Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk
Not really but there's A LOT of lingering resentments over Iraq and Afghanistan. The American Revolution is too distant for most people.
I can see your point about Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of Americans are opposed to that as well.
It's kind of complicated. Afghanistan was caused by 9/11. They attacked us, so we attacked them back.
The war against Iraq was just a continuation of the first Gulf War in 1990-91, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I remember back then, the Kuwaiti ambassador was on every TV station, including CNN, talking about atrocities against women and children and saying "please, please, please America, come and save us!" This is the kind of stuff that the average American is going to see, so from their point of view, they're led to believe that our troops are going in to save women and children.
I know some Afghan immigrants I worked with a few years back. One of them was imprisoned by the Taliban for attempting to start a school for girls, which was illegal under their law.
quote:
A few people, mainly on the political left go on about becoming a republic. We have a class system which influences almost everything in the UK, well, particularly in England. Most people accept the monarchy and the Royal Family. It brings us tourists, keeps many employed in the media, and helps people all over the rest of the world remember us. It's also quite useful in the TEFL English language industry and good for getting foreign students to come over to learn English. More recently this supplies our middle-classes with cheap au pairs and nannies coming from other parts of Europe, particularly Eastern Europe.
Yes, I've heard that they're far more traditional in the UK regarding class. I've actually detected a stronger level of class consciousness within America starting with the Reagan years. My formative years were spent during the 1960s and 70s, when there was a more prevalent idea of anti-materialism and resentment towards the rich. But once Reagan got into office, society did a complete 180 degree turn, and everything was suddenly about "Material Girls" and the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." That show had an English host - obviously to give it more class in the eyes of American audiences.
Even the snooty, upper-class rich folks here in America (the same people who have the biggest influence over policy) seem to have more in common with the UK aristocracy than they do with the common people in America. What's ironic is that whenever someone outside of the US criticizes America, they almost never criticize the elite classes. It always seems to degenerate into criticisms of the lower classes, the "fat, beer-guzzling hillbillies and cowboys," which is the image of America that our elite want the rest of the world to see.
That's what always floors me, since non-Americans criticize Americans for being too easily fooled by propaganda, but then again, they're watching these American movies and TV shows as well, using that as a basis for their opinion about America.
quote:
I'm not the most reliable source here as I tend to avoid anyone who hates groups of people but from my experience any hatred is between the Welsh and English while the Irish and Scots, if there is any sort of negative feeling, tend to look down on the English. It cuts both ways sometimes. There's been times in the past when I arrived in Glasgow and there was a marked difference in friendliness when I announced I was coming back to see my family.
That always did kind of surprise me. I mean, I had some knowledge of the problems in Ireland, but prior to the 1990s, it never dawned on me that there would still be lingering friction between England and Scotland.
quote:
I don't think there is a common view other than a noticeable difference among some since the Iraq/Afghanistan wars which may take some time to work through. But then this hasn't bothered the minority who think typical Americans are the ones who appear on Jerry Springer (and a few try to emulate them) but generally much of how most people see Americans is what's come through their TV screens.
Yeah, that's a shame, and this is also true in reverse, because TV is the medium by which Americans get their information on the outside world. Cable and the internet have helped somewhat to break the monopoly the broadcast networks once had on public opinion, but there's still a long way to go.
That's why I like communicating over the internet in forums like this, because then I have the opportunity to speak with people directly, without it being filtered or manipulated by the US media.
But if they think Jerry Springer is bad, they should have seen Morton Downey Jr. or Wally George when they were still alive. Phil Donahue was okay when he was on in the 1970s, as he would often discuss serious, thought-provoking issues, but talk shows started to degenerate during the Reagan era, when no one was ever supposed to discuss anything serious.
quote:
Dunno. You haven't been exporting some of those teabags which seem popular among Sarah Palin supporters have you? We drink a lot of tea, especially our pensioners but they seem quite sedate by comparison.
 Possibly that's true. I'm from Arizona, so I was a bit more familiar with John McCain already, but I never heard of Sarah Palin prior to her being named as the Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008. I'm not sure how they ended up with her, since there were other big name Republicans who could have been chosen. Yet somehow, she's become an international symbol for both conservatives and liberals. It's astonishing, when you really think about it.
John McCain was first elected to the Senate in 1986, when the Ronnie Robots were at the top of their game and could do no wrong in the eyes of the media. Reagan was known as the "Teflon President," because nothing would ever stick to him. I think the Tea Partiers of today are those same exact people pining for the bygone days of the 1980s and Ronald Reagan.
The liberals aren't much better, though. I think they're going after Palin just because they can, she's the easy choice as the conservatives' whipping girl. The liberals and others at the establishment level are too afraid to take on any sacred cows (like Reagan and Greenspan). They always go after the easy meat, and nothing gets changed.
quote:
How do we feel about America's role in the World Wars? Well we wish you'd stop trying to start one, especially one involving our armed forces.
Many Americans wish the same thing, too.
quote:
We're rather proud of our armed forces and hate to see them used as cannon fodder, as Tony Blair discovered at the cost of his political career. As for WWII we were grateful for the money at the start but like as been mentioned before there's a somewhat distorted view of the American role and you did quite well out of lend and lease.
It wasn't that easy for FDR to get Lend-Lease passed. I've heard that he had to use a lot of political muscle to get Congress to go along with it.
quote:
It was the Russians who broke Hitler's Eastern Front but also, and we're quite aware of it here in the UK, the role played by expatriate Poles flying squadrons within the RAF was also quite significant. This may explain why there's a difference between how people perceived the Poles between the UK and US.
This is an important point, and I agree with what you're saying here.
But there are a few other key facts which should be mentioned in order to better explain why the American role in WW2 might seem distorted.
For example, you mentioned Russia breaking the Eastern Front, which is true, but I also note that if we back up a couple of years, they were the ones who signed a pact with Hitler to partition Poland which led to the outbreak of World War II. It was only a tremendous stroke of luck for the Western Allies that Hitler broke his agreement with Stalin and chose to invade. The Soviets didn't lift a finger to help those in Western Europe being overrun by the Nazis. They weren't very nice to Poland, either.
The Soviets were late to the war, just like we were, but the main difference is that they were right there, with the strength and geographical proximity to make a difference, while we were on the other side of the planet and much, much weaker in terms of military manpower and weapons. Not to mention the fact that it probably wouldn't have gone so badly for them in the early years if Stalin wasn't such an idiot by purging all of his top officers and leaving his military forces under the command of party hacks.
I think even Churchill reminded Stalin of these facts whenever he kept complaining that the UK and USA were dilatory in opening a second front.
It's not as if Americans don't know the Soviets were involved in the war, but our attitude might be more like, "Well, who are the hell are they to be criticizing us or denigrating our role in the war?" I wouldn't really call it a distortion of America's role, but I can see where it might come off as indignant to non-Americans.
As for Britain and France, the general feeling is that they should have been able to defeat Hitler on their own. Our participation should not have been needed at all. I hate that that sounds so cold-blooded, but I can't help but think that if Britain and France were minding affairs closer to home instead of trying to prop up their faltering empires, it might never have gotten as bad as it did. They were trying to do too much at once. They could have stopped Hitler sooner (in 1936 and 1938), so even they were "late," strictly speaking. Even after they declared war, they just sat there on their hands and waited for Hitler to invade. The Allies outnumbered the German forces, yet they still got beat in France in 1940. What are we supposed to say about that?
It was never America's job to manage the affairs of Europe, so the fact that we had to go over there at all most likely grated on a lot of Americans to the point where they developed the "we saved the world" attitude that Europeans have come to know and love. 
quote:
None of the historic events have had quite the effect on how many perceive Americans as the recent Bush administration. It's kind of sad in a way, because these are problems created by the media and politicians and it's the people who are left to pick up the pieces.
Yes, I agree. A lot of Americans in my age group (late 40s) and older were probably greatly influenced by Cold War politics, and even though the Cold War is over, a lot of the same perceptions and habits still remain. Most of our current problems have their origins in things we did during the Cold War. That's what's really sad, since our current budget crises have been decades in the making, yet it's only now that people are beginning to believe that there's a problem.
I sometimes have mixed feelings about this, since I often rail against politicians who only tell people what they want to hear, but I also rail against the people who insist on hearing it. There are some politicians who might cynically believe that the public is just too fucked up at this point. They might want to do better, but are forced to go along with the bullshit because too many people are weak-minded and can't think for themselves.
|
RE: Questions for those in the UK (and elsewhere in the... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread