Thread: US, Do We Need You to Lead Us? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027383
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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?
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on
:
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?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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?
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on
:
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...
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
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.
Posted by Candide (# 15755) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
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.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
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!
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
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
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
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
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The world does not need a leader. There would be far less strife if we all just butted out.
Posted by Candide (# 15755) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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...
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
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 ]
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
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).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
in the proud nation that invented the Imperial system
I thought we'd stolen it, like everything else.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
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.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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"...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm not sure why a decimal system of volume measurement is an improvement on a binary system.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not sure why a decimal system of volume measurement is an improvement on a binary system.
Fractionophobia.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
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.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.
How has the presence of Palestinian-Americans helped Palestine? How has the presence of Syrian-Americans helped Syria? How has the presence of Egyptian-Americans helped Egypt? How has the presence of Mexican-Americans helped Mexico?
I could go on, but you get the point.
As has been noted, the ability for the legislature to actually *do* anything is severely curtailed in the US, due to vested interests.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
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.
I like to cook things.
A good 60% of the recipes I can find are from American sources. This means that I must:
- convert from pounds/ounces into grams
- keep in mind that an American "cup" is not the same size as an Australian "cup"
- be prepared to deal with things like "a stick of butter", with no explanation given as to how much that is
- convert from Fahrenheit into Celsius
And all this just to make biscuits.
As Orfeo said, you have the luxury of not having to think about us; we have to think about you.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
A good 60% of the recipes I can find are from American sources. This means that I must:
- convert from pounds/ounces into grams
- keep in mind that an American "cup" is not the same size as an Australian "cup"
- be prepared to deal with things like "a stick of butter", with no explanation given as to how much that is
- convert from Fahrenheit into Celsius
And all this just to make biscuits.
Several US food publications including America's Test Kitchen and the website Serious Eats constantly moan that Americans tend to use volume instead of weight-based measurements. Most serious cooks I know in the US have scales at home.
BTW I come across lots of recipes from Australia that use strange terms like "capsicum" so it goes both ways. You can't expect every recipe to be written for a global audience. Besides measurements many ingredients aren't available in different countries either.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You can't expect every recipe to be written for a global audience.
Didn't say I do. But Zach82 was asking if America's measurement system really comes up in the daily lives of non-Americans... and yes, yes it does.
[ 30. May 2014, 10:28: Message edited by: St Deird ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You can't expect every recipe to be written for a global audience.
Didn't say I do. But Zach82 was asking if America's measurement system really comes up in the daily lives of non-Americans... and yes, yes it does.
What percentage of non-Americans do you think look at American recipes on a daily basis? Surely this is not a "daily life" issue for the majority of people.
People just like to complain about America, not saying you are one of them but Zach82 is right. There's something odd about people caring what Americans use to weigh themselves. Let alone saying it's an indication that America is isolated and doesn't care about the rest of the world. Sorry but I have to call that a stretch. India has its own numerical system that is not aligned with the one everyone else uses but I don't see anyone up at night concerned about 1 billion people using numbers like 1,50,000 (yes that's where the commas go).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What the heck do percentages have to do with anything?
They have to do with diversity. Which, as I've pointed out, is your attempt at justifying leadership. Not mine.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
India has its own numerical system that is not aligned with the one everyone else uses but I don't see anyone up at night concerned about 1 billion people using numbers like 1,50,000 (yes that's where the commas go).
Because we don't see a lot of material that originates from those 1 billion people. I thought I made it pretty clear that it's not merely the origin of the material but the fact that it is widely distributed.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
India has its own numerical system that is not aligned with the one everyone else uses but I don't see anyone up at night concerned about 1 billion people using numbers like 1,50,000 (yes that's where the commas go).
Because we don't see a lot of material that originates from those 1 billion people. I thought I made it pretty clear that it's not merely the origin of the material but the fact that it is widely distributed.
Saying that America is out of touch and using Imperial measurements as proof of that is inappropriate. That is the point that was made on page one of this discussion - not that the proliferation of American measurements is problematic, but that the fact that they are different is evidence of its lack of concern for the rest of the world.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What the heck do percentages have to do with anything?
They have to do with diversity. Which, as I've pointed out, is your attempt at justifying leadership. Not mine.
If a country has the largest diaspora group of an ethnicity living in the United States, then the overall percentage of the US population that they make up is not relevant.
The largest diaspora group will have the most influence.
That's why the IRA, Armenia, Israel etc. look to their network in the US first when trying to push policy. And for funding this is particularly important.
From Wiki:
Jewish diaspora: US 5.75m; Canada 375,000
African diaspora: US 42m; Canada 785,000
Indian diaspora: US 3m; Canada 1.2m (UK 1.4m)
Chinese diaspora: US 3.8m; Canada 1.5m
...etc.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
But that's NOT what 'diversity' means. Diversity is a measure of what's happening in America. Diaspora is a measure of what's happening to the country of origin.
If you're going to claim that America is diverse, at least understand what it is that you're claiming. What you're claiming now is certainly relevant, but it simply isn't the same thing.
Really, the main thing you're claiming now about America is that it's big.
If I have a van with 5,000 apples in it and 200 oranges, and a crate with 50 apples, 30 oranges, 20 lemons, 40 pears and 5 limes in it, it is undoubtedly true that the van has more oranges. It is also undoubtedly not true that the van is more diverse than the crate.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I would think the sheer ineptitude of United States foreign policy would be evidence enough that it isn't a great world leader.
But instead we veer right down the path of discussing the inherent inferiority of American culture because granny wrote down her recipe for peanut butter cookies without considering "What will the Australians think?"
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But instead we veer right down the path of discussing the inherent inferiority of American culture because granny wrote down her recipe for peanut butter cookies without considering "What will the Australians think?"
Again - nowhere did I say that American culture was inherently inferior (or inferior at all, for that matter). ALL I said was that American measurements do in fact have an impact on my everyday life.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Again - nowhere did I say that American culture was inherently inferior (or inferior at all, for that matter). ALL I said was that American measurements do in fact have an impact on my everyday life.
That is why measurement systems came up in the first place.
Though to be frank, your objection that you are desperate to make an American recipe for artichoke dip, but unable to bear the measurement system it uses still seems silly to me. Just use another recipe if it's so bad. According to Orfeo, that's just a sign of the problem, of course.
[ 30. May 2014, 13:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Zach, if when people answer your question as to why it matters, your only response is to engage in hyperbole and act like we've said it's the end of the world, this is going to be pointless.
If you look at where I first mentioned the difference in measurement, I was flagging it as trivial. I described it as everyday to signal that it was NOT some world-ending catastrophe. So why are you treating us as if we claimed it was?
[ 30. May 2014, 13:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that's NOT what 'diversity' means. Diversity is a measure of what's happening in America. Diaspora is a measure of what's happening to the country of origin.
For the love of God...
Just because Canada and Australia have loads of immigrants, doesn't mean they are diverse. Most immigrants to both nations are from Asia.
The US has about 40% of its immigrants coming from the Asia, another 40% from the Americas and 10% from Africa.
There isn't a single African or Latin American country in Canada's top ten origin countries.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that's NOT what 'diversity' means. Diversity is a measure of what's happening in America. Diaspora is a measure of what's happening to the country of origin.
For the love of God...
Just because Canada and Australia have loads of immigrants, doesn't mean they are diverse. Most immigrants to both nations are from Asia.
The US has about 40% of its immigrants coming from the Asia, another 40% from the Americas and 10% from Africa.
There isn't a single African or Latin American country in Canada's top ten origin countries.
Exactly where are you getting your figures from? I'm far from convinced you're getting the Australian figures from anything I linked to. I've no idea where you Canadian figures come from, and the official US data I can find simply says that you are wrong, and that over half of your immigrants come from Latin America, only 28% from Asia, and just 4% from Africa.
I posted 3 links to Australian data precisely to show that our immigrants are NOT all coming from one part of the world. That was when it was suggested they were coming from English-speaking countries. Now you're claiming they're mostly from Asia. That isn't true, either.
[ 30. May 2014, 13:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Just because Canada and Australia have loads of immigrants, doesn't mean they are diverse. Most immigrants to both nations are from Asia.
The US has about 40% of its immigrants coming from the Asia, another 40% from the Americas and 10% from Africa.
There isn't a single African or Latin American country in Canada's top ten origin countries.
Which is yet another relevant point, but not what you were originally claiming - at least if it was your original claim it was very porrly expressed. You originally claimed the US is culturally highly diverse because of the number of immigrants, then because of the proportion of people from some nations who are now in the US. And, now it's because the number of cultures represented in the US is larger and from a wider range of locations than other countries.
I suspect that the number of people born outwith a country, or born to parents who were born elsewhere, is a poor measure of cultural diversity - whether that's expressed as a number of people or proportion of the population. If those people were born in countries culturally very similar then they haven't significantly added to the cultural diversity of the nation. On the otherhand, some nations represent a wide range of different cultures even without immigrants.
A more reasonable estimation would be how many distinct cultures are represented in a country. Of course, first you need to define what constitutes a "distinct culture" (is Yorkshire culture distinct from Lancastrian?) and also what you mean by "represented in a country" - it would probably require the presence of an identifiable community rather than just some isolated individuals or families, but how many people does it take to form a community?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Zach, if when people answer your question as to why it matters...
I was only speaking of a generality of how these threads tend to go. I understand that you said it was only a sign of American refusal to accept good ideas from other cultures.
I just think that's pretty silly, having been to Europe and talked on these forums for years and seen for myself how much everyone else tense to confuse the concepts "Unfamiliar" and "Bad" as much as any American.
Though really, if you had come to this country without your own cultural presuppositions, you might have seen how nuts Americans are for things not-American. Oh well.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Zach, you have absolutely no idea WHAT I saw and didn't see while spending 3 months in North America.
I'll happily list for you a few things I didn't see. Guns. Goodness, imagine my shock. Not a single person ended up waving a gun in my face. And here was I with my preconceptions, imagining it would be a weekly event.
Oh yeah. You have absolutely no idea what my preconceptions were, either.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is yet another relevant point, but not what you were originally claiming - at least if it was your original claim it was very porrly expressed.
No offense but I thought this was obvious.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with Canada and Australia knows that there are few African or Latino people in those countries, and that the vast majority of their immigrants are Asians or Europeans.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Zach, you have absolutely no idea WHAT I saw and didn't see while spending 3 months in North America.
You clearly didn't see the manga section at the bookstore, the sushi restaurants on every corner, the pains coffee shops go through to seem Italian, or the mania for Harry Potter if you are going to claim that Americans don't like foreign things. I can't see how you missed them, but apparently you did.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Zach, you have absolutely no idea WHAT I saw and didn't see while spending 3 months in North America.
You clearly didn't see the manga section at the bookstore, the sushi restaurants on every corner, the pains coffee shops go through to seem Italian, or the mania for Harry Potter if you are going to claim that Americans don't like foreign things. I can't see how you missed them, but apparently you did.
The American unfamiliarity with European-style coffee and absence of a cafe culture is legendary, actually. And was experienced by me regularly when trying to get a coffee. Thank you for reminding me, as I'd temporarily forgotten that WAS one of the things I observed.
Melbourne cafe culture, inherited from Italian and Greek emigration, is also legendary. As is the failure and collapse of Starbucks in Australia after it plonked a big store in Lygon St and expected them to switch from European-style coffee to American.
I actually already mentioned to you that Harry Potter was changed for your consumption. Various bits of terminology were Americanised to make it more palatable. The title of the first book isn't even the same! As I've pointed out, television shows and films are regularly Americanised to make them appealing.
Yes, you've got sushi. Manga I couldn't comment on.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So orfeo also cannot understand the difference between "unfamiliar" and "bad." At least when it comes to coffee and systems of measurement.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So orfeo also cannot understand the difference between "unfamiliar" and "bad."
If you do some Googling you will find plenty of evidence that American coffee IS widely regarded as bad, and that this is finally changing. It's hardly my individual, personal opinion.
One of the ironies being that in places like New York, the change is being led by Australians and New Zealanders opening up shops to great success.
As for systems of measurement, the badness simply lies in not combining base 10 numbers with base 10 measurement units. It's already been pointed out by others why shifting decimal points is much quicker and easier than calculating fractions. If we had a number system that was base 8 or base 12, then many of the Imperial units would be great. We don't. We use decimal counting. It makes sense to use decimal measurement purely for that reason.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Everybody please note:
The OP is about whether people feel the need to be led by the US.
It is not
- a pretext to start a pond war
- a pretext for personal squabbles
- a pretext for any other non-Purgatorial stupidity.
Get back on track, take your differences to Hell, or expect to see this entire thread banished there.
/hosting
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Melbourne cafe culture, inherited from Italian and Greek emigration, is also legendary. As is the failure and collapse of Starbucks in Australia after it plonked a big store in Lygon St and expected them to switch from European-style coffee to American.
The summer event of the year where I grew up was not the county fair, but the Feast of St. Anthony, brought over by the Italian immigrants, who you may be shocked to learn are more plentiful in the US than in Melbourne.
I was recently in New Orleans and I would wager there are few cities in the world with as diverse and rich a cultural heritage as that town - if any. Native American, African, European, and Asian (one of the largest Vietnamese populations now) - and that's a small American city. I grew up in the suburbs and Hanukkah and Diwali were as big as Christmas.
The US looks like the world, more so than any other developed country I've spent time in. So as global leaders go, we could do a lot worse. Someone living in Turkey or China or Brazil can find Americans who look like them and speak their language. And not just as migrant workers - in prominent roles. They'd be harder pressed to do so in the other potential superpowers.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The problem with picking apart other cultures to find inferiorities is that a place of judgment is a superior one, one that people should be more reluctant to take. Thankfully, the foreigners I meet very rarely adopt this superior tone. To my face at least.
Which is why, I imagine, Americans have been reluctant to justify their countries place of world leadership on this thread. We just don't feel very superior these days.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I like to cook things.
A good 60% of the recipes I can find are from American sources. This means that I must:
- convert from pounds/ounces into grams
- keep in mind that an American "cup" is not the same size as an Australian "cup"
- be prepared to deal with things like "a stick of butter", with no explanation given as to how much that is
- convert from Fahrenheit into Celsius
And all this just to make biscuits.
As Orfeo said, you have the luxury of not having to think about us; we have to think about you.
Okay, picky picky I'm being; but I get the same problems in reverse here in America, when I try to figure out metric measurements, gas mark whatever (instead of degrees), and what the heck golden syrup is. Best just to accept it as part of the fascinating world culture that is now available via the Internet, and use Google a lot. (No, I don't want you folks rewriting your recipes for me, the oddity is part of the fun!) So yes, we have to think about you--and yes,I find it rather a pleasure.
[ 30. May 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, picky picky I'm being; but I get the same problems in reverse here in America, when I try to figure out metric measurements, gas mark whatever (instead of degrees), and what the heck golden syrup is. Best just to accept it as part of the fascinating world culture that is now available via the Internet, and use Google a lot. (No, I don't want you folks rewriting your recipes for me, the oddity is part of the fun!) So yes, we have to think about you--and yes,I find it rather a pleasure.
I was going to say the same. Using metric recipes is as simple as clicking a button on my scale or turning my measuring cup around to see the metrics lines. But, you know, unequal exchanges and all that.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide
The US letting its chief rivals continue their foreign policies unopposed, would be a far greater threat to world security.
And what foreign policies would they be, might I ask?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, picky picky I'm being; but I get the same problems in reverse here in America, when I try to figure out metric measurements, gas mark whatever (instead of degrees), and what the heck golden syrup is.
Picky picky to you, too. Surely nobody, anywhere, just quotes oven temperatures in gas marks? Otherwise all those people with electric ovens have a problem. If you were offered a choice between gas mark and Celsius, but wanted Fahrenheit, I could understand it.
Oh, and if you don't have a local source for golden syrup, you can buy it from a well-known e-commerce outfit named after a long river in South America.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Um, hello? I called myself picky, not you. Get over it.
As for people not giving recipes in terms of gas mark only, you obviously haven't searched for the same recipes I did. And anyway, why should you care? I indicated that I found the situation more amusing (and pleasant) than the reverse.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
After hostly discussion, the consensus is that this thread is not even going to get the option of Hell. Raise the level of debate, people, or see it locked.
/hosting
Posted by Candide (# 15755) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide
The US letting its chief rivals continue their foreign policies unopposed, would be a far greater threat to world security.
And what foreign policies would they be, might I ask?
I'm fairly sure you know. But I'll play the game: Russian and Chinese expansionism are the examples that come to mind the quickest. There are plenty of others, in particular regional powers that would be delighted to flex their muscles more.
I'm guessing the counterclaim might be that these don't really do anything that the US doesn't. Which is not a point completely without a kernel of truth - for instance, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was severely lacking. Still, a free press and a reasonably functional method of election, means that the leaders who commit such acts tend to answer for it. Which is a lot more than Liu Xiaobo is allowed to.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you do some Googling you will find plenty of evidence that American coffee IS widely regarded as bad, and that this is finally changing.
Dear orgeo: it has previously come to my attention some find it bad form to CAPITALIZE words needlessly.
Just a friendly word of advice - please carry on.
[damn spell check ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Moron, there is no way you are going to make me believe you didn't see what Eutychus wrote up there. Re-read what he wrote, attack the issue instead of other's posting style, and knock it off.
Next person who makes a personal comment is telling us "please consider my possible need for shore leave." Believe me, we will err on the side of supplying it.
Kelly Alves
Admin
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0