Quote:
|
Originally Posted by taranaki
LOL,No! 
I'm from New Zealand.And yes there is a difference.
The kind of people who like to brag about how wonderful their country is never seem to acknowledge the fact that a lot of the credit for their countries' should rightfully go to people who weren't born there.The worlds' most powerful military,for example would be far less mighty had it not been for the science of Ernest Rutherford.In case you didn't know,he was the first scientist to split the atom.I doubt if most Americans would know that he was a New Zealander.Come to think of it ,I doubt that most New Zealanders would recognise that he made this monumental discovery while he was part of a research team at an English university.
Sir Edmund Hilary?first man to scale Everest.Or was he?In 1953,the indigenous Nepalese,who acted as sherpas, were treated by the press as an inconsequential race.Thus when Sir Ed made it to the summit,along with Sherpa Tensing,it was he that got the lion's share of the credit for reaching the summit.Or was it? only in New Zealand.The British press hailed it as a victory for Britain.The average New Zealand never acknowledges that Hilary was but one member of a British expedition.
The point I am trying to make is that news and world events are portrayed to us in the way that we would like to believe them.Any device to show a nation's actions in the most favourable light helps to sell the product,be it Newspaper,television,or foreign policy.Americans,just like anyone else,like to feel proud of their country.It must come as something of a shock to some,having been told in all the U.S. mainstream media what a good and wonderful job the U.S. does overseas,to find out that you have not been told the whole truth as others see it.
The frustration starts when a percentage of Americans counter any criticism with arguments that boil down to "But we're Americans,and we are wonderful,we know we are because they told us so in the papers".
Unfortunately,this small percentage of Americans is disproportionately loud.It's easy to stereotype when the only American opinions that get aired are those of the blind and loud patriots.I'm certain that there is an eqally large percentage who are quitly uncomfortable with the way things have panned out over the last year,but it's not the done thing to criticize your own country in public.And so the task of 'educating' the world on what it means to be an American falls largely too a small but loud percentage of patriots,those deluded few who believe that America can do no wrong,and that the rest of the world is inferior.Is it any wonder ,then,that other people perceive every American to be exactly the same as these boorish slobs,when nobody else has the courage to tell them that they are misrepresenting their country? |
So you're basically saying that the loud few should represent the quiet majority? Because the rest couldn't shut up the loudmouths? Same as the ignominious Brits that were in that linked thread? Should I then characterize Brits and Kiwis (based on you) as basically disdainful of Americans? You basically defended the bashing in the other thread...justifying a mistake because they were pointing out another's mistake...where's the logic?
What if I told you that I am a minority, born in a different country, speak three languages, have fought for this country as a serviceman, and will gladly die for her if need be?
I can be as adamant in my defense of my country as I have to...but where are the stereotypes?
Unlike most European countries, born of time and noble land acquisitions and warring, America was born out of a desperate need for people to be independent from a tyranny. Born out of a war, fought by underdogs.
Does that give SOME insight as to how the "American attitude" came to be?
It's nice of you to lay claim to Ernest Rutherford, considering he was born in NZ, but England could claim him too, since his family is English. Einstein, an American citizen in the end, was born German. So what? What they discovered/invented were individual. They were PEOPLE, not a country.
BTW, you need to educate the historians, I guess:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWatom.htm, Ernest doesn't seem to be mentioned in that historical tidbit about the Atom bomb and its origins. Just so you don't think it's US-biased, that's a UK article and site. They also recognize sources from all around the world.
See, propaganda works both ways. Who told you about Ernest Rutherford? Your schoolbooks? Was it a Kiwi that wrote it? You might think we're brainless "patriots" over here, but at least it's inherent in our belief system to NOT believe everything you hear. We are taught, nay, EXPECTED, to question. This is why our 1st Amendment is so revered.