Sick of Anti-American attitudes here!

There is a distinct difference between well substantiated, well confirmed science such as the sources I cited above and so-called anything.

I say this as a former researcher in the field of evolutionary psychology which was academic poison when I was engaged in it but has come to be accepted as a genuine advance in the aproach of every field from psychology, sociology, politics, environmentalism, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and just about every other thing involving humans.

I'm sorry that your distaste for one book has made you unwilling to accept that there has been a fundamental change in our manner of understanding of ourselves in the last thirty years and that a ferment of scientific examination of humanity that has been on slow cook for more than a century is finally bearing useful fruit.

I have noticed a lot of anti-American sentiment in these forums over time as well, mainly in the form of the "dumb American" stereotype, combined with the superior European attitude. It has always reminded me of commentary I saw once on the David Chapelle show from comedian Paul Mooney. I can't post his statement directly because it is quite blunt and very un-politically correct, but in that bluntness is some simple truth. He basically says that everyone wants to emulate black people, but no one wants to be black. (You can probably figure out the more colorful version). In that same vein, it seems everyone wants to scorn Americans, but then they clamor for American stuff. God knows they certainly clamor for American money.

It is true that many Americans are not very introspective and bristle at criticism. I only bristle at painting any group with the kind of broad brush I see with the anti-American sentiment in these forums. I have a different perspective of the US as a non-native citizen of the US, as well as someone who lives in a city that is very disconnected from main-stream American culture in a lot of ways. It seems that there is a disparity between American ideals and American reality. The country that American wants to be iin words s not the country it is in action. What country truly is though?

The rest of the world views Americans through the actions of our government, which are completely out of our control. Half of the US (or more) did not want this president either election. We view America through our own families, our neighborhoods, our day to day lives. The mileage varies wildly, but life in the US is pretty damn good overall for many people, myself included. I am blessed to be able to live in a city that I am madly in love with - I doubt I would live anywhere else besides Miami Beach.

I still believe, having grown up in Venezuela and spent time in Europe, that the US is still the greatest country in the world to live in. There are other countries I love - I have a special fondness for England, France and Italy, as well as my homeland and the beautiful countries of South America. However, nowhere else on earth offers the unique combination of opportunity, freedom, culture, entertainment, quality of life, technology and diversity. We will survive this presidency (if North Korea doesn't blow everybody up) and the pendulum will start to swing back. Just remember that no person is representative of an entire country. Not all Canadians are as annoying as Celine Dion.

So true!!! but I am not sure I agree with the idea that the U.S. is the best place to live. I love the U.S. and it is certainly better than many places to live, but not so great if you are, for example, homeless. Or one of the 40 million americans with no health care coverage. When the various nations are rated for quality of life, Canada consistently comes ahead of the U.S. (Even though, personally, there is no place I'd rather live than Brooklyn. ok, maybe that ties with Vancouver.)

Another issue is one of competitive models vs cooperative models: why does it have to be a competition anyway? Can't we just say lots of places have strengths as well as weaknesses, including the U.S.?

Back to the original poster's concern: I hate nation bashing too (even worse: to say all people of a given group exhibit x qualities). BUT I think that looking at specific policies that are harmful to folks is something that has to be done to make the U.S. truly land of the free and home of the brave.

Indeed! I am told sometimes that being a vegetarian goes against nature (and, when in the territory of my origin, cattle country, that it goes against god!) and my reply to this: none of us were born with wings. Yet, we have learned to board a plane. ;-D

Human weaknesses have sometimes led us to greater strengths and innovation. Born as naked apes, we had to do something to become warmer. We have to recognize that an obstacle exists before we overcome it, though. Sticking our heads in the sand while humming the star spangled banner does no good whatsoever.

I'm not unwilling to accept solid scholarship. I reject reactionary tripe from borderline academics trying desperately to preserve the white male Eurocentric world-view. Politics dictates that for the moment these currents have better funding and press, and so their interpretations garner more public attention.. for the moment. But it's just a backwash, and more serious scholars continue to press forward.

History will disavow the failed attempt to diminish the role of the Native American model in the formation of the United States.

While this may be true they should still be held accountable for letting her loose on the world...

I feel the same about Australians and Yahoo Serious

Fascinating to watch, as an observer, two highly knowledgeable people disagreeing on an interesting topic which one knows nothing about.

But, completely from my position of ignorance, Arcadia, it might be wise to watch your phrasing. That sentence above has slightly worrying vibrations of excessive (shall we say) goal-directedness.

The discussion seems to me to be an example of "Ellie's Principle of Conversational Constructivity."
Which states as follows:

The most interesting and enjoyable discussions occur between participants with a middling understanding of the topic. Either one, or both, knowing too much or too little is counterproductive from this viewpoint.

Only just wrote it. Might need some polishing

Edit: Oh whoops, this posting doesn't quite hang together logically. Got carried away by aesthetic comsiderations. Never mind, I'll let it stand as evidence to the fact that even I'm not perfect.

Confession: Actually it wasn't an edit, its a constructional device. It was in from the beginning. Like this is.

Would you care to note which of the authors I listed don't count as "serious scholars" or are "borderline academics"?

1. Robert Wright, University of Pennsylvania
   
2. Donald Brown, UCSB
   
3. Martin Daly, McMaster University
   
4. Margo Wilson, McMaster University
   
5. Steven Pinker, Harvard
   
6. Daniel Dennett, Tufts
   
7. Matt Ridley, PhD. Oxford, science journalist, visiting professor Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
   
8. Jared Diamond, UCLA, Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, 1998 "Guns, Germs Steel"
   

Or even one of your own citation, the late Richard Herrnstein, formerly of Harvard?

In my continual quest for understanding, I'd like to know if I should disregard all of these wannabes as they all seem to disagree with Bruce E. Johansen, Professor of Communication and Native American Studies, University of Nebraska at Omaha, who, from what little I've read seems to be a bit of a crank especially as his seminal work was printed by a now defunct vanity press.

Thanks.

Since I do believe what I said to be true, and you called such thought "childish", I will take it as a slight. As far as the "pissed" comment - apparently I misunderstood, however, I assure you, I am not joking around.
First, you have assumed my gender. Second, this propensity of yours to use "we" or "us" in the manner with which you do, promotes an "us v. them" type atmosphere, and, as I mentioned in my last post, only serves to further my point. I am speaking to the whole of the species here, and I would appreciate it if my points were taken in that context.

As far as what type of responses I was solicting, I only see yours. Nobody else got twisted up by it, as far as I can see. You didn't jump all over Seth, when he basically stated that which I feel is in concordance with my beliefs here: /112/7e/61015/2.html#post637773. I agree with his first line, in the general sense. Of course, I do not believe that there are no people who aren't bigots. There certainly are, and I wish there were more of them.

Perhaps you are missing my point? My point being, I think, that in some cases, some folks hide their own ethnocentrism, so that they may appear to occupy a higher moral ground when pointing the finger at someone else. If this does not apply to you Ellie, then you have no cause to take it personally. Why are you taking it personally? My initial post was not, in any way, shape, or form aimed at you. Not only that, it wasn't even directed at any of the respondants within this thread. For the most part I agree with many of them and their well thought out points. I expounded on one snippet that got my mind working. I was neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with the points raised by the author. In fact, I happen to agree with most of what they stated.

I do think that many people, albeit possibly and/or probably not consciously, think that their country of origin is superior. Otherwise, why the need to for borders at all? Flags? National Anthems? National and regional sports teams? They all serve to illustrate differences. Turn on the news. It's right there in our faces! The human race has not reached a level of enlightenment yet, where it is able to cast aside ethnocentric/nationalistic feelings. Simply not. You personally may be able to (I did say "some", remember), but this certainly does not hold true for the majority of people living on this globe.

Hurrah! Now I am "judgemental" and "simpleminded" too! Do I need to point out the irony in your calling me "judgemental" after the manner with which you have reacted to my thoughts?

What I see as "simpleminded", is believing that ethnocentrism exists only in certain locales. Is that what you are trying to tell me? Please clarify. So far, you haven't really spoken to my points, save to call them "simpleminded", "judgemental", and "childish".

No, see my responses above. I was not joking, and therefore, I still perceive great irony in your method of response. Frankly, I find said method to be both obstreperous and boorish.

Perhaps you think I am speaking only from the nationalistic point of view, I am unsure. I am speaking to the broader truth that we, as a species have a long way to go before we realize the utopian goal which some of us, myself included, would like to see.

Amazement and irritation are emotions. Charged responses bordering on personal attacks, are the result of emotions. If you want to engage in game of semantics, count me out.

I think you've made your point, that you feel that embracing the reality which I hold to be true is "childish". I live in a reality where religious, ethnic, social, geographic and a veritable plethora of other situational circumstances still divide this world.

Clinched what? That I don't think ethnocentrism, and hence nationalism has seen it's deathknell, and that it isn't limited to certain locales? Or that I am "childish"? What? For the 5th or 6th time? You've made that "point" - believe me, it's crystal clear.

Now you must be "taking the piss". I will not withdraw what I believe to be true. What I believe to be true, comes from well over four decades walking this planet, a great deal of which has been spent abroad, immersed in the cultures and languages of Europe, East and Southeast Asia, and a large portion of the Americas. Your request that I withdraw the beliefs that I hold, which are a result of my life's experiences, is preposterous.

<Some strange forgein language> America <More forgein language>!!

<Forgein language> <Generic insult> <Reference to someone's genetic and arch-social origins as well as their taste in deserts>.

<Signature>!

If fish live in tanks, why don't tanks shoot fish poop?

They do - if you don't clean them often enough.

How often does a tank need cleaning? Does it depend on weather? Altitude? Season? Can the treads stay dirty?

I am neither entirely "white", nor borderline in my take on these issues, nor particularly Eurocentric, and I've spent some time on the rez, myself - visiting my relatives and doing research for a couple of law firms. I share an affliction with a few hundred thousand other Americans: you might not want your white daughter to marry me, but you might not accept me entirely into your Native American "rights" movement because my ancestral pedigree isn't pure. So take this for what it's worth:

Any characterization of sincere scholarship attempting to adhere to rigorous standards on the basis of race and gender ("white male Eurocentric scholarship"... "more serious scholarship", etc.) is mere bigotry. It is true that we all have our biases, and those biases are based on our experiences and our formative POV's. But it is also true that the serious scholars that you've trashed have generally tried to leave those biases behind them, with varying degrees of success.

One cannot say the same about your approach. In response to probing by Introvert Petunia, myself, and others, you bring out the "bloody shirt" and wave it in our faces. And in the process, erode the credibility of my father's people.

Food for thought: The fact that successful Native American paradigms like the Iroquois confederacy have not influenced the modern American political milieu very much, speaks far more about racism and the treatment of native peoples in the United States than any half-baked attempt to make the Iroquois more "relevant". It's often necessary to revise our interpretation of the past to overcome our biases. It is never a good idea to revise the past only to perform a social service to a group of people, however much they have suffered. It does them no favors.

You flatter me, I'm afraid. This isn't my discipline, and I don't have the academic rigor to argue it adequately (though that's never stopped certain individuals from stepping far outside their fields of expertise to render a judgement).

All I can say is that if somebody has a keen interest in the topic, don't rely on self-proclaimed experts: go back to the primary sources (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine are good starting points) and make up your own mind. It is FAR from a settled question, and the best possible interpretation is one that you arrive at yourself.

The same goes for xenophobia and nationalism. Read the literature, review the studies. My conclusion is not the only one, but I believe it to be true: that nationalism is not a natural outgrowth of tribal xenophobia (a weak force at best), but an artificial construct introduced only in post-agricultural societies to consolidate the power of the ruling elite, and carefully cultivated to the extent that even trained observers are now too influenced by it to recognize how artificial it truely is. Understanding the art of the propogandist also provides insight into nationalism, as do behavioral studies into psychological aberrations observed at extreme population densities.

Maybe seeing the same material, you'll reach opposite conclusions. That's fine. History is not a science, and there has always been room for opposing viewpoints (especially on issues such as "degree of influence", an amorphous concept at best). Sociology is a science, but it's not an exact one, and nothing about it is dogma.

Always remember, the experts overwhelmingly believed that the world was flat... until it wasn't anymore.

I usually decline this "flame" stuff. Its a complete bore for everyone else.

But I'll make an exception just this one time more and say that the highlighted part of the quote above shows how you argue not to the issues, but by making statements about what you believe other people believe.
Saying "I believe I am right because (facts or logic)" is different from "I believe I am right because almost everybody feels as I do, and if they deny it they "cannot be honest".

That is what I object to: "cannot be honest". Totally unacceptable thing to say of other peoples motivation. Just a slightly veiled way of claiming that those who disagree with you are liars. What place does that have in a forum aiming at adult discussion of issues?

I realise of course that to call your expressed view (not yourself) "childish" put you in the position where you had either to smile or come out fists flailing. A pity you chose the latter, but I guess I was responsible for putting you there.

Just ask yourself. If I, disagreeing with you, had categorised those holding your view as "cannot be honest", would you have felt that to be a sober and respectful contribution to the discussion ?

I can't co-operate in putting any more of this stuff in the thread. You posted an insult instead of an argument. I objected, and characterised your view as "childish" giving evidence by simile. Get over it - I have. In the interest of the others, I now won't continue this even if you deluge me with insults, faulty logic, or dissect and demolish every post I have ever made. I simply won't reply. Flames wars are self-indulgent and rude, and we are already guilty enough.

Come on - smile, Iridian me 'ole m8. It's only a game (whoops, sorry Philip).

I usually decline this "flame" stuff. Its a complete bore for everyone else.

But I'll weakly and egotistically make an exception just this one time more, give in to temptation, and say that the highlighted part of the quote above shows how you argue not to the issues, but by making statements about what you believe other people believe.
Saying "I believe I am right because (facts or logic)" is different from "I believe I am right because almost everybody feels as I do, and if they deny it they "cannot be honest".

That is what I object to: "cannot be honest". Totally unacceptable thing to say of other peoples motivation. Just a slightly veiled way of claiming that those who disagree with you are liars. No reasoning, or evidence. Just your statement. Not honest. What place does that have in a forum aiming at adult discussion of issues?

I realise of course that to call your expressed view (not yourself) "childish" put you in the position where you had either to smile or come out fists flailing. A pity you chose the latter, but I guess I was responsible for putting you there.

Just ask yourself. If I, disagreeing with you, had categorised those holding your view as "cannot be honest", would you have felt that to be a sober and respectful contribution to the discussion ?

I can't co-operate in putting any more of this stuff in the thread. You posted an insult instead of an argument. I objected, and characterised your view as "childish" giving evidence by simile. Get over it - I have. In the interest of the others, I now won't continue this even if you deluge me with insults, faulty logic, or dissect and demolish every post I have ever made. I simply won't reply. Flames wars are self-indulgent and rude, and we are already guilty enough.

Come on - smile, Iridian me 'ole m8. It's only a game (whoops, sorry Philip).

You characterised those who disagree with you as "cannot be honest". Totally unacceptable thing to say of other peoples motivation. Just a slightly veiled way of claiming that those who disagree with you are liars. No reasoning, or evidence. Just your statement. Not honest. What place does that have in a forum aiming at adult discussion of issues?
I can't co-operate in putting any more of this stuff in the thread. You posted an insult instead of an argument. I objected, and characterised your view as "childish" giving evidence by simile. Get over it - I have. In the interest of the others, I now won't continue this even if you deluge me with insults, faulty logic, or dissect and demolish every post I have ever made. I simply won't reply. Flames wars are self-indulgent and rude, and we are already guilty enough.

Come on - smile, Iridian me 'ole m8. It's only a game (whoops, sorry Philip).

I think you're all whacked.

Seth has already shown the error of your statements and their implicity bigotry better than I have. But you keep contesting my statements with handwaving yet providing no actual information nor answers to my questions, so you may fairly consider this an irritated retort.

Your patently false statement above is virtually the hallmark of people who hold outrageously false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - in other words, cranks. It is often expressed as "they all laughed at Columbus for thinking the earth was round" or some such nonsense. When in fact, no one seriously doubted the earth was spherical in Columbus' day except those who were compelled by antiquarian biblical over-literalism. Columbus' gig was that he thought he could get a trade route to East Asia more rapidly by sailing Westward from Europe rather than around Africa. He was actually quite mistaken about that. That they laughed at Columbus was likely for some egregious mistakes he made in calculating the length of his journey (4400km instead of 19_600km actual). Indeed his contemporary mariners thought he was way off the mark and were right. In fact Columbus was so far off that had he not accidentally bumped into the Bahamas, his entire expedition would likely have starved to death. The belief that Columbus was a renegade who first claimed the earth was round is a myth invented in 1828 and has been so oft repeated than many still believe it.

If you want to talk about the "experts" who believed the earth flat, you have to go back at least to Aristotle (~350 B.C.) who clearly demonstrated, with evidence, that the earth was spherical. As Aristotle used evidence that was available to anyone choosing to look at the sky and think, others before him may have come to this understanding but their writings haven't persisted as well.

It seems quite obvious that you'd like to believe that the Native Americans were something other than they were, and if it pleases you to do so I will not contest your belief for a moment. If on the other hand, you feel it necessary to imply that you've read even a fraction of the literature that opposes your view when you quite clearly haven't, then I will leave you with one of my favorite aphorims:

You summarily ignore the word "some" yet again, to try and selfishly frame something which is not an argument as an argument, apparently to sate your desire to be "right". The "we" was figurative, and I think you know that. I can play the "highlight specific words to try and prove a non-point because I am wayward" game if you like - but I would really rather not.

You do not get to decide what belongs in this forum. Presume much? Got control issues?

You ignore the fact that I have explained that, through decades of first hand dealings with friends and relatives (not just random passersby) from all over this globe (that includes the US!), I have observed SOME disingenuousness to the end that I describe. It has been admitted to me, point blank, by no less than 3 or 4 people. I have also observed the phenomena in others, who didn't admit it, yet displayed signs of it through their actions and words. The issue I see is that, many times, these folks are the ones yelling the loudest about nationalism. Perhaps this is born of some need to try and bury guilt, I am not sure - but I am sure that it does take place, with SOME people. Get it Ellie? SOME. Not Ellie, not anyone in this thread. SOME folks that I have had dealings with.

As far as flames go, I think we will let the mods decide, and after all, you initiated it by taking my statements about SOME as a direct affront to yourself, and then responding with rude judgements - talk about "self-indulgent"! After a cursory search and subsequent examination of some of your other postings in these forums, I must say I am not that surprised - you seem to be quite full of yourself, and speak to other's motivations frequently yourself. Your posts aimed at me are riddled with ironic statements of a highly hypocritical nature, not that you care when that is pointed out, you just keep building your straw men based upon the selective interpretation you are madly clinging to.

As far as not responding to me further - that would be wonderful, thanks, wholeheartedly.

I don't want to be your "m8", and I smile quite often. As a matter of fact, I am wearing a wry little grin right now.

Introvert...

I bowed out of the fight. I told people to go to primary sources and make up their own minds. I admitted to no particular expertise on the topic. And I stated my views, and stepped away from the soapbox.

Then you sucker-punched me.

Was that really necessary? No, I'm not an expert, but I'm a layperson who has formed her own opinions based on the material that I've read. If I'm a crank, so be it. This isn't a peer-review journal.

Again, I invite anybody who is interested to look at primary source material (from the horse's mouth, as they say) and reach their own conclusions. Don't believe anything I say just because I say it, or anybody else for that matter.

It took you 8 pages to figure that one out?

What the hell are they talking about anyway? Is this one of those cooperative "novel writing" threads now?

*goes back to trolling lighter threads*

Are you sure you mean me (Iridian), and not Introvert?

I haven't addressed you in this thread...