*
*
Americans have lost their sense of shame. For some reason they remain proud of their country and think their system worth fighting for. You would think everyone of them would be ashamed to be part of such a nation and live from that feeling instead of thinking they deserve it all. They are all part of their wars, sacrificing their children to them. They run off of fear and greed and ignorance. They could have the truth but everything about their system tells them to ignore it and they do. They are even allowed to criticize their government so they can pretend they are not the bad parts of it and still feel good about themselves. War is so much a part of their lives they easily accept it as a necessity to maintain what they have. Living at the expense of other lives is truly evil. They think that they are not part of the rest of the world and separate beings that should have more and better. They have been brainwashed to be so sure of their superiority that all else looks like a bad imitation to them. Their very lifestyles are a rape of the world. Why when there is such damning evidence against them, can't they see they have become the worlds worst enemy. They are an enemy to their own selves and do not yet realize it. The so called war on terrorism has made them a target for revenge. They tell the world, we are sorry about our president, next time we will vote for another, so it will all be ok again. Not knowing that from the first white man to step foot on this soil, that wrong has been done and continues, a nation built on these wrongs, climaxing out to be the threat of the world. America needs to be stopped, totally dismantled, turned into something harmless and let the world go on its way and see if peace can develop without the head warmongers looming over it all.
24 comments:
Yab, not a bad post, but I feel you could have added a few more things to that. But I will comment on the "criticisng my own system" pride, one that I find interesting.
The nation, worse than other white nations, runs on feel-good measures. It feels good for an american to criticise his system, but note, and this is interesting, he takes care to ensure that his criticisms keep the system intact. I am sure, given the truth of my previous statement, that americans by and large do not mean what they say against their governments, and consequently themselves. It has become almost a fashion to "criticise", so that even if I love you, I feel it is expected of me to say something bad about you, even if I have to look very hard to find one. And certainly, even if I do end up finding one, I know it affects me in the least, and my love for you, in this example, remains intact and unstirred. That's the cute nature of the american mindset, though it is only one instance. Words like "diversity", "differences", "femininism", "criticism", "I disagree and yet I respect", are said not from the heart, but only as a public instrument. To add, note how often they say "you know", or "it's like". "What do you mean 'you know'?", can be a nice reply to an american speaking. "Of course I do not, is why I would want you to tell me". So are words with a negative connotation, take the term "generalizing". Everyone readily agrees that it is wrong to generalize, without knowing why one should or should not.
I think I did, unconsciously, define america to a great extent by one sentence over there, something I realise when I read my own comment before agreeing to post it. I will retype it in bold.
That's the problem with America. They never speak to each other's hearts, but use their words only as a public instrument. To impress, but no, never to mean. To feel good to know that not only those words would go well with any compatriot who hears it, but also that they are by themselves impotent to ever change anything.
I will be incomplete in my comment, not to mention also a trifle dishonest, if I do not put forth a few questions that float up to my mind. Why are americans like that? Are they born common human beings like us, and altered that way by their system? Would I have been just like that had I been brought up with them (Jesus Christ!)? Would an american born and brought up say here in my nation India, be an honest and well meaning individual, not to mention being honourable and generous? Or are they inherently what they are?
An interview with 'scary' rock star Marilyn Manson by British talk show host Jonathan Ross illustrated this dichotomy perfectly. One sees Manson as a classic rebel who is speaking out against the system, but when asked about his feelings for the US he claimed to be proud to live in a country that allows him "to be who I am". pffssssh!
My conclusion is that all rebellion in the US is skin deep; 'celluloid bikers' as Donald Fagan once said.
Good questions Atanu, but so many answers to them. I believe we are our own separate individual, but under the all out brainwash of America from birth on, most do not have the chance to realize there is something other and loose themselves. I have noticed, that some Americans, when they can get away from their country and are honest about themselves and can see the differences, they can change. But change comes hard for them because they already think they are the best. I have seen Mexicans cross the border to live and work, and retain who they are. But there are others who become like the Americans. It is as if they lost their soul. When they come back down to Mexico one can spot them easily and they are not liked.
I think that if Americans spoke to the heart it would expose a great wound where is buried the truth. And that would discomfort them and they are taught to avoid this. They learn their news daily and repeat what others want to hear. You are correct, it is a fad. Each American is a so called expert of the day on any situation that is in the forefront. They have ready made opinions to choose from, according to which side they are playing on. Not knowing it is all the same side. And they all go on with their life, all the same. May what is wrong with them not spread the earth over.
pisces, thats disgusting, and even more so that many of their so called rebels are just like that. And people think they are rebelling by listening to them. Give them the false feeling of rebelling and then they don´t really have to.
Yab, I see. If I read your correctly, then your reply seems to suggest that americans are not people who are what they are inherently. They become that way for they are moulded that way. Now if that is true, it breaks one of my own myths, which is why I am myself tempted to do the very american thing of ignoring it! But let me not.
Take the city where I am in right now, Mumbai. Come here, and you will see a small scale america; not that it looks that way, but the spirit is there, unquestionably.
Right up front, people are extremely self conscious; all they want, by and large, is for others to go to sleep with a good opinion of themselves. That good opinion comes from how they look, dress, speak, or as they say in america and even in here, "carry themselves". I think they live in order to carry themselves better, for I wonder if they live for anything else.
Second parallel - unhappy lives, due to hard and stressed workplaces. Despite the fact that this point deserves to come before the first one, I put it after it owing to the subtlety of it's nature. Most men and women work, some from 8 in the morning to as late as 8 in the evenings. Here, in Mumbai, like you see them in the US. There is almost nothing as a family life, and though they say they don't mind it, you and I know only too well that they do, and genuinely regret it. Stressed workplaces mean stressed selves; that explains the frequent visits to psychologists and extra marital affairs, not to mention frequenting the bars and pubs to get their stress straight out of them. Again, stressed selves lead to low tolerance levels. Make an error, deliberately... it doesn't matter, while driving your car in any of the roads in the US, and you will note how your fellow drivers scream at you and abuse. They do the same in here; people seem to have no space in their heads for accepting anything amiss from one another anymore. Makes sense; they are already taking in too much you see, at their homes and workplaces.
Of course the list is far longer, but given the general nature of the way our worklives affect us (my second point), the rest of the parallels can be deduced.
I must add that the people ought not to be blamed. For if you blame americans for what they are, you ought to be blaming Indians very soon, for we are becoming more and more like them each day. I wonder if your post can be just as easily applied to my own nation.
Pisces, whne revolution or counter power itself becomes an institution, it ceases to exist. This "rebel-attitutde" (like the che gueveara shirts, and revolution as a fashion in general) is the opposite of revolt. It is infantilism, and that - unfortunately - characterizes all societies, not only the US or the consummerist societies in general. W#hen ikn the 50'sw teens walked around with long hair, and raged against the lifestyle of their parents,
that was an authentic rebellious attitude: at a price. That generation was willing to pay it. What you see now is the imitation of a long gone attitude, and as all imitations it bears its formal characteristics only. (For exactly those golas have long been achieved.) It is conformism at its peak. There is a novel I always liked and which talks about this phenomenon, I can warmly recommend it for those who haven't read it: 'Yo, el Supremo" (Me, the Supreme) by Roa Bastos. It is about the legimitation, by creating fake oppositions.
Atanu, what you are talking about, is globalization, with all the good and bad it brings. And consummerism again: India is becoming consummerist and so does Europe. But again, people whop conform to it are rather victims themselves, don't you think? Because, this happens comes into being according to the national specific in every country. Why do some (rich) countries by now (Spain, France, Germany etc) fight it better than others? The answer is by no means offering "Mecca Cola" to our children: the answer is not banning it, but offering them an alternative. And as long as this hasn't been done, (exactly because you don't live in the US) - and it is not - one can blame himself or herself. And,. at least on individual level, it can be done. Have in mind that bans never really functioned, and children and teens are the most vulnarable target.
It is the sad truth that more and more my post can be applied to many places outside America. It is a choice people make, to become Americanized. It happens so easily and conveniently. And then there are the places Americans settle around the world and bring their mentality with them and stay limited to it.
Many modern people are totally out of contact with their primitive selves. They have no center, they are the outsides of themselves and nothing more. Thus, the concentration on how they present themselves, it is for their own view as well. They have no true contentment and are pushed to the edge with trying to hold themselves together. Stress is what their society teaches them as it consumes more.
True Zatikia. One might put it naively to the effects of globalization, but I prefer the word you used, Americanization. If globalization it is, then why is it that our own values are never exported to the United States but the other way around? The term globalization in this sense is misleading; it gives people the comforting, and often naive, idea that there is mixing and intermingling going on both ways. No no. The world is becoming an America, but with the eyes I have, I don't quite see America becoming like the world. Globalization is never one sided, that of course is not to say that just because it is both ways it would have been necessarily good. But this present day madness is not even that, it is just a one sided drive of one nation on the rest of the world. The tragedy is, I don't see it ending. Unless.....
What do you do if you wipe the white man from the face of the earth? Then next the dark skin who has learned to think with the mind of a white from doing it? Your solution has no end. America is busy hanging itself. It is the rest of the world that needs concentrating on so they do not go the same way. Look at America closely, there is decay in every aspect of it. It cannot last long without developing into something else. America has no desire to assimilate anything but possessions from outside itself and will die from within for that. They just become more so what they are. Digging their grave ever deeper.
Red: you are correct in terming this pseudo rebellion as infantilisation - it is an incorporation of the true spirit of revolt into the system - it is what Capitalism does best: incorporate.
Zatilkia and Atanu: Americanisation/Globalisations are just other words for this incorporation of everything into the system as 'product'. Those who buy into Capitalism as the be-all and end-all will find the angle on everything - the system has endless capacity to corrupt.
Those who believe that capitalism is a self correcting system have thrown all thoughts of social conscience to the wind and it is this that we are witnessing in what is being sold as 'Globalisation'.
You are correct Atanu, it is a one-way street, a giant vampire that sucks the life from all that deviates from the path.
Geography also is a factor in American exceptionalism. It was completely unaffected by World WarII. It was able to build industry, while Europe was recovering from war.
Americans are constantly told they live in the best nation, in the world.
I linked to this blog.
"it is an incorporation of the true spirit of revolt into the system" - 'revolutionary attitude in itself as a merchandize. There is thew rub (besides also elsewhere).
Pisces, I think I better explain. This will be long ... so just in case you have the time.
First of all, we often make the mistake of forming certain images of concepts in our minds, with which we identify the concepts. We forget in the process, that those concepts, as indeed any concept, follow from a strict definition. We are not at will to define globalization in any way we want, anymore than we are free to define "laws" in any way we want. Therefore, the best we can do is to find out how that concept is defined by the international community at large; or else we will talk past one another. For example, what do you mean by a "living being"? None of us know, and it is unwise to take a guess. The best thing to do is to go to a book of biology and find out how is "living" defined. Yes we may have images of what is meant by living, but in that case we will all disagree as to what that word ought to mean or imply.
Even before I can speak of globalization, a more vivid example springs to mind. The term "fascism". Most people, reasonably educated, have a rough idea of what it implies, that is, they have a concept image of that term. Something like authorotarianism, cruel and despotic rule, less freedom, etc. But fascism, like all concepts, have a precise definition. The international community has agreed to mean something very specific by fascism, which is not just authorotarianism, but a special case of it. Fascism is defined as not only authorotarian rule, but one that involves a marriage of the rich businesses with the government, leading to a state of media control of people's minds which are above all injected with quite rabid national pride. Note the words : "marriage of the rich businesses with the government". If any government does not meet all the requirements of a fascist state, then it is not. Meaning Stalin was not a fascist, since there were no private and free businesses in USSR. He was an authorotarian, though. The USA is close to a fascist state, as indeed was Germany more than 50 years ago. Only remember, it is the definition each time.
So what is globalisation? Globalization is defined as that feature of capitalism where trade is not government regulated. Again, a definition you see; there is nothing wrong or right about it, only it's what it is. Also, and this is important, what follows from the definition is not a part of it. Meaning, globalization can mean starvation and eventual death to many people, but that is just the concequence, not a part of the definition of what it is. And this is where people go wrong, for when they see something with a harmful (or healthy) consequence, they bring that into their concept image of the term too. Globalization only means free trade, that is, goods, jobs, people, wealth etc ought to be free to move from one nation to another, without any intervention from the concerned governments. Now whether this is bad or good, is for us to see. Sometimes it can be good, sometimes it may not be. But what we were talking about in the previous comments was not globalisation at all.
Note the words in the definition : "no government intervention of the concerned states". The United States does intervene when it comes to goods flowing into her. Even though she is quite liberal when it comes to goods flowing out of her into other nations, she sets a different standard when it comes to the other way around. This is not globalisation, and therefore, as globalisation is one natural extension of capitalism, not capitalism too. This is, well because America is doing it the most, Americanization. It would have been globalization had there been no interference at all (not even state ensured quality control!). Or let me be more descriptive, this is deliberately cherry picking those parts of capitalism that suit you, and leaving out those that do not. Well you can do that, but in that case, don't call yourself a capitalist.
I must add, as I have mentioned before in an earlier comment to this post, that this is not to imply that had there indeed been globalization that things would have been necessarily good. Even if the US Federal Government allowed products from Mexico freely into it's border, the Mexicans being a poor lot in compararison to the americans, what guarantee that they could have bought up american markets like the americans did in their own land? Globalisation itself could certainly have been harmful also, but had there been globalisation, at least foreign farmers could have had a chance in american markets, the same way their own farmers have a chance in other world markets. True, those foreign farmers could still have beaten, but right now, with not even the chance, it is a lot worse. This has led many economists to pronounce with certainty that the terms globalisation and capitalism does not even exist when it comes to america. Of course, cuban cigars and Mexican tequilla find their ways quite freely into one another's nation, but one can hardly call such a bilateral deal as global.
Pisces, so many names for what is, situations get juggled between them until the true meaning is obscured. I think simply, it is greed with all its manisfestations. It takes a lot of lying to make greed look right.
Renegade Eye, Thinking you’re the best makes you feel like you have a right to the best, even if you have to take it. Thank you for linking me, I will you also.
Atanu: I cannot agree with your dogmatic approach when defining things. As I have said before, there are no absolutes, and to define something with statistcs is to merely scratch the surface. To define globalisation purely by the criteria that make it possible is to only see half the story.
Also you point about not being able to define laws any way we want is entirely misguided - the law is a fluid thing that is constantly redefined and reshaped by arguement (both in court and in politics).
If you prefer to define your world by rigid definition then that is your choice, but do not preach statistical (or any other) dogma to me.
It is not a dogmatic approach, but only a scholarly one, though am sure you do not realise it. If you have your own definition for the word fascism, and me my own, and likewise each one of us his or her own, then don't you see we can never discuss that word? What if someone happens to define fascism as a system which is free and non oppressive?
The purpose of definitions is not dogma or being rigid. The purpose of a definition is to know exactly what we are talking about. Only when we know, can we discuss it. Else, as I said earlier, we speak past one another.
Atanu, words are going to mean different things to different people. We will just have to make do with that and try to understand each other. Please lets not argue here about what cannot be changed. I don´t want to get bogged down with this.
In that case Zatikia, end of all scholarship. A triangle is a three sided figure for you, four sided for me, six sided for Pisces and so on. Likewise, a metre is from your wrists to your elbow for you and from the earth to the moon for me. We do understand one another.
Atanu if you want to discuss this, take it to your own blog. My blog, my rules, end of this discussion. I let you speak here because I think your view should be known, but I will limit what you say when I don´t like it. The name on this blog is Shame on America, it is not about word definition. Thank you
My apologies to you Zatikia for being confrontational on your blog - I do enjoy frank discussion but cannot abide being lectured to.
Peace.
Pisces, without any wish to interfere in this - I don't think Atanu was 'lecturing' you here. He was simply telling the way he saw and interpreted these things. My irony, for example, is often considered offensive by people who are not used to it.
Pisces, you are free to respond how you want on my blog. This is just an attempt to keep the overspirited Atanu in check.
Haha, ok ok. I am overspirited, but believe me, I am never drunk. I don't think you would want me to be either ;)
Good to see that you enjoy coming into a room to call a Professional soldier a murderer, but when you are called a moron; your room bans the person, And you think that America doesn't work? Heres the deal, your room wil be banned from my room untill an appology is given and accepted. Have a wonderfull day.
Oh and did I mention that my wifes name is Maria Guadelupe? That tell you anything?
Post a Comment