Foreign Languages

[wintermute]

No, you're right. I didn't mean all Americans, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I did. Southern Ohio seems to be a fairly (but certainly not exclusively) right-wing area, and it's not uncommon for me to encounter people who are quite willing to point out that America is the Best Country On Earth, and that They Should Kick Out The Foreigners, or that people who don't approve of us invading Iran, Iraq and anywhere else thery think of Hate America And Want The Terrorists To Win.

But really, Exhibit A is The Zuve Spirit MP3 player.

[stePH]

But really, Exhibit A is The Zuve Spirit MP3 player.

Wow ... it even comes preloaded with fifteen shitkickin' tunes. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the first hundred orders also get a blowjob from Ann Coulter thrown in for free ... or at least an autographed nude picture. 

[birdless]

But, yeah. One of the things about America that frightens me is the fact that they've replaced patriotism with jingoism. Cats lying with dogs, I tell you.

You can reference a majority group who do this on a frequent, consistent basis? To be honest, I'm not sure if I mean this question as a challenge or whether I mean this as a genuine request for information. For myself, what you said hasn't been the case in my realm of experience. I guess I have my doubts that you really experience this, as well, but I'm willing to accept that I may be sheltered.

Or by "America" you could simply mean the current leader who represents America to the world... if that's what you mean, then I withdraw the question.

Talk radio, Fox News, quite a few country music stars ...

I don't feel like researching this at the moment, but I'd bet that quite a few public opinion polls suggest that a significant portion of Americans feel that criticizing the country is unpatriotic. (Of course, it would all depend on how the question was phrased.) I certainly get the impression from media that love of country is seen as an unqualified good. Look at the controversy over Obama wearing a flag pin or not putting his hand on his heart during the national anthem. When symbolic acts of loyalty are issues in a campaign, I think it's fair to accuse some of jingoism.

On the other hand, this is nothing new. Look at the attitude towards pacifists in WW1. Look at the flack the Jehovah Witnesses took back in the Thirties and Forties when they refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Or loyalty oathshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath#Truman_era. Or the dismissal of Vietnam protesters as Un-American.

There's a big difference in jingoism and patriotism, and the feeling that "criticizing ones own country is unpatriotic" isn't jingoistic, as I understand jingoism. Misguided, certainly, but it seems a bit extreme to call that jingoistic... again, as I understand the definition. What bothers me is that the backlash against jingoism seems to have completely encompassed patriotism, as well. It's like being proud of your country is a sin, now. "Love of country" does not equal "no criticisms of country." Sorry, I'm just ranting, so I'll stop. And it's off-topic. But one of the reasons I'm not deleting/editing this post is because I want to make sure that I'm not off in my definition of jingoism. So, with apologies to the thread-starter, I'm asking for your 2¢. <edit> AND to find out why patriotism is so "wrong."

[wintermute]

Oscar Wilde described patriotism as "the virtue of the vicious" (or so Sean Connery tells me), but I have to disagree with that. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country; indeed, I'm pretty sure it's a good, on balance. But when you get into the position that everything America does is good, and anyone suggesting that any kind of change is desirable should just go and live in Communist Russia, then you're hip-deep in some very scary jingoist territory.

This certainly isn't a universal position, and I don't even know if it's a majority one. But it's a very noticeable position; possibly because it gets a lot of airtime in right-wing media outlets, or possibly because it grates on mt so much that I can't help but be aware of it when I experience it.

[eytanz]

There's a big difference in jingoism and patriotism, and the feeling that "criticizing ones own country is unpatriotic" isn't jingoistic, as I understand jingoism. Misguided, certainly, but it seems a bit extreme to call that jingoistic... again, as I understand the definition. What bothers me is that the backlash against jingoism seems to have completely encompassed patriotism, as well. It's like being proud of your country is a sin, now. "Love of country" does not equal "no criticisms of country." Sorry, I'm just ranting, so I'll stop. And it's off-topic. But one of the reasons I'm not deleting/editing this post is because I want to make sure that I'm not off in my definition of jingoism. So, with apologies to the thread-starter, I'm asking for your 2¢. <edit> AND to find out why patriotism is so "wrong."

Well, if you go by strict dictionary definition then you're right, simply because Jingoism is about foreign policy, and does not apply to internal politics. So, Americans telling other Americans how they should act is not jingoistic in the narrow sense of the word.

But most people use "jingoism" in a way that also contains being aggressive against percieved internal threats as well as extrnal threats, and "if you criticize this country you are a traitor" is one aspect of that. So, in the way I understand it, qwints is giving proper examples of (a type of) Jingoism. Wintermute, however, does seem to be using the term somewhat incorrectly to mean "blind nationalistic chauvanism". That said, I think Wintermute's points hold, even though his vocabulary choices may be imprecise.

[birdless]

Cool. Thanks for clearing up the colloquial meaning for me. It's not a word I've ever really used, nor do I come across it's use very often, so I could only go to the dictionary definition from whenever the first time I ever looked it up.

<edit> I like the term "nationalistic chauvinism." It covers areas that patriotism and jingoism miss. (grrr... I keep typing jinogism!)

[Russell Nash]

There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country; indeed, I'm pretty sure it's a good, on balance. But when you get into the position that everything America does is good, and anyone suggesting that any kind of change is desirable should just go and live in Communist Russia,

This really hits the point.  Five years ago if were against the direction the country was heading in you were unpatriotic.  It's funny that exercising our first amendment right was considered anti-American.

This is one of my email signatures.  I think it's fitting:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president ... right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

[Troo]

That's the sad thing, really. I mean, let's face it: America has achieved some terriffic things. It's also achieved some horriffic ones. Just like any other country in the world, really. But when Americans turn on other Americans who are realistically asking the question "How can we make America a better place?" with the accusation that to even question America's current greatness status is unpatriotic and wrong, and when that opinion becomes so popular, cultural growth is being stunted.

I was in NYC a year or so ago, and some (yeah) talk radio host was banging on about the evils of Bill Clinton because he was *gasp* visiting foreign countries and "denigrating" the US (Which he wasn't. He was pushing his autobiography and trying to raise awareness of environmental issues). This jock's argument was that Americans should take a cold, hard look at who's paying for all of Mr. Clinton's jetsetting, because clearly the ex-President was being bribed into hating America.

He's an incredibly wealthy man, his family's minted, and he can afford his own flights if he wants to. But rather than actually listen to what Clinton was saying, Americans were being warned that the guy was clearly unpatriotic and hated America (a phrase used several times on several media while I was there).

How can a country grow when attempts to identify problems which need resolving are met with a blank wall of denial and accusations?

Mind you, America's young. It'll get over it. It's just not a pleasant phase to be going through.

[eytanz]

Mind you, America's young. It'll get over it. It's just not a pleasant phase to be going through.

It's one of the oldest nation states (in the modern sense) in the world, actually.

[Russell Nash]

Mind you, America's young. It'll get over it. It's just not a pleasant phase to be going through.

It's one of the oldest nation states (in the modern sense) in the world, actually.

Qualuifier:  One of the oldest continuing governments.

[eytanz]

Mind you, America's young. It'll get over it. It's just not a pleasant phase to be going through.

It's one of the oldest nation states (in the modern sense) in the world, actually.

Qualuifier:  One of the oldest continuing governments.

Well, it's certainly more complicated than my major oversimplification earlier, but the truth is more complicated than just continuing government. It's not just the US government that's remained coherent, it's also the governed body (though it did expand geographically quite a bit since it was established). Definitely, there are many nations that existed for far longer but had radical government changes after the establishment of the US, like China or Russia or France. But many current nations that we think of as old (like Italy or Germany) are creations of the 19th century. Yet others, like most Middle Eastern countries or Pacific Island nations, existed as ethnic groups but not "countries" in the way we think of them.

That said, there are plenty of countries in the world that can be convincingly argued to be older than the US. But if you just sort a list of current countries by some accepted version of their age, the US may not be one of the oldest, but it will certainly not be justifiable to call it young.

[Russell Nash]

Mind you, America's young. It'll get over it. It's just not a pleasant phase to be going through.

It's one of the oldest nation states (in the modern sense) in the world, actually.

Qualuifier:  One of the oldest continuing governments.

Well, it's certainly more complicated than my major oversimplification earlier, but the truth is more complicated than just continuing government. It's not just the US government that's remained coherent, it's also the governed body (though it did expand geographically quite a bit since it was established). Definitely, there are many nations that existed for far longer but had radical government changes after the establishment of the US, like China or Russia or France. But many current nations that we think of as old (like Italy or Germany) are creations of the 19th century. Yet others, like most Middle Eastern countries or Pacific Island nations, existed as ethnic groups but not "countries" in the way we think of them.

That said, there are plenty of countries in the world that can be convincingly argued to be older than the US. But if you just sort a list of current countries by some accepted version of their age, the US may not be one of the oldest, but it will certainly not be justifiable to call it young.

I should have said Emphasize.  I agreed with you and then when you add the government part it drives the point in like a nail.  Troo is British however and they still have a problem with our little renegade colony.  They have a serious problem getting their mind around having lost such a great empire.

(To all of our Brits I'm just kidding.  You know I love you all.)

[stePH]

Mind you, America's young. It'll get over it. It's just not a pleasant phase to be going through.

"America is at that awkward stage.  It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe

[zZzacha]

How can a country grow when attempts to identify problems which need resolving are met with a blank wall of denial and accusations?

Troo, I think you just hit a nerve ;]
I agree with the point you were making, but I'm European, so...
I think America is quite occupied with America, because there is no serious need to do otherwise. In Europe, the countries are more involved with the other countries around them, because they need each other in many ways. After centuries of living together, we've learned to live with all the different countries with different values around us. America has a completely different history in that way.
So, it's not your fault, dear sweet Americans! Your country is just too darn big to be focused on other countries.

And yes, the Dutch still are mad that they lost New Amsterdam to the British, who called it New York!
Neh, I really can't remember a lot from those days. I was preoccupied with the well in my cellar.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a well in my cellar.

[Anarkey]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a well in my cellar.

I LOVE that story.  It's one of my top favorite EscapePod's evah.  It's the one I use to proselytize, the gateway drug, if you will.  And so far, not a single person whom I've told to listen to it has come back and told me they didn't like it.  Most are like "that was an awesome story!"

[Tango Alpha Delta]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a well in my cellar.

I LOVE that story.  It's one of my top favorite EscapePod's evah.  It's the one I use to proselytize, the gateway drug, if you will.  And so far, not a single person whom I've told to listen to it has come back and told me they didn't like it.  Most are like "that was an awesome story!"

Heh... I'll have to remember that... I'm terrible at recommending the "right" story.  (Hey, if I'M excited about it, what does YOUR opinion matter?) 

[Windup]

Well, it's certainly more complicated than my major oversimplification earlier, but the truth is more complicated than just continuing government. It's not just the US government that's remained coherent, it's also the governed body (though it did expand geographically quite a bit since it was established). Definitely, there are many nations that existed for far longer but had radical government changes after the establishment of the US, like China or Russia or France. But many current nations that we think of as old (like Italy or Germany) are creations of the 19th century. Yet others, like most Middle Eastern countries or Pacific Island nations, existed as ethnic groups but not "countries" in the way we think of them.

That said, there are plenty of countries in the world that can be convincingly argued to be older than the US. But if you just sort a list of current countries by some accepted version of their age, the US may not be one of the oldest, but it will certainly not be justifiable to call it young.

I think that culturally, it's fair to call the US "young."   Anything you could reasonably call a distinct American culture isn't much older than the beginnings of Eurpoean settlement in the 17th century. (In the sense we mean "American culture" today; let's leave the whole First Nations issue for another thread.)  Meanwhile, something you could credibly call "French" or "English" culture appears somewhere around the 9th to the 11th century, maybe even as early as the 5th, depending on what you think the critical markers of a distinct culture are -- and let's not even think about how far back Chinese culture goes. 

I think when people say the US is a "young nation" or a "young country" it's the cultural history they have in mind, not the length of time governed by a single governmental form.

[eytanz]

I think when people say the US is a "young nation" or a "young country" it's the cultural history they have in mind, not the length of time governed by a single governmental form.

I would agree, in many contexts, but this was specifically in the context of nationalism, where it seems to me that the relative non-youth of the US as a nation is certainly relevant.

[Windup]

I think when people say the US is a "young nation" or a "young country" it's the cultural history they have in mind, not the length of time governed by a single governmental form.

I would agree, in many contexts, but this was specifically in the context of nationalism, where it seems to me that the relative non-youth of the US as a nation is certainly relevant.

Well, we're into that tricky definition of "nation."  I'd argue that the feelings we call "nationalism" tend to coalesce around cultural values and issues rather than a specific government, though a government can become the focus of that.  Many Basques, for example, consider themselves a nation, despite not having a national state to call their own; ditto Palestinians.