(no subject)
Feb. 23rd, 2005 09:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muck_a_luckThis item from the BBC really upset me.
So much so that I couldn't sleep the night after I read it.
I was writing the birthday present with much determination then and set it aside.
What bugs me most is that two Brits who seem like lovely people full of common sense thought that this item had the ring of truth and reality.
While there may be a point to be made about American unilateralism in foreign policy and the American view of Europeans as decadent, this guy hasn't made the point.
I plan to make both points, and make them better and more clearly, later.
But first, I want to address his specific examples, because he has missed the boat on almost every single specific point.
Extensive quotes from the article in bold. My comments < ul >.
I am ashamed to say that I used the old line about the castle being built too close to Heathrow Airport and they all nodded sagely and agreed it had been a mistake.
The Harry kerfuffle was utterly incomprehensible to Americans. They simply could not imagine how such a thing could ever be seen, in any circumstances, by anyone, to be funny or forgivable.
Although it would be shown on any television station anywhere in Europe, with no comment and no censorship, the swearing is too much for America.
At least they say it is the swearing, but I wonder if there is a more profound difficulty here.
My memory of the film is that it is occasionally grittily realistic. In the battle scenes, soldiers are scared and their deaths are not always terribly glorious.
It is in other words true to life, and that is another area where Europe and America increasingly diverge. (in re Saving Private Ryan being pulled from stations all over the US in January)
Television coverage of the Asian Tsunami was a case in point. In Europe it was covered as an unrelenting tragedy, in America, one television network promised "incredible stories of lives saved in near miraculous fashion".
Another missed opportunity to make a real point about American culture.
Millions of Americans, 17% according to a recent survey, seriously believe that the end of the world is coming in their lifetimes and that they will be sucked up through the clouds to heaven.
No wonder then, that in international affairs America is so willing to smite its enemies.
Or to hold firm to a principle even when practicalities get in the way.
It has been happening for years.
Witness President Reagan's arms build up in the 1980s, which helped to destroy the Soviet Union, or the first President Bush's decision to press for German re-unification, when even Mrs Thatcher was nervous.
At the end of my skiing holiday, I drove my family home in a hired car larger than most tanks and as fuel efficient as the Queen Mary.
On the journey to Denver airport, dozens of similar vehicles passed us.
At the very moment that the Kyoto treaty was coming into force, to the sound of great European fanfares, America, to paraphrase its greatest poet, opted to take the road less travelled and did not regret it.
There is a point to be made about American unilateralism, but this guy certainly hasn't made it. He has assumed his audience already agrees with the view and has related a few, poorly thought through anecdotes about Americans with their heads in the sand.
Here's my take. Americans have historically been isolationist and self-righteous. We have two friendly countries along 1000's of miles of border. We have ocean on either side. It's an illusion now, but we feel separate. On top of that, historically we came here to get away from you, Europe, no offense. Also, an illusion now, but still, historically true. Americans hated Brits until recently (cause we're a bunch of Scottish and Irish immigrants), and sympathies were with the Germans right up til the last minute in WWI.
America "won" the Cold War. We are for the moment "the remaining superpower."
But really, is Europe frightened of us? Mostly, Europe is annoyed by us. I can't imagine you guys are sitting around wishing for a stronger Russia, or a more assertive China.
But you don't really take leadership roles upon yourselves, either. I mean this politically, not as individuals. You seem to look to America for leadership, but complain about it later.
If Europe wants to dissuade Americans from thinking of it as decadent and weak-willed then Europe needs to form policy and step up to the plate. There was genocide in Europe, in Bosnia. Why did Americans become the leading force in ending it? Why is America so tied up in the Middle East? At least in part because nobody else seems to take developments there seriously enough to try to do anything about them.
And to the shame of the world nobody steps in to prevent horrors in Africa. Not up to date on the conflicts there, but can't help thinking how the Cold War and colonialization before that fucked that continent over.
And yes, it's true Americans do think Europeans are not only politically weak-willed but socially decadent.
A typical American probably thinks that, in general, "Europeans" all have a beer or glass of wine during their two-hour lunches while their shops are closed to the inconvenience of all but shopkeepers, then they go home to drink massive quantities of wine with dinner and stay up watching soft porn all evening. And of course, nearly all of you are on welfare. And you are probably sneering at us for being slow and loud and too friendly and too rich and not being able to speak your languages.
And that is the brutal and interesting truth regarding the American view of Europeans as decadent that he didn't manage to illustrate in his article at all.
Europe is a complicated place that is difficult for people on the outside and oceans and cultures away to really understand. It's easy to take a few differences and turn them into "decadence."
I believe this article illustrates just how difficult it is for people oceans and cultures away to get a grip on what is really going on in America. We are different from you. But this guy, one supposes a seasoned journalist of an internatinally respected news agency, totally doesn't get it.
*shrugs*
What about it, Americans reading this? Did I get it anything close to right? Or have I gone over the deep end?
So much so that I couldn't sleep the night after I read it.
I was writing the birthday present with much determination then and set it aside.
What bugs me most is that two Brits who seem like lovely people full of common sense thought that this item had the ring of truth and reality.
While there may be a point to be made about American unilateralism in foreign policy and the American view of Europeans as decadent, this guy hasn't made the point.
I plan to make both points, and make them better and more clearly, later.
But first, I want to address his specific examples, because he has missed the boat on almost every single specific point.
Extensive quotes from the article in bold. My comments < ul >.
I am ashamed to say that I used the old line about the castle being built too close to Heathrow Airport and they all nodded sagely and agreed it had been a mistake.
- Dude. He wins the first point. Bunch of losers. But hey. They were all skiing. Hardly anything stupider than skiing.
The Harry kerfuffle was utterly incomprehensible to Americans. They simply could not imagine how such a thing could ever be seen, in any circumstances, by anyone, to be funny or forgivable.
- Actually, Americans understand these kinds of things pretty well. Political figures who go to Klan meetings, and make anti-Semitic remarks, and do other unsavory, hateful things get noticed in America, and to a lot of people, that kind of behavior is not acceptable in political life. Also, keep in mind that there are A LOT of Jews in America. Could have easily been in a ski lift full of Jews, in fact. Prince Harry probably just had a stupid idea for a costume party. He's kid who has been thrust into the limelight by an accident of birth, not an elected official. Of course this is "forgivable." I'm sorry if I can't find it "funny."
And let me tell you, the Americans you are likely to meet who would find it "funny?" They are probably the Americans who would scare you the most. They certainly scare me. The Klan. Hmmmm. Quite a few of the militia types. Your standard American domestic terrorists.
Though to be fair, Americans *can* lighten up. Hogan's Heros, anyone? The Producers? So I guess even your average, run-of-the-mill middle class American can laugh at the Nazis. Sometimes.
But I don't see how this fool can expect us both to lighten up about Nazis (*rolls eyes*) AND be more serious about tsunami victims (please see comments below)?! Pick your mood, dude!
Although it would be shown on any television station anywhere in Europe, with no comment and no censorship, the swearing is too much for America.
At least they say it is the swearing, but I wonder if there is a more profound difficulty here.
My memory of the film is that it is occasionally grittily realistic. In the battle scenes, soldiers are scared and their deaths are not always terribly glorious.
It is in other words true to life, and that is another area where Europe and America increasingly diverge. (in re Saving Private Ryan being pulled from stations all over the US in January)
- In fact, sir, it was indeed the swearing. There is a very important issue to discuss here, but he totally missed it. George Bush has manipulated the FCC in such a way that the fines have gotten out of control. TV stations are scared to show anything that could get them slapped with fine after fine after exorbitant fine, and they can't get their insureres to insure them for this either. Even PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), one of the most respected sources of unbiased news reporting in America, no longer shows live feed of soldiers in Iraq, for fear that natural, battlefield swearing will accidently slip out and they will get fined. So a good, quality, non-pornographic film like Saving Private Ryan can't be shown in primetime.
End of story.
This is a censorship issue, not a problem with Americans being unable to face gritty realism. Many, many Americans have seen, praised, and understood this movie, despite it's lack of glory in war and death...
Television coverage of the Asian Tsunami was a case in point. In Europe it was covered as an unrelenting tragedy, in America, one television network promised "incredible stories of lives saved in near miraculous fashion".
Another missed opportunity to make a real point about American culture.
- Despite the nature of the program this man saw, in fact I have not met a single American who thinks everyone survived the tsunami in some sort of miraculous rescue. We are fully, completely aware that it was a human tragedy of massive scale. I would like to point to American charitable contributions to relief efforts as some illustration that we are not completely out of touch with reality.
The *real* issue for a journalist here is the way "news" has been turned into entertainment in America. No thinking person bothers to watch their local "news." Because it is full of stupid, over dramatized crime stories, and kitten rescues, and miraculous rescues from the tsunami. CNN is full of screaming debate shows where points of news and policy are "discussed."
And returning to the Nazi issue. Why, exactly, are we being derided for being too serious about Nazis and too flippant about the rest of the news? I'm not totally sure I get it.
Millions of Americans, 17% according to a recent survey, seriously believe that the end of the world is coming in their lifetimes and that they will be sucked up through the clouds to heaven.
- I have lived in the Bible Belt most of my life, and I know a few of these people. But not 17% of the people I have ever known. And my percentage ought to be higher. On the other hand, I am American intelligentsia, so maybe that makes my exposure to thes people lower. Don't know. Still, my guess is, to the extent that 17% of Americans are waiting for the end of the world, most of us keep our mouths pretty shut about it in the company of non-believers. My question is, if you did a similar survey in the UK or Europe, how many people there actually would be, assuming that again, people who believe this don't spend a lot of time talking about it to non-believers? This question really interests me.
However, I can say that among the policy makers of this country. The powerful. The intelligentsia. This number is very likely a lot lower than 17%. Because I'm fairly certain that in my immediate circle - the people I work with, my family, my close friends - lawyers and college educated and upper middle class - I know NO ONE who is expecting the Apocolypse in their lifetime. I'm sure I have some clients waiting for the end. I hit answering machines wishing me a "blessed day" a couple of times a month. But George Bush notwithstanding, these people aren't waiting for miracles.
Now the electorate may be. But please remember how split the American electorate really is. Our elections hang by hair threads. We happily elected then reelected Mr. Clinton...
No wonder then, that in international affairs America is so willing to smite its enemies.
Or to hold firm to a principle even when practicalities get in the way.
It has been happening for years.
Witness President Reagan's arms build up in the 1980s, which helped to destroy the Soviet Union, or the first President Bush's decision to press for German re-unification, when even Mrs Thatcher was nervous.
- The point being?
Did I miss something here, folks? Aren't these two incidents of America "holding firm to a principle" where America was, in fact, proven right?
As someone whose major was Russian and East European Studies and who took several hours of Soviet economics in undergrad (admittedly from an instructor much hated by CIA analysts, but still, I bet more than this guy's taken), the Regan arms buildup did, in fact, put the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet military industrial complex. And do not be confused about what that means. Because of the structure of the Soviet economy, the "military industrial complex" was over 40% of their GDP. And considering their pathetically low GDP, very, very interesting strategy by Mr. Regan. Not a fan of him, myself, but one must give credit where credit is due.
And who now thinks a united Germany was really a bad idea?
At the end of my skiing holiday, I drove my family home in a hired car larger than most tanks and as fuel efficient as the Queen Mary.
On the journey to Denver airport, dozens of similar vehicles passed us.
At the very moment that the Kyoto treaty was coming into force, to the sound of great European fanfares, America, to paraphrase its greatest poet, opted to take the road less travelled and did not regret it.
- Gonna let the Husband speak on this one. I thought this guy actually had a point here. I have a rant for another day about SUVs and Hummers and the people who own them.
But listen to the Husband's take. The Husband specialized in environmental law at UVA. The Husband did his big internship with The Southern Environmental Law Center, a respected and very active environmental group fighting air and water pollution and other forms of environmental degradation in the South. The Husband is a member of more environmental groups that I can count on both hands. The Husband's dream in life is to work for "the good guys," and he has refused to even interview with firms where he would most likely be able to practice in his chosen area of law because he would have to defend polluters and fight against important new legislation.
Husband's credentials established, he thinks Kyoto is a joke. A nice, pretty picture, but essentially a worthless treaty. Japan accepted it because they plan to buy every available credit. If the US had joined there would be no credits to buy. It's not a realistic way to address greenhouse gases and global warming. There is a divergence of views here, but not an irrational one.
There is a point to be made about American unilateralism, but this guy certainly hasn't made it. He has assumed his audience already agrees with the view and has related a few, poorly thought through anecdotes about Americans with their heads in the sand.
Here's my take. Americans have historically been isolationist and self-righteous. We have two friendly countries along 1000's of miles of border. We have ocean on either side. It's an illusion now, but we feel separate. On top of that, historically we came here to get away from you, Europe, no offense. Also, an illusion now, but still, historically true. Americans hated Brits until recently (cause we're a bunch of Scottish and Irish immigrants), and sympathies were with the Germans right up til the last minute in WWI.
America "won" the Cold War. We are for the moment "the remaining superpower."
But really, is Europe frightened of us? Mostly, Europe is annoyed by us. I can't imagine you guys are sitting around wishing for a stronger Russia, or a more assertive China.
But you don't really take leadership roles upon yourselves, either. I mean this politically, not as individuals. You seem to look to America for leadership, but complain about it later.
If Europe wants to dissuade Americans from thinking of it as decadent and weak-willed then Europe needs to form policy and step up to the plate. There was genocide in Europe, in Bosnia. Why did Americans become the leading force in ending it? Why is America so tied up in the Middle East? At least in part because nobody else seems to take developments there seriously enough to try to do anything about them.
And to the shame of the world nobody steps in to prevent horrors in Africa. Not up to date on the conflicts there, but can't help thinking how the Cold War and colonialization before that fucked that continent over.
And yes, it's true Americans do think Europeans are not only politically weak-willed but socially decadent.
A typical American probably thinks that, in general, "Europeans" all have a beer or glass of wine during their two-hour lunches while their shops are closed to the inconvenience of all but shopkeepers, then they go home to drink massive quantities of wine with dinner and stay up watching soft porn all evening. And of course, nearly all of you are on welfare. And you are probably sneering at us for being slow and loud and too friendly and too rich and not being able to speak your languages.
And that is the brutal and interesting truth regarding the American view of Europeans as decadent that he didn't manage to illustrate in his article at all.
Europe is a complicated place that is difficult for people on the outside and oceans and cultures away to really understand. It's easy to take a few differences and turn them into "decadence."
I believe this article illustrates just how difficult it is for people oceans and cultures away to get a grip on what is really going on in America. We are different from you. But this guy, one supposes a seasoned journalist of an internatinally respected news agency, totally doesn't get it.
*shrugs*
What about it, Americans reading this? Did I get it anything close to right? Or have I gone over the deep end?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 07:37 am (UTC)As for Kyoto - funny I was about to post on that myself
The Harry point
Date: 2005-02-24 11:55 am (UTC)In our culture, this behavior would be a real, social and ethical issue for a politician, because, you know, Holocaust bad...
I don't know. Maybe that is his point. The Holocaust is too real to Americans? Our politics and culture caters too much to people for whom the Holocaust was personal and devasting? Americans can't set aside the horror to laugh at their politicians?
Nope. Still not getting it.
Re: The Harry point
Date: 2005-02-24 06:13 pm (UTC)the war came very very close to us, my father was machine gunned in his school playground.My great aunt bombed out of her house - among millions of others.
But black graveyard humour is what we are all about - the worse a thing is the more we mock it, the more we laugh. We find a serious issue to be pompous and self serving and insincere.
Re: The Harry point
Date: 2005-02-24 07:19 pm (UTC)If his point is that Americans don't get black humor, who cares? If his point is that Americans inability to get black humor, their earnestness, is possibly insincere and/or possibly stupid and leads to poor foreign policy formation, Russians, French, Brits, everybody have been saying this about Americans for years. Americans are naieve and idealist and don't make good choices. (urgh, can't spell). A very old and tired point.
And like I said, this has been so not worth it. It has made everyone annoyed, and if there's anything I dislike, it's somebody (me in this case) getting everybody riled up about what is essentially nothing.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 03:45 pm (UTC)America would like to think it is made up of Irish and Scots immigrants but it is made up of people from all over the world including English (oh the horror).
We're not frightened of America and nor do we feel the need for a leader. The fact America thinks the world needs a leader is arrogant and self-righteous. Some countries in Europe have been through turbulent histories and learnt lessons about leadership and the arrogance and danger of those that assume it, the UK being a case in point. Some are still learning.
The whole tone of your post has been offensive and way off the mark and we are going to part company on this one. Good luck in whatever you do.
If you are willing to read one last thing...
Date: 2005-02-24 04:06 pm (UTC)Europe is not a culture
Of course. But note the author setting "Europe" against "America." It's his dichotomy, too. And he is the one arguing that there is a divide between the "Europe" of the serious approach to world events, and the curing of AIDS, and environmental treaties, etc.
I know exactly the problem for "Europe" forming foreign policy. The real Europe is indeed separate entities with conflicting policy needs that are still being worked through. I cannot imagine what it would be like in this modern world to try to turn South Carolina, California, and New England into one national power with a unified policy toward the world.
And I hope you understood that my description of "decadent" Europeans at the end was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Though I think it is actually accurate for some people.
Your right about American arrogance in foreign policy, too. But do you really believe there is no need for leadership in the world? A realist looks at something like dependence on the Middle East for Japanese and European oil supplies, for instance. Not commenting on any specific policy, but doesn't there need to be leadership that tries to address issues in this area? I mean, you can say it's none of anybody else's business whether Iraq invades Kuwait, or the Palestinians and Jews slaughter each other til the end of time, but it actually does effect us what happens in this area. "Leadership" meant in the broad sense of forming policy and addressing issues. If you believe there's no need for leadership, then you are taking a very isolationist view, it seems to me.
Of course, we are from everywhere. I personally am of German and Scottish descent. My husband is Polish and Swedish. But what I said about pre-WWI policy is true. The German immigrants sided with their homeland, the Scottish and Irish sided against their's and Americans were very sympathetic to the German cause.
I don't disagree with the author's point about American unilateralism per se. In fact, I think I agreed with it right up front, didn't I.
What I don't like is the way he trivialized the issues with so many side points that are clearly wrong. It trivializes the divisions between us to pretend that they are caused essentially by American blindness and stupidity. We don't do these things, I think, because 17% of us are waiting for the Apocolypse. We don't do these things because we don't understand reality, as suggested by his comments about the tsunami. We don't do these things because we are flat stupid, as suggested by his comment about the failure of his joke in the ski lift.
THAT is what bothers me. Maybe it's a weird point to make. But letting policy and opinion form around Americans being big, stupid bullies is unwise. Understand Americans for what they are.
And I offer my sincere apologies to you for any personal offense I made with my comments. It was in part your response to Andie that kept me up. *shrugs*
Kind regards,
CK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-24 04:50 pm (UTC)You have every right to say what you do and think what you do but we're going to have to agree to wildly disagree on that one.
That's all.