I like Jolly Jihad, that is a good one.

It is interesting.

I did not realize that religion was a point of contention. Like abortion, I think it is actually a moot point. But there are idealogues on both sides who keep it alive.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

Sure, this is certainly true. However, the same applies the other way around _ is there such a thing as a "European" ? Most "Europeans" ground their identity in the nation they were born in, not the continent.

It is the problem of generalization of course (but how can you avoid it on this level of discussion ?) and foremost the problem of where you are standing : the closest you are standing, the more details you will see, and vice versa.

Hmm... A good question.

"refined philistine" - Google Search

Not much, apparently.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Maybe because these idea were from Europe, all of them and also because the separation between church and state is more obvious in Europe than in US.


lol I find this a bit hard to understand since as far as I know Jefferson were in France to make the US constitution.... He has taken the ideas from the french authors and others but the principles were European and not american since we actually talk about people we were still Europeans in their manners and in their way of life.

Ideas are one thing...effective application is another thing.

To quote, again, the Jolly Jihad, "But the USA was the first nation to effectively apply them in top-down model starting with the highest government office." We applied ideas from some French idealists and others, into a working government.

So, to continue on topic, preaching about this, when we have applied it is redundant - thus the use of "preaching".

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

It is true but what it is true as well is how can you do something whereas you haven't got the idea to do it.

You quote the jihadist as if they said the truth ! !



Of course you're right and I don't deny the fact you were the first one to apply all the principles of the democracy nethertheless what I tend to say is without the european nations your country today "maybe" would live differently, with another regime.
IMO the concept of the democracy you have today in US comes from Europe, the greek first and later with the english revoltuion and then with the french "lumières" and others european philosophers (as the one you cited earlier i.e Locke)

after all it's your fault if I talk about that! why did you bring this "'champagne"thing in the discuss!!!!!

Of course, the US would not even exist if it weren't for Europeans. The Scandinavians first explored here, then the Spaniards, then the British and French. The French helped us win our independance, and again, helped us keep it. Ideals originating in Europe were used to model our system.

Had it not been for Europeans, the US would have developed as a nation of aborigines - an interesting, fascinating and wonderful experiment, if it were possible.

So, other than geographical limits, we have ALWAYS had much in common with Europe. Lately, why there is such animosity from many on both sides is confounding. One doesn't deny their identity by being friends [edit] with and respecting [end edit] the other since both identities are so intertwined due to history.

The champagne issue is a US konspiracy to redefine champagne - at least, that's what my US champagne PAC membership card states as it's fundamental goal. Our PAC group has even gone as far to redefine the correct pronunciation of champagne as "sham-pagg-nee".

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

In Ontario, we grow the Mer-Lot grape - it is very popular here.

Democracy is nice...
But democracy alone is hell... the many decide over the few...wow great...
Then I prefer a king... One decides over all ... then at least most are "equal"... (by having equally less power)

The real achievements of the last 200 years are:
1. equality under the law
2. civil rights
3. human rights
4. binding international laws

A dictatorship that would guarantee these (at least for most people) would be better than a democracy that doesn't.

It is a fact though, that a democracy is more likly to uphold these values...and since equality under the law is not really possible with a dictatorship => democracy is in the end the only form of government that can 100% apply these achievements.

But by god, democracy does in no way need to uphold these!

Just think about how hard it is even today to REALLY ensure those four achievements.... even in "our" modern societies!

Still people think they are more equal than others... or that they can make laws that exclusivly apply to a group and another group is for what reason ever subhuman....

__________________

Nice post. *thumbs up*

I think where democracies often err is when there is a public perception that all are equal. Public pressure causes the government machine to make laws to enforce equality - groups suffer when that happens, either directly or indirectly.

The public and politicians need to have a crystal clear idea that "equal under the law' is very different than simply equal. All people are not equal, however all should be equal under the law.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Thanks

Well, if our moral ideas, social developement or internal/external pressures (public unrest, foreign powers,...) force us to say that people should be equal.... then they are!

A Democracy can just aswell decide that people are very different. If those in charge (meaning those who are "equal enough" to have a vote) decide that women are not supposed to vote... then suddenly we are 100-20 (0) years back in the past on that subject (depending on which country you life in)

There are quite some cases in which dictatorships have been much better on the issues of "equality under the law" (always of course with the exception of the rulers)...

Well... I guess I sound like being stuck in a loop
All I am saying can be summed up with:

In my oppinion:
It's more important "What can be decided" than "How" decissions are being made.
Democracy is just a method of "how" dicissions are being made.

__________________

Quite true. Certainly many Americans see European, and not German, French, English, etc....I was just simply pointing out what I have noticed from Europeans, and the world, at large. Not saying it is a universal view at all.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Okay, sorry I have not got bak to this thread sooner.

The thread is taping off now, so this might be the last round up.

It seems that one of the obstacles in American-non American relations is the tendency to make generalisations.

Si modo described it as a “BIG conversation stopper”.

And Sucre responded: “This is not a thread on Americans

I must admit that, at first, I took it that Sucre was chiding Si modo, but, on rereading the exchange, I think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek riposte.

Ah, communication!

Jason Marcel asked “What's wrong with generalizing when the generalizing is generally accurate?”

But we learned there were at tleast two Americans who didn’t like Butterscotch pudding: Pramjockey’s wife and Si modo. Well, what about apple pie, then? Now, come on, Americans love apple pie, right?

The genearlisation debate continued…

I think I see both Jason and Si modo’s points, here.

President Bush got a few mentions (I know, I know…he pops up on every thread).

The divide over religion was another issue. I thought Sucre made an interesting observation.

Sucre’s question is valid, but I guess my first thought is that this bridge cannot be built by deriding religion or believers. But I think understanding the different paths Sucre recounts is a good starting point.

The “Ugly American” tag was discussed further…

Donkey made a good point…

Donkey pointed out the same would be true of other nationalities.

Tim also took up this theme:

What?!!! Did Tim say Australians are loud? Crikey! Streuth! Bloody hell!

Seriously, though, I have to agree with Tim that the idea that Americans are uniquely offensive is false. The point here, I believe, is that although other nationalities are tagged with negative labels, the phrase “Ugly American” connotes that a form of bad behaviour is typically American, though in fact the said behaviour is not unique to Americans.


Rakkasan brings up the view that Al Qaeda hates America for its “way of life”.

This perception that America and Americans are “hated” seems to be quite prevalent in the US, and not just in relation to AQ.

I thought Tim was harsh in his response to one of Jason’s posts, calling it a veritable cornucopia of anti-Americanism”, but Tim then draws a distinction between anti-Americanism and “hate” of America:

Back on the theme of generalisations, ThorHammer thought there was a lack of understanding about America’s size and diversity.

But Sucre said she thought that this cut both ways…

And in a later post, ThorHammer agrees…




Here, I have to say that the tendency to see other nations and regions of the world as homogeneous is pretty much a global affliction. Australians are just as diverse as Americans, yet there is a stereotypical image of Australians in the eyes of non-Australians. Conversely, you will hear Australians talk about Americans, Europeans, Africans, etc, as if diversity was only an Australian phenomenon.

Now, if you recall, Jolly Jihad had said the US was the first to apply the ideas of the enlightenment that came out of Europe, and wondered why Europeans now lecture Americans about secularism.

Well, caseras hits back at this with an explanation…

Caseras and Si modo have a friendly debate over Champagne…Ah non, Si modo; it’s not pronounced "sham-pagg-nee"!

El_Zoido comes in to offer some thoughts on democracy…not quite addressing the question of the thread, but an interesting post nevertheless. It flowed from the exchange over the origin of democratic ideals.

Well, I hope I have not left out anyone.

It’s almost midnight here, and I have to turn in. Tomorrow, I will try and post some comments relating to my belief about the value of this kind of discussion. But for now, good night from me one and all.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman