Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: I DRANK THE KOOL-AID. DID YOU?
Posts
harmonic
View playlists
CloseSo I got into a protracted conversation about American Exceptionalism with a mega-radial marxist acquaintance of mine, who basically believes this is a myth and propaganda, cooked up to feed the evil empire.
I, however, believe that we are the 20th Century's greatest experiment in civilization, the last best hope for the world, the shining city on the hill. Our military hegemony is a stabilizing force in the world (with the exception of the Bush administration's rash moves) and needs to stay.
I greatly value our sovereignty and borders.
What are your thoughts?
I, however, believe that we are the 20th Century's greatest experiment in civilization, the last best hope for the world, the shining city on the hill. Our military hegemony is a stabilizing force in the world (with the exception of the Bush administration's rash moves) and needs to stay.
I greatly value our sovereignty and borders.
What are your thoughts?
1. America was undisputedly the greatest and best country in the world, pre-Bush.
2. In this day and age, we really need to return to a policy of isolationism.
2. In this day and age, we really need to return to a policy of isolationism.
Canuck
0
Uhhh.. you don't need to be a radical marxist to realize that American nationalism is scary and without good reason. It's up there with China and Japan in scary nationalism.
What makes America amazing? The amazing gap in rich and poor? The electoral system which doesn't allow grassroots parties to get a foothold? The lack of a social safety net? It's policy to only uphold capitalist regimes that do trade with them? That it's one of only two industrialized countries that still has the death penalty?
I'll speak for the rest of the world (without their permission) when I say America is a better sole superpower than Russia or China would be. America is less scary than those countries. I'd much prefer the EU personally.
What makes America amazing? The amazing gap in rich and poor? The electoral system which doesn't allow grassroots parties to get a foothold? The lack of a social safety net? It's policy to only uphold capitalist regimes that do trade with them? That it's one of only two industrialized countries that still has the death penalty?
I'll speak for the rest of the world (without their permission) when I say America is a better sole superpower than Russia or China would be. America is less scary than those countries. I'd much prefer the EU personally.
author=Canuck link=topic=2433.msg43439#msg43439 date=1226563044
I'd much prefer the EU personally.
The EU is a scary morass of acronyms and several processes that make little or no sense.
I'm not speaking from my own knowledge, only parroting some friends of mine who took a very long class exclusively on the EU. They left this class hating the EU more and more every day.
America has some issues. Okay, a lot of issues. But I wouldn't trade, and I consider myself very blessed to have been born in a country where the poor can become the rich (I've seen it happen, folks) and where our denizens know our national anthem.
But I agree, we need to be isolationists. Then again, I'm kind of an extremist when it comes to "minding one's own business" politically. Probably more than a lot of people would agree with (lots of folk, for instance, think that we need to be expending more energies being a world police and saving other countries from genocide... an admirable aim, but probably not something we can spare the resources to commit to at present).
My 2 cents.
Canuck
0
The poor can become rich in all industrialized nations, and I'd think easier in other industrialized nations due to programs helping the poor that America doesn't have.
I don't mean to come off sounding like I hate America. America is a decent country, but claiming it's the best when there's so many blatant things wrong with it seems off to me.
I don't mean to come off sounding like I hate America. America is a decent country, but claiming it's the best when there's so many blatant things wrong with it seems off to me.
You don't have to believe America is "the best" to believe that is a great civilization. It's not hard to find several instances of higher standard of living and better social safety net in countries like Switzerland, Denmark, etc.
But this is the world's oldest democracy (please do not debate this point. I know there are older countries who can try to make this claim, but the united states has had contiguous democratic elections non-stop since its inception) and the savior of the 20th Century. We are a nation ruled by laws, not men.
I believe that if American cultural/economic/military hegemony were to fade, it would be replaced by a very destabilizing race between several major powers, most notably the Russian bloc and China.
Don't confuse the American experiment with the man who doesn't even understand it: Our president for the last 8 years. I do understand the greatest of other nations, such as New Zealand's claim to the first universal suffrage, Japan and Germany's extremely rapid progress from being reduced to cinders in WW2, and others. But I also recognize that these places have benefited from American military hegemony for decades.
But this is the world's oldest democracy (please do not debate this point. I know there are older countries who can try to make this claim, but the united states has had contiguous democratic elections non-stop since its inception) and the savior of the 20th Century. We are a nation ruled by laws, not men.
I believe that if American cultural/economic/military hegemony were to fade, it would be replaced by a very destabilizing race between several major powers, most notably the Russian bloc and China.
Don't confuse the American experiment with the man who doesn't even understand it: Our president for the last 8 years. I do understand the greatest of other nations, such as New Zealand's claim to the first universal suffrage, Japan and Germany's extremely rapid progress from being reduced to cinders in WW2, and others. But I also recognize that these places have benefited from American military hegemony for decades.
Canuck
0
You seem well versed in the achievements of other countries, and I'm not sure what you're saying Americas are. America didn't win the European theatre of World War II. The Battle of Britain was over by the time they entered the war, and the Soviet's were the main reason the Germans lost (as they poured 2/3's of their troops into the eastern front).
The Korean War was upholding a dictatorship (edit: after reading wiki, it appears this isn't true. I wonder why I thought that...), the Vietnam war was a joke. Support of regimes in Latin America in the 80's was horrific. etc. etc. etc. All wars were fought for US interest and not some global policing in the name of humanity.
Anyways, isn't Britain the obvious answer for oldest democracy? Wasn't American independence about lack of representation in the British parliament (much like American colonies today don't have representation in Congress (this is a guess, I'm not sure if it's right)?). America is the oldest presidential democracy I would say. Is the argument against this about the English civil war?
I do agree with you that America was a better option than Mao and Stalin. But I mean, that's not really a compliment. They were both arguably worse than Hitler.
And if America was once fine and went downhill, it was with Reagan, and not Bush.
Sorry, I wrote quite a bit and it's all scattered.
The Korean War was upholding a dictatorship (edit: after reading wiki, it appears this isn't true. I wonder why I thought that...), the Vietnam war was a joke. Support of regimes in Latin America in the 80's was horrific. etc. etc. etc. All wars were fought for US interest and not some global policing in the name of humanity.
Anyways, isn't Britain the obvious answer for oldest democracy? Wasn't American independence about lack of representation in the British parliament (much like American colonies today don't have representation in Congress (this is a guess, I'm not sure if it's right)?). America is the oldest presidential democracy I would say. Is the argument against this about the English civil war?
I do agree with you that America was a better option than Mao and Stalin. But I mean, that's not really a compliment. They were both arguably worse than Hitler.
And if America was once fine and went downhill, it was with Reagan, and not Bush.
Sorry, I wrote quite a bit and it's all scattered.
Isolationism? Really?? That's what you want? Military non-interventionism + economic protectionism. The US is an integral part of the world economy and wield too much power to back out - I'd hate to see the fallout in the vacuum if the US became isolationists.
I'll admit that the US was a better nation before it became a theocracy and waged wars on science and rational thought (about the 50s onward).
I'll admit that the US was a better nation before it became a theocracy and waged wars on science and rational thought (about the 50s onward).
That's what I'm saying. Nature abhors a vacuum, especially power vacuums. The US has held superpower status quite responsibly. Compare it to other superpowers of the past.
Roman Empire
Mongol Empire
British Empire
Yeah. We're doing a better job to say the least.
Also, American money and industrial might absolutely was needed for the allies to win WW2. We had transports going to britain long before declaring war. Without that aid, Britain would have fell, and Hitler could have focused his entire war machine on the USSR. One could probably argue the axis would still lose in the end, but I dare say it would have resulted in casualties that make 60million look like a tussle between kindergartners at recess. Yeah, Britain did a number on the axis in North Africa, and the USSR certainly was able to win in the eastern front (but look at the German's kill/death ratio versus the Russians. Totally skewed. The Russians basically used people as bullets and shields.)
We also SOLO beat Japan. Japan beat the living snot out of everyone but us, including the british, dutch, and french colonies in SE asia. Without the overwhelming power of our pacific navy (in which my grandfather served) Japan would have had free reign to stomp all over asia.
I'm sorry but I think it's out of line to argue that American power wasn't needed to save the world from Hitler. That's completely insane.
Roman Empire
Mongol Empire
British Empire
Yeah. We're doing a better job to say the least.
Also, American money and industrial might absolutely was needed for the allies to win WW2. We had transports going to britain long before declaring war. Without that aid, Britain would have fell, and Hitler could have focused his entire war machine on the USSR. One could probably argue the axis would still lose in the end, but I dare say it would have resulted in casualties that make 60million look like a tussle between kindergartners at recess. Yeah, Britain did a number on the axis in North Africa, and the USSR certainly was able to win in the eastern front (but look at the German's kill/death ratio versus the Russians. Totally skewed. The Russians basically used people as bullets and shields.)
We also SOLO beat Japan. Japan beat the living snot out of everyone but us, including the british, dutch, and french colonies in SE asia. Without the overwhelming power of our pacific navy (in which my grandfather served) Japan would have had free reign to stomp all over asia.
I'm sorry but I think it's out of line to argue that American power wasn't needed to save the world from Hitler. That's completely insane.
I will be sorry upfront for this long winded and poorly organized rant.
Calling the Britain the oldest existing democracy on the basis of it having a ineffective figurehead Parliament that would merely advise the monarch is like calling the Roman Empire a democracy because it had a Senate.
However, saying we are a more responsible superpower than the Roman or the British Empires is jumping the gun. We've only been a superpower for less than 70 years. Some already believe that Pax Americana is in decline.
Western Europe would have fell to Germany if not through America's intervention, first through the lend-lease program that gave Britain some firepower and later through direct troop intervention that took the pressure off of the the other Allies. The Soviet Union was battered and was entirely ineffective until the Germans had to look westward.
I am a very proud American and have no doubt this is the greatest country on Earth. However, I do not believe this is just some magic permanent state and I understand that we must work hard to maintain this status. I am not sure Canuck really understands America at all -- we actually spend more on social programs here than most of the "socialist" countries. Social programs themselves, however, do not decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. They merely help keep the poor out of abject poverty. The gap between the rich and poor is also quite large in Canada and is rising. I will cede that America has made many terrible decisions on what third world governments to support and which ones to depose and also that Reagan started our downhill trend and effectively halted social progress though recent events may be a precursor to its revival.
Another point here is that all the social programs of Canada and western Europe are in effect subsidized by the United States. Since the end of World War II the United States has served as a guardian for these countries, protecting them under their "nuclear umbrella" first and also through formal associations such as NATO. We spend more on our military than nearly the rest of the world combined and this allows countries like Canada to have an active military force of 75,000. Without the need for massive spending to protect themselves, America's allies are free to use those funds on universal healthcare and other social programs.
Whoever said we should return to isolationism isn't really thinking that through.
I guess it's hard for Canadians to understand national pride when some surveys show that up to 20% of Canadians would support becoming annexed to the United States. :)
Disclaimer: I think those surveys are nuts, but they're still funny.
Calling the Britain the oldest existing democracy on the basis of it having a ineffective figurehead Parliament that would merely advise the monarch is like calling the Roman Empire a democracy because it had a Senate.
However, saying we are a more responsible superpower than the Roman or the British Empires is jumping the gun. We've only been a superpower for less than 70 years. Some already believe that Pax Americana is in decline.
Western Europe would have fell to Germany if not through America's intervention, first through the lend-lease program that gave Britain some firepower and later through direct troop intervention that took the pressure off of the the other Allies. The Soviet Union was battered and was entirely ineffective until the Germans had to look westward.
I am a very proud American and have no doubt this is the greatest country on Earth. However, I do not believe this is just some magic permanent state and I understand that we must work hard to maintain this status. I am not sure Canuck really understands America at all -- we actually spend more on social programs here than most of the "socialist" countries. Social programs themselves, however, do not decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. They merely help keep the poor out of abject poverty. The gap between the rich and poor is also quite large in Canada and is rising. I will cede that America has made many terrible decisions on what third world governments to support and which ones to depose and also that Reagan started our downhill trend and effectively halted social progress though recent events may be a precursor to its revival.
Another point here is that all the social programs of Canada and western Europe are in effect subsidized by the United States. Since the end of World War II the United States has served as a guardian for these countries, protecting them under their "nuclear umbrella" first and also through formal associations such as NATO. We spend more on our military than nearly the rest of the world combined and this allows countries like Canada to have an active military force of 75,000. Without the need for massive spending to protect themselves, America's allies are free to use those funds on universal healthcare and other social programs.
Whoever said we should return to isolationism isn't really thinking that through.
I guess it's hard for Canadians to understand national pride when some surveys show that up to 20% of Canadians would support becoming annexed to the United States. :)
Disclaimer: I think those surveys are nuts, but they're still funny.
If not actual capital I ISOLATIONISM, what I meant to say is that we can no longer police the world, build an empire, or control other countries' ideologies. During the Bush Administration I feel like every country in the world has wanted us to mind our own business and it probably would not be a bad idea to take heed of that. This country is fraught with its own problems and this isn't the 20th century.
It is a new century and we need to first and foremost TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN SHIT.
Also anyone who disagrees that it was America's intervention that finally broke the back of the Germans in the European theater is in de nile.
It is a new century and we need to first and foremost TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN SHIT.
Also anyone who disagrees that it was America's intervention that finally broke the back of the Germans in the European theater is in de nile.
McDohl
120
author=Canuck link=topic=2433.msg43439#msg43439 date=1226563044
Uhhh.. you don't need to be a radical marxist to realize that American nationalism is scary and without good reason. It's up there with China and Japan in scary nationalism.
What makes America amazing? The amazing gap in rich and poor? The electoral system which doesn't allow grassroots parties to get a foothold? The lack of a social safety net? It's policy to only uphold capitalist regimes that do trade with them? That it's one of only two industrialized countries that still has the death penalty?
I'll speak for the rest of the world (without their permission) when I say America is a better sole superpower than Russia or China would be. America is less scary than those countries. I'd much prefer the EU personally.
Oh how cute. It's like reading an essay by a first year PS student taking the class for general credit.
author=McDohl link=topic=2433.msg43552#msg43552 date=1226617785Nice. Way to dismiss what he said by attacking the messenger. It's like being in Grade 10 all over again.author=Canuck link=topic=2433.msg43439#msg43439 date=1226563044
Uhhh.. you don't need to be a radical marxist to realize that American nationalism is scary and without good reason. It's up there with China and Japan in scary nationalism.
What makes America amazing? The amazing gap in rich and poor? The electoral system which doesn't allow grassroots parties to get a foothold? The lack of a social safety net? It's policy to only uphold capitalist regimes that do trade with them? That it's one of only two industrialized countries that still has the death penalty?
I'll speak for the rest of the world (without their permission) when I say America is a better sole superpower than Russia or China would be. America is less scary than those countries. I'd much prefer the EU personally.
Oh how cute. It's like reading an essay by a first year PS student taking the class for general credit.
McDohl
120
author=kentona link=topic=2433.msg43570#msg43570 date=1226628276
Nice. Way to dismiss what he said by attacking the messenger. It's like being in Grade 10 all over again.
Such a world view is shallow, Ralph Nader-esque, and simplistic. It's equivalent to what you get when you take a condensed political science course, listening to a professor and not reading other points of view, other political works, or keeping sufficiently informed of the complexities of the world.
For example, the electoral college was specifically designed so that bigger, condensed populations of people do not get all the attention or more political weight in an election. A direct popular vote would mean whoever could affect big cities the most would get elected, and those living in rural districts would get avoided.
But, way not to read what I said. If I wanted to attack the messenger, I would say something completely direct; something along the lines of, "Kentona, you're a reactionary dipshit." But I didn't say that, now did I.
author=McDohl link=topic=2433.msg43573#msg43573 date=1226629833Oh how cute. Now you've actually explained your position and was able to be demeaning and arrogant at the same time! Awwwww.author=kentona link=topic=2433.msg43570#msg43570 date=1226628276
Nice. Way to dismiss what he said by attacking the messenger. It's like being in Grade 10 all over again.
Such a world view is shallow, Ralph Nader-esque, and simplistic. It's equivalent to what you get when you take a condensed political science course, listening to a professor and not reading other points of view, other political works, or keeping sufficiently informed of the complexities of the world.
For example, the electoral college was specifically designed so that bigger, condensed populations of people do not get all the attention or more political weight in an election. A direct popular vote would mean whoever could affect big cities the most would get elected, and those living in rural districts would get avoided.
But, way not to read what I said. If I wanted to attack the messenger, I would say something completely direct; something along the lines of, "Kentona, you're a reactionary dipshit." But I didn't say that, now did I.
(And the obvious implication of your first dismissive reply was that first year PS students are know-nothing intellectual jeuveniles. That was pretty ad hominem.)
author=Max McGee link=topic=2433.msg43581#msg43581 date=1226633299
I don't see this topic going anywhere friendly any time soon. :-[
I liked these waffles I had when visiting America. They were top dog.
Canuck
0
It's true my knowledge on America isn't too thorough, but I thought the electoral college system was because when the American democracy started, calculating a popular vote would be too difficult, and so they used the electoral college system (and technically, the electoral colleges can vote against the people's wishes). I also can't see anything in the "it helps rural areas have a voice" argument, because it you look at states like Missouri in the 2008 election, it was directly urban vs. rural and due to the electoral college system, about 50% of Missouri's voters won't matter. If it was a popular vote then their votes would still be of worth.
Harmonic: Comparing the America's superpower status with any other empire is flawed due to how globalized the world is today. In colonial times, Empires didn't meddle in other Empires affairs. The realm of influence was within their Empires.
To argue America was needed for WW2's victory I can see. As it is to argue that Britian was needed for WW2's victory and the Soviet's were needed for WW2's victory. I'd argue that the Allies would've been most handicapped if the Soviet's hadn't entered the war. The Soviet's lack of compassion for their soldiers isn't a factor in this equation. America didn't "save Britain's ass". Again, the Battle of Britain was over. American supplies did help, but one usually doesn't call the munitions supplier the hero of a war.
America did more or less single handedly defeat Japan. What impact the Soviet's could've had I don't know.
Holbert: I'd like more explaination of this line you wrote: "The Soviet Union was battered and was entirely ineffective until the Germans had to look westward."
By social programs I mean things such as public health care, heavily subsidized university for everyone, an adequate welfare system, etc. I'm not sure what America has in this regards, so if there are amazing things, and health and educate aren't ridiculously overpriced, then maybe I'm wrong.
I totally support national pride. Be proud of your country, traditions, history and whatnot. That's all great. The problem is when pride turns to comparing your culture with others and wanting to state that yours is best. The audacity of the statement "Our country is the best" is amazing. What arrogance! What does someone base this one? It's obviously not non-American's opinions. Maybe based on American standards it's the best, but then the statement is meaningless. What is the deal with wanting to rank it? To be proud is great, to think one is better is not. The concept seems to be something of pre-WW1 Europe, and that is only still around in America, Japan and China.
edit: ug, this reply is so scattered. I should just write an essay on my thoughts of something. And American isolationism would be horrible for everyone.
Harmonic: Comparing the America's superpower status with any other empire is flawed due to how globalized the world is today. In colonial times, Empires didn't meddle in other Empires affairs. The realm of influence was within their Empires.
To argue America was needed for WW2's victory I can see. As it is to argue that Britian was needed for WW2's victory and the Soviet's were needed for WW2's victory. I'd argue that the Allies would've been most handicapped if the Soviet's hadn't entered the war. The Soviet's lack of compassion for their soldiers isn't a factor in this equation. America didn't "save Britain's ass". Again, the Battle of Britain was over. American supplies did help, but one usually doesn't call the munitions supplier the hero of a war.
America did more or less single handedly defeat Japan. What impact the Soviet's could've had I don't know.
Holbert: I'd like more explaination of this line you wrote: "The Soviet Union was battered and was entirely ineffective until the Germans had to look westward."
By social programs I mean things such as public health care, heavily subsidized university for everyone, an adequate welfare system, etc. I'm not sure what America has in this regards, so if there are amazing things, and health and educate aren't ridiculously overpriced, then maybe I'm wrong.
I totally support national pride. Be proud of your country, traditions, history and whatnot. That's all great. The problem is when pride turns to comparing your culture with others and wanting to state that yours is best. The audacity of the statement "Our country is the best" is amazing. What arrogance! What does someone base this one? It's obviously not non-American's opinions. Maybe based on American standards it's the best, but then the statement is meaningless. What is the deal with wanting to rank it? To be proud is great, to think one is better is not. The concept seems to be something of pre-WW1 Europe, and that is only still around in America, Japan and China.
edit: ug, this reply is so scattered. I should just write an essay on my thoughts of something. And American isolationism would be horrible for everyone.
McDohl
120
author=kentona link=topic=2433.msg43577#msg43577 date=1226630598author=McDohl link=topic=2433.msg43573#msg43573 date=1226629833
Oh how cute. Now you've actually explained your position and was able to be demeaning and arrogant at the same time! Awwwww.
(And the obvious implication of your first dismissive reply was that first year PS students are know-nothing intellectual jeuveniles. That was pretty ad hominem.)
The cry of "ZOMG ad hominemmmzzzz!!!!!1111" only works if the statements are a fallacy. First year PS students are, in fact, know-nothing intellectual juveniles. It's their first year. They are, by definition, juvenile!
I know, because I've been one! There's only so much shit you learn when you take PS101, and most of it is a truncated, collapsible form of "okay, here's America and GO!" where students are completely left hanging and jump to the same inane, ridiculous conclusions that anti-establishment is the way to go.
