Cultures growing apart.

Remove all ads!

This is more an editorial than anything else. It is an opinion, and I look forward to reading the opinions of those who differ with it. It may turn out to be rather long, and for that I apologize. Also, I believe it is within the spirit of the rules of AoDA, as though it makes generalizations about Americans and Europeans, they are not insulting or derogatory. They are based upon what seems to be the majority opinion of the residents of both regions, though there are definitely people in both nations that do not agree with the majority.

In order to place this in context, I would like to start out with some general history, not based upon dates but upon trends. Prior to colonization of northern half of the western hemisphere, what came to be the US was a sparsely populated land, mostly inhabited by a people to lived off of the bounty of some of the most fertile land in the world. The American Indians were rapidly brought to be a minority in their own land by warfare and the rapid influx and breeding of people from another continent, Europe.

Throughout modern history, unless united against cause from without, Europeans have managed to fight from within. However, in the “New World” these varied Europeans found a cause to come together (yes there were are some exceptions). Though all of this Americans have maintained a sense of their heritage. Ask an American his or her heritage, and often times you will get someone who is very proud to name the nation the are descended from. I am not speaking only of those of European descent, but of most racial groups in America. There are those in America who, through the passage of time or some other loss of records, no longer can trace their bloodlines back to their nations of origin, but I believe that the majority of Americans still are aware of their heritage. As the majority of Americans trace that heritage back to Europe, it is somewhat natural for the US as a nation to feel a kinship to their distant cousins.

I cannot speak with much accuracy as to what historically held Europeans close to Americans, but I would suspect that several wars, and a similar culture (though it could be argued that there not much common culture left) would be large components. Regardless, there was (is?) a bond there.

IMO, after the Cold War (or perhaps because of it), this bond began to break down. There are many factors that contributed to this. The Cold War itself was a binding and dividing issue, especially for some in Europe. I also believe that the influx of differing cultures, Hispanic/Latino in the US, and Muslim/Middle Eastern in Europe have contributed to the division. Time itself, the lack of a common foe, and the fact that Europe and America are competing for the same resources are all additional factors.

By now many of you are probably asking, what is the point? I am glad you asked!

It seems that an inordinate amount the US media is concerned with who Europeans feel should lead the US, and what Europeans believe the US's role in the world should be. I find this to be a disturbing trend. The US and Europe are now competitors in a world economy. We are rivals, and to be quite honest, what is best for America is often times at cross-purposes to what is in the best interests for many in Europe. Those Europeans negatively affected by a US policy or action are going to (consciously or subconsciously) be in favor of something that brings America down a notch or two. No blame should be placed for such thoughts or actions; they are only doing in the best interests of the affected populace. I am sure that a similar arguement could be made that Americans have shown similar sentiment to Europe.

That said, I do not believe that Americans should be too up in arms about the fact that some, half, or even a majority of Europeans might be upset about actions that the US may take that are in the best interests of solely of the US. Before any such decisions are made, the benefits vs. costs should be examined, and a decline in popularity in Europe is a cost, but not necessarily an overriding one. Regardless of any action we have taken in Iraq, or anywhere else, Europe is not going to forsake its relationship with the US, if for no other reason than it is just too profitable.

The same goes the other way as well. Europeans have made choices that were unpopular in America, and Americans have to accept those choices. Though to be honest, I really feel that in general Europeans place less value on American sentiment than Americans place on European sentiment.

I am not proposing that the US tell Europe to kiss off, but I really feel that too many Americans are overly concerned with European approval.

Flame suit on!

 

At the risk of carrying on a debate which has already been addressed in several other very lengthy threads, here is my 2c worth.

My very humble person opinion is that less people than you might think in any of these countries actually gives this sort of thing a second thought. I don't know anybody (other than the people on these Boards) who has ever mentioned anything about their feelings for any other country (not in the way you have described).

Based on my personal evidence, the number is much closer to the 'some' end than the 'majority' end.

In other words, the people I know are too busy getting on with their lives to care what the USA is or isn't doing.

 

I actually completly agree with you. And some time ago (a year ago I guess) I wrote something similar. Both populations live under different circumstances in different regions. They have to develop differently. The same goes of course for other related parts (if I may put it so), South-America, Australia, South Africa and others. I think it is absolutely fair to say that South-America has had a huge European input, similar to the north. Yet all those parts of the world develop and evolve in different ways.

Indeed, I think the Cold War was an exception. Nearly the whole 20th century was one. Particularly in the post 1945 time, West-Europeans and North-Americans did form an alliance, as there was a mutual-need. Yet, with the Russians gone, no need anymore. I think nothing what has happened in the last three years in inter-continental relations could have happened 1983. That would have been seen by both sides as severe strategical mistake. So, what happens is a normalization of relations. A jump back to pre 1914 normality, where relations among Europeans and Americans didn't were automaticly good, competitors indeed. American-Spanish war 1896, Monroe-Doctrine...

That does mean, a pre-1914 European attitude, but just the same broad look at things with a post 1945 attitude.

 

Tal, business is war. It's one big package. When you don't back us on something, that affects everything else. There's no seperate military and economic packages. It doesn't work like that. It's never worked like that, on either continent. And it's not going to work like that in your lifetime.

Same deal if you went down to the doctor, and he didn't give you the prescription that you were wanting to try. You'll boycott him, and find you another one. One that will let you try the prescription that you're wanting to.

And if you were an "Ally of Evil", we'd be bombing the living piss out of you. Instead, we just use the silent-treatment. We play with the other people who hooked us up.

America has never been black and white, mate. And neither has Czechland. The Czechs have been in the middle of just about every single war on that continent. If anyone knows about the grey areas of the world, it's the Czechs, and it's the Swiss.

 

I think what Tal is saying is that if a partnership exists then all partners should be equal. For one power to subordinate the others is not really a true partnership. The other part of this equation is that the People are sovereign (or should be). Spain is a good example, for even if a government acts in the interest of a "partner" it cannot act outside the wishes of its people. If it does it stands the chance of being repudiated by its own people, as we saw happen. The fact is that in order for this to work, the US had to ultimately sell the idea of the Iraq War to the population of Europe, not the individual governments. In this the US failed. The American people decided early on to give Bush the benefit of a doubt with this whole process, and are now finding that their trust has been betrayed. And that is not just my opinion, given a lead story that has been developing this weekend:

Also, I think the idea of a competition between the US and Europe is highly overblown. The markets are international now, even global. The days of mecantilism are long gone. Even corporations are no longer loyal to the countries in which they are based, as many American workers are loath to discover. The large ones are global now and they will screw over America as fast as they would the Communist Chinese. The only thing that matters to many of them is the bottom line. But the markets are slowly combining and becoming more interdependent upon each other. My feeling is that Europe and the US will mend its differences and form tighter bonds once Shrub and his cronies are gone. The real competition will come from the East. That will be interesting.

Even some old-style conservatives are starting to come around and realize that the current regime has not been what they hoped. One only has to look at the growing size of Bush's big government and big spending to realize that both have mushroomed under Bush. Also, character, credibility and integrity matters to many conservatives, and Bush is on the defensive on this issue to say the least. In the end, they may grumble, but they know their political destinies are tied to this man. But then they can console themselves in the meantime by believeing that Kerry would be worse. In a way, I almost feel sorry for them.

 

Chandos -- Yeah, that story's been all over the news here as well. And adding to that...we're also starting to hear more and more of how the Iraq war was more of a sidetrack of convenience to cover up the absolute negligence and/or incompetence in trying to grab Bin Laden. I would hope that many people saw that writing on the wall, but now it appears to have graduted to being shouted from rooftops. (It just makes me sit back and chuckle -- and shake my head of course.)

Regarding the US's behavior in who got to share the spoils of the Iraq invasion, I think, from what I saw, that it was pretty clear that Bush was well out on a limb when advocated hoarding all the goodies for only those countries that supported military action. Iirc, he backed off his initial stance and attempted to ammend his initial declaration. But I've always wondered, if the war was for the safety and betterment of "the world" and a step towards that ever-elusive "world peace", as I've heard Bush say, how come the world didn't share in the victory spoils? Not a great way to instill world solidarity and positive relations.

 

Well, I still completly agree with Darkwolf's initial and fundamental point. A view Which is widely held, I think. The countries of Europe and the North-American countries are in different hemispheres, that means there strategical interests are different. Europe is racing to get its share of the wild-wild east, contacts to the far-east and contacts to South America. The North-Americans are doing the same. In this parts, cutthroat competition. But much more important, I think, the strategical outlook of them is different then to us. We focus on our neighbourhood and our backyards, the North-Americans are doing the same in their sphere of interest. The common strategical priorities in military questions have faded away with the fall of Russia. So, our policies are free again. The Kings and Queens don't have to meet eachother and talk about everything and decide everything together. That need has gone.

This is one thing. But there were 2 different things also involved in this thread. One was the recent colonial adventure in the ME. I think in the end, they can do as they please, but they have no right to expect other countries to join or to blame them if they don't join. It's south of the NATO-free-for-colonial-games border. Yet the US-Americans are free to do what they want. If their plans and deeds in the and show to have been wise or not, time will tell. What goes around, comes around.

The 3rd thing, is globalization and growing interpendence in completly other fields. Big companies are international. They produce international, they hire international, sell international, are owned international and pay taxes international. They are neither restricted to any boarders nor emotionally bound to any country. Which means, much of life operates in realms where nationality means nothing. Those times are gone. And so, that interdependence will continue to grow, naturally, no matter what.

But I think those 3 should be distuingished and looked at seperately.

 

What I find surprising that in the age of globalisation, of growing together, the US and the Europeans have basically chosen two different paths.

In a time where economically the importance of the nationstate shrinks the US basically celebrates the return to the early 20th century nationalism and nation state as a receipe to deal with the world - and go for unilateralism. That is basically a reactionary and isolationist view, to a good deal reinforced by 911, but it was there before already: Bushs first deeds in office were, with pumping up the defense budged, the missile shield and the wrecking of a number of international treaties. In brief: Fortress America.

In the meanwhile Europe chooses supranational integration, basically concentration, as a way to cooperate for mutual benefit. The original reason between France and Germany to opt for the then EWG was their World War II experience that eventually made us understand the simple fact that Europe would not survive the next shootout, and that another punishment like Versaile imposed on Germany would ony produce the same results.

Between Europe and the US there are common values and interests. We are able to do a few things better than the US can while the US have their unmatched strengths. Plus, there is our economical interdependence. There is terrain for compromise:

Take preventive action. No country would expect the US to wait to take beating in an impeding attack before responding.
But making pre-emption the fundamental doctrine of national security goes too far. What is to gain by writing domsday responses for doomsday scenarions in the national security strategy, the fundamental guideline of policy and military decisionmaking? It is setting the wrong signs. Insofar, all of Bush's utterances about the US not wating for an international allowance for self defense is empty nonsense, as usual.
In case of a genuine threat a preventive strike would be accepted anyway. So taking pre-emption out of the doctrine would be a sign of a return to a more sober and rational worldview, and be a gesture of goodwill - without infringing US rights for self defense. Europe could in return accept an explicit right of prevention (till now it is only implicit) when there is an imminent danger, a real one.

A historical example: Israels preventive attack on Syria and Egypt, one of their still glorious deeds in their then still glorious past, took the usual howling of the Arabs then, but they were able to prove their point that the Arabs were about to attack and the rest of the world said: "OK, well, done; your case held up to scrutiny."

Prevention is just one example where dialogue and compromise can bear fruit - unlike the Bush-style "follow me and shut up" approach they are two-way streets.
The US have to open their eyes and find a way to deal with an insecure world in a rational way.

Then there is the second point, the Versailles lesson: How crazy the US as a nation may have acted, there is an urgent need to prevent them from a feeling of being punished for their administrations misdeeds. Insulted national pride is a fertile ground for agressive rightwing politicians who do not want any cooperation witht outlanders anyway and just wait for a popular reason for more unilateral action, and maybe to even quit the UN and the international system as a whole: The feeling "We are alone in the world, gathered around the flag in perpetual wars on nouns" * produces such disastrous results. That is where Europe has to act:
We must tell the US we still like them, to prevent them to loose it and us to loose them

* Till now we have the wars on * drugs * evil * terror * ... did I miss another one?

[ March 25, 2004, 15:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa, you missed Communism*, but that one isn't official anymore.

*and all like-minded inviduals.

 

poverty also springs to mind - it's the U.S. solution to everything - if something bothers you, declare war on it...

 

No matter how ineffective that is.

 

Maybe the reason that so many Americans are more concerned with European approval than vice versa, is that every (white) American has European roots.

 

What does color have to do with it? Not every black American comes from Africa, you know.

 

But every white American DOES have European roots. I'm well aware that Africa isn't the only place where you can find black people, no need to inform me on that.

 

Why was it necessary for you to post that Spellbound?

 

Don't believe the hype people. We are not that different. I think the little cyber-community of Americans and Europeans we have here is proof of that.

You want a different culture? I have been talking to a Chinese girl who just moved to America two years ago. Now THAT is a difference of culture.

 

Saravok -- To point out that black Americans can have European roots as well. The distinction was clearly made (the way that sentence was written) that he thought that only white Americans had European roots. And actually, I misspoke...people of ALL color can have European roots.

 

Spellbound - he wasn't commenting that no other races had European roots, he was just avoiding saying that all Americans have European roots, which would be blatantly wrong. Someone would have leapt to correct him then, as well.