Americanism

[Americanicus I]

I have been thinking about this all month. . . .

What is "America"? What does it mean? I think that being an American has practically nothing to do with carrying a card that describes you as a U.S. citizen, but rather more to do with the very fact of our existence as people than with our location.

Everyone needs and wants to be free from oppression. The people who want freedom are called Americans, regardless of whether they suffered in the Soviet Union or are being exterminated in Sudan, they are Americans, because they want to be free.

The beautiful thing about America is that it isn't so much a piece of land that one can cling to; the land is worthless: America isn't a land, it's a dream; an ideal; a philosophy; the only universal religion, because it is practiced by all (in the minds and souls of those who cannot demonsrate it).

I just looked up the words to America, and it got me thinking about this again. We are a nation of ideals, of principles, and of human justice -- not a nation of land. Our way of life has no land boundaries; it is everywhere, in the souls of everyone.

 

[Thess]

That's sweet and all but. . . really? A Sudanese peasant whom America would never in a million years let immigrate is an American because he's politically and socially repressed? Not trying to hair-split on you. I'm just not seeing it.

And it seems a bit insulting to the rest of the free world. Why isn't the guy in Sudan a Briton, or a Dane, or even an Inuit? Plenty of nations and cultures have as much, more, and/or different freedom than we Americans have.

What you're describing is something wonderful and noble, something worth exalting, and something that, at its best, America strives for, but I don't see anything uniquely American about it. What you're describing is humanity, which would exist even if the word "America" had never been coined.

I don't wish to bash my country- a country for which I am fervently, insanely patriotic (I've even shed tears on July 4 )- but if there were three words I would be reluctant to use to describe the old girl over the last few years, they would probably be idealistic, principled and just. Unconditional love for one's country is awesome, but blind love for one's country is the stuff nightmares are made from.

Sorry to pee on your parade.

 

[Americanicus I]

And it seems a bit insulting to the rest of the free world.  Why isn't the guy in Sudan a Briton, or a Dane, or even an Inuit?  Plenty of nations and cultures have as much, more, and/or different freedom than we Americans have.

I disagree on that point, actually. Consider that the United States established something utterly unique for its time, in terms of governmental organization. I think it is the most free country in the world, considering its original responsibilities.

Certainly, there are parliaments and senates the world over, but I think it's fair to say that the United States has played a major part in establishing them, at least through its very presence. In terms of responsibility, look at land management: no other democratic republic, based on the principal of equal representation, has been able to sustain such a huge amount of land. So it's easy to speak of greater freedoms in much smaller nations, as there wasn't as much to politically string together (and also to settle).

Corrupt people have performed many injustices in the name of American idealism and the People, but that doesn't mean that the problems can't theoretically be solved using "America." No nation is perfect, but the American "philosphy" (unique, I find) is nothing but just, because it is supposed to be what the People make it.

And while humanity is the basic principal, I think that it can be best described in political terms as "American"; philosophically, it ultimately cannot be named, but I think America has set the brightest example of democratic liberty to date. As to the British, they don't have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights and the original Danish Constitutional Act of 1953 was an achievement, but not with the same measures granted through the U.S. Constitution. But that's just me.

 

[Blackshear]

All I will say on this subject is that I feel blessed to have been born Canadian.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

I disagree on that point, actually. Consider that the United States established something utterly unique for its time, in terms of governmental organization. I think it is the most free country in the world, considering its original responsibilities.

Haha, I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet champ. We've been around for a little over 200 years. The failed colonization of Greenland lasted 500 years. We're still a baby. As for governmental organization, what do you mean? That we're a Republic? Because those were around long before even the great-great-great-great grandaddys of the founding fathers were a twinkle in the eye of their daddy. And thinking we're the most free country in the world smacks of idealism. You wouldn't feel so free if you weren't born into the middle class but born instead into the lower class. You might not even have a concept of freedom with the education you would receive (if any) as a child raised in poverty.

Certainly, there are parliaments and senates the world over, but I think it's fair to say that the United States has played a major part in establishing them, at least through its very presence.

Really? We have the ability to time travel? Senates and Parliaments existed before the USA and exist separate from any USA influence.

In terms of responsibility, look at land management: no other democratic republic, based on the principal of equal representation, has been able to sustain such a huge amount of land. So it's easy to speak of greater freedoms in much smaller nations, as there wasn't as much to politically string together (and also to settle).

I assume by land management you mean the actual government asserting itself over a large amount of land? If that's what you mean then I believe bleeding kansas, the civil war, and hell let's throw in Harpers Ferry, want to have a talk with you. Your second point basically says because we're bigger and it was real hard to settle all that land (killing the natives and deforesting like mad along the way) our freedom is greater than that of a small country?

Corrupt people have performed many injustices in the name of American idealism and the People, but that doesn't mean that the problems can't theoretically be solved using "America." No nation is perfect, but the American "philosphy" (unique, I find) is nothing but just, because it is supposed to be what the People make it.

The problem can't be solved using your (I assume it's yours what with the quotes) concept of "America". Because it's wrong would be the first and only reason to come to mind. The philosophy that influenced the foundation of the USA was largely borrowed/plagiarized from Western European Enlightenment thinkers, it's not very unique. If by "People" you mean our elected representatives, who are becoming increasingly corrupt and polarized along party lines, then yes, America is what the "People" make it.

And while humanity is the basic principal, I think that it can be best described in political terms as "American"; philosophically, it ultimately cannot be named, but I think America has set the brightest example of democratic liberty to date. As to the British, they don't have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights and the original Danish Constitutional Act of 1953 was an achievement, but not with the same measures granted through the U.S. Constitution. But that's just me.

I think in political terms it can be best described as a Federal Republic, since we're talking politically. And just because it doesn't have "Constitution" or "Bill of Rights" in the name does not mean it grants less freedoms to the people the document applies to. As for this talk of liberty, I would have to disagree. Our liberty is severely threatened by an overreaching, invasive government that readily violates the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.

What is "America"? What does it mean? I think that being an American has practically nothing to do with carrying a card that describes you as a U.S. citizen, but rather more to do with the very fact of our existence as people than with our location.

I'm pretty sure that technically being an American has something to do with carrying a card saying you're a U.S. citizen.

Everyone needs and wants to be free from oppression. The people who want freedom are called Americans, regardless of whether they suffered in the Soviet Union or are being exterminated in Sudan, they are Americans, because they want to be free.

People who want freedom are generally called "slaves", not Americans, though for a long time both were possible in describing one individual. (Slaves didn't technically count as citizens, it was a witticism on my part). The people in the Soviet Union that suffered wanted freedom because they were being oppressed. The people in the Sudan are seeking freedom from tribal persecution as I recall. They want to be free of that because they want the freedom to not be killed.

The beautiful thing about America is that it isn't so much a piece of land that one can cling to; the land is worthless: America isn't a land, it's a dream; an ideal; a philosophy; the only universal religion, because it is practiced by all (in the minds and souls of those who cannot demonsrate it).

I know a fair number of people, alive and dead, who would disagree (or roll in their graves) that the land is worthless. The USA is a land, it is not a dream or an ideal, nor is it a religion, and calling it a philosophy is questionable at best. Also it is most assuredly not practiced by all, are you saying babies practice this universal religion straight out of the womb? Or that it is practiced by people who genuinely hate what they believe the USA represents

We are a nation of ideals, of principles, and of human justice -- not a nation of land.

We can't be both?

Our way of life has no land boundaries; it is everywhere, in the souls of everyone.

I suppose our way of life has no land boundaries in the sense of McDonaldization. As for existing in the souls of everyone, that seems like ethnocentrism.




Also "America" is a derivative of the name Amerigo Vespucci, who visited "the new world" a few times and was given the honor of having the land named after him by some cartographer. And there are Americans outside of the USA, using the term America implies the whole lot to me and most people. Your "America" concept would more aptly be called "USA" or "U.S." or "US" judging by your geographic references.


Whew, oh yeah. Moved to the debate forum.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

All I will say on this subject is that I feel blessed to have been born Canadian.

By his classification you're "american" too.

 

[Haor Chall]

I, for the record, am a Brit- so I come from the original land of liberty. While you are correct in saying that we have an unwritten constitution (whether that is better or not is neither here nor there), we do have a Bill of Rights.

Time for a history lesson methinks.

Let us just go back to the end of the 17th century, to 1688 and the Glorious Revolution. That is, by the way, almost a hundred years before the United States of America existed.

The Revolution had essentially, two parts to it; firstly there was the old Protestant/Catholic divide which had become deeply ingrained in Britain and then it was also a battle between the powers of the monarch and the powers of parliament (Parliament by the way, has its origins in the Magna Carta of 1215 and the first elected parliament in 1265 although that body wasn’t as democratic as it is today, but that’s when it all started some five hundred years before America existed).

James II, the Catholic monarch, was deposed and his daughter, Mary, along with her husband William of Orange took the throne. The Bill of Rights was introduced which put paid to any thoughts of monarchical absolutism and ensured the move towards a constitutional monarchy.
It established the rights to freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself), freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament, freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament, freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign, freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail, freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial and a few more besides. A version of the full text is here.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Thanks for the history.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

*Blue Wolf takes swig of whisky

Hell, I'll give it a shot.

Now for the record I am a communist and have been accused of being "un-American" may a time, they say that communism has no place in the American system, that it only encourages laziness and failure and goes against all the principals which America was founded upon.

However, if you look at it closely, communism is a very American principal. Overthrow of an oppressive government who only seeks to exploit their classes for capital? Well, you can’t see a better case example of that than the American Revolution. A Communist economy also guaranties certain freedoms that a capitalist system does not. My abstract history teacher provides evidence of this when he asked in class "Of the right food, shelter, health insurance, or to vote, which would you give up first?" Just about the whole class stated that they would forgo the right to vote in order to keep the others and the other rights are not even guarantied by the US Constitution! Of course I am not saying that America with a communist economy would have to forego the right to vote (which is actually a common misconception) but what I am saying is that what people really want, the "rights" to food, shelter, and health care are not covered by our system, but does that make them un-American?


Edit:God my grammar sucks today

 

[Thess]

Only time for a quick post now, unfortunately. Fortunately, my short posts are ten times as long as most people's long posts.

As I read through all the responses, and though I disagree with him myself, I think Americanicus I is closer to being right than most are giving credit for. I think that what he describes is something America has the potential of being. And a fairly unique potential, at that. We could be the unique beacon of liberty, honor, compassion and hope for the world, and not every nation in equal or greater possession of those traits is in the proper happenstance to be so.

Allow me to disentangle that last bit of word spaghetti:

We (America) have had, and for the moment continue to have, the economic might to effect positive global change. For example, the appropriate experts have guessed that the cost to permanently end world hunger by providing all the necessary tools of self-sustenance to all people everywhere would cost in the neighborhood of 100-200 billion dollars lump-sum. That's huge, but it's potentially doable for us- see Iraq War, Cost of. Not such a doable proposition for, say, Wales.

We have the advantage of youth. A young, successful nation is a much better example for those aspiring for re-birth in their own lands than is an old, successful nation. We can show not just that these ideals can be attained, but that they can be attained swiftly.

We have the advantage of having a significant, if not controlling, share in the global media culture. We have Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Despite the screechings from the cultish followers of a certain recently deceased forgetful ex-actor President, our real contribution to the tearing down of "that Wall" was blue jeans and Coca-cola, not, say, cowboy phallus-swinging. And who has more blue jeans and Coke than America?

We have the advantage of a culture and a political infrastructure that is currently embracing globalization and rejecting isolationism. America could have all the liberty in the world, but it won't do much for non-Americans if we keep it hidden away. Sadly, this trait has been frequently perverted over the last half-century by various war profiteers, ignoramuses and demons in human form (seemingly). I haven't done the counting myself, but I've been told that over the last 60 years our military actions have ended more democracies and democratic movements than we've helped establish or foster. (Clearly that's true of our actions in South America, but I'm not confident the numbers hold up globally.) For some reason the word "Iran" drifts to mind. . .

I could keep enumerating our advantages, for they are indeed many, but that last bit has gotten me where its gotten me. I think we DO have all the potential in the world. But because of our actions, ye gods. . . the tyrants and despots must all hit their knees at night to give thanks for us.

So, no, for all my love of America I cannot agree that we are this beacon. We could be, but we aren't. And I think it unfair to place ourselves morally or ethically above our peers, seeing as how so many have managed to do as much or more good than us- or at least far less evil- without the benifits of many of the advantages we enjoy. As I see it, at our best we are as a millionaire sitting on a pew, and the collection plate has just passed. It is good that we have given, and we should feel happy at whatever contribution we have made. But we should also be distressed that our donation was surpassed, or matched, or even nearly matched by the others on our pew who are not millionaires.

 

[Americanicus I]

Haha, I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet champ. We've been around for a little over 200 years. The failed colonization of Greenland lasted 500 years. We're still a baby. As for governmental organization, what do you mean? That we're a Republic? Because those were around long before even the great-great-great-great grandaddys of the founding fathers were a twinkle in the eye of their daddy. And thinking we're the most free country in the world smacks of idealism. You wouldn't feel so free if you weren't born into the middle class but born instead into the lower class. You might not even have a concept of freedom with the education you would receive (if any) as a child raised in poverty.

Yes, and your point? My point is that the system of the United States and the principles upon which the laws rest are enough (theoretically) to solve those problems; again, all of which is contained in "American" ambitions. And so what if a republic is a gleam in someone's eye? That doesn't found the republic; wanting a Roman republic under Trajan doesn't quite get you one, so I don't see the sense behind that assertion.

I assume by land management you mean the actual government asserting itself over a large amount of land? If that's what you mean then I believe bleeding kansas, the civil war, and hell let's throw in Harpers Ferry, want to have a talk with you. Your second point basically says because we're bigger and it was real hard to settle all that land (killing the natives and deforesting like mad along the way) our freedom is greater than that of a small country?

Basically, yeah.

The problem can't be solved using your (I assume it's yours what with the quotes) concept of "America". Because it's wrong would be the first and only reason to come to mind. The philosophy that influenced the foundation of the USA was largely borrowed/plagiarized from Western European Enlightenment thinkers, it's not very unique. If by "People" you mean our elected representatives, who are becoming increasingly corrupt and polarized along party lines, then yes, America is what the "People" make it.

"Parties" were originally abhorred at the outset of the nation, so you can look at that either as a failure or an achievement, internalizing conflict. And while the American government was built on great philosophical principles of the past, Americans were the first one to combine them all into a coherent, democratic government. Again, unique achievement. Of course you also realize that you can't credit any philosopher or any book for coming up with any idea at all, ultimately, since the philosophical truth (if it is truth) should always exist to be used by anyone, at any time.

I think in political terms it can be best described as a Federal Republic, since we're talking politically. And just because it doesn't have "Constitution" or "Bill of Rights" in the name does not mean it grants less freedoms to the people the document applies to. As for this talk of liberty, I would have to disagree. Our liberty is severely threatened by an overreaching, invasive government that readily violates the Bill of Rights in the name of national security.

Yes, I dislike what the Patriot Act authorizes too, but you fail to see that the People can elect representatives to their unique government who will vote the way the People want them to vote; so when they decide that the Patriot Act shall be no more, then it will be no more.

People who want freedom are generally called "slaves", not Americans, though for a long time both were possible in describing one individual. (Slaves didn't technically count as citizens, it was a witticism on my part). The people in the Soviet Union that suffered wanted freedom because they were being oppressed. The people in the Sudan are seeking freedom from tribal persecution as I recall. They want to be free of that because they want the freedom to not be killed.

You recall incorrectly: they want freedom from persecution from their own national government, which bombs entire villages before UN planes can fly over to drop food; the same government that authorizes and backs a militia which sets up "reconciliation" camps for the express purpose of converting tribal people to Islam by denying them food and water. Anyway, slavery, segregation, etc., were woes of their day to be sure, but I hope you see that they have been solved, as (optimistically) our present woes will eventually be solved. The point is that hypocrises and inconsistencies like slavery must eventually be ironed out, if the Constitution (and the principles behind it) is truly to be honored, again, a duty of the People.

I know a fair number of people, alive and dead, who would disagree (or roll in their graves) that the land is worthless. The USA is a land, it is not a dream or an ideal, nor is it a religion, and calling it a philosophy is questionable at best. Also it is most assuredly not practiced by all, are you saying babies practice this universal religion straight out of the womb?  Or that it is practiced by people who genuinely hate what they believe the USA represents

Yes, I believe it's practiced by babies straight out of the womb and by people who hate the US. "American" is just one the best terms available to describe "humanity's basic needs." And the land isn't worthless for national identity, but it is worthless in terms of human identity; meaning that "Americanism" can be conducted in the regions most distant from the US. When I wrote that we weren't a nation of land, I meant that we were not a nation solely of land.

I suppose our way of life has no land boundaries in the sense of McDonaldization. As for existing in the souls of everyone, that seems like ethnocentrism.

If you really think this post is ethnocentric, I believe you've missed its meaning by quite a bit. . . .

Also "America" is a derivative of the name Amerigo Vespucci, who visited "the new world" a few times and was given the honor of having the land named after him by some cartographer.

I'm very familiar with Vespucci and "some cartographer" was Martin Waldseemuller, who named it in 1507. Quite obviously I was referring to the philosophical aspect, not the geographical one.

And I didn't intend this as a debate, hence it should not be in this forum; if you've moved it to that forum, it's because you made it a debate, not me. This best goes in "Blogs."

 

[Americanicus I]

All I will say on this subject is that I feel blessed to have been born Canadian.

By his classification you're "american" too.

Being human, I would call him that. By the way, I could never figure out what this smiley actually means:


As to communism, I agree; in many ways, I am a communist myself and believe that the eventual ideal of the Communist State as envisioned by its most famous proponents is identical to the greatest extension of the "American" ideal and the "American" philosophy. In my mind it would be that of a peaceful, anarchic state which needs no governing authority because it has been properly trained, if you will, to function cooperatively; a place where the last trace of selfishness has been beaten out of the individual.

 

[Americanicus I]

William of Orange took the throne. The Bill of Rights was introduced

My bad.

 

[Novus Homines]

What's an Americanism? I like my taxes small, my tea iced, my TV violent, and my milk in jugs.

 

[Americanicus I]

Yeah, those are a few poetic offshoots.

 

[The capt'n]

As an Australian I find your suggestion that my government - indeed my very society - is actually "America" insulting. Ideals of freedom and the means to achieve said freedom differ between people and places. Your "America" has no more of a monopoly on the ideas of freedom, democracy or representative government that it has on air to breathe or the history of land development*. Indeed, when the Australian consitution was created in 1901, we did use many ideas from America in our system - the same way America used many ideas of French liberalist and the Engish Bill of Rights. Like you, however, Australia also included many other sources and some new ideas. This particular system of freedom is quite similar to your but different; that's why we call our government the Australian Government rather than the American government.

America is the place Americans live and the American government rules as set out by your constitution. You can claim to be American when you are not - and along as American law (created from your 'perfect' world philosophy) says you aren't, you aren't. You can tell a Sudanese, a Soviet or even an Australia they are American, and unless they accept it or the American government forces them they don't have to be.

I would question the very idea that ideals and philosphies are universal - too long an argument and I've got to head out - but if they are then either:
a) "America" is simply your word from something that is much bigger than predates although perhaps inspired the real world America.
b) "America" as you see it is only one interpreation of such universal principles, and given that my country also claims to be follow similar principles, I could equally suggest that actually "Australia" is the core concept every baby is born with

Cheers from the Capt.

*btw: Australia might not be a republic but we are a geographically larger nation than America, and a great deal more of Australia's land development occurred after we became self governed than American land was developed after your civil war - and indeed from a much poorer (in farming terms) quality of land.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

RE: Communism comment -

Communism (like capitalism, socialism and fascism) is an economic system and not, per se, a ideolocial catch all. Each system is based upon paterns of property ownership.

In the purest (and simplest) terms:

Capitalism = all property is privately owned and the owners of property can do what they want with that property without leave of the government. The means of production are privately owned. Banks are privately owned.

Socialism = Some property is owned by they goverment and private property is subject to government control and use for the purposes of rectifying social 'wrongs' and for 'providing for the common wealth, and for creating social change at the government's discretion. Most means of production are privately owned, some means of production are owned by the government. Banks are owned privately and some are owned by the government.

Fascism = Some property is owned by the government and private property is subject to the control of the government for the purposes of rectifying social 'wrongs' and for 'providing for the common wealth, and for creating social change at the government's discretion. All banks are owned by the government.

Communism = Private property does not exist. Everyone and everything belongs to the state, especially the means of production. Workers are given what the government decides they need regardless of their productivity or lack thereof. Communism requires that everyone serves the state. It requires substantial modification of human behavior in order to function.

Anarchism = The government (if any) exists to serve the people, not the other way around, all property is privately owned. The means of production is privately owned. People are free to move as they wish from competing governments or states to other government or states. Governments and states may or may not be tied to physical territory.

Hitler wasn't a fascist - he was a socialist - Mussolini was a Fascist and Soviet style 'communism' was nothing more than the renaming of feudal Russian institutions (Party Chairman, etc. = Tsar; Collective = Feudal Estate; Commissar = Boyar, etc., etc., etc.)

Any ideology (IMHO) that requires the re-engineering of basic human nature is by definition a dictatorship.

Now, back to Amercanism.........

Ideally, IMHO, "Americanism" is a philosphical point of view that everyone has the right to be left alone and do as they please as long as they do not stomp on the rights of others in the process; that we have a right to a representative government and that the government serves the people and not the other way around; that rights are inherent in the people and existed long before governments existed and that 'rights' cannot be granted by governments, only taken away by governments; people have the inherent right to revolt against their government if the government becomes oppressive and destructive to those rights; rights have inherent responsibilities and duties; people have the ultimate sovereignty and an inherent right to self determination; we are citizens, not subjects.

Unfortunately, as an American, I think that the citizens of the USA have become complacent and have become quite happy to hand over their rights and liberties to the governing authorities as long as they have cheap gasoline, MP3 players, really big SUVs, shopping malls and endless drivvel on TV to watch to numb their brains with.

Frankly, as an American, I have no qualms with pointing out that we are in fact no different than the Romans and that western civilization is on the skids. This doesn't apply only to 'Americans', but to all of us who are loosely classified as 'western civilization. Our art forms have become crude, vulgar and out enterntainments have become violent and without any socially redeeming values other than to provide the masses with distractions, bread and circusses with the intent to keep the masses docile and complacent.

The US (America) is like the rest of the nations in Western Civilization - we are all to happy to give up our national identities and open our borders just like the Romans did and just like the EEC is doing now. For the live of me, why in the world would the Irish give up their very sovereignty to an organization like the EEC after having fought for centuries to assert their sovereignty? In our quest for 'diversity', the US (and the rest of Western Civilization) has given up their lingua fanca and our common core ideologies - just like the Romans did. Perhaps, because we are essentially Roman culture, we are heading down the very same path because we are so damned stupid that we forget our own history or so arrogant that we think we can avoid the inevitable. We Americans have totally forgotten what it means to be "American".

 

[AlHoma]

I'm going to take a swing at the discussion as well.

There are 2 dimentions to the government, Property Rights and Legal Enforcement

Soviet Style Communisim was an Authoritarian Command Economy

Legal Enforcement: Authortian - Neutral - Liberal
Economy: Command Economy - Neutral - Leises Faire

Authoritarian: The Government is ALWAYS right. You never existed.
Neutral (Legal): The Government has some powers, but you also have rights
Liberal: The Government has almost no powers. Feel free to go on a rampage...

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

That's an interesting way to look at it. It allows for styles of government to be independent of 'right/left wing' tags!



Dan