h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I never disagreed *wholly* with Michael Moore, there's just one or two things he "gets up my goat about", (to use an expression from an Australian comedy.)
I certainly learned a lot from "Bowling"...

I don't think growing up has much to do with it. The US has had a grown up stable system of government for far longer than almost any other country. The only major bit of experience the USA collectively lacks that other nations have the benefit of is an understanding of the transient nature of dominance.

I think that is very true, Mycroft. The US has basically been a major world power almost since its conception. Perhaps this is where its 'global arrogance' stems from?


az

Arrogance is certainly one of the traits that comes with being a major power: for the wealthy and powerful it's very hard to resist the notion that they got to be that way because they're either genetically or ideologically superior to other people. In America's case, this tendency is probably less pronounced than in the vast majority of its predecessors, but it's still there.

<>

Well, that's great Della.

I can't wait to see the new film, which I believe has opened in the UK this weekend.

Being Canadian I wouldn't like to rain on his parade about how *all* Canadians never lock their doors, etc. This was one of the exaggerations I mentioned earlier. But not a serious one. And there probably are plenty of people living in residential areas of Toronto who never lock their doors when they are at home. Like - why?

Canadians have not yet caught the 'fear bug' and I sincerely hope they never do. But even 15 years ago when I was living there I found I just had to stop watching all this nasty US tv news - it seemed to me to be way OTT.

What MM did get right about Canada is that we really are not afraid of our neighbours. Also, we consider Canada to be a 'cultural mosaic' rather than a 'melting pot'. Very different attitude there regarding different cultures. And yes, even though there is a similar per capita gun ownership thing happening, people in Canada tend to buy guns for hunting and not for self-protection. Another very serious difference in the mentality there.

It is strange how two neighbouring countries can end up having such vast differences in how they view the world. Well, it's one of the many reasons I still feel very proud to call myself a Canadian, though I now live in Europe.

az

Just a reminder.
A lot of Americans are good, decent, reasonable people.
It's just the Sylastic armorfiends of, I mean the extreme right wing that is turning noble ideals into meaningless rhetoric.
The problem is that few decent people crave power to the extent that these people do.
In addition, when a moral person appeals to our morality, he/she has to use the same language already corrupted by those manipulators.
The result is tolerant people come off as anti-moral.
If we judged people by what they did instead of what they said in this country, we would be electing very different people.

YB

"Mark Twain wrote a semi-autobiographical book called 'Roughing it' which explained the US to me better than any book before or since. He recounts how, as the West was opened up, armed gangs would take over each area, brutalizing the unarmed and killing each other. The government would then legitimise the most brutal of the gangs (ie the most successful) by making them law-men. "

- this is also how most of the noblemen in Europe got their start, the difference being that the government didn't legitimise them...they became the government. And it starts pretty much right after the Romans (one of the most successful gangs of all time) started to pull out of Europe. Anyone remember Warwick the Kingmaker? Got his start in a tourney by mugging another night who happened to be taking a leak against a tree. Having disposed of his 'opponent', Warwick became heir to all of the man's goods and chattels. So...how would this be any different to how America started off?

European disdain of America is ridiculous. Europe itself is, as my grandfather once put it "All fur coat and no knickers".

"Two words: 'Freedom Fries'."

Ah yes. Two words for you: "Corporate Shill".
If you can't tell the difference between the sentiment of a nation and the frankly amusing attempt by a fast food company to move merchandise then...ummm...well, marketing must be more effective than they'd believed.

America as a World Power: Really? This would be the World Power that wanted to pursue a policy of isolationism for a good chunk of the 20th century.

>> this is also how most of the noblemen in Europe got their start, the difference being that the government didn't legitimise them... they became the government.

Agreed. Your point is...?


>> European disdain of America is ridiculous. Europe itself is, as my grandfather once put it "All fur coat and no knickers".

For example?


>> Two words for you: "Corporate Shill".

What's a Shill?


>> If you can't tell the difference between the sentiment of a nation and the frankly amusing attempt by a fast food company to move merchandise then...ummm...well, marketing must be more effective than they'd believed.

Maybe just the news. My understanding was that even the government canteens were serving "Freedom fries" as part of a nationalistic backlash against the French.


>> This would be the World Power that wanted to pursue a policy of isolationism for a good chunk of the 20th century.

Korea?

Vietnam?

The Phillipines?

Granada?

Panama?

The Contras?

Chile?

Tripoli?

The Balkans?

Iran?

Iraq?

What *exactly* does 'isolationism' mean in this context?

B

Actually, Ben, all those conflicts you mention happened in the second half of the 20th Century, and Gradient is correct in saying that the US was isolationist for a good chunk of the 20th. It managed to avoid war for the most part of WWI, it was only the "unrestricted warfare" campaign by Germany's U-boats that sank the Lusitania that brought the US into that conflict. There was also a buch of sh!t happening in Mexico that had an effect. Even then, their influence was marginal - it is likely that the "old-world" powers would have prevailed against Germany anyway.

In WWII, it was actually Japan's attack at Pearl Harbour that brought the US into the conflict. In this case, it is almost certain that Britain would not have prevailed without US assistance. Even so, it is fair to say that the US were reluctant participants in the two major fighting-based wars of the 20th century, and had to dragged into them by the (frankly stupid) aggression of other countries.

RF

I agree with you about WWI and WWII, ReddyFreddy, and I am particularly glad that you mentioned Mexico, which is rarely acknowledged as bringing the US into WWI.

However, as you rightly say, the US contribution to WWI was not decisive and was arguably negligible. On the other hand, the European Nations at that time, particularly Britain and Germany, both of which had substantial Imperial possessions, were arguably the premier league World Powers, and the US was somewere in the middle of the next league down.

Control shifted at the end of WWII because of the financial chicanery by the US, because of decolonoisation by Britain, and because of the need for the whole of Europe to rebuild elementary infrastructure.

The US joined WWII in 1941 and have been active participants, either using financial support, covert involvement or direct military intervention for the 60 years following it, which makes it a nice round 60% of the 20th Century.

American isolationism in just another American myth, I am sorry to say.

B

OK, I'll say that 40% is a "good chunk". And that it was US policy for most of the pre-WWII years.

After that, they started to get involved with the rest of the world, with results that would put them near the bottom of the 1st Nationwide division in terms of results. Can anyone name an American Military Victory (apart from against each other)?

RF

Ok, 40% is a good chunk, even if it is over 63 years ago now.

American Military Victory?

Can we include incidents involving friendly fire?

B

Nah, don't think those count

Has the US actually won a fighting war?

RF

The previous Gulf War. I guess it won the most recent one, though it has entirely f**ked up the peace. As was predictable and predicted.

B

Rddyfreddy. What an excellent job you are doing of showing what we do and dont know.

WWII a war that had massive gloabal and long term reprocussions was you say almost certainly won because of the US intervention Helping the British. Even if by British you are including the Australians, New Zealanders, Jamaicans and othe West Indians, Indians, Fijians and Canadians to name only *some* of the non UK British. You are also missing out the Chekz, Polish, French, Norwegian and Balkan service men and women who risked their lives in convetional forces or behind enemy lines. Heard any accents representing these countries in any world war to films, some but not many I bet.

You also manage to forget all about an Nation and its army who gave more in resources gav more in soldiers and more in lives for the freedon of Europe and the world from the Nazis, Russia. The fact that you like so many miss out this most important of contributions to world war two is nothing to do with you being stupid it is because your mindset is coloured by the narrow scope of the majority of US and British produced books, films and TV programmes on the subject.

What Moore is trying to do although not on this subject is trying to rectify a similar imbalance of information given out in the right wing dominated media at present.

one love

A2251108 - it is an entry with problems, as acknowledged in the PR thread, but the numbers are interesting and the links are useful.

B

I'm not sure that they actually won a war even then, they merely put off a problem of their own making (which suited the realpolitik of a decade earlier) until last year. I would say that they are actually still fighting the same war that started with the deaths of the hostages in the Iranian Embassy in 1979.

RF

Ben - my point about how Europe got its rulers and how America did is: Europeans critiquing Americans on the basis that they're run by criminals who got entrenched in particular positions of power is basically the pot calling the kettle black.

It's almost funny.

A Shill: Carny talk for talking something up to get an emotional response, especially when it draws a rube into a rigged game.

Ask yourself who was supposed to get emotional about that.
Wasn't the Yanks; they raised a wry eyebrow, had a quiet chuckle and reached for the ketchup.

Well Blicky, I'm fully aware of the contributions of everyone to each side of WWII, but thanks for hopping on your high horse and jumping down my throat about it. One love.

RF

Ah. But the difference is that Britain, (I cannot speak for the rest of Europe), is not still run by an unholy alliance of organised crime, business and government. The baronial in-fighting you referred to was essentially a phenonemon of the Middle Ages, and was ancestral to both the US and Europe.

You haven't answered my question about isolationism, or in what ways Europe is Fur Coat and No Knickers. And while I am at it, how that differs from the US, precisely.

B