Text 1715, 157 rader
Skriven 2007-05-20 11:11:53 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Kommentar till en text av Jeff Smith
Ärende: Re: This Echo
=====================
Jeff,
JS> Bjorn is alot more direct
JS> in his expressed dislike for Americans than you are trying to suggest.
JS> His posts speak for themselves.
No, they don't! They have been explained by others again and again in that way
and these comments have gained enough momentum in a rather small circle of
individuals to start leading their own life ... within that small circle.
Bjorn's statements from my perception always carried a strong disapproval of
current US foreign policy and its leadership, i.e. the small entourage of the
President including that figure itself.
Time and again has he made the effort to put a distance between that view on
leadership/foreign policy and the country plus its population.
JS>CS> In fact, Amercians *arent* universally loved overseas <grin>.
JS> And I doubt that we ever will be even generally loved overseas for
JS> several reasons. Westerners see America as just another nation, the most
JS> commercially successful one, with a poor pollution record and a number of
JS> other bad things.
What is commercially successful? The US internal market itself is huge which,
due to nationalistic tendencies with smaller countries or large countries with
small buying power, sets it completely apart on the world playing-field. The
only-one coming close, and which eventually will overtake it, is the EU but its
internal market is still too much splintered to fullfill that role.
One of the ways to define 'commercially successful' is looking at the
foreign-trade balance, meaning the aquisition of foreign investments and
purchases by foreign nations which will funnel-in new funds ... although the
very attractive exchange-rate of the US$ the US have a negative trade-balance.
It means "money leaving" the US rather than "money entering".
So I repeat the question: What is economically successful? It can be so many
things depending on the definition one uses.
JS> Also America is seen by many as a Police figure, although
JS> the UN's decisions are much more respected, it is frequently the US that
JS> has the required military power to get the UN job done. America is a
JS> required nation, a stabilizer in the world. But along with that there is
JS> also bound to be resentment and dislike.
Alas, that is correct. The US as a peace-keeper/policing force would be a lot
more acceptable if it played the UN-card a little more. Like the decision to go
into Iraq was universally disliked, even in the Allies' countries such as
Britain, Spain and Italy. The governments there could afford to get themselves
involved because they knew the Iraq-issue, if it was an issue to begin with,
was far away and would never hit home plus voters were not that
nationalistic/patriotic and realising that there were more pressing problems at
home and thus would not vote such a government out of power...
... until the body-bags started coming ... "Hey, this is a real conflict now,
with real bullits and real casualties".
And when terrorists hit Madrid and London, not Iraqi terrorists mind you, and
Berlusconi was exposed for the umpteenth time to be the crook that he always
has been then the tide here changed. PM Aznar of Spain was voted out of power,
PM Berlusconi of Italy was voted out of power and had Blair not announced his
resignation it leaves little doubt that his party would've been voted out of
power as well come the next elections. I'm not even certain they will be saved
by his resignation BTW.
Spain did withdraw its troops, or will soon do so, same for Italy and the
attitude in the UK is going in the same way. So the only Allies remaining are
those who were coerced into the arena by economic arguments.
The general attitude in Europe was that there were many avenues to be taken in
Iraq and that violence was the least desirable one. The fact that the US
withdrew from the democratic negotiated process by pulling-back its
UN-resolution (which would have been vetoed and/or voted-down) and went ahead
anyway did not do much good for international relationships.
This is what Bjorn comments on and talks about ... not the ordinary citizen in
the street. When in trouble or requiring hospitality there is nothing better
than the average American because a helping hand often is just around the
corner. It's a leftover from the pioneering days. Been there, needed help, was
given help and in return do the same thing.
JS> There is nothing wrong with learning new or better ways of doing
JS> things. In this case it was not so much a fundemental differance in
JS> copyright
JS> issues as much as it was a rather silly use of copyrights to make a
JS> point.
Correct, but the way it is perceived here is that Americans come in here very
unfamiliar with local ways and immediately assume that their ways are by
definition better and must bypass local ways.
I'll never forget that day perhaps a decade ago when Ameritech bought a large
chunck of the shares of my (telco) company. I was in the lobby near the front
desk 24hrs later when an American walked-in unannounced with a leather travel
bag and said "Hi, my name is Dennis Johnson, I'm from Ameritech and I have been
sent here in order to teach you how to conduct proper telecom-business".
The people around looked in an expression of "What????" as the company had been
extremely successful for many years. And anywhere Americans move-in it is in an
attitude of "My way or no way" automatically supplanting the US business
role-model.
Often it backfires ... e.g. when McDonnald's entered Europe they had to learn
the hard way about social laws, mandatory health-insurance, social-security ...
"What? For students working at McD?".
The Disney corporation was stunned when one day their park near Paris could not
open because the staff went on strike. Disneyland on strike??? Never heard of
... I don't know if it even made the news overthere ...
Americans expect the world to accomodate them, they expect to be able to be
going anywhere, revolt at the idea of being fingerprinted when entering a
country but see it as quite normal when we Europeans (and other nationals) are
individually photographed and fingerprinted when entering the US.
The big problem, and Carol wrote about this expertly, is that the US are such a
large country which generally is constructed along the same patterns so that
"whatever" seems to exist "where-ever" and there is so relatively little
foreign experience. It's a definite advantage that we overhere have ... I can't
move 100 miles in any direction or I'm in another country or in the middle of
the sea, speaking another language, eating different food.
Restaurants for example are a perfect place to learn about countries. However,
if you want to find Americans in Europe try to find the local McDonnalds or
PizzaHut ... Carol's comments on mono-culturalism are quite correct but it
generally takes someone who has travelled abroad to acknowledge that ... such
as Carol ... or Shannon.
JS> My question is why do we NEED to limit
JS> ourselves to only thinking zonally?
Correct.
JS> What should matter in our network
JS> is what works the best. Regardless of what zone it might come from. In
JS> fact it was even brought up in referance to Bjorn and his retention of
JS> being editor and moderator. Got to keep control in Z2. It gives me a
JS> chuckle each time I think about it.
It has not been that long ago when the Fidonews-editor function was regarded
just the same in zone-1 you know ... "Got to keep control in Z1" ... but
probably you never noticed while we were bothered with it continuously.
My personal viewpoint over the years has progressed from "there is only one
unique way" to "whatever works locally without upsetting the rest, is a good
way ... even if it differs from my personal opinion".
And that is how you also should be looking at things, and if you don't then
I'll slam you with whatever I've got in my power to make you see it my way. You
got it buster? ... ;-) ;-) ;-)
Take care,
\%/@rd
--- D'Bridge 2.72
* Origin: Many Glacier -o=O=o- Preserve - Protect - Conserve (2:292/854)
|