"Americas for the Americans"

crimson87 wrote: Now as regards the Americans , the only thing I really feel sorry about is that they are not taught about different cultures. Let's face it most americans knowledge is based on stereotypes which may sound offensive.

It seems to me at least one Argentinean's knowledge of "Americans" (U.S. variety) may be based on stereotypes.    We are not all cut from the same cloth, my friend.  In fact, our diversity (of culture, color, religion, political views and backgrounds) is what makes us such a vibrant place.

Not all of us are racist hicks with eight-grade educations and bumper-sticker views of the world.  Some of us are quite educated, are truly interested in what's going on all over our globe, and invest our time, money and energy to try and be responsible citizens of that world.  Every culture has its inbred cousins; don't let obnoxious American tourists and simpleton elected officials lead you to believe we are an entire nation of fools.

And Guigo, as for the Monroe Doctrine it has been many years since I was in primary school learning these things, but as I recall we were taught (and a few people have already stated) that this Doctrine simply asserted we would be stewards of this hemisphere and would not tolerate attempts by European powers to attempt to futher colonize it.  I was never taught the U.S. had some sort of 'right' to dictate or control what goes on in the rest of this hemisphere.  I still firmly believe our primary responsibility is to act as caretakers over what we've been given and offer the hope of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to anyone else who wants those things.  We have unfortunately, as Micky says, made a lot of mistakes over the years, mostly when we have lost site of our real purpose and our fundamental values.

Raff wrote: Finnforest wrote: Raff, my post was not about your immigration experience, but about this country being an easy punching bag for so many, in the media and elsewhere, in general.  You know my post was not directed at you so I'm confused why you put your comment the way you did, and  why you would put that question to me at the end.  As with some previous comments about Italy Raff, please do not take my forum comments as personal commentary on you.  Especially when you know darn well how I feel about you.   Jim, I thought the reason for my comments was clear enough... You wondered why Americans are hated around the world, and I thought the way would-be immigrants are treated (even if they are nice people like me) is an example of why other countries resent the US. Perhaps the connection was not apparent - my bad.

Maybe I took the question at the end wrong, but the words "really" and "so" made it feel like you were halfway answering it for me....when you know I wouldn't think them wrong for being appalled.  In fact you know I was appalled at how you were treated which I guess is why the question bothered me. 

As a reason for the universal hatred, I think it goes far beyond a flawed immigration policy, though as you say, its a legit example of one reason.  And while many of the examples cited will be true and we need to do better, the overall net spirit of the US is for good in the world, and those who want to deny that do not understand the American people.  As far as governments go, for those who wish to see America fall to a new world superpower, be careful what you wish  for.  In 100 years they may look back and realize America was not so godawful. 

markosherrera wrote: Monroe doctrine said America for Americans but inthe 80s United Kingdom made a war against Argentina ,and USA WAS AN IMPORTANT help for the british army

*sigh*

Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, which were a British 'colony'. A British fleet went to reclaim them. The sum of USA help was basically providing some sort of mobile airstrip and intelligence, as I remember it, because a) America felt it was not in their interests to directly oppose the Argentinian Junta, who were a limited 'pro-American' regime in South America, and b) because Thatcher probably wouldn't have accepted any more help anyway.

And, just noting it, the Falkland Islands aren't actually part of America proper.

And, just as a small rant, the Monroe Doctrine really shouldn't have any significance today, like some other historic precedents with which particular American political theories are supported.


Edited by TGM: Orb - March 21 2009 at 13:36

crimson87 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: markosherrera wrote: Monroe doctrine said America for Americans but inthe 80s United Kingdom made a war against Argentina ,and USA WAS AN IMPORTANT help for the british army *sigh* Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, which were a British 'colony'. A British fleet went to reclaim them. The sum of USA help was basically providing some sort of mobile airstrip and intelligence, as I remember it, because a) America felt it was not in their interests to directly oppose the Argentinian Junta, who were a limited 'pro-American' regime in South America, and b) because Thatcher probably wouldn't have accepted any more help anyway. And, just noting it, the Falkland Islands aren't actually part of America proper. And, just as a small rant, the Monroe Doctrine really shouldn't have any significance today, like some other historic precedents with which American political theory is supported.   But , the way I see it. Falklands/Malvinas were from Spain in the XVIII century. So when we got rid of the spaniards It was quite logical that they belonged to us.   The only thing I regret about those islands are   A- The quantity of soldiers that died from both sides B-Huge ammount of oil on that place , that would be a very valuable resource for our economy.   At least , the defeat at Malvinas made it easier for the return of democracy here. Othewise , we would have had a military dictatorship for some more years like Chile.

Regardless, they'd been a British possession for 150 or so years by '82, and were inhabited by, for the most part, British citizens, who wished to remain a British possession. In the 1980s, Argentina didn't really have any more claim to it than England now has to, say, Normandy.

Bob, I have no pride, so I'll ask the dumb American question

What is the distinction between the England, Britain, and UK terms.  I confess to thinking they were more or less interchangeable. 

Finnforest wrote: Bob, I have no pride, so I'll ask the dumb American question What is the distinction between the England, Britain, and UK terms.  I confess to thinking they were more or less interchangeable.

Lots of people in Italy tend to use "England" to refer to Great Britain or the UK. Anyway (and I hope my British friend will forgive my presumption), this is how things are:

- England is one of three regions in the island called Great Britain - the others are Wales (to the west) and Scotland (to the north);
- Britain is the three regions taken together (plus various smaller islands);
- the UK is Great Britain, Northern Ireland and various other territories overseas.

micky wrote: The Doctor wrote:   It wasn't meant to be a doctrine that what the US says goes, but rather a statement that the US would protect the Americas from European "agression". exactly.. that is what the history books say... what they may not teach.... which in time...as the threat of European aggression disappeared... has morphed into the 'my backyard' premise in which this country would intervene (which any historian will note the truth of...to this day) when this country thought it's best interests were at stake.

Spot on Raf. I do appreciate it can be confusing for those outside the UK. Great Britain is the Island made up of England, Scotland and Wales. The full title of the United Kingdom is actually the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". 

^ for being too coloured by the last 8 years... nothing twisted, sinister, or illegal per se..... just an evolution of the doctrine which became foreign policy.. regardless of ideology or the President.