[OT] [PW] [Long] America Bashing

Bev wrote:


I hate American bashing too and unfortunately I hear plenty of it here
in New Zealand. I think it is just plain jealousy -
I have made several trips to the US, loved the country and its wonderful
hospitable people.

Bev
--
The email of the species is more deadly than the mail.

Thanks Bev. And I really to hope to visit your country one day.

Bob

Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to stop
some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans. Terrorism,
for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it
whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations.

One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of speech.
That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or otherwise, by
other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans not to
criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical remarks.

I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or actions
of some of its members.

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results
to follow.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

--
David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm
Liverpool, England, UK Emails welcome
Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 11 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC
Minke: SI W+Cp B 2 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC-

"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
...
Krista wrote:

The reason for this is because many people consider Bush to have
damaged our country. If you consider voting for him to be an act
calculated to damage the country you love, that precludes your
considering a person who voted for him to be smart, witty, caring, or
loving. You would consider such a person to have commited a
destructive act against your country.

Only if you did not support your own political system, since any
democratic system must include the possibility (or certainty!) that
sometimes the group that wins is believed by its opponents to be not
merely a less good choice, but to be a completely wrong one.

It's obvious to this outsider, and by what I read, to many Americans, that
American society is not only profoundly divided, it is very nearly divided
in half. That means neither side can really dismiss the other as a small
bunch of unimportant kooks, and I think that inflames the rhetoric
enormously.

I also think it would be a mistake to channel political opinions into a
black and white, all and none attack on those who hold them. It doesn't
help to insult your friends and relatives who voted on the other side by
calling into question their intelligence and morality. It's much better to
channel your energy into work for the political party of your choice
instead.

I think the US voters made a big mistake in their choice of leader, but
it's their choice, not mine. And I am sure that President Bush's
supporters believe they made the right choice. Only time will tell who is
right, and exchanging insults will neither make the final assessment of
his record come faster nor make daily life any easier.

I hope this is not taken as US-bashing. Since the US is the most powerful
and influential country in the world, everything it (ie its government)
says and does is of enormous interest and importance to everyone else.
Sometimes these comments are negative. That's just the way things work.
When a country as powerful as the US takes an action, any action, it will
have both supporters and detractors, depending on how that action
influences, or may be expected to influence, others. About the only
reaction the US won't get is indifference.

--
Cheryl

This American agrees with almost everything you say here. Just remember,
though - it was only 53% of the voters who made the big mistake. Don't
blame those of us in the 47% minority.

Joy

"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to stop
some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans. Terrorism,
for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it
whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations.

One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of speech.
That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or otherwise,
by
other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans not to
criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical remarks.

I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or
actions
of some of its members.

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results
to follow.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

--
David Stevenson

So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor
suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they want,
but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still resent it
when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about only
*some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who are
criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do not
commit whatever offense is currently being criticized.

There are obviously a number of non-Americans who delight in criticizing and
complaining about anything American. I remember I met one of those when I
was in college. I asked him where he was from, and he said Vancouver,
British Columbia. I mentioned that I had been there once and thought the
area was beautiful. He then asked where I was from. I told him I'm a
native Californian and he said, "You have my sympathy."

Say "some Americans"; say "your government", say "your President", but don't
say "Americans" when you criticize. I doubt if there is a single statement
that can accurately apply to all Americans, except for the statement that we
are Americans.

I know there are those who delight in criticizing what others hold dear. I
am not one of them, and I resent being lumped with them.

Joy

"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
...
Krista wrote:

The reason for this is because many people consider Bush to have
damaged our country. If you consider voting for him to be an act
calculated to damage the country you love, that precludes your
considering a person who voted for him to be smart, witty, caring, or
loving. You would consider such a person to have commited a
destructive act against your country.

Only if you did not support your own political system, since any
democratic system must include the possibility (or certainty!) that
sometimes the group that wins is believed by its opponents to be not
merely a less good choice, but to be a completely wrong one.

It's obvious to this outsider, and by what I read, to many Americans, that
American society is not only profoundly divided, it is very nearly divided
in half. That means neither side can really dismiss the other as a small
bunch of unimportant kooks, and I think that inflames the rhetoric
enormously.

I also think it would be a mistake to channel political opinions into a
black and white, all and none attack on those who hold them. It doesn't
help to insult your friends and relatives who voted on the other side by
calling into question their intelligence and morality. It's much better to
channel your energy into work for the political party of your choice
instead.

I think the US voters made a big mistake in their choice of leader, but
it's their choice, not mine. And I am sure that President Bush's
supporters believe they made the right choice. Only time will tell who is
right, and exchanging insults will neither make the final assessment of
his record come faster nor make daily life any easier.

I hope this is not taken as US-bashing. Since the US is the most powerful
and influential country in the world, everything it (ie its government)
says and does is of enormous interest and importance to everyone else.
Sometimes these comments are negative. That's just the way things work.
When a country as powerful as the US takes an action, any action, it will
have both supporters and detractors, depending on how that action
influences, or may be expected to influence, others. About the only
reaction the US won't get is indifference.

--
Cheryl

Thank you for a sane response.

Jo

CatNipped wrote:
"Bob M" wrote in message
...

The biggest
problem that I have with Bush is the fact that he wants to make gay
and lesbian Americans less of a citizen than straight Americans. A
constitutional amendment to make gays and lesbians second class
citizens. That is totally wrong. Gays and lesbians are not looking
for extra treatment, just equal treatment. And there is nothing
wrong with that! And yes I'm gay so this hits close to home.

I'm not lesbian, but I don't see where I should have any more rights
than a lesbian. If I were lesbian, I would feel just as strongly
about wanting to see my loved one in critical care, wanting to have
my insurance cover my loved one, wanting to make a life-long
commitment to my loved one, or any of the other things that straight
people take for granted.

I remember so many people at my former workplace being utterly *shocked*
when our insurance renewal information for the year 2004 came out. It
included being able to get health insurance for same sex partners who shared
a residence! What's wrong with that?!

What bugged me the most was these same people had no problem with our
insurance covering gastric bypass surgery for a number of people who really
didn't need it. Okay, that's my opinion, but I know for a fact one woman
who said she wanted to slim down to a size 4 (WHY?!) who literally gained 30
lbs because she didn't qualify the first time. She endangered her health in
order to have an automatic weight loss solution. (She never did stop
shoving cookies down her throat, even after the surgery.)

And the other guy who, while waiting for his surgery, would literally order
two meals of fried fish, fried shrimp, french fries and double the fried
hush puppies because (direct quote from him) "I'm gonna eat all I can, as
long as I can!" Give me a break. Someone like this isn't serious about
losing weight. And, he didn't lose much. And wound up back in the hospital
2 weeks after surgery for trying to chow down on burgers when he still
should have been eating soft foods.

At $40,000 USD a pop, with 8 people having had the surgery in a single year,
just imagine the insurance premium increases for everyone else. Oh, I
didn't have to imagine in, I lived it in 2003.

Only 2 people I worked with followed the doctors orders and the surgery was
very successful for them. And they weren't overeaters (nor unhealthy
eaters) to begin with. They'd had a predisposition to being overwheight
since childhood and problems with blood pressure, knee joint issues, etc.
That's who it's for. More power to them!

Jill

In article , "Christina Websell"
wrote:


If you have seen me bash America/Americans on this group, as a Brit I
apologise, but we would sure like you all to sign up to the emissions thing.

No offence intended.

None taken I wish we would too. Purrs your wood situation.
Suz
Macmoosette
=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

"People that hate cats will come back as mice in their next life."
--Faith Resnick



|\__/|
(=':'=)
(")_(")

"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of people
criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you support
Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other people up, or
you do not. If you support it you must expect the results to follow.

David, I fully support *everyone* having the right to say whatever they
feel - even to the point of America-bashing. What *I'm* asking is that, if
you are corresponding with *me*, and want to stay on friendly terms, then
please don't blanket criticize my entire nation because you don't like the
actions of a few of my fellow countrymen. I am fully in agreement with most
of the objections people from other nations have about my government. But,
just because you don't like the fact that my *government* (*NOT* me) is
opposed to the Kyoto Treaty, please don't say that "Americans" (which
includes me, my family, and my friends) are stupid, backwards, evil, etc.,
etc., etc. Am I not making that distinction clear?

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

Again "Americans tend to promote themselves"... *I'M* an American and *I'M*
not promoting myself - neither are my family or my friends. If I said (and
please note that this is just an example in a frustrated attempt to make my
point - *not* an effort to give offense) "English people tend to be
buggerers", because I know for a fact that *some* English people are
buggerers, would you not be equally as offended by being called something
you are not and accused of doing something you do not????

This is as bad as saying, "Black people are lazy", or "Jewish people are
cheap" - stereotypes my seem harmless to the people who are not being
stereotyped, but the harm in stereotyping people is not just their hurt
feelings, but also causes inaccurate preconceptions that damages human
relations, leads to misunderstandings, and often to hatred, warfare and
death. When someone feels like *all* Americans are soul-less, evil, stupid,
war-mongers then it makes it quite all right to dive-bomb a plane into a
building of innocent American people because, weren't they evil and deserved
it???

David, I truly did not mean to give offense and I apologize if I've done
so - I'm really just frustrated about being misunderstood at this point.

Hugs,

CatNipped

--
David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm
Liverpool, England, UK Emails welcome
Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 11 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC
Minke: SI W+Cp B 2 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC-

Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to stop
some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans. Terrorism,
for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it
whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations.

One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of speech.
That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or otherwise,
by
other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans not to
criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical remarks.

I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or
actions
of some of its members.

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results
to follow.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

--
David Stevenson

So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor
suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they want,
but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still resent it
when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about only
*some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who are
criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do not
commit whatever offense is currently being criticized.

I don't support such talk: but I don't support Americans winding
others up. I just think that the more some Americans wind other people
up the more the average American must expect a reaction.

--
David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm
Liverpool, England, UK Emails welcome
Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 11 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC
Minke: SI W+Cp B 2 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC-

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results
to follow.

I'm not criticizing your post, David, but I am simply bumfuzzled by it. What do
you mean? What kind of talk "winds people up"? I just don't see anyone bashing
the English, or any other country for that matter to the extent that the
Americans are the brunt of criticism. I would say never on this group.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

There you go again. If you would just use the word "some" Americans, I don't
think it would sound like so much like you are tarring an entire nation with
the same brush.

Sherry