The World View of the United States

I am posting this in the JUST FOR FUN forum only because I don’t know a better place for it. If the mods need to move it, I understand and appreciate their efforts.

I have always considered myself fortunate to have been born in the US. As I have gotten older and more global, I recognized that the US was not universally recognized as the wonderful place I felt it was. I have read articles about the “ugly American” but I always thought that those who espoused such beliefs were the minority of the world citizenry rather than the majority.

The more I post on international forums, the more I see the disdainful light in which the US is viewed. My question is a simple one, and I will refrain from commenting or trying to change any opinions that dissent from mine.

Why do you (or others in your opinion) dislike the US? For my own insight, if you could be as specific as possible in your reasons and let me know where you are geographically to give me some personal perspective.

N.

I suggest you read some Noam Chomsky. He says it better than I ever would, and he's an American.

I wondered the same thing in inverse (i.e. "why does everyone including myself have such a disdain for the USA?"). I pondered for a while, and finally understood at uni (of all places).

Like everything else, it all comes down to economics. Well, socio-economics. I'll do what I can to piece it back together.

The root of what sucks about America goes all the way back to the middle ages. Back then, prior to the introduction of property rights and what not, most of europe was under strict and severe feudal and religious hegemony. Religion was hierarchical and set the standard for what was and wasn't societal values. Anyhow, social conceptions of virtue gravitated around piety and obedience (much the same thing at the time). All of this was about to change.

To cut an interesting but irrelevant story short, capitalism started to seep into society, undermining static power structures, destabilising the social order, and empowering concepts of the individual with liquid power. Very soon feudalism was on it's way out as europe sailed through a very uncertain time which ultimately led to the industrial revolution. It was during this time that America was discovered and then populated. It is important to note by who. Protestants. In schism with catholic emphasis on piety and obedience, protestants advocated instead conservativeness before all else (given the decadence of the catholic church being one of the primary reasons for the formation of the protestant movement).

The protestant ethic is the key of the last two paragraphs of $#%^. An ethic that defined virtue as being related reservedness, conservativeness, and humility. By itself, it simply produced a boring culture of fundie wowsers. However it is what happens when you gently stir in capitalism that is worth watching. As capitalism truly begin to get off the ground, with the backward values of the middle-ages truly being swept away, the world witnessed a series of concurrent social phenomenona. It was an exciting time.

Unlike the catholic church, the protestants embraced capitalism (and why not, capitalism empowered the apostates, and eroded the incumbent catholic empire). Very soon it was woven into their very system of morals, which now no longer preached simple ethical conservativeness, but also fiscal prudence. To the protestants, a virtuous individual was not only socially reserved, but also careful with money (being sure to save faithfully, and not indulge in the excesses it could afford). This led to two main things; firstly it shot most protestant societies up through the economy given their effective investment in the future inherent in their saving habits. Apart from that, it sowed the very first seeds of what brings us back to our far flung point.

To protestants, fiscal conservativeness was 'virtuous', and at the same time objectively beneficial to one's interests. The natural result of fiscal virtue over time was 'fine family fortunes', alloted wealth. Dots began to connect themselves, and soon there was a vague correlation between wealth and virtue (ironic, given the reasons they left the catholics). However it was still weak at this time. What would really slam it home was the industrial revolution.

A time of hardship and prosperity, the industrial revolution bore with it many implications and changes. With the rise of capitalism, the example of the protestants, and so much unprecedented manifestations of 'new money', forged with entrepreneurial success, the world was seeing an age of social mobility like never before. Very soon a government and church encouraged (though I doubt born) social meme began to sweep the west (it still hasn't stopped, really). Sociologists refer to it as 'the myth of the self-made man'. The basic premise was that with hard work and good saving, any man could 'make it to the top' (which at the time was a patent falsehood). Like religion, people latch onto anything that offers hope, and in the blackened pits of the coal mines, this was it. It was a great system for employers and employees alike, as the employees felt better about their miserable life of toil, and the capitalists got higher productivity.

The myth of the self-made man naturally fused itself inextricably with the beautifully complementing protestant ethic to create a genuine and burning societal money-virtue which dictated that fiscal conservativeness, hard work, and patience would bring you closer to god, make you wealthy, and ultimately deem you as a better person. Soon this regressed to a simple correlation between wealth and virtue. A match made in heaven, it seems. However this coupling begat a child from hell. The natural progression from money-virtue is what we call 'blaming the poor'. Basically, if being wealthy is indicative of virtue, then a lack of funds must be indicative of a lack of morals. Poor people were seen as being victims of their own wickedness, unvirtuous wretches who forge the very chains of poverty with which they are shackled to the bottom of society. Very soon the sentiment that the poor alone were responsible for their poverty (due to an general lack of character) was disturbingly popular. It was not uncommon for people to publically advocate leaving the poor to starve as they deserved Just for juxtaposition's sake, compare to catholics- who feel the poor are the closest to god).

Anyhow, in europe this attitude petered out somewhat. Perhaps due to the immense number of catholics there, or perhaps not. However in USA, it intensified. This social complex was chained to the fate of protestantism, it seemed, and it was high season for protestants. As US protestantism flourished, so to did this hybrid construct of money-virtue. It is today the single most defining aspect of US culture. It is truly what sets them apart from the rest of the west, and probably what launched them to international dominance.

So what does all this have to do with why we hate them? Well, given the social value of money-virtue, rich people are taken as being virtuous(unless they prove otherwise), and even more than that poor people are taken as being lacking in virtue or character. The same is true of countries, and until very recently USA had been on top of the world for quite some time. This leads to an almost unconscious, deep acceptance that USA logically must be the most virtuous or praiseworthy country in the world, for it is in fact the wealthiest. Conversely, other poorer countries are obviously but inexplicably inferior, and have something to learn from US virtuosity. This explains the American penchant for unwitting arrogance, as well as their government's history in meddling in the affairs of 'lesser countries' with impunity. It also explains the malady which has befallen US culture as they become aware of their demise. It probably has something to do with why you are even contemplating this.

I wouldn't be surprised if GWB is himself the last ride of 'real america', a poignant reminder to both Americans and the world of what once was, and no longer is. Anyhow, that is why. It is the deep and unquestioned understanding that USA is in fact the 'best country in the world' that bothers most people. It is evident in every action americans take, and every opinion they espouse. Painfully evident, though most often unspoken.

because you've corrupted my language, and you think the world revolves around YOU.

Can't stand bush, and the health care isn't good, cause you have to pay. Among some other things that i'm not going to talk about. I'd not want to move there.. But i'll visit certain places.. and visit friends etc, that's about it.

america sucks, full of fat uneducated annoying whiny voiced people.

Calum wrote:because you've corrupted my language, and you think the world revolves around YOU.

Baggytrousers wrote:Also i hate americanisms. The language is english.....not american. therefore we speak and spell it correctly in england.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy slamming americans as much as the next guy, however I actually recently changed sides on this point. First of all, english is as much a language as a filthy mongrel stray is a breed of dog. The language spoken in England at the discoverey and colonisation was completely different to the one spoken there now. When the pilgrims went to america they left speaking that language, and then developed over centuries in isolation with their own influences (particularly the irish). Likewise, back in england since the pilgrims left and especially since American independence the language altered and grew according to it's own influences in the UK.

The result is two equally valid versions of english which stem from a common point in history. The fact that one is based in the same geographic region doesn't amount to much. Realistically, 'American English' and 'British English' are both 'native' in that they were developed and spoken by Anglo-saxons. So the pertinent question in discerning what is 'real' english is lost. In reality it comes down to preference. I use british spelling and grammar because that is what I have learned, and I hold a mild preference for it's old-world charm.

baggytrousers wrote:I also hate that religion seems to rule more than science - for exacple evolition isn't taught in schools (to my knowledge).

It's not that far gone. What you are thinking of is christian groups hijacking religious freedom laws designed to protect minorities and using them in conjuncture with their national majority to try and legislate their morality all the way down the throats of the youth of the nation (Then crying 'persecution' when they are denied minority rights). Anyhow, in specific there was an incident involving the Kansas school board (who sets the curriculum). Kansas is a real backward fundie state, and the school board was basically populated by predominantly christian conservatives and extremists. Cut a long story short they used their position to enforce all science textbooks to place a disclaimer regarding evolution and it's status as a 'theory' which is not universally accepted, as well as partitioning certain class time to alternate theories- primarily 'intelligent design'.

This is where I averted my eyes in horror and disgust. As far as I understand they got the attention of the real law-makers who moved in and righted the wrongs after a national controversy and media storm.

As someone quite aptly observed "It's the first time I've seen a 'scientific' hypothesis lobbied into textbooks"

Calum wrote:america sucks, full of fat uneducated annoying whiny voiced people.

Thats rich. An Englishman accuses an american of being whiny. If we were to follow stereotypes, Americans are loudmouths. Poms are the ones who incessantly moan.

Butterfly Faerie wrote:Can't stand bush, and the health care isn't good, cause you have to pay*. Among some other things that i'm not going to talk about. I'd not want to move there.. But i'll visit certain places.. and visit friends etc, that's about it.

I share very much the same sentiment. I'd like to visit, but wouldn't consider living there.
*There is no such thing as a free lunch. Even public healthcare costs you- perhaps more depending on how much you earn. You pay dearly in taxes (which is kind of like an insurance subscription except it is compulsory, you can't switch providors, and the provider holds no real obligation to you).[/compulsive argumenteering]