much.
This is the same with every Italian I've met. I'm a deist, and I hate the pomp and ceremony of high church. But I can't help but cross myself when I enter a church ( though we no longer cross ourselves when we pass a church in the street), or follow all the silly little rules I mentioned earlier. And the same applies to every Italian I've met here in Australia. My grandmother still goes to church every week.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
I am absolutely certain Italians love their Pope more than we generally love our religious figureheads.
I can't say much about that. I've heard very little said about the pope by Italians, other than some anti-papish sentiments regarding his holiness's vast wealth, or his failing health...
But I can tell you that they'd love "their Pope" a lot more if he wasn't a Pole.
As far as patriotism goes, I think Italians have a lot more pride for their own particular regions or provinces than they have for their entire country. But not by much.
In response to religin, I have to say I feel religion in my country is taken very seriously. The official religion for Scotland (religion is one of the main thing that seperates us in Britain, along with education and law) is surprisingly enough, the Church of Scotland. We are a Christian country (apparently), and even I was baptised.
The freedom of religion in my country is as good as anywhere in the world in my opinion. We are no longer forced into being protestants at schools (although at my primary school we had very religious Christian teachers, had to pray and had to attend church at certain times such as Easter, and learn about Christian beliefs - you could only get out of this if the parents kicked up a fuss, something I see as grotesque and outdated)
We are not short on religious education. At secondary school a core subject is Religious Education: where we learn about all religions, their natures, creation stories, beliefs, histories and peoples.
I do not for one second believe that Britains low religious score is the result of a lack of religious freedom or education. I believe it is a result of that very freedom (the freedom to say 'none' in all those forms), and the very nature of our culture. For me, and no doubt countless others, religion is meaningless to my existence. That is not to say spirituality is meaningless to me. But 'signing up' to a specific religion means I should adapt and conform to fit that description, otherwise why am I joining a religion? For me, religion denies my right to beliefs as an individual.
To compare it to the issue recently with the gay bishop and the Anglican church. In the bible, sodomy is described as a sin (as far as Im aware). Now, regardless of whether they practice it or not, if it is banned by a group of people, why on earth would you want to join that group? It is obviously not what you believe in, and it is futile to try and change it. The same sort of applies to me. I do not believe in a supreme being, I do not believe in any messiah, I do not believe in heaven as it is described, nor hell. I certainly do not believe in creation stories. In fact, my beliefs are very close to what is called by some Humanism - the belief in scinetific explanations: evolution, the big bang etc. But not for one second would I ever consider 'signing up'.
If 33% describe themselvs as religious in my country, I am glad that this probably means 67% have their own ideas. 67% have no need or desire to join a group to make them feel better about themselves. 67% have grasped that freedom to choose, and have either chosen the route of atheism or pointed out that no religion describes their beliefs.
In this respect the US is probably fundamentally different from my country. My mother wouldn't desribe herself as religious (spirtual yes) but does believe in an afterlife, morals and right and wrong. In the US, Christianity is obviously important to the people, and I guess its just a different way of looking at things. In Britain and a lot of the rest of the world, religion is not as important. It is not wrong, it is not better or worse, it does not mean Christianity or any other religion is supressed by our society. Its just different.
The freedom of religion in my country is as good as anywhere in the world in my opinion. We are no longer forced into being protestants at schools (although at my primary school we had very religious Christian teachers, had to pray and had to attend church at certain times such as Easter, and learn about Christian beliefs - you could only get out of this if the parents kicked up a fuss, something I see as grotesque and outdated)
We are not short on religious education. At secondary school a core subject is Religious Education: where we learn about all religions, their natures, creation stories, beliefs, histories and peoples.
I do not for one second believe that Britains low religious score is the result of a lack of religious freedom or education. I believe it is a result of that very freedom (the freedom to say 'none' in all those forms), and the very nature of our culture. For me, and no doubt countless others, religion is meaningless to my existence. That is not to say spirituality is meaningless to me. But 'signing up' to a specific religion means I should adapt and conform to fit that description, otherwise why am I joining a religion? For me, religion denies my right to beliefs as an individual.
To compare it to the issue recently with the gay bishop and the Anglican church. In the bible, sodomy is described as a sin (as far as Im aware). Now, regardless of whether they practice it or not, if it is banned by a group of people, why on earth would you want to join that group? It is obviously not what you believe in, and it is futile to try and change it. The same sort of applies to me. I do not believe in a supreme being, I do not believe in any messiah, I do not believe in heaven as it is described, nor hell. I certainly do not believe in creation stories. In fact, my beliefs are very close to what is called by some Humanism - the belief in scinetific explanations: evolution, the big bang etc. But not for one second would I ever consider 'signing up'.
If 33% describe themselvs as religious in my country, I am glad that this probably means 67% have their own ideas. 67% have no need or desire to join a group to make them feel better about themselves. 67% have grasped that freedom to choose, and have either chosen the route of atheism or pointed out that no religion describes their beliefs.
In this respect the US is probably fundamentally different from my country. My mother wouldn't desribe herself as religious (spirtual yes) but does believe in an afterlife, morals and right and wrong. In the US, Christianity is obviously important to the people, and I guess its just a different way of looking at things. In Britain and a lot of the rest of the world, religion is not as important. It is not wrong, it is not better or worse, it does not mean Christianity or any other religion is supressed by our society. Its just different.
If I may respond to some of the posts on this board:
I believe that there are fundemental differences between the US and much of the World but religious tolerance is by no means a peculiarly American, Western or even Christian quality
Socaliente says that: "The promise of America was that it granted every religion its freedom. "
Certainly not as far as the puritan founding fathers were concerned. They were very strict about toleration of anyone who did not share thier faith. Percieved aposatacy was met with banishment from the settlements - at that time a death sentence.
Socaliente's statement that: "It was within the very Christian beliefs that this idea of religious freedom came to root" seems, to me, equally flawed. the jews were persecuted in Europe by christians for hundreds of years. Indeed many of them fled to Muslim Spain and after its fall to the Levant as they were treated with much greater compassion and respect and enjoyed more freedom of worship under the Muslim caliphs than under Christian kings.
To bring the issue more up do date. Thousands of Muslims were slaughtered due to thier religion during the Balkans war.
I live in a Muslim country and outside of Saudi, you will find Christian churches everywhere (In the Gulf sates the land has generally been donated by the rulers).
In fact the next big enemy (Syria) has a 10% christian population.
Lebanon is around 30% - -CIA Worldfactbook
I believe that there are fundemental differences between the US and much of the World but religious tolerance is by no means a peculiarly American, Western or even Christian quality
Socaliente says that: "The promise of America was that it granted every religion its freedom. "
Certainly not as far as the puritan founding fathers were concerned. They were very strict about toleration of anyone who did not share thier faith. Percieved aposatacy was met with banishment from the settlements - at that time a death sentence.
Socaliente's statement that: "It was within the very Christian beliefs that this idea of religious freedom came to root" seems, to me, equally flawed. the jews were persecuted in Europe by christians for hundreds of years. Indeed many of them fled to Muslim Spain and after its fall to the Levant as they were treated with much greater compassion and respect and enjoyed more freedom of worship under the Muslim caliphs than under Christian kings.
To bring the issue more up do date. Thousands of Muslims were slaughtered due to thier religion during the Balkans war.
I live in a Muslim country and outside of Saudi, you will find Christian churches everywhere (In the Gulf sates the land has generally been donated by the rulers).
In fact the next big enemy (Syria) has a 10% christian population.
Lebanon is around 30% - -CIA Worldfactbook
A really interesting thread. Amlord cited three specific areas that clearly are sources of differentiation between the USA and other countries.
Religion
I think that the idea that America is the most religious country is disingenuous, if for no other reason than you're only comparing America to other post-industrial non-Muslim nations. Who, exactly, would you say that leaves, except Europe, Japan, and some anglophone ex-colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)? How religious are the Japanese?
Religions are still hugely important in the daily lives of most of the Third World (and this include Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a whole host of others).
However, I get the thrust of the argument. America is certainly the most Christian First World country. It's odd, but most Europeans have Christian constitutions and secular publics, whereas America has a secular constitution and a largely Christian public. I think the origins of this stem from moif's point about the religious history of Europe. We are mainly secular over here because of long familiarity with the trouble caused by proselytising relgion.
You are mainly religious (using the same code of "religious"="Christian" for now) because America was founded by religious minorities fleeing state persecution. The strong Christian beliefs of the US people AND the constitutional barriers between church and state stem from this, I think.
One thing I've noticed about many non-religious people in ostensibly Christian cultures, like most of the ones we're talking about (the rationalists, humanists, call them what you will, among whom I would count myself) is a tendency to look down their noses at practising Christians as a little unenlightened, old-fashioned, or even backward. Most Europeans tend to roll their eyes when anyone starts proclaiming their religious faith, or even referring to it as a fact. It isn't seen as offensive - mostly, I'd say it's seen as crashingly dull. (They tend not to do the same to Islam so publicly, though the eye-rolling is much in evidence, in part because Muslims are still somewhat alien to the host cultures, so the familiarity has not yet bred contempt. Not to mention the reputation, deserved or not, of Islam as a more vengeful faith.)
This in itself is not surprising - every likes to think their particular take on things is the best one. The thing that surprises me is the way that Christians respond to this disdain. The responses are often curmudgeonly, as if they recognise that they are somehow old-fashioned, even if they don't mind about it. Has anyone else noticed this?
So I think that, in part, explains the much vaunted air of superiority of Europeans (in particular) over Americans, especially when fronted by someone who references his (and it always has been a "he") faith on the world stage, i.e. Bush Jnr. Which leads me to...
America as a threat to world peace
I haven't seen any comparative data over time on this, but I'd wager that this perception has become widespread only very recently, even if it has been a minority view for a long time.
I'd also guess that it is not even a completely negative thing. Certainly, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the USA clearly had to do some things that were going to disrupt world peace, and they had the support of the vast majority of the world's population and governments (in Europe, in Asia, and yes, even in the Islamic world) in doing so.
I think that the negative aspects have come to the fore, and the perception has become the majority view (in Europe at least), only since the anti-Iraq campaign became a clear possibility.
To this extent, I think that the perception is transitory, inasmuch as it applies to the Bush administration, which will disappear sooner or later; and to the American national mood (more universally understandable after 9-11, if no more widely supported), which will also change eventually, for good or ill.
Patriotism
For one thing, I'm not sure that other countries are that much less patriotic than Americans. We just seem to have different outlets for it. For example, the mass appeal sports we play among ourselves are more internationally widespread, so there are more frequent opportunities to express patriotism through supporting a national team. America doesn't get the same opportunities, since there few of your main sports that are widely played elsewhere (baseball, Japan?; football, Canada?) and the few that are (basketball) don't have dedicated international competitions the way soccer, rugby and cricket do.
For another, there is at least an element of brainwashing going on over there - born UK citizens have no equivalent to the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary or otherwise. We learn which flags are ours, and at least some of the words to our national anthem, but we rarely have to wave or sing them.
But, at root, I would say that there is only one real difference between America and the rest of the world, particularly Europe.
I think there is a general suspicion of the idea of American exceptionalism in its widest context. Americans seem to think that not only is there something intrinsically unique, special and precious about their home country - which is what they have in common with everyone else in the world - but that those differences make America intrinsically better than anywhere else, and that they allow American actions to be subject to different rules than anyone else.
In an historical context, most European countries have thought this way at one time or another, only to have seen the kind of relative decline that makes it impossible to sustain.
Ultimately I think that nations go through the same maturation processes as individuals, and while Europe is now middle-aged, America is in the prime of youth. We are jealous of your vigous and optimism, even though we'll never admit as much. And we are frustrated by your equally youthful refusal to believe that you are not unique, that your problems have been faced before, and that you do not seek out and pay heed to our wisdom.
The real difference between the US and Europe is nothing more or less than a generation gap. By the time you've learned what we know, you'll be sitting on the sidelines watching some other whipper-snapper (China or India, maybe?) make all your mistakes and ignoring your good advice. And we'll be daft old codgers laughing at everyone's foolishness, in between naps.
Religion
I think that the idea that America is the most religious country is disingenuous, if for no other reason than you're only comparing America to other post-industrial non-Muslim nations. Who, exactly, would you say that leaves, except Europe, Japan, and some anglophone ex-colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)? How religious are the Japanese?
Religions are still hugely important in the daily lives of most of the Third World (and this include Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a whole host of others).
However, I get the thrust of the argument. America is certainly the most Christian First World country. It's odd, but most Europeans have Christian constitutions and secular publics, whereas America has a secular constitution and a largely Christian public. I think the origins of this stem from moif's point about the religious history of Europe. We are mainly secular over here because of long familiarity with the trouble caused by proselytising relgion.
You are mainly religious (using the same code of "religious"="Christian" for now) because America was founded by religious minorities fleeing state persecution. The strong Christian beliefs of the US people AND the constitutional barriers between church and state stem from this, I think.
One thing I've noticed about many non-religious people in ostensibly Christian cultures, like most of the ones we're talking about (the rationalists, humanists, call them what you will, among whom I would count myself) is a tendency to look down their noses at practising Christians as a little unenlightened, old-fashioned, or even backward. Most Europeans tend to roll their eyes when anyone starts proclaiming their religious faith, or even referring to it as a fact. It isn't seen as offensive - mostly, I'd say it's seen as crashingly dull. (They tend not to do the same to Islam so publicly, though the eye-rolling is much in evidence, in part because Muslims are still somewhat alien to the host cultures, so the familiarity has not yet bred contempt. Not to mention the reputation, deserved or not, of Islam as a more vengeful faith.)
This in itself is not surprising - every likes to think their particular take on things is the best one. The thing that surprises me is the way that Christians respond to this disdain. The responses are often curmudgeonly, as if they recognise that they are somehow old-fashioned, even if they don't mind about it. Has anyone else noticed this?
So I think that, in part, explains the much vaunted air of superiority of Europeans (in particular) over Americans, especially when fronted by someone who references his (and it always has been a "he") faith on the world stage, i.e. Bush Jnr. Which leads me to...
America as a threat to world peace
I haven't seen any comparative data over time on this, but I'd wager that this perception has become widespread only very recently, even if it has been a minority view for a long time.
I'd also guess that it is not even a completely negative thing. Certainly, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the USA clearly had to do some things that were going to disrupt world peace, and they had the support of the vast majority of the world's population and governments (in Europe, in Asia, and yes, even in the Islamic world) in doing so.
I think that the negative aspects have come to the fore, and the perception has become the majority view (in Europe at least), only since the anti-Iraq campaign became a clear possibility.
To this extent, I think that the perception is transitory, inasmuch as it applies to the Bush administration, which will disappear sooner or later; and to the American national mood (more universally understandable after 9-11, if no more widely supported), which will also change eventually, for good or ill.
Patriotism
For one thing, I'm not sure that other countries are that much less patriotic than Americans. We just seem to have different outlets for it. For example, the mass appeal sports we play among ourselves are more internationally widespread, so there are more frequent opportunities to express patriotism through supporting a national team. America doesn't get the same opportunities, since there few of your main sports that are widely played elsewhere (baseball, Japan?; football, Canada?) and the few that are (basketball) don't have dedicated international competitions the way soccer, rugby and cricket do.
For another, there is at least an element of brainwashing going on over there - born UK citizens have no equivalent to the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary or otherwise. We learn which flags are ours, and at least some of the words to our national anthem, but we rarely have to wave or sing them.
But, at root, I would say that there is only one real difference between America and the rest of the world, particularly Europe.
I think there is a general suspicion of the idea of American exceptionalism in its widest context. Americans seem to think that not only is there something intrinsically unique, special and precious about their home country - which is what they have in common with everyone else in the world - but that those differences make America intrinsically better than anywhere else, and that they allow American actions to be subject to different rules than anyone else.
In an historical context, most European countries have thought this way at one time or another, only to have seen the kind of relative decline that makes it impossible to sustain.
Ultimately I think that nations go through the same maturation processes as individuals, and while Europe is now middle-aged, America is in the prime of youth. We are jealous of your vigous and optimism, even though we'll never admit as much. And we are frustrated by your equally youthful refusal to believe that you are not unique, that your problems have been faced before, and that you do not seek out and pay heed to our wisdom.
The real difference between the US and Europe is nothing more or less than a generation gap. By the time you've learned what we know, you'll be sitting on the sidelines watching some other whipper-snapper (China or India, maybe?) make all your mistakes and ignoring your good advice. And we'll be daft old codgers laughing at everyone's foolishness, in between naps.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 17 2003, 04:14 PM)
I was reading the following article from National Review Online and it contained some recent poll numbers comparing the US with certain European countries:
The Last Christian Nation
So American are, on average:
-More religious
-Much more proud of their country (or at least being a citizen of their country)
-Thought of by our "allies" to be a threat to world peace.
Is the US fundamentally different than Europe? Are Americans fundamentally different in their outlook than citizens of Europe?
The Last Christian Nation
So American are, on average:
-More religious
-Much more proud of their country (or at least being a citizen of their country)
-Thought of by our "allies" to be a threat to world peace.
Is the US fundamentally different than Europe? Are Americans fundamentally different in their outlook than citizens of Europe?
Hello,
I enjoyed te articles here. Very very interesting. Perhaps a few more people can write their point of view.
My view? I'm from Bavaria (impossible to be an unBavarian) in Germany. We are the best Germans - but don't tell it to the other Germans, it's a secret. I think Regensburg on the Danubia is one of the places in Europe with more churches than inhabitants (Bavarians are never exaggerating) and perhaps we are believing in god like a fish believes in the water it is swimming in. Why to speak about? That's normal. So we prayed to god in the beginning of the crisis in the Iraq for peace: protestantic, catholic, muslim, jewish and buddhistic people together. I forgot one group - it was so lousy cold this day - oh yeah - the baptists and/or the oldcatholics could not come because of another important happening. Whatever: It did not work, war came. But we still believe in god and/or spirituell principles.
"God bless America", "God bless the Iraq" - has this something to do with religions? I don't know. God should do it - but is this really religious?
But the reason I wrote: Are there not a lot of other differences between the USA and Europe?
I think about the death penalty mfor example. It is so important, that the USA could never become a meber of the European community. On every other country (except ths USA) we would speak about barbarism.
And perhaps it is in this way, that the islamistic is more similiar to the USA as a lot of people think. I saw a report about Algeria - and the islamistic people see it as the will of god to be armed with weapons. No Euopean is seeing something holy in weapons, I think. Why it is a symbol of freedom in the USA? And what about "only a dead indian is a good indian"? In short form: Antisemitism is not existing in Germany at all. But I heard about racism against indians in South Dacota. Is the USA a rassistic state? And what about calvinism? Is it not like an ideolgy and not a religion? The chosen people against the damned people? What about lies? Bush made a new world record of political lies - but the little lie of Clinton about his private sexuality - (a question no one in Germany would be allowed to ask) - makes a lot of trouble. As a German I don't see the point of view in this sexual conflict of the american society. Clinton is for me still one of the greatest presidents the USA ever had - has nothing to do with sexualtiy. Or what about McCarthy? How could this mass-psychotic happen? And why are saying some old Americans, that in the moment it is more worse than in the McGarthy aera? What about Guantanamo bay? Why are Americans make differences in laws between Americans and non-Americans? Or is it not in this way? Is the patriot act not killing the freedom? And is freedom not the most important thing for all americans? Why are this worths so importan and on the other hand are not respected?
Unfortunately I know nearly nothing about America. I'm happy that I have not to go out of Bavaria - and I don't like to travel. The 2 times I did it, I saw that all people in the world are the same people, and there is no differnece between human beeings, except their opinions. Or isn't it in this way? Are the Americans really different? And - if they are alone - poor poor Americans - must they not find mighty solutions to be save? Is fear the dominant feeling in the USA?
Or: Why ist it so complicate to find common ways in this world? Best example: America likes to be free of any international law - but on the other hand it want to be in a save situation.
This are some thoughts, I had just in the moment. It is without any structure - but perhaps the discussion might go on:
QUOTE
Is the US fundamentally different than Europe?
SoCaliente1
Religious freedom and Religious tolerance are two different aproaches that a government may take towards religious practice within their countries.
Religious freedom places equal value on all religions and gives everyone equal freedom to practice their religion in the way they feel best. (Generally with limitations such as no causing harm to others etc). IMHO it is by far the most intelligent approach to take towards religion. Only the USA practices it in the world today - people can 'shout' about their religion without censure.
Religious tolerance is the European norm. There anyone can follow and practice any religion, but there will be a dominant religion (generally Christianity of some form) which is given more leeway than the others. Mosques are less likely to be afforded the same status as churches etc and the overriding attitude is of 'okay, practice your religion, but keep it quite and don't aggravate people'. Tolerance is better than nothing, but it does mean that one religion is valued above others.
My point about South American countries (and okay, it wasn't the most well made point in the history of debates) is simply that in some (and a lot of them were not communist AT ALL) governments did a lot of terrible things and would use 'defence of Christianity' arguments to justify them in the eyes of the populace. Governments in Islamic countries will use 'defence of Islam' arguments to justify cruel treatment of rebels. They're not defending anyone's religion, they're defending themselves. I don't dispute your points about Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but I know that those in charge of Saudi Arabia use Islam as a reason to mistreat people, but rarely practice it themselves. And it is simply amazing the number of people who campaign for democracy that suddenly find themselves locked up for breaking an Islamic law. Religion provides governments with a good cover for activites with rather more venal motives.
Yes, America was founded by Christians. But the American constitution (specifically the 1st amendment) that guarantees religious freedoms wasn't written by them. A group of Christians who felt so strongly about their faith that they travalled halfway around the world (knowing that they would face innumerable hardships) to practice their religion would be unlikely to then tell people that 'being a Muslim is okay too'.
Religious freedom and Religious tolerance are two different aproaches that a government may take towards religious practice within their countries.
Religious freedom places equal value on all religions and gives everyone equal freedom to practice their religion in the way they feel best. (Generally with limitations such as no causing harm to others etc). IMHO it is by far the most intelligent approach to take towards religion. Only the USA practices it in the world today - people can 'shout' about their religion without censure.
Religious tolerance is the European norm. There anyone can follow and practice any religion, but there will be a dominant religion (generally Christianity of some form) which is given more leeway than the others. Mosques are less likely to be afforded the same status as churches etc and the overriding attitude is of 'okay, practice your religion, but keep it quite and don't aggravate people'. Tolerance is better than nothing, but it does mean that one religion is valued above others.
QUOTE
Don't confuse the acts on governmental communism with the christian based populace
My point about South American countries (and okay, it wasn't the most well made point in the history of debates) is simply that in some (and a lot of them were not communist AT ALL) governments did a lot of terrible things and would use 'defence of Christianity' arguments to justify them in the eyes of the populace. Governments in Islamic countries will use 'defence of Islam' arguments to justify cruel treatment of rebels. They're not defending anyone's religion, they're defending themselves. I don't dispute your points about Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but I know that those in charge of Saudi Arabia use Islam as a reason to mistreat people, but rarely practice it themselves. And it is simply amazing the number of people who campaign for democracy that suddenly find themselves locked up for breaking an Islamic law. Religion provides governments with a good cover for activites with rather more venal motives.
Yes, America was founded by Christians. But the American constitution (specifically the 1st amendment) that guarantees religious freedoms wasn't written by them. A group of Christians who felt so strongly about their faith that they travalled halfway around the world (knowing that they would face innumerable hardships) to practice their religion would be unlikely to then tell people that 'being a Muslim is okay too'.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 17 2003, 04:14 PM)
"Are Americans fundamentally different in their outlook than citizens of Europe?"
I'm neither an American nor a European, but have lived in both places. I find individuals much the same all over, good & bad, tolerant & intolerant.
Using a big generalization, Europeans tend to be more informed, have a reasonable knowledge of the world and its workings, whereas Americans tend to be quite naive to whats going on outside their bubble. They have an inflated sense of their governments goodness & generosity.
I believe this is part of the reason a majority find the US to be a threat to world peace. If we could trust that the citizens of the US would keep their government in some kind of check using their vote, then I'm sure we would feel a lot safer. But alas, I have no faith in the American public to become informed, and loose their apathy.
Europe has a 60% higher voter turnout than the US, maybe because they have experienced the folly of not keeping an eye on their politicians to their serious detriment in the past.
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 20 2003, 06:37 PM)
edit: im not sure why the quote thingy is not working. what did i do wrong?
SoCaliente,
You left out a /
QUOTE
Is the US fundamentally different than Europe? Are Americans fundamentally different in their outlook than citizens of Europe?
Robert Kagan wrote an essay “Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order” which this topic address quite well. The following link gives you a summary of its contents.
Europe and the US are different in their approach to the use of force, international law, and unilateralism vs. multilateralism. Robert Kagan asserts that this is due to the difference in American ability to apply force. That is because the US has the power to apply force to fix its problems where by and large the European nations do not. Prior to American dominance in world affairs (pre WWII) Europe resisted the use of soft power (because they had the power to apply force), international law, and multilateralism while the US favored the use of soft power (excluding its use of force in the America’s), international law and multilateralism.
With that said, I still believe that the bonds that tie Europe and the USA are strong, that American and European ideology on a free and open society, that fosters independence and free expression outweighs the differences.
American patriotism raises another interesting difference to that of our European cousins. As Nicachu states
QUOTE
Patriotism: In Western Europe, patriotism is to us attached to a geographic area and not to ideals. We have had fairly unchanging borders since 1648 and have come to strongly identify a country and the area. It seems to me that Americans associate more strongly with a way of life - the borders of the USA have been more fluid - so although America has a geographic location, it is less strongly associated with that location than with certain values and beliefs.
Minxin Pei gives an interesting analysis in the article "The Paradoxes of American Nationalism” QUOTE
Why does a highly nationalistic society consistently view itself as anything but? The source of this paradox lies in the forces that sustain nationalism in the United States. Achievements in science and technology, military strength, economic wealth, and unrivaled global political influence can no doubt generate strong national pride. But what makes American nationalism truly exceptional are the many ways in which it is naturally expressed in daily life.
One of the most powerful wellsprings of American nationalism is civic voluntarism—the willingness of ordinary citizens to contribute to the public good, either through individual initiatives or civic associations. Outside observers, starting with the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in the early 19th century, have never ceased to be amazed by this font of American dynamism. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations,” noted Tocqueville, who credited Americans for relying on themselves, instead of government, to solve society’s problems.
The same grass-roots activism that animates the country’s social life also makes American nationalism vibrant and alluring, for most of the institutions and practices that promote and sustain American nationalism are civic, not political; the rituals are voluntary rather than imposed; and the values inculcated are willingly embraced, not artificially indoctrinated. Elsewhere in the world, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation by elites and consequently has a manufactured quality to it. But in the United States, although individual politicians often try to exploit nationalism for political gains, the state is conspicuously absent. For instance, no U.S. federal laws mandate reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, require singing the national anthem at sporting events, or enforce flying the flag on private buildings.
One of the most powerful wellsprings of American nationalism is civic voluntarism—the willingness of ordinary citizens to contribute to the public good, either through individual initiatives or civic associations. Outside observers, starting with the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in the early 19th century, have never ceased to be amazed by this font of American dynamism. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations,” noted Tocqueville, who credited Americans for relying on themselves, instead of government, to solve society’s problems.
The same grass-roots activism that animates the country’s social life also makes American nationalism vibrant and alluring, for most of the institutions and practices that promote and sustain American nationalism are civic, not political; the rituals are voluntary rather than imposed; and the values inculcated are willingly embraced, not artificially indoctrinated. Elsewhere in the world, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation by elites and consequently has a manufactured quality to it. But in the United States, although individual politicians often try to exploit nationalism for political gains, the state is conspicuously absent. For instance, no U.S. federal laws mandate reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, require singing the national anthem at sporting events, or enforce flying the flag on private buildings.
I often rejected Patriotism/Nationalism of ones country. All too much I worried about the historical affects of an unhealthy amount of patriotism, for example Nazi Germany. After September 11th, of which I was directly affected, I refused to add an American flag to my car or to hang one from the window of my apartment. I did succumb to wearing a small pin on my jacket not because of patriotism per say, but more to show respect to my friends that died on that day. While I still don’t hang a flag in my window (or own an American flag), I have a bit more understanding as to why American’s do. Yes it is patriotism but not because of superiority but because I believe American’s genuinely are happy to be American, to live in a free and open society. To express themselves as individuals and they are grateful to live in a country that allows them to do so.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.