Dan Drake wrote,
Well, I wasn't trying to start a discussion of what Americans are really like; quite the reverse. But I think both of these positions are largely right, as was the one I expressed before. Here's the amazing, unheard-of secret: not all Americans think alike all the time. That was the point of my post.
Still, consider this: a person may believe that his country does something better than most of the world does (to be concrete, let's take the matter of having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it), and he may even be right; but when he comes face to face with the places that really are worse, the reality may be shocking. Thus I reconcile the two positions.
Dan, would you please weave this insight into a Wikipedia article about America or Americans? Or start a new article called [[American concepts of justice]]? Or maybe put this into [[independent judiciary]], as part of a series on [[American government]]?
I think it's important for the Wikipedia articles to reflect that fact that many Americans take just the attitude you described above:
that America "does something better than most of the world does" by "having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it"
Ed Poor
On 07/01/04 at 05:25 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
I think it's important for the Wikipedia articles to reflect that fact that many Americans take just the attitude you described above:
that America "does something better than most of the world does" by "having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it"
Making due note, of course, of such egregious lapses such as the Supreme Court decision which made Bush president. At this point, the US might have something to learn from, say, Bolivia on how to run a fair presidential election.
V.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:31:39 UTC, Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl wrote:
On 07/01/04 at 05:25 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
I think it's important for the Wikipedia articles to reflect that fact that many Americans take just the attitude you described above:
that America "does something better than most of the world does" by "having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it"
Making due note, of course, of such egregious lapses such as the Supreme Court decision which made Bush president. At this point, the US might have something to learn from, say, Bolivia on how to run a fair presidential election.
Jesus Christ, one really can't get away from the America-bashing, can one? Say ANYTHING positive about the country, and one is lectured on its failings.
In using this example (which was also relevant to a point made earlier in the thread) I was hoping it would be obvious to *most* of the non-American readers here that they, too, living in countries that also do better than *most* of the world in this regard, were not being attacked by American chauvinism here.
Actually, I considered putting a disclaimer in the posting, but thought it would be a waste. Wrong again. I need to be more ultra-patriotic American, and assume that any praise of anything in my country will be taken as an attack on the world, foreigners being quite unable (like all too many Americans) to understand such subtleties.
Dan Drake wrote:
Actually, I considered putting a disclaimer in the posting, but thought it would be a waste. Wrong again. I need to be more ultra-patriotic American, and assume that any praise of anything in my country will be taken as an attack on the world, foreigners being quite unable (like all too many Americans) to understand such subtleties.
Ultra-patriotism is one thing that will unite non-Americans of any political stripe anywhere. Praising what is right is perfectly acceptable to many of us foreigners. Just try to avoid gratuitous superlatives; they are not subtle. :-)
Ec
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 00:32:18 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Dan Drake wrote:
Actually, I considered putting a disclaimer in the posting, but thought it would be a waste. Wrong again. I need to be more ultra-patriotic American, and assume that any praise of anything in my country will be taken as an attack on the world, foreigners being quite unable (like all too many Americans) to understand such subtleties.
Ultra-patriotism is one thing that will unite non-Americans of any political stripe anywhere. Praising what is right is perfectly acceptable to many of us foreigners. Just try to avoid gratuitous superlatives; they are not subtle. :-)
I quite agree. In fact, ultra-patriotism of any kind will offend people everywhere, including America (*). It's not clear to me, though, why you admonish me in this way. It will surely have been clear that the post (from which you chose to cite only a paragraph of sarcasm so heavy-handed that perhaps I should apologize for it), as well as previous posts in this thread, went to some trouble to avoid superlatives.
(*) Not all, of course. Some people approve of ultra-patriotism of the _proper_ sort, here as elsewhere. By the way, thanks for giving us le mot juste for such people; I infer that chauvinism is not unknown in the country which M. Chauvin had the honor (insofar as he was real, and separated from the mythology) to live in.
Dan Drake wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Dan Drake wrote:
Actually, I considered putting a disclaimer in the posting, but thought it would be a waste. Wrong again. I need to be more ultra-patriotic American, and assume that any praise of anything in my country will be taken as an attack on the world, foreigners being quite unable (like all too many Americans) to understand such subtleties.
Ultra-patriotism is one thing that will unite non-Americans of any political stripe anywhere. Praising what is right is perfectly acceptable to many of us foreigners. Just try to avoid gratuitous superlatives; they are not subtle. :-)
I quite agree. In fact, ultra-patriotism of any kind will offend people everywhere, including America (*). It's not clear to me, though, why you admonish me in this way. It will surely have been clear that the post (from which you chose to cite only a paragraph of sarcasm so heavy-handed that perhaps I should apologize for it), as well as previous posts in this thread, went to some trouble to avoid superlatives.
(*) Not all, of course. Some people approve of ultra-patriotism of the _proper_ sort, here as elsewhere. By the way, thanks for giving us le mot juste for such people; I infer that chauvinism is not unknown in the country which M. Chauvin had the honor (insofar as he was real, and separated from the mythology) to live in.
I tend to look at chauvinism as a broader category that includes ultra-patriotism.
My apologies. No admonition was intended, though I can see now where the imperative "Just try ..." can be interpreted that way. I would have thought that the smiley would have been a stronger suggestion of friendly banter.
Ec
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:54:44 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
My apologies. No admonition was intended, though I can see now where the imperative "Just try ..." can be interpreted that way. I would have thought that the smiley would have been a stronger suggestion of friendly banter.
Well, this dern nationalism stuff makes people too sensitive even when they think they're arguning against it, so my apologies also.
Viajero wrote:
On 07/01/04 at 05:25 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
I think it's important for the Wikipedia articles to reflect that fact that many Americans take just the attitude you described above:
that America "does something better than most of the world does" by "having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it"
Making due note, of course, of such egregious lapses such as the Supreme Court decision which made Bush president. At this point, the US might have something to learn from, say, Bolivia on how to run a fair presidential election.
I would give the senior U. S. judiciary the benefit of the doubt in these matters. Some local judges may be a problem when they are the product of local power brokers, and need not know anything about the law in order to gain their positions.
The problem with the judicial system is often the expense of being properly represented. It doesn't matter that your position in a case may be correct "in the eyes of God", when God is not willing to pay your legal bills. The judges may be absolutely fair; just try to get there.
Ec
Ed Poor wrote
I think it's important for the Wikipedia articles to reflect that fact
that many Americans take just the attitude you described above:
that America "does something better than most of the world does" by "having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it"
I see that [[capital punishment in the United States]] quotes a figure of 67% of capital convictions eventually overturned, ''mainly on procedural grounds''. One can read this either way, of course. Does look like a glass more than half empty to me, though.
Charles
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:25:34 UTC, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Dan, would you please weave this insight into a Wikipedia article about America or Americans? Or start a new article called [[American concepts of justice]]? Or maybe put this into [[independent judiciary]], as part of a series on [[American government]]?
I think it's important for the Wikipedia articles to reflect that fact that many Americans take just the attitude you described above:
that America "does something better than most of the world does" by "having an independent judiciary that is largely in the hands of people who understand the concept of due process of law and even approve of it"
Heh. When I started reading this, I was half-expecting it (not having looked at the signature) to turn out to be a sarcastic attack. Wrong again. And it's not a bad suggestion. But do I have time for the flame wars? Consider the reactions to your quote of my remark--reactions which appear to come from countries that are "better than most of the world" in exactly the same way and have little or no reason to be sensitive on this issue; but it's not OK to make such a claim for the US.
Not that I'd be damaged by being called names, but could a text ever be agreed on?