Americans aren't the only ones

Although "nations" are a rather recent phenomenon on the world stage, there is no dearth of supporters who wouldn't trade them for anything. Americans are right at the top of the list, but a lot of others, like Russia, China, a couple of the Southeast Asian group or a few in Africa would like to get in on the deal. I don't know what the fascination is to be honest, just what is it that makes them so desirable?

A lot of you don't get the reason for the question. It's quite clear that we've had nations forever and it's as natural as four seasons in some parts of the world or rain in spring (if you're from the Northern Hemisphere). Actually, prior to 1648 and Treaty of Westphalia, there weren't ever really "nations" in our current understanding of the world, but, hey, why should we let historical facts get in the way of our beliefs? Life is certainly easier when you just pick and choose what suits us rather than getting the bigger picture. Why we have border where we have them or whether they make sense, well, those are issues that have been decided, of course, so there's no need to worry our little heads about them. Or is there?

In the Western Hemisphere (a rather artificial construct, if I may say so) 1776 is a year worth nothing. In the Eastern, however, it's 1789. In both years, revolutions took place and both these revolutions had a significant impact on everything that followed. The former was a conscious (even if perhaps, unnecessary) decision; the latter, a spontaneous act that developed into something that no one foresaw. This raises a question whether revolutions are a matter of choice or fate. I don't know. What I do know, however, is that some folks peg their beliefs on the one, while others will tell you it was the other date that matters. It really doesn't matter at all.

Sometimes I think that the petty and silly animosity between Americans and the French is about who had the "real" or the "true" or the "better" revolution. Depending on who you are reading, one year or the other can be used as marking the shift of humanity into "modernity". Whoopee. So far, no one's been able to make clear to me why that makes any difference at all.

When we look at the facts, we're left with this: a lot of violence occurred, a lot of blood flowed, a lot of innocent people suffered, and a lot of misery was visited upon the participants. In the decades that followed, a lot of violence occurred, a lot of blood flowed, a lot of innocent people suffered, and a lot of misery was visited upon those who benefitted from the "revolutions". And for what? For me, that's the key question.

The reasons for both were more similar than different: injustice, be it because of taxes or the simple ability to feed one's family. The results of both were more similar than different too: a different group of oppressors took over, a lot of people had to pay taxes and couldn't feed their families, and we have a different illusion of what our role is in the grand scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong, there are good things that came out of both. But ... are we moderns really better off than those revolutionaries. I often wonder.

Just one final thought ...

... at least for the moment.

Apart from all the nonsense, the confrontational approach to "discussion", the truly adolescent desire to win rather than to find out what makes sense, the refusal to budge from a position because you'll be perceived as weak, the blatant disregard for facts and the apparent (at least to me) cry-baby attitude toward being disagreed with, yes, apart from all of that, what disturbs me most and disturbs me most deeply is just how violent my home country has become. I'm sure most folks living in the USA don't see it, but it is pretty obvious to everyone else.

Way back when, I became an English major because I held (and still do hold) a deep respect for language and how it is so closely intertwined with culture. Following on the Beat Generation and Hippies, I have experienced a lot of shifts in what may and may not be said and most certainly in how things are expressed. I am fully aware that language is ever-changing and dynamic and I have not the least problem with that, from a linguistic perspective, but I do recommend all my fellow countrypeople to take a step back and give another thought to how things are being said.

Something as everyday and pervasive as marketing, is couched exclusively in military and war-waging terms and notions; we once had a national pasttime, but now (American, not real) football has become the national obsession where opponents need to be killed, crushed, demolished, slaughtered, and if necessary (which apparently it always is, if possible) humiliated. The vocabulary has slopped over into other sports as well. But just about every other area of life has been infected as well.

Politics is the worst, of course, at all levels, and I'm including not just the politicians, but all those wonderfully unbiased newscasters and experts and talk-show hosts Facebook and forum commentators, not to mention that ubiquitous symbol of American Freedom, the gun, carried openly or covertly, it doesn't matter. But it is, for better or worse, correctly or incorrectly, t-h-e symbol of violence without challenger.

Don't get me wrong, I have long and ardently argued for and supported the age-old adage: abusus non tollit usus. It's never the things, it's always the people, but when you've got a populace as uneducated, egoistic, self-centered, self-serving as you've got and you live in a culture that not only celebrates but for all intents and purposes worships violence, well, in my small mind, you're asking for trouble, and that's just what you've got.

I, personally, for a wide range of reasons don't get back to visit very often, but I know more than a few people here who would like to visit but are reluctant to for the simple reason that they don't feel safe there, and when I'm there, neither do I. It's not the number of guns that's the problem, and it's not the types of guns that's the issue (though some reasonable rethinking wouldn't be all that bad, but as I said above, that's no longer possible). No, it's the people, pure and simple.

There was a time when the Ugly American was the one visiting other countries and forcing his own way of life on others. These days, the kind, friendly, willing-to-help American is being obscured by the hate-spewing, loud-railing, brash, bullying, ideologue. I know most of my fellow countrypeople could care less what anyone else in the world thinks of them, but it's just that attitude that allows Ugly to happen.

And, oh, by the way ...

Just one more thing.

I wouldn't be dwelling on this if about half my readers weren't from the States, because I think the Europeans and Asians get what I'm getting at. At least that's been my experience. It's my fellow countrypeople who appear be the last one for whom the other shoe falls.

Just about everybody knows the glorious and noble outline of American history and the revolutionary (in the positive sense of the word, not in the military sense, though that played a (as it turns out, most likely unnecessary) role as well. There was a time, it was an event, there was an important and deep-seated factum that arose in 1776. Now, I know that this may be a bit difficult to follow, but a key element of the break between GB and the USA lies in the idea that there was the universal, political, outright expression of the notion that there is such as thing as unjust laws.

This wasn't pointed out to me in history class back in school, but it has been pointed out to be in the meantime. "No taxation without representation" is a statement that challenges the legitimacy of a properly instituted law. King George had it in his power, and his parliament seconded the idea that the tea tax could be levied. It was the law of the land, and consequently, of the colonies as well. Nobody asked the colonies, however, and it was expected, as was wont at the time, that they obey the law, as it was expected of them. But there such things as unjust laws. And it was this that our forebears chose as the turning point for their dissatisfaction. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right by a long shot, but this -- in my mind -- defining moment of American history has been (apparently) swept under the carpet in the meantime, because as we know, if you disobey the law, you can't expect anyone to feel sorry for you.

If you don't believe me, ask anyone in a demonstration who doesn't follow the orders of a policeman, or anyone who challenges a policeman in any way, or who chooses to demonstrate in a public place only to be told they have to find another public place, or who feeds the homeless in spite of a law, or ... the list truly goes on and on. And, there are brave souls who are willing to challenge this blind obedience to law and order, but at the same time there are others who openly declare their opposition to judicial rulings (even if we know they'll rightfully calm down before too long).

The key issue here is not the mere existence of a law, but its "justice value". Was the greater portion of the colonial citizenry disadvantaged because of the King's tea tax (which was more a not-so-discreet corporate subsidy)? Yes. Was a very slim minority advantaged at the expense of the majority? Yes. Does the fact that same-sex couples can now marry in any way restrict the majority's right to marry as they see fit? No. Does the provision of affordable healthcare to the majority restrict the minority's access to healthcare at all? No. Does your right to own, carry, and flash around any weapon you damn well please infringe upon my right to a safe and secure existence, free from personal lapses of judgement? Not really. Is it in all our interests that anybody can get a gun, but not everybody can get a vote? No. I think you get the point (or at least you should).

There are unjust laws. There were unjust laws then, and there are unjust laws now. To insist, when it suits you, that laws must be obeyed, is disrespectful of all those who fought and died that injustice should be challenged. Think about it.

But while I'm at it ...

No, this isn't a cheap shot at my fellow country-people. It is simply that there are things I experience that give me pause to wonder, so while I was wondering about why these same folks think they're better than everybody else, I also began to wonder about their herd-like instincts.

For a people who likes to think they're all free-wheeling, free-thinking, well, simply free individuals, I think one of the best nicknames for the USA would be The Land of Conformity. I've had the wonderful privilege to live in and experience first-hand and intensively cultures other than my native one, and what has always struck me hardest is how much more tolerant these foreign cultures are of non-conformity, of individuality.

As any child or developmental psychologist worth his or her salt and s/he'll tell you that the most insidious and nefarious violence we know of is peer pressure. It's is quite often, and is always potentially, devastating to those towards whom it is directed. I have friends who yearn for the "good old days" of their youth, but in mine, peer pressure was writ large. It was demanded, expected, and resistance was futile, if you weren't willing to -- literally -- take a beating.

Americans, it should be said, have always been good at hiding such things. They'll talk about school spirit, our team, our school, our college, our colors, and I'm not even talking about gangs. I've never lived anywhere where trends, fashion, and fads have been so important. It's not just the clothes, or the hairstyle, or the manner of speech, it's the whole package. Whoever is not in is definitely out and will be continually and constantly reminded of such, even if the in-crowd has to resort to bullying to enforce its standards.

You can be a lot of things in America, just don't be different ... well, unless you happen to make a helluva lot of money by being different. That's the only real way to find respect, even if it's phony respect. Look at Steve Jobs and Donald Trump.

But whatever you do, don't think differently than your neighbors, you become suspicious. Don't "play the game", and everyone will wonder what's wrong. Question America's symbols, don't sing the national anthem at the baseball game, don't say the pledge of allegiance (the mere phrase reeks of conformity) at the school-board meeting, don't be a staunch alumni, criticize the police for being too harsh, question the legitimacy of America's foreign (and domestic) policy, ask out loud why the incarceration rate in America is higher than the Axis of Evil's, wonder out loud where one gets the right to simply change definitions of words (like torture) and you'll find out faster than speeding bullet (which just might be the reaction) just how you don't "fit in" in the Land of Individualism, but not Individuality.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't expect everyone to be consistent in their beliefs and actions all the time. It would be nice, that's for sure, but I'm afraid it's just too much to expect of anyone. What I can expect, though, is that perhaps we be just a little more restrained in our criticisms of others and in our hardoverness towards those who don't see the world as we do, who don't conform.

This has nothing to do with so-called political correctness, but it has everything to do with a modicum of tolerance and respect.

I didn't want to, but I couldn't help myself

There is a certain segments of my "friends" that is not going to be happy about this post. I'm not writing it to aggravate them, that's for sure, and I want to think that they in some way expect it from me. But, as we know, in just two short days, the USA is going to celebrate their 239th "birthday" and as I know from my youth, this is always a fairly big deal, even if the holiday won't be observed till next Monday. After all, in a land without vacations, you've got to create power-weekends where you can. The masses need a modicum of circuses, otherwise who knows what they might do?

Now, don't get me wrong: I think the idea behind the United States is a good one. I think it is noble, and admirable, and worth striving for. I'm a bit bothered by the fact that it has never been what it has asserted itself to be, regardless of how blindly so many speak of its Exceptionalism, its uniqueness, and its superiority. It is/was one of those grand ideas that somehow just never really got put into practice. It's not a tragedy (well, I'm sure there are a lot of dead people who have a different opinion on that), but it is sad that we Americans never really did live up to the goals we set for ourselves.

When the loudest purveyor of "peace" in the world has been at war for almost 95% of its history, I don't think it's all that odd to question both its intentions and its credibility. When those who claim the moral high ground of justice and equality presents to the world the reality of the highest incarceration rate in the world which is then populated by a disproportionate portion of people of color, I don't think it's all that odd to question its asserted values. When the so-called Land of Opportunity breeds the most dishonest and nefarious banking system the world has ever seen, I don't think it's all that odd to doubt the American Dream. And, when the richest country in the world can't find the least bit of empathy for its poorest and most downtrodden citizens, I don't think it's all that odd to question their integrity.

Oh, I've been told -- more than once -- that you simply can't compare the USA to any other country in the world. My response has always been the same: bullshit. Of course you can. What every country on the face of this planet has in common is that it is populated by people, and people -- better, human beings -- have a whole lot in common. What you decide to do with yourself and how you decide to act however you do is undoubtedly influenced by a whole lot of extraneous circumstances and conditions, no doubt about it. So, following that logic, if we apply an even slightly higher standard of behavior to Americans, because they are who they are and because of the position they (claim to) have in the world, well, then, that's simply the price you have to pay for being the (self-proclaimed) best. It simply goes with the territory.

So, for the weekend, I sincerely wish my fellow countrypeople all the best. Party hearty, for the end of your illusory betterness may be nearer than you think. It is also only fair to tell you: you are your own worst enemies.

As countries go, the USA is just an adolescent, and it is obvious to the rest of the world that this is how it most often behaves. Yes, all I want is that my country grows up. We're celebrating another birthday this weekend, and my most earnest wish for them is that they stop acting like children. I don't think it's too much to wish for, though it may be too much to ask.

Tomorrow's Bastille Day

Tomorrow, though most of my francophobic (Freedom fries?) countrypeople don't know it, is Bastille Day. This is the French equivalent of America's 4th of July: a great day for praising one's own greatness (which the Grande Nation is very adept at, like their American cousins) and for celebrating one's accomplishments (even if they are drenched in blood). More than anything, it makes a great day for flag-waving. That makes July a pretty red-white-and-blue month, I suppose.

Far be it from me to pick on the French. Even they don't necessarily want to speak English when I'm there, and even if they do frown upon my speaking German, I like France; I particularly like Paris, Bordeaux, and Avignon, where I have been fortunate enough to spend more time. No, the French, as much as anybody, perhaps even rivaling Americans, are deeply imbued with that, as Einstein called it, "infantile disease" called Patriotism.

As I pointed out just a few posts ago, Americans may be suffering from a terminal case of the disease, but the French are not far behind. There are lot of others, like the British, the Dutch, the Russians, the Chinese, just to name a few, who are not far behind. Like I said then, I don't get it. I just don't understand it. There have been a lot of disastrous things happen in the course of human history, and most of them have been perpetrated either by religions or countries (or what we, in retrospect, call countries or nations). Whatever truly great things that have happened in the course of human history, like the mastery of fire, the discovery of the wheel, the finding of a cure for some terminal disease, have all been done by individual human beings (with the huge support of other human beings from other countries and other cultures). It's not the country that makes the difference, it's the person.

When you look around you to see what is great about the world you live in, you'll always find that, first and foremost, it was brought to you by another person. People matter. Not organizations, not localities, not tribes, not regions and not countries ... people matter. I don't know why that is so hard to grasp, but apparently it is.

The real difference, in my mind, between people and countries is simple: people are here now; they are with you; you can feel, smell and touch them; they are real and concrete. Nations, on the other hand, are mere abstractions. They serve their purpose, to be sure, but it is a small purpose in contrast to what another human being can do for you.

Think about it.

The 4th of July

Yes, yes, yes, it is that time again. Break out the BBQ, fire up the coals, get ready for the fireworks ... it's time to celebrate. This is a big day for Americans, that's for sure, but what is it exactly they are celebrating? This is not a question that just sprang to mind. I've been asking it for most of my life. Most Americans will tell you, it was on July 4, 1776 that America declared its independence from Britain and became a new nation (though it took a war and 13 more years to establish that fact), signaling a new era in the development of the nation-state and enshrining freedom and liberty as the hallmarks of this new phase of existence.

Now, I really don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but right here at the outset, I find myself confused. Historians agree that the Peace of Westphalia (1648) marks the birth of the modern nation-state. The USA certainly wasn't the first, and as we have seen over the course of the last 366 years, nation-states come and go. Just ask Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, if you don't believe me. There are older people in the Czech Republic who have had three different nationalities in their lifetime and they've never left their village. Just what kind of a role does the nation really play in our lives?

And how is it that these people -- or any of us for that matter -- become citizens? I have an American passport because I was born there. How did I come to be born there? The luck of the draw. There is no rational reason why I couldn't have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa or in China or Tibet, or on some Lapp island above the Artic Circle. We place absolutely no value on chance or coincidence in any other aspect of our lives, but when it comes to which passport you can get, one's place of birth is a really big deal. A mere chance event has everything to say about one's loyalties, one's obligations, and one's commitments. Why is it only applicable in this case?

OK, maybe it's about the ideas of Freedom and Liberty. Well, back there in 1776, only white, male property owners were free. There was still indentured servitude; women were chattel; slavery was not only legal but acceptable, and we were on the threshold of carrying out the systematic and ruthless genocide of all those people who were there before the Europeans came to "settle this savage land". What does freedom and liberty mean to these people? And, how free is a country with a concentration camp in Guantanamo where they can send their own citizens without due process (provisions of the NDAA)? How free is a country which brutally suppresses peace demonstrations (cf. reaction to the Occupy movement)? How free is a country that spies upon and collects data on its citizenry for no other reason than they they can? How free is a country that enslaves its more fortunate young people with life-long debt and which denies opportunites to its less fortunate (read: poor) youth? How free is a country that blatantly expects more for itself than for any other country (say, like Iraq)?

Don't get me wrong: I love holidays as much as the next fellow, maybe even more. I love celebrating and having a good time and being able to spend quality time with family and friends. You will have to excuse me, however, if I don't get all choked up and teary-eyed. I'm saving that for such a time that the USA (or any other country, for that matter) actually makes an honest attempt to live up to the ideals they claim to hold so highly. If you want me on your side, walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.