|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US, Do We Need You to Lead Us?
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
So apparently the US President made a speech to graduates at West Point saying "America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no-one else will."
There's been a lot of discussion and analysis of this speech, but what caught my attention is -- does the US President really expect the rest of the world to agree with the basic premise of that statement? Do most Americans agree with that? Most of the debate I've heard seems to be around "Is America actually doing a good job of this 'leadership'?" but isn't it an even more valid question to ask, "Does the rest of the world need or want America to lead? Is it true that if America doesn't 'lead,' no-one else will? Should one nation even 'lead' the world? What do we even mean by 'lead' in this context?"
We're less than 100 years out from America's very reluctant entrance into WWI which, as I understand it, ended a long-time policy of isolationism. In 100 years we've apparently gotten to the point where not only is it taken for granted that the US should be actively involved in the affairs of every other country in the world, but America assumes that everyone needs them to continue carrying some undefined mantle of "leadership."
I don't particularly feel a need to be "led" by the US. Do you?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
Dominionism raises its ugly head once again.
Once upon a time Britain believed it had a duty to lead the world for no other reason that it was quite capable of and willing to kick the shit out of anyone who doubted it.
What other reason do you need?
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Yes, I must say it strikes me as very reminiscent of the English position in the 19th century. Would it really be such a terrible thing if the US went back to being just another country rather than the Leader of All the World, as the UK has done in the 20th century?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
Really, is the USA the "leader of all the world?"
It certainly thinks it is - or at the very least, a number of its citizens think it is.
But it's been a very very long time since US backpackers started pretending that they were Canadian while walking from the Youth Hostel, past my house, and into the centre of York - and England is friendly to the USA!
I remember when US backpackers had the Stars & Stripes on their rucksacks. It's been a while...
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
personally I'd like us to get our shit a little more together before we go acting like it doesn't stink to the rest of the universe.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
If history has taught us one thing, then it is that states and their leaders often desire to be on top of the heap, exerting influence on other states.
(If the US actually is in that top position, is not at the moment as blatantly obvious as in the post-cold war period. They still hold sufficient military, economic and cultural power to have a decent claim on the throne, however.)
Do I want the US to lead me and my country? Preferably not. But I'd much rather be led by a reasonably well-functional democracy, over China or another authoritarian regime any day.
While the rhetoric of this speech is somewhat less than pleasing to a great many European ears, then it is also a spoken commitment to a continued presence in international affairs. This is by and large a good thing. The US letting its chief rivals continue their foreign policies unopposed, would be a far greater threat to world security.
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
At least he tried to talk about "not invading other countries", which leaves it up to the GOP to find rationales for doing such things.
Great. Only 50% of the time do the rest of us have to be aware of random invasions for no purpose.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
As part of one of my conversations with a Canadian while in Canada, he observed that it seems to be a characteristic of parts of American culture to believe that Americans don't have anything to learn from anyone else.
I think that's the basic problem with the 'lead' paradigm. It risks thinking that the leader knows the answers and is there to teach the followers.
There are in fact many areas where America is out of step with the rest of the world, and I think this is why - not because America has been trying to teach the world and the world has stupidly not listened (in fact the rest of the world embraces American innovations quite readily), but because when somewhere else in the world has come up with the innovation, a sizable chunk of America isn't prepared for it.
It ranges from things as everyday as the metric system through to things as serious as gun control.
[ 29. May 2014, 03:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I think history has shown that despite what Empires, Nations and peoples might want they are all ultimately limited in the lifespan of their power. The British Empire was only the latest in a long line of large and powerful nations to come and go so in that sense no I don't think the US will always lead and to a certain degree I think it is unreasonable to have that expectation.
However, there is a bit of a qualitatitive difference between the Empires of the past and the US as it is presently. The degree of 'cultural imperialism' has a far wider impact and range than mere territorial occupation had for previous empires and whilst I think most of the world would prefer not to be led by the US in the more traditional sense of the word they are happy to accept the products of US culture. It's pervasive and I think it will continue to be pervasisve for a significant period of time.
I also feel that the global nature of our lives today may somewhat limit the next rising giant. Between India and China there is a lot of potential but it just might be that over-population, climate change and economic instability will muddy the waters and send us off in unexpected directions.
All told I would prefer that the most powerful nations in the world were free and democratic and the US seems to fit this bill. Sometimes I wonder how free and democratic it really is but I do think it's better than other potential candidates out there.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Part of the problem is that if the US doesn't act as a superpower, China and Russia will - on their own terms. So, from a strategic point of view, the US has to act as a superpower and be a "leader" of the nations - if only to protect itself and other nations.
I am not saying that I am happy with the idea of the US assuming "leadership" over other nations. But I suspect that I would like it even less if I found that my life was being dictated to by the whims of people like Putin!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
The USA was a relatively small player, on the world stage. Until the US Civil War, the industrial might of the North, prepared it for military and mainly economic trade in the 20th Century.
World War 1 forced the USA to look outward. It grudgingly got involved in global conflict due to Pearl Harbor (December 1941).
From 1945 to 1989 it was the lynch pin of the ''free world''. Since then, it's role has changed somewhat.
The attached will give a realistic view of why the USA might see itself as the ''world's policeman''.....
http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison
Certainly since the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan, US foreign policy can be questioned as to it's direction and coherence.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Part of the problem is that if the US doesn't act as a superpower, China and Russia will - on their own terms. So, from a strategic point of view, the US has to act as a superpower and be a "leader" of the nations - if only to protect itself and other nations.
This is not part of the problem, it's THE problem.
Without a strong US the rest of Western Europe would have fallen behind the Iron Curtain. Part of it (East Germany) did.
I spend a lot of time in Africa and the difference between the aid provided by the US through USAID (government budget support, women's health, agriculture) and the "aid" provided by the Chinese in exchange for natural resources and bringing in hordes of their citizens to do work Africans could well do - if that's a microcosm of what US vs Chinese spheres of influence look like, then I think most of us would strongly prefer the US.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
In short, yes. American leadership in most global issues is essential at this point in time. This stems from America's position in relation to the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era. Most of the developed world is undergirded by American security - Pax Americana. This, in turn, provides a stable environment for economic activity to flourish.
The problem that arises without American leadership, is that no other country has the authority or will to lead. All of the rest of the world respects American power and influence, even if some of them don't like it. As of now, no other state has the same stature within the international community.
An example is the Israeli/Palestinian question. Only the U.S. can credibly serve as an authoritative arbiter between two such intractable parties. Bereft of American leadership in the peace process, there is no real hope of any kind of reconciliation.
Now, this isn't to say that American leadership is essential in everything. For example, the African Union does a passable job dealing with regional issues in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Furthermore, this status quo is necessarily limited to things as they stand today. There is certainly the possibility in the future that other countries may arise to the point where they have similar global weight and reach to the U.S. The probability of any such entity emerging in the foreseeable future, however, is unlikely, which leaves American leadership in global issues indispensable at this time.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
GCabot said: quote:
An example is the Israeli/Palestinian question. Only the U.S. can credibly serve as an authoritative arbiter between two such intractable parties. Bereft of American leadership in the peace process, there is no real hope of any kind of reconciliation.
Much recent US foreign policy, could arguably be said to be a failure.
Apart from the 1977 peace deal with Israel and Egypt, most US attempts have ended in failure. John Kerry's recent attempts at an Israeli - Palestinian deal have now broken down.
The recent, 21 st Century major US interventions Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) could also be argued to have been complete failures at worst and plaster over the cracks, basic first aid, at best.
US interventions don't usually end in peace and harmony. That is not to say that the USA does not have good intentions.
Fortunately, they kept out of Syria militarily but this was a close run thing.
Even their World War 2 involvement,in December 1941, was due to a complete misreading of Japanese intentions.
I would encourage local nations, wherever possible, to sort out their ''back yards''.
The USA often has the raw military power, but at times it lacks the wisdom and discernment to exercise that power.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
If the US want to be the leader, then they have to listen to those they want to lead. History tells us that for the very great part, the US acts while the rest of the 'free' world is busy shouting "WTF are you doing, America?"
That is not leadership.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Much recent US foreign policy, could arguably be said to be a failure.
One could certainly make this argument, but this is a separate issue. The OP was discussing the necessity of the U.S. as a world leader, not its efficacy in acting as such.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The world does not need a leader. There would be far less strife if we all just butted out.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
An argument can be made that world leadership isn't held by the US alone, but is shared between the US and European powers, in a form of symbiosis. (European economic hardships the last few years has limited European ability to act on the international stage, but the point is perhaps to some extent still valid.)
The argument goes that while the US most often provides the "hard" power, while the EU is (was?) better able to provide "soft" power. To make it work however, then a perceived difference must exist. If both are perceived as being used by the same power, then the effects may cancel each other out.
However, both parties really have much of the same basic goals in the world. Securing democratic influence, advancing world trade, and remaining in positions of power. (It's hardly altruistic, but it is a form of selfishness that has some decent side effects). There are individual issues where the goals don't really match, but they tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.
Creating a perceived difference through statements similar to this one about being the world leader, not only satisfies some American voters, it also helps create the space between the US and the EU that allows both to operate more efficiently.
Of course, American political rhetoric is usually primarily aimed at the American public. Giving Europe reason and opportunity to distance itself however, is a nice side benefit.
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The leadership is based on economic matters isn't it? To cause trade to flow unto them. Leadership in matters of governance, human rights and all the other Good Things appear often to be mostly talk, subordinated to money, backed up by a robust and well funded military machine. No seeing this as different from past empires. The talk of what it is changes with the times, from empire to empire, but the conduct and focus on profit remains the same.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It ranges from things as everyday as the metric system through to things as serious as gun control.
Well, that only took 8 posts. Who had the over/under, again? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
In all seriousness, though, orfeo's got it pretty well nailed, I have to admit. <shakes head ruefully>
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Part of the problem is that if the US doesn't act as a superpower, China and Russia will - on their own terms. So, from a strategic point of view, the US has to act as a superpower and be a "leader" of the nations - if only to protect itself and other nations.
This is an important point. The US sees (as much as any country as a whole can be said to "see" anything) containing the Chinese and Russians as a matter of self-interest and survival.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are in fact many areas where America is out of step with the rest of the world...
...from things as everyday as the metric system.
I don't know, some of us hanging in there with Imperial measurements, regardless of what the Americans do...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are in fact many areas where America is out of step with the rest of the world...
...from things as everyday as the metric system.
I don't know, some of us hanging in there with Imperial measurements, regardless of what the Americans do...
Losing battle, mate. Most of the world sees the symmetry of adopting a base 10 measuring system when using a base 10 counting system. We didn't adopt it over here because we were suddenly in love with the French. Although in the UK, the fact that the French came up with it may well explain any reluctance to switch...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As part of one of my conversations with a Canadian while in Canada, he observed that it seems to be a characteristic of parts of American culture to believe that Americans don't have anything to learn from anyone else.
[...]
There are in fact many areas where America is out of step with the rest of the world, and I think this is why - not because America has been trying to teach the world and the world has stupidly not listened (in fact the rest of the world embraces American innovations quite readily), but because when somewhere else in the world has come up with the innovation, a sizable chunk of America isn't prepared for it.
The problem with this characterization, which non-Americans always vigorously nod in agreement with, is that it uses "middle class white Christian" as the default American.
I was not the only or even close to the only child in my small suburban school whose parents were born in another country. In college several of my friends didn't learn English until they started school, as their parents spoke Spanish or Hindi or Russian at home.
America's power structures are only just started to look like the population in terms of gender and ethnicity. I would say that America's great advantage is its diversity and that people tend to maintain strong cultural connections to their countries of origin - even when this is centuries in the past.
You can look at Irish-Americans and the IRA, Jewish Americans and Israel, Armenian Americans and Turkey - all groups that influenced foreign policy (for better of for worse) due to their links to the home country. Millions of Americans do care what happens abroad because "abroad" is where their relatives or their grandma's home town are.
I think more than any country the US has a claim to having the authority to be a global leader because it actually has citizens from all corners of the world. And if you look at people's personal values regarding family, religion, etc. America is more in step with most of the world than Europe is.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It appears that we don't trust our government but it makes perfectly good sense for us to go all over the world and beat the dog loving shit out of foreigners who don't, either. To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, sensible Americans tend to believe that whatever our government was doing, we'd like for it to go do it somewhere else.
Seriously, it seems that after WW2 it fell on us to be the muscle behind a general continuation of something that that appears to be a somewhat general continuation of British foreign policy.
Whatever we are up to, we can claim all we want that we are some sort of leader but it doesn't mean diddly if others don't chose to follow.
[ 29. May 2014, 18:29: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are in fact many areas where America is out of step with the rest of the world...
...from things as everyday as the metric system.
I don't know, some of us hanging in there with Imperial measurements, regardless of what the Americans do...
This drove me crazy when I lived in London. I could not fathom that in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system, the vast majority of people were clueless when I asked for "a half a pound" of something, etc.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
This drove me crazy when I lived in London. I could not fathom that in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system, the vast majority of people were clueless when I asked for "a half a pound" of something, etc. [/QB]
At least they wouldn't have been clueless if you'd asked for a 'pint', but it would probably drive you crazier (but drunker/happier this side of the pond).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system
I thought we'd stolen it, like everything else.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I could not fathom that in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system...
We didn't really invent it, we just adapted the stuff that the Romans left us in 410AD and it wasn't seen necessary to change it while we were still the ones who dictated what got built using the system. Now that we are on the political back bench we use the dominant system in our neck of the woods grudgingly. The best way to find out if the USA leads the world is to change to a completely arbitrary measurement system and see how long it takes to get a TV screen measured in whole units of it.
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I could not fathom that in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system...
We didn't really invent it, we just adapted the stuff that the Romans left us in 410AD and it wasn't seen necessary to change it while we were still the ones who dictated what got built using the system.
The standardized system as a whole, I meant. For example, the notion of a "foot" dates back to the Romans and the Greeks, but the length of a foot varied greatly over time and from country to country.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I think I'd agree that the 'free world' needs the USA to take a leadership role, and that no other country has the will and the capacity to do that if the US does not. Possibly, in a few decades time, Europe as a whole might be a candidate, but in seems to me that at the moment the role of Europe is to define the terms of cooperation and competition between the different states rather than to find a united European voice.
America has a lot going for it, in that role. Economic and military muscle, of course, but also a strong ideological commitment to principles of freedom which, if not always perfectly observed, are still a strong part of American identity. Also the USA is constitutionally secular, which I think is a basic requirement for principled international leadership, and has a multi-ethnic national identity. There is, of course, a non-negligible amount of racial tension within the USA, but the label 'American' is not the property of any one ethnic group, which gioves me some hope that there is no inherent reason for racial and religious biases to shape US foreign policy. Also, whatever the wisdom and the morality of the recent US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, they do show that large numbers of ordinary Americans are willing to risk their lives for the perceived good of people whom they do not know.
That said, this is an important proviso:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If the US want to be the leader, then they have to listen to those they want to lead. History tells us that for the very great part, the US acts while the rest of the 'free' world is busy shouting "WTF are you doing, America?"
I think that second to a truly democratic world government under which everyone has the freedoms that I enjoy, what I'd like to see most is a strong, US-led, alliance of principled and democratic countries, whose good will and support the US is genuinely concerned to retain. An unaccountable and unsupported USA is potentially disastrous. A USA which both leads and listens could be a powerful force for good.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No. No. No.
We already have a USA-led world. This is why American companies are everywhere, into every country, and we see many wars to support them; Iraq and Afghanistan were not about freedom. In my view, we absolutely do not need more leadership of this kind. Again, it is not different under different empires from the past. The USA is only singled out because it has ascendency.
I react most strongly stuff like this (Project for a New American Century), which strangely has taken its webpage offline. I have copies of some of their documents, which are truly frightening. Although the specifics of its ideas have been diluted, they still form the basis of the policies pursued by all administrations, with Obama merely spinning the same, and saying that it is about counter terrorism misrepresents what it is. (He doesn't have to put troops in the way, he can merely send drones.)
quote:
above wikipedia link, PNAC
· we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
· we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
· we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
·we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
The ties to democratic regimes in the second point is obviously lip service only, as it is clear that contact with any regime is good as long it is profitable. Same as it ever was.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think more than any country the US has a claim to having the authority to be a global leader because it actually has citizens from all corners of the world.
I have very recently pointed out on the Ship what a myth this is. America believes it's the world's cultural melting pot.
It isn't.
The actual statistics show that Australia, New Zealand and Canada (in that order) all have a greater percentage of foreign-born people than the USA does. In the case of Australia it's DOUBLE the rate in the USA.
Nearly half of the Australian population was either born overseas or is the child of a parent born overseas.
Hand over your leadership keys, please.
[ 29. May 2014, 22:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are in fact many areas where America is out of step with the rest of the world...
...from things as everyday as the metric system.
I don't know, some of us hanging in there with Imperial measurements, regardless of what the Americans do...
This drove me crazy when I lived in London. I could not fathom that in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system, the vast majority of people were clueless when I asked for "a half a pound" of something, etc.
Is that a good reason to hold onto a product if someone is able to demonstrate that another product is an improvement? Pride?
By that logic, there are any number of innovations the UK shouldn't have adopted, on the grounds of pride in the local version.
In fact, 'pride' is the very essence of the observations of my Canadian acquaintance I made earlier. It's cultural pride that makes parts of American culture unwilling to consider anything that it doesn't think IT came up with.
[ 29. May 2014, 23:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The actual statistics show that Australia, New Zealand and Canada (in that order) all have a greater percentage of foreign-born people than the USA does. In the case of Australia it's DOUBLE the rate in the USA.
snip
Hand over your leadership keys, please.
Sure... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
still you'll enjoy our protection from the crazies, free to criticize us.
There is no justice.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The actual statistics show that Australia, New Zealand and Canada (in that order) all have a greater percentage of foreign-born people than the USA does. In the case of Australia it's DOUBLE the rate in the USA.
snip
Hand over your leadership keys, please.
Sure...
still you'll enjoy our protection from the crazies, free to criticize us.
There is no justice.
I'm addressing the falsity of the argument that the US should lead because the US is particularly culturally diverse. It doesn't follow that I actually believe cultural diversity is the key criterion for leadership.
It's called arguing from your opponent's premises. A very effective method of showing that even if they are right, they are STILL wrong.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think more than any country the US has a claim to having the authority to be a global leader because it actually has citizens from all corners of the world.
I have very recently pointed out on the Ship what a myth this is. America believes it's the world's cultural melting pot.
It isn't.
The actual statistics show that Australia, New Zealand and Canada (in that order) all have a greater percentage of foreign-born people than the USA does. In the case of Australia it's DOUBLE the rate in the USA.
Nearly half of the Australian population was either born overseas or is the child of a parent born overseas.
Hand over your leadership keys, please.
And if I remember correctly last time we discussed this, we found out they were mostly from other English-speaking countries. In other words, when seekingsister said that America had a greater diversity of people, she may have been correct. (Whether that's a reason to lead is another question, of course.)
[ 30. May 2014, 01:09: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, what I said was the UK was the biggest source. That is not the same as saying that English speaking countries dominated overall.
For starters, Melbourne is the second largest Greek city in the world.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
For example, the notion of a "foot" dates back to the Romans and the Greeks, but the length of a foot varied greatly over time and from country to country.
It still varies. If you're a surveyor in the US, distances are measured with the US survey foot, which is 1200/3937 metres. If you are a machinist, you measure in fractions of an inch, where twelve inches make up an international standard foot (0.3048m).
They differ by 2 parts in a million, which almost never matters. "Almost never", however, is not the same as "never"...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This and this are the best data I can give you on the place of birth of Australians. Northwest Europe being where the UK lies.
Apparently based on these is a table in this Wikipedia article showing that while the UK does indeed contribute the largest share, followed by New Zealand, there are a barrow-load of non-English speaking countries contributing a sizable proportion of our population. And that's from the 2006 census. The 2011 census headline data continues to show a shift away from English-speaking countries which has been going on for decades.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I will never cease to be perplexed by how much non-Americans give a shit what units of measurement Americans use. Does it really come up often enough in their everyday lives that it always constitutes the prime evidence of American inferiority on these threads? Do people really hear me say I measure 6 feet 2 inches tall and weigh 168 pounds and think "This system of measurement really is madness, this American tyranny over world affairs must be STOPPED!" I just can't fathom it.
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, what I said was the UK was the biggest source. That is not the same as saying that English speaking countries dominated overall.
For starters, Melbourne is the second largest Greek city in the world.
According to WIki
"The largest foreign-born population in the world is in the United States, which was home to 33 million foreign-residents in 2002, or 11.8% of the population.[1] The highest percentage of foreign-born residents occurs in small, wealthy countries with large numbers of temporary foreign workers, such as the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the population of each is, depending on the economy at the time, around 80%.[2] In 2010, the Migration Policy Institute reported that the largest percentages were Qatar 86.5%, UAE 70%, and 68.8%.[3]"
6 of the top 10 cities in the world by foreign born population are in the US: New York, LA, Houston, Chicago, San Jose, and San Diego.
Neither Canada nor Australia share a hundreds of miles long border with a nation with a dramatically different socioeconomic status and language. The US does. And don't forget that at 300+ million the foreign born population of the US is the size of Canada's entire population!
As an ethnic minority American born to immigrants I'm tired of being excluded from what Americans supposedly think or know about the world. Our president is just like me. So stop using some default guy in West Virginia who doesn't have a passport as the standard.
Attack my claim that American diversity gives it authority to lead, but not that America is diverse. In any regard neither Canada nor Australia are possible next superpowers.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I have oodles of 9th and 10th graders in my algebra classes who would rather gouge their eyes out than add 1/2 plus 1/3. Fractions are like an alien planet to them. Give them a calculator and decimals.
I wonder if this is what is behind the alleged superiority of the metric system? Systems where units are easily divisible by 2 and 3 and 4 and 6 tend to give rise to fractions. The metric system pretty much forces you to use decimals.
All of which makes me think that the people who sing the praises of the base-10 system of measurement just never really learned fractions well in 7th grade, and are basing their prejudice on their innumeracy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is that a good reason to hold onto a product if someone is able to demonstrate that another product is an improvement? Pride?
I never made this claim.
Also, the notion that the metric system is demonstrably an improvement is questionable at best. While it makes things simpler in scientific contexts, the units of measurement used have little impact on the general populace since they are acculturated to whatever system they grew up with. One could just as easily say that inertia favors the prior system versus the cost of replacing it and reeducating the populace.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm not sure why a decimal system of volume measurement is an improvement on a binary system.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not sure why a decimal system of volume measurement is an improvement on a binary system.
Fractionophobia.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I will never cease to be perplexed by how much non-Americans give a shit what units of measurement Americans use. Does it really come up often enough in their everyday lives that it always constitutes the prime evidence of American inferiority on these threads? Do people really hear me say I measure 6 feet 2 inches tall and weigh 168 pounds and think "This system of measurement really is madness, this American tyranny over world affairs must be STOPPED!" I just can't fathom it.
There are issues with practical things like paper sizes. Something formatted for a US Letter paper size does not fit well on A4 and vice versa. It is very annoying when something does not print on the laser printer, you go over to it and you find that it wants US Letter, and so you have to press a button to get it to print on A4.
And paper sizes were not in common before the shift to the (logical) A,B,C system. I recall using Quarto and Foolscap in Britain before the change.
On another tack, if fractions are so good, why does the USA have a decimal currency? Back in the day of pounds, shillings and pence, you could divide the pound exactly into many fractional amounts.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, what I said was the UK was the biggest source. That is not the same as saying that English speaking countries dominated overall.
For starters, Melbourne is the second largest Greek city in the world.
According to WIki
"The largest foreign-born population in the world is in the United States, which was home to 33 million foreign-residents in 2002, or 11.8% of the population.[1] The highest percentage of foreign-born residents occurs in small, wealthy countries with large numbers of temporary foreign workers, such as the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the population of each is, depending on the economy at the time, around 80%.[2] In 2010, the Migration Policy Institute reported that the largest percentages were Qatar 86.5%, UAE 70%, and 68.8%.[3]"
6 of the top 10 cities in the world by foreign born population are in the US: New York, LA, Houston, Chicago, San Jose, and San Diego.
Neither Canada nor Australia share a hundreds of miles long border with a nation with a dramatically different socioeconomic status and language. The US does. And don't forget that at 300+ million the foreign born population of the US is the size of Canada's entire population!
As an ethnic minority American born to immigrants I'm tired of being excluded from what Americans supposedly think or know about the world. Our president is just like me. So stop using some default guy in West Virginia who doesn't have a passport as the standard.
Attack my claim that American diversity gives it authority to lead, but not that America is diverse. In any regard neither Canada nor Australia are possible next superpowers.
If you're going to try to compare percentages with absolute numbers, the comparison is going to be completely meaningless. That's high school level maths.
We have twice the percentage of foreign-born people. We have less than 10% of your population in total. If you're going to talk about cultural diversity, I would have thought it was fairly self-evident the first figure is more meaningful than the second.
If you want to start talking about sheer numbers, well then, Spain represents an obscure little backwater of the Spanish.
[ 30. May 2014, 08:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I will never cease to be perplexed by how much non-Americans give a shit what units of measurement Americans use. Does it really come up often enough in their everyday lives that it always constitutes the prime evidence of American inferiority on these threads? Do people really hear me say I measure 6 feet 2 inches tall and weigh 168 pounds and think "This system of measurement really is madness, this American tyranny over world affairs must be STOPPED!" I just can't fathom it.
Of course you can't. Because the terms of exchange are not equal.
If you stopped exporting your television shows, movies, books and rather sizable chunk of the internet, then you could do what you like inside your borders and it wouldn't affect us.
But because you do export these things, it comes up in our everday lives PLENTY. The fact that the metric system doesn't come up in your everyday life is merely a reflection of the fact that the USA is generally a lot more self-sufficient in cultural exchange.
Also, that the things you do import are usually adjusted prior to consumption. Taking a look at, for example, the changes that were made to the Harry Potter books for publication in the USA is quite fascinating. Presumably these sorts of changes are worth the while of publishers (similarly with remakes of TV shows or films). Most of the rest of the world doesn't have the resources to do this. Conversion tends to only extend to things like dubbing or subtitling for language issues.
When it comes to living in an English-speaking country dealing with material already in English, it's just accepted here that the consuming audience will be expected to adapt to whatever UK, NZ, USA, Canada material is present. And so we do.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to try to compare percentages with absolute numbers, the comparison is going to be completely meaningless. That's high school level maths.
What the heck do percentages have to do with anything? 33 million foreign born Americans and their children have a louder voice than foreign born Canadians or Australians.
I'm not struggling with math, but the idea that because the US has a smaller percentage of foreign-born residents even though it is 10x the size of Canada, that Canada is more diverse and connected to the world, makes absolutely no sense at all.
Back to the topic at hand - a global leader should have some connection to and understanding of the rest of the world. I think based on its population's diverse and wide-ranging national origins, the US has a more legitimate claim to this position than many non-Americans are willing to accept, because they believe America looks like an episode of "Friends."
Minorities and Legislatures
If you do the math on this - the US fares slightly better than Canada and MUCH better than Britain in minority representation in government vs. minority population. So when we're talking about voting on foreign policy - this does matter.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
Given the economic and military strength of the USA, it is clear it has a leading role in the world. Which means that the true question is "who leads America?"
This article refers to a to-be-published article by American academics which provides evidence that America is an oligarchy not a democracy. I.e. the views of the very rich have a much greater influence on government policy than the views of ordinary people, including those ordinary people with diverse cultural backgrounds.
From my point of view, one piece of evidence is the huge disappointment the Obama administration has been, following the hope of his election. The realpolitik of dealing with entrenched interests of the wealthy and the military-industrial complex have prevented most of the change for which one might have hoped.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
