[Capt. Fred]

Chomsky is hard to legitimately criticise. He gives so little opinion and razz mataz. He does not try to rouse you and win you over to his point of view like preachers and TV, he just presents a whole load of documented research with references and citations.

I wondered before whether it would be a good idea if all news organisations had to reference information in their reporting in the same way, so you could always get back to the nuts and bolts of a story. Like the nutritional information they are forced to supply at McDonalds now.

[Tomasis]

It was very funny to see every national flag hanging on every house :D That much that my seeing mixed quite of white, red and blue colors. Was it fear of being accused to be anti nationalistic?

[balistic]

[Lunatique]

(The following are just some thoughts. I have no interest in debating anything--just thinking out loud.)

Well, having spent the last 5+ years in China (and a bit in Malaysia), I can tell you that I, for one, am damn happy to be home. Sure, there are things here I have problems with--there will always be no matter where you live, as no society or government is perfect. At least compared to China, U.S. is a far, far better place.

I think most people outside of the U.S. don't know that the country itself is divided mostly into two groups--the people that live in the "cool" states and cities (New York, California, L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Austin..etc), and the people who live in the "uncool" states and cities (er...most of the south and mid-west). Many of those places still hang the confederate flag in the south (though the meaning behind that is controversial and debatable), something that has always been for me, the symbol that represents how this country was once divided, and still is in many ways. Republicans, democrates, whites, blacks, minorities, the have's and the have not's..etc. Our government's foreign policy does not represent all of us, and our media also does not represent all of us. If you keep up with the news in the States, you'll see that we disagree all the time--that's why there are rallies, demonstrations, riots..etc that happen from time to time.

Essentially, there will always be a large group of people in the States who are disgusted by the same stereotypes that most Europeans believe in, and they are trying to swing the country around by voting and by being active in socio-political issues. But look at the past two elections. How we got that ape into the White House will always be a mystery to me. I have lost most of my faith in politics because of the last two elections. When the majority of your fellow countrymen are idiots, there really isn't a whole lot you can do, except maybe move to another country.

[Capt. Fred]

[Drunken Monkey]

I was shopping for groceries a month or so ago and saw a cover of either Time or People magazine with picture of Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama on the cover... posed in a pc way of being pitted against one another in a Mortal Kombat kind of way, you know? Subzero vs Scorpion.

And the title said something similar to "Who will you choose?"

The choice has already been made for you. Its either this or that. It works like this... whoever represents the interest of most corporate body will get the most campaign money. Whatever goes on behind the scenes, the promises made the deals arranged well into the presedential term - all the major networks will promote a given set of candidates completely ignoring the rest.

For instance... support for Israel. Say Clinton tomorrow decided to not support the expansion into Palestinian territory or she condemned the civil liberties violations in that region... the funds and support from the Israeli and Jewish owned bankers and companies including media companies would go to Obama who just declared that he whole heartedly supports Israels right to exist. So we see less of Hilary and more of the other guy. This is just an example.

So these guys suck as much corporate cock as they can, while also trying to appeal to imaginary issues the populace has been brainwashed with... like gay marriage and whatever other nonsense that makes a tiny bit of difference. Border control? Million of illegal mexicans marching into California? Further devaluation of the dollar? Slowly chipping away at the Constitution? You never hear about any of these... but those are the issues that affect us the most as a country.

Its really just a big money game. Everyone in our government is being sold and bought left and right. Politics is the ultimate way to make money. It really is. There is hardly any differentiation between US Gov and the Carlyle group and Federal Reserve and a multitude of other corporations that are controlled by the same politicians who either own or are owned by those corporations.

So what you get is this inhuman business machine. And thats what i think people see and hate the most around the world. Bullshit justifications being sold as "War on Terror" and "Freedom" that are just corporate business plans in disguise.

Some people are angry because they know, others are angry because something just doesn't feel right. But on some level everyone is aware that we are all being fucked for the benefit of the few rich assholes.
_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud

[Gort]

[Tomasis]

[Affected]

The original question, I believe, was why non-US residents think US residents are dumb, fat and ignorant. The answer is simple: we resent the amount of power the US have and the way the US government has been using it. While I wish nationalism was dead and buried, it's not, so when people dislike a country's policies, they tend to project that onto the people of that country. And most people do like to belittle the people they hate.

Oh, and about Chomsky: That barrage of facts seems to me more like an obfuscation tactic to make it hard to counter his claims. Sure, his premises are pretty solidly documented, but the conclusions he reaches often seem to be totally impossible to actually verify. It's really very one-eyed stuff.

[Gort]

Tomasis - I am not sure you're reading Balistic's comment correctly, unless he can briefly elaborate. A partiot is a term meant to describe Americans that opposed English rule in the 1700s; they typically fought to define and uphold the democratic principles that have served to define the foundation for the US Republic. Modern day patriots, which I happen to be, continue to uphold and defend those very principles.

It has nothing to do with nationlism, which is often an ilk in itself. It's nationlism that is often the cause of misconception.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Diruo]

[Affected]

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw

That gets to the point of it, and that is how I view patriotism. The desire to improve society is a separate thing from it - patriotism in my view limits any such desires to one's own nation, or at the very least places the interests of one's own nation before those of others, and that is why I see patriotism as part of a nationalist mindset. Maybe you have a non-nationally defined view of patriotism, but why you would then call it that, I don't know.

I've seen and had this discussion quite a few times, never reaching any real understanding with people who do not believe patriotism is a nationalist phenomenon. I always get the feeling we talk about different things and just call them the same thing. So my question to everyone is: What makes one a patriot?

[Ranath]

[Gort]

Shaw's definition isn't - it's an opinion. The defintion of patriotism is specific to the principles for which America was founded and defense, love, devotion - whatever - to those principles:

From Dictionary.com:

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

Ah Chomsky always the champion for power through government.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Gort]

double posted somehow - sorry
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Affected]

well, the first definition, to me, contains a nationalist bent. The second is specific to the USA.

[Gort]

I can understand why you feel that way, but if I may, I would say that maybe - just maybe - your interpretation of "interests" in the quoted definition might be influenced by other means (like what you see on TV or read in the paper). My interpretation of "interests" is rooted in liberty - the right to freely express, publish and assemble and all that jazz. In fairness I could easily stand right beside you and reinforce your view by stating that America does have an issue with nationalistic fervor, but it's the "ultra" nationalists I don't worry about it - it's the evangelical views that concern me more.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Ranath]

[Tomasis]

I agree much with Diruo and Affected

Gort, Americans that opposed English rule in the 1700s but what were Americans? A bunch of former Englishmen, Frenchmen and Spaniards? huh? The modern America came up on the blood of Indians, guns and flame water. Thankfully to former Europeans, now called Americans that the war still continues nowadays with "patriotic" propagandas. The Americans which opposed English rule in the 1700s could be stamped as terrorists, rebells if it was today, it is right?

it seems that your knowledge is limited to American history, not earlier. It explains that you fail to understand the definition of patriotism with American dictionary, created by patriotic people lol

[Gort]

No, I did not fail, and you do not get it. That's it. You're absolutely missing the point Tomasis - not getting it. Without going into the finite details of American history, let just say that European colonists had been in mainland America well before the 1700s, so let's not detract from the discussion by inserting the evil "conquistadorian" concept (another discussion well in itself).

You apparently have a definition of the word that comes across to me as a distortion or bastardization - a gross misinterpretation through the eyes of a severly biased and intellectually crippled impression; I would implore you to open your mind and take off your Chomsky/Shaw glasses.

Likening the people who fought for independence from English rule to terrorists is an absurd argument, and it just tells me that you know nothing of American history; furthermore, it suggests to me that you see the world and make judgments based on current scenarios (danger, Will Robinson!). The militias of colonial America did not willingly and wantingly target civilians in their campaigns; they didn't load up and drive wagons full of powder kegs into crowded market places, nor did they kidnap British loyalists and decapitate them (tarred and feathered was the means back then); they also didn't shield themselves with the civilian populous when engaging the Redcoats, nor did they assault theaters or schools and pack them full of explosives with the intent of killing everyone inside unless demands were met.

This in itself leads to the current bastardization of the words, such as the term "militia"; it seems that our media outlets have taken to using militia and terrorists interchangeably. They are not the same thing. If you must compare the past to the present, then the appropriate word would be insurgency. (not exactly contextual to colonial America, even - again - another argument) Another modern day misuse of terminology would be racism; I cringe at the complete, ignorant usage of the word, like when it's often used to describe the Arab/Israeli conflict.

Go on with the bastardization. I believe Orwell said it best, "Ignorance is Strength".

Christian Evangelicalism
In my opinion, this concept is the greatest, internal danger to American liberties today. If the religious movements of the US could snap their fingers and have it their way, every public school would require prayer, television and newspapers would be censored, books burned by the millions, and the way we look and interact socially would be scrutnized by the governing, theocratic machine. The evangelicals argue for that stuff - they really do! I say this, because I have engaged with them in debates regarding America; in principle their arguments are not any different from the Taliban (to reiterate, in principle). They just don't get the language of the US Constitution; they cannot bring it upon themselves that the US government's role is observe and protect the right to worship freely as one chooses - it just blows their mind, and the concept that there are other belief systems outside their own makes them gnash their teeth and scowl! Heretics! Non-believers! Sound familiar?

Ignorance is strength, indeed.

Ok, enough for now, it's breakfast time . . .
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Capt. Fred]

nationalist/patriot terms are causing debate. let's call it flag-love.

This is interesting whatever your viewpoint, important:
http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html

IMO Everyone has their opinion, and we can implore each other to open our minds and see the 'correct' point of view, but everyone is merely trying to formulate the best argument to represent their beliefs, and any suggestions deviating from their beliefs results in the emphatic repetition of one's views. In otherwords, it's a sijun version of a flamewar lol.

[Gort]

Well said, Fred (hey - I made a rhyme! ). Actually, compared to past discussions on this forum, this thread has been civil (so far) and spirited but with diplomacy. It's easier to listen (or read) when views are presented with some degree of consideration.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Diruo]

[Diruo]

Damnit! You guys are too fast!

Gort, I totally agree with you on the Evangelicalism, and I suspect I agree with you on a lot of things. I really don't want to sound inflammatory.

I think we have similar views on how society should function but dissimilar views on the actual state of things...

and..

[Affected]

Fred, true, I guess the semantic squabbling has gone enough. I can live with the term "flag-lovers". While I think I share a number of things with you ideologically, Gort, I won't be calling myself a patriot simply due to the root of the word. But you've made clear enough what you mean by the word, so I deem you Probably Not Evil.

anyway, carry on with the discussion then. I don't know any USians, although I do know some people who have lived there, and their experiences somewhat support some claims made here by the US-haters, if you will, but that's second-hand info. So, no comment.

[Gort]

[Tomasis]

Gort, I guess that we define such words at different ways. I never thought that some simple words as patriotism can have so many assumed meanings. But I respect that people see things from different perspectives, both wrong and right. What you did say about patriotism at your last input, it never came to my head that it can be defined at such way.

Regarding terrorism, the definition could be manipulated easily also. I tried to asking rhetorically who is that which decide the definition? the superior, government? I thought from the perspective of the english colonial rule that they could see those americans as rebells though they come from the same country/continent when new Americans tried to fight for some new goals. The same view come up when I think about Iraq, North Ireland, Basque while they fight for their independence from suppressors. I dont see differences between militias and terrorists so long they have guns, bombs. Nomads can likely to create new name of the country if they have some guns and money, lol

[Capt. Fred]

Gort he did not say individualism was eradicated and non-existent. He said people associate corporate rule with Amercia before entrepreneurship and the others.

Freedom of expression may be all around us, as you say, but so too is the abolition of slavery. My point is, you have to raise your standards, not sit around for a hundred years infatuated with the gracious and noble provision of some basic human and moral RIGHTS. And if your government is posing a risk to some of those ideals, which you conceded, then people are justified in making an Extremely Big Deal out of it. If the government was proposing policies which encroach on the freedom of black people, then those encroachments would justifiably be bigger news than the fact that they currently enjoy the noble provision of equal rights with white men.

Secondly, I have no way of knowing how much or little of Chomsky's work you have read, but I don't believe your judgements are nearly accurate, no offence. He does not advocate absolute power, and is primarily a humanist.

Anarchism:

[Diruo]

[Gort]

Diruo - sorry for misreading your point regarding expression, etc., and yes - I see your point and I do agree that there needs to be some regulatory aspect of government; the civilized world wouldn't be nor go on without it. I see eye to eye with Libertarians in that government should shepherd and refereree free market behaviour but without being directly involved, but to their dismay and to your point, I believe there are just some aspects of industry that have to be regulated; we need the EPA to ensure our lands aren't crapped on; we need a department of labor to ensure fair practices in the workplace and so on.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield