The best and worst things about your country

digster · September 2008

Collin wrote:

A prevalent amount of racism? Maybe you're just a real jerk and people didn't like you. I live in Europe, I've been travelling in Europe my entire life, my parents don't work in the country where I was born and raised. And I'm currently living in another European country. All my friends have traveled through Europe as well. They live in Europe, right now at least 7 of my friends live in a different European country, and so does my brother.

There is no prevalent racism. I've walked down a lot of Western European streets as a foreigner but the racism isn't as blatant as you seem to profess.

Well, let's go through this all one by one, because I think you overdramatize most of what I said and said some things that just weren't true. First of all,

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=1893
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4594019.stm
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue4/0404p32.html
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1950.shtml
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... in+France'

These are a few articles I pulled up to show you that more people than just a jerk like myself have noticed that there is a problem among European nations, including the United Kingdom and particularly in France, regarding race relations, particularly foreigners. As you're living in Europe, it's hard for me to believe you haven't heard this come up. I've encountered it myself on my trips through Europe; as I said, the issue is extremely problematic in France. Now, I've been called an asshole by some people, but not by many people, and I've certainly never seen me being an asshole lead to someone becoming racist. That's a leap in logic you make that I don't really understand. I didn't personally percieve racism, probably because I'm white. But the casual racism regarding foreigners, particularly immigrants from many white Europeans I met is a problem that is very real, and as I've shown has been seen by more people than just myself (it should also be said that I got all those articles from the first page of a Google hit. There's plenty more where that came from). If you don't see that problem, or want to call me a "jerk" because I noted that it happens, that it's real and that from what I've studied and what I've experienced it is widespread, than that's your issue, not mine.

Collin wrote:

The overt air of superiority, my friend, usually comes from Americans. Although this is not a contest many Americans only use superlatives to talk about their country: it's the most free, the greatest and best country in the world. I can tell you this from personal experience, and it's not very hard to find examples of this overt air of superiority in the USA.

Well, I think many Europeans feel that Americans deserve a reality check. Many European nations trump the US in freedom of speech, for example. (By the way, it's funny how you say this is not a contest yet before dunk even mentioned something about the States you felt the need to compare your country with other countries: "We question and criticized our leaders much more than some other nations"

It's not a contest, there's no need to say "much more than some other nations." You made this into a contest, buddy.

Well, that goes back to my question of what you would care if an American has pride in his country? I have pride in my country and question it relentlessly; that's the entire point. And when you say

In regards to that quote you mentioned, I commend you for treating your post like a political ad and removing some parts of my quote that dispute the meaning you gave to it...I said, "We question and criticized our leaders much more than some other nations (including nations where it is not allowable). Although some of the powers that be have tried to shift this lately, I think often you can resist and criticize and be a patriot, rather than a traitor (or maybe that depends where you are)." All of these things are true; I believe we do criticize and question our leaders more than many other nations can and do. Take for example, Zimbabwe. If you criticize there, you may have your legs broken by Mugabe's hit squad. Take Russia, where television, and many (but not all papers) are state-sanctioned and controlled, which makes mainstream criticism of the ruling powers difficult. Here, in the States, Ralph Nader may be marginialized, he may be viewed as a cook, he may be seen as a spoiler, and he may never win a presidential election, but it is not illegal to attend one of his rallies, to campaign for him, etc. In some countries, it is. I will note that since apparently you think because I criticize parts of Europe, I'm some dumbass redneck from the States who doesn't know shit, these freedoms are prevalent throughout Western Europe. Opposing views are often marginialized, but rarely are they criminal. This is not the end of the road, but it's something to be commended.

I don't really view that as a pissing match against other countries, I view it as a part of our Constitution. But since you cut out half of my quote, people don't get that part. So next time if you're going to attack me on something I said please include everything I said.

Also, speaking about the Constitution, I mentioned that in the same post you quoted from me, that the freedoms that were inherent in that document paved the way for the development of many western European democracies. I don't believe I said that the U.S. is undoubtedly the freest country in the world. How the hell would I know that? I haven't been to every country in the world. But again, in that first post, I have a sense of pride and history of the importance of the Constitution as a document, and that it has allowed us to peaceably (with one big exception) transfer power every four to eight years. You're reading alot more into what I said then was said. And when dunkman tried to lecture me about the illegitimacy and slow-moving nature of U.S. political action while clearly showing he didn't know what he was talking about, I thought he should get a taste of his own medicine. I'm not here to mercilessly critique Europe, but I also don't subscribe to the foolish notion that since the U.S. is a country with a bad streak of foreign policy decision, I should therefore remain mute when a European nation commits an action (or an inaction) I find reprehensible? As a European, would you hold your tongue if the U.S. did something horrible due to the flaws of your own country? No, nor should you. If the U.S. does something stupid in foreign policy, they should be called on it. If Germany, Zimbabwe, India, whatever, does something stupid in foreign policy, they should be called on it.

Collin wrote:

There is definitely a lot of awareness about Darfur in the US, both on political level and on individual level. And a lot of awareness about it has been 'brought' to Europe by American organisations.

That being said, I think it's rather low that you use a genocide to show how much better the US is than European nations. Also, you should really read more about European politics and European institution. Furthermore, you might want to check out the United Nations. You know, it was established to solve world problems... All Western European countries are members. And you're right, there's NATO, again just take a look at the members list. One might say they don't work, especially the UN... but one might say that's because of a particular country.

I could just as easily turn this whole thing around by mentioning some other world problems. Ones where US involvement isn't considered a good thing.

It's low? How the hell is calling a country or set of countries, whichever they may be, on their inaction in some of the largest humanitarian crises facing our world 'low?' Screw that, I shall criticize my own country and others for inaction, because I feel such genocides are some of the most horrific problems facing our world today. So, again, spare me the "you've reached a new low" tactic. It stinks. You're also heavy on being a blowhard in this post, and short on facts. I mentioned before that, what little action has been done in the U.N. regarding the Darfur crisis has largely been by the U.S. (and do I have to spell out in big letters that it hasn't been enough, just so you don't go accusing me of being a U.S. apologist?) U.S. has backed much of the funds for the African Union currently stationed there. Much of the legislation proposed by the U.N. has been blocked in the Security Council by Russia and China, due to their financial interests in the region. Does this make the U.S. blameless? No, but facts are facts, and what limited international governmental action has been committed in regards to this crisis and other crises in recent history where genocide/humanitarian relief is involved has been through the U.S. You may disagree with me, but don't be so thick that because I believe this you paint me to be some arrogant foolish asshole. And while we're at it, quit the crap, such as "you might want to check out the United Nations." Thanks for the tip; any other arrogant things you could say in the midst of accusing me of arrogance? The United Nations is one of the greatest inventions of the past fifty years, but for the most part it has not lived up to its' mantra of preventing genocide ("Never again", but I mean, if someone who doesn't know anything about the UN knows that it was started in direct reaction to the genocide I'm sure someone like you does). I believe and hope that it will, and despite it's faults it remains one of our best options of resolving conflicts peacefully.

The problem with you is that you seem to believe it can only be one way or the other. If I'm critical of Europe, I must love every single thing the United States does, obviously. For some reason, you can't see that people should be reasonable and criticize all countries for their failings, not just their own. Dissent, criticism, advocacy...all things that are important to the U.S. Constitution, and all things that are important to the democracies of Europe.

digster · September 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

my brother's in Kosovo at the mo for the second time. He's also served in Lebanon and Liberia with the IRISH army doing both peace KEEPING and peace enforcing!

Extremely fair point. When I mentioned that the intervention was primarily military, I was referring to the inital intervention and the aftermath, not specifically long-term peacekeeping duties. Should have mentioned that.\

Funny, my first cousin did the same thing, finished his own tour in Kosovo about a year ago.

ladygooddiva · September 2008

the friendly treading of children

that they have no idear about ecology

orcanic food etc.

how they tread children

i am living between two countrys

Heineken Helen · September 2008

digster wrote:

Extremely fair point. When I mentioned that the intervention was primarily military, I was referring to the inital intervention and the aftermath, not specifically long-term peacekeeping duties. Should have mentioned that.\

Funny, my first cousin did the same thing, finished his own tour in Kosovo about a year ago.

no that's fair enough. Just that peace keeping is quite a long and proud tradition in the Irish army

I know we're only a minor part of it but it's quite a big thing for us cos we're a tiny army. We're a neutral country anyway so according to our constitution, and how I'd like to keep it, we can't actually intervene anyway. We will always have a big tradition of charity stuff b;utg that's all we can do. We never expected anyone to intervene here... actually the problem was we wanted them to leave.

mfc2006 · September 2008

best: the amazing people that live here
worst: the (sometimes) moronic people that we elect to office

Collin · September 2008

digster wrote:

Well, let's go through this all one by one, because I think you overdramatize most of what I said and said some things that just weren't true. First of all,

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=1893
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4594019.stm
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue4/0404p32.html
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1950.shtml
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... in+France'

These are a few articles I pulled up to show you that more people than just a jerk like myself have noticed that there is a problem among European nations, including the United Kingdom and particularly in France, regarding race relations, particularly foreigners. As you're living in Europe, it's hard for me to believe you haven't heard this come up. I've encountered it myself on my trips through Europe; as I said, the issue is extremely problematic in France. Now, I've been called an asshole by some people, but not by many people, and I've certainly never seen me being an asshole lead to someone becoming racist. That's a leap in logic you make that I don't really understand. I didn't personally percieve racism, probably because I'm white. But the casual racism regarding foreigners, particularly immigrants from many white Europeans I met is a problem that is very real, and as I've shown has been seen by more people than just myself (it should also be said that I got all those articles from the first page of a Google hit. There's plenty more where that came from). If you don't see that problem, or want to call me a "jerk" because I noted that it happens, that it's real and that from what I've studied and what I've experienced it is widespread, than that's your issue, not mine.

Well, that goes back to my question of what you would care if an American has pride in his country? I have pride in my country and question it relentlessly; that's the entire point. And when you say

In regards to that quote you mentioned, I commend you for treating your post like a political ad and removing some parts of my quote that dispute the meaning you gave to it...I said, "We question and criticized our leaders much more than some other nations (including nations where it is not allowable). Although some of the powers that be have tried to shift this lately, I think often you can resist and criticize and be a patriot, rather than a traitor (or maybe that depends where you are)." All of these things are true; I believe we do criticize and question our leaders more than many other nations can and do. Take for example, Zimbabwe. If you criticize there, you may have your legs broken by Mugabe's hit squad. Take Russia, where television, and many (but not all papers) are state-sanctioned and controlled, which makes mainstream criticism of the ruling powers difficult. Here, in the States, Ralph Nader may be marginialized, he may be viewed as a cook, he may be seen as a spoiler, and he may never win a presidential election, but it is not illegal to attend one of his rallies, to campaign for him, etc. In some countries, it is. I will note that since apparently you think because I criticize parts of Europe, I'm some dumbass redneck from the States who doesn't know shit, these freedoms are prevalent throughout Western Europe. Opposing views are often marginialized, but rarely are they criminal. This is not the end of the road, but it's something to be commended.

I don't really view that as a pissing match against other countries, I view it as a part of our Constitution. But since you cut out half of my quote, people don't get that part. So next time if you're going to attack me on something I said please include everything I said.

Also, speaking about the Constitution, I mentioned that in the same post you quoted from me, that the freedoms that were inherent in that document paved the way for the development of many western European democracies. I don't believe I said that the U.S. is undoubtedly the freest country in the world. How the hell would I know that? I haven't been to every country in the world. But again, in that first post, I have a sense of pride and history of the importance of the Constitution as a document, and that it has allowed us to peaceably (with one big exception) transfer power every four to eight years. You're reading alot more into what I said then was said. And when dunkman tried to lecture me about the illegitimacy and slow-moving nature of U.S. political action while clearly showing he didn't know what he was talking about, I thought he should get a taste of his own medicine. I'm not here to mercilessly critique Europe, but I also don't subscribe to the foolish notion that since the U.S. is a country with a bad streak of foreign policy decision, I should therefore remain mute when a European nation commits an action (or an inaction) I find reprehensible? As a European, would you hold your tongue if the U.S. did something horrible due to the flaws of your own country? No, nor should you. If the U.S. does something stupid in foreign policy, they should be called on it. If Germany, Zimbabwe, India, whatever, does something stupid in foreign policy, they should be called on it.

It's low? How the hell is calling a country or set of countries, whichever they may be, on their inaction in some of the largest humanitarian crises facing our world 'low?' Screw that, I shall criticize my own country and others for inaction, because I feel such genocides are some of the most horrific problems facing our world today. So, again, spare me the "you've reached a new low" tactic. It stinks. You're also heavy on being a blowhard in this post, and short on facts. I mentioned before that, what little action has been done in the U.N. regarding the Darfur crisis has largely been by the U.S. (and do I have to spell out in big letters that it hasn't been enough, just so you don't go accusing me of being a U.S. apologist?) U.S. has backed much of the funds for the African Union currently stationed there. Much of the legislation proposed by the U.N. has been blocked in the Security Council by Russia and China, due to their financial interests in the region. Does this make the U.S. blameless? No, but facts are facts, and what limited international governmental action has been committed in regards to this crisis and other crises in recent history where genocide/humanitarian relief is involved has been through the U.S. You may disagree with me, but don't be so thick that because I believe this you paint me to be some arrogant foolish asshole. And while we're at it, quit the crap, such as "you might want to check out the United Nations." Thanks for the tip; any other arrogant things you could say in the midst of accusing me of arrogance? The United Nations is one of the greatest inventions of the past fifty years, but for the most part it has not lived up to its' mantra of preventing genocide ("Never again", but I mean, if someone who doesn't know anything about the UN knows that it was started in direct reaction to the genocide I'm sure someone like you does). I believe and hope that it will, and despite it's faults it remains one of our best options of resolving conflicts peacefully.

The problem with you is that you seem to believe it can only be one way or the other. If I'm critical of Europe, I must love every single thing the United States does, obviously. For some reason, you can't see that people should be reasonable and criticize all countries for their failings, not just their own. Dissent, criticism, advocacy...all things that are important to the U.S. Constitution, and all things that are important to the democracies of Europe.

Racism in a problem in Europe, I never claimed otherwise. I'm saying you can walk down many, many, many European streets without experiencing racism. I think it's not as blatant or prevalent as you say.

I don't have a problem with people having pride in their country. You said it wasn't a pissing match but chose to compare the US to other countries. That was not necessary, even in context. How would you react if someone said 'I like my country because you can grow your own weed and you can't in the US.' It's pointless and useless to mention the US, just like it was pointless and useless to mention other countries. That's my opinion. Again, I don't care if you're proud of your freedoms. But if someone should imply that the US is the only country with said freedoms, I will correct him.

No, you didn't say the US is the freest and best country in the world. I've talked to many, many Americans who have said that and I've seen plenty examples of this ethnocentrism in the US.

The US obviously isn't a team player, eh? Even as a member of an international organisation the need to stress the US importance cannot be surpressed.

As for all the assumptions you made about me, they're all wrong.

And as for your last point, "people should be reasonable and criticize all countries for their failings, not just their own." I agree, just let me know when criticising the US is a pissing match and when it's ok.

Hitch-Hiker · September 2008

Best thing: the food
Worst thing: the weather

Kann · September 2008

Collin wrote:

A prevalent amount of racism? Maybe you're just a real jerk and people didn't like you. I live in Europe, I've been travelling in Europe my entire life, my parents don't work in the country where I was born and raised. And I'm currently living in another European country. All my friends have traveled through Europe as well. They live in Europe, right now at least 7 of my friends live in a different European country, and so does my brother.

Racism has been steadily rising in most of western europe for a few years, if you care to search a little you'll find more sources than you want. My friends aren't racist either, it doesn't mean that some people in my country aren't.
best: food
worst : president

Heineken Helen · September 2008

Hitch-Hiker wrote:

Best thing: the food
Worst thing: the weather

the food? Really? I mean, I know there's good food in Ireland... but surely the pubs would rank above that... or were you just stuffed when you wrote that

OutOfBreath · September 2008

Norway:
Pros:
The environment: I't kinda cliche, but the fjords are magnificent, especially when watching them from above on a mountain top. I also like the fact that in most places in Norway you dont have to go far to be in nature. Especially in the Western part (where I live and am from). This close proximity with nature is perhaps the reason norwegians are quite environmentally aware.
The politics: Comprehensive welfare state with one of the best coverages in the world. Social democratic consensus-oriented politics devoted to finding good solutions that most people can live with. (a necessary virtue as there are many small parties) At the forefront of gender equality measures and gay rights. (recently passed law that removed "man and woman" prerequisite, legislating gay marriage)
The women: Beautiful and strong-minded. Not to dis women from elsewhere, but Norwegian/Scandinavian women are really spectacular specimens.

Cons:
Environmentally: Relies too much on the national oil exporting sector, instead of pushing forward with new technologies. The state oil company generates a lot of money for Norway, and it's a bit too easy for politicians to allow just a little more drilling all the time.
Politics: Rightwing populist quasi-racist bullshit party on the rise. The party that latches on to any discontent it can find, be that car owners, climate sceptics, racists or what have you. God I hope they never get to rule. They're the closest we have to republicans.

That's some at least.

Peace
Dan

digster · September 2008

Collin wrote:

Racism in a problem in Europe, I never claimed otherwise. I'm saying you can walk down many, many, many European streets without experiencing racism. I think it's not as blatant or prevalent as you say.

I don't have a problem with people having pride in their country. You said it wasn't a pissing match but chose to compare the US to other countries. That was not necessary, even in context. How would you react if someone said 'I like my country because you can grow your own weed and you can't in the US.' It's pointless and useless to mention the US, just like it was pointless and useless to mention other countries. That's my opinion. Again, I don't care if you're proud of your freedoms. But if someone should imply that the US is the only country with said freedoms, I will correct him.

No, you didn't say the US is the freest and best country in the world. I've talked to many, many Americans who have said that and I've seen plenty examples of this ethnocentrism in the US.

The US obviously isn't a team player, eh? Even as a member of an international organisation the need to stress the US importance cannot be surpressed.

As for all the assumptions you made about me, they're all wrong.

And as for your last point, "people should be reasonable and criticize all countries for their failings, not just their own." I agree, just let me know when criticising the US is a pissing match and when it's ok.

Well, I haven't walked down a whole lot of streets in Europe compared to the average European, so fine. I do know when I was there I heard an awful lot of casual racism and prejudice towards foreigners and immigrants, and truth be told, I really don't think it had anything to do with me being a jerk. It was pretty prevalent what I saw, and the articles I cut and pasted show that more people have seen it than me, that it is on the rise.

No, it was not a pissing match...it was being thankful that in my country I can experience freedoms that may be lacking in many other countries in the world. And how can I take someone who's arguing with me seriously if you don't include half the quote I wrote, just so you would be able to make your point? Nice try, there. And once again, you say people saying that the U.S. is the only place in the world with these freedoms, well where did that occur in this thread? You can't just change my argument so your argument can be stronger, it doesn't work like that. Your explanation for why you brought up something I clearly didn't say doesn't make any sense to me.

Ethnocentrism? Well, then talk to them about it. This would mean something to my argument if I had said there was not ethnocentrism in the United States. I'm fully willing to have the U.S. be criticized, but I will not be lectured to in the most arrogrant manner possibly by people with country's histories and current states that are also extremely problematic. I will equally call out somebody from abroad, who in their rush to say something bad about the U.S., says something that is untrue or distorts my argument.

Call me dense, but I have no idea what you're even talking about. If you're talking about the U.S.' role in the U.N. in response to genocide, I come with facts, you come with a snotty aside about how I'm once again arrogant. Why don't you actually try to debate if you don't believe me instead of just making some dumb comment about how "even now, I have to push U.S. above all else." I haven't been doing that once this thread, saying the U.S. is faultless; maybe you just haven't been reading.

Well your post before and this post now gives me no reason to think those assumptions are wrong, that you think that because I criticize European nations I must love everything about America. You did it in this post, talking about how since I compared American influence in Darfur favorably to other nations, then I loved everything about America, praise the red-white-and blue and go kick some ass. You shouldn't make those stereotypes, because it looks bad when someone that "dumb" like me comes up with facts and you just have those asides.

As for your final point, fine, I suppose nothing is a pissing match. Just let's make it clear that I really don't require someone like you or dunkman lecturing me about the Civil Rights movement that happened in my country...I'm well aware of the particulars myself. So once again, I wrote a post and you just failed to address most of what was in it. So when those assumptions I have get proven wrong by one of your posts, that'd be great. But it hasn't happened yet.

The best and worst things about your country

Comments

Categories