Europeans and other Foreign Nationals who Trash America

Icarus Montgolfier Wright

To put it simply:

Nothing ever begins.

There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs.

The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.

Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys.

Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will, with time, become a world.

—Clive Barker, Weaveworld​

There is no individual—no brilliant mind, no inventor, no pioneer—in human history whose accomplishments did not depend in some integral way on the whole of human history that preceded him.

Thus, we can argue Kitty Hawk, balloons, or ancient Chinese°, but the human endeavor is a contiguous and interdependent adventure.
____________________

Notes:

° ancient Chinese — Ray Bradbury's fictional "The Flying Machine" speculates about a Chinese emperor so concerned about the dangerous implications of a flying machine that he orders the death of its inventor.

Works Cited:

Barker, Clive. Weaveworld. New York: Poseidon, 1987.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, I don't. I'd rather revisit Iceaura's list, or Countzero's, but not string's. Chap's got a boner for me, I'd far rather tease that out and slap it down when it presents itself.

Oh indeed NOT. Please, for your comprehension, re read the thread, and see that selection isn't my sole forte old chum.

Oh dear, yet another brainwash victim. Go read some sources.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Literalism, from Columbus to Wright

I wouldn't speak for Counte specifically in this case—or any other that I can presently conceive—but I would go so far as to point out that in dealing with Americans, you're often engaging a certain manner of convention. We still argue occasionally about whether or not it's fair to say that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America.

We can certainly understand the context of such a "discovery", but the literalists will always point out that other people had already discovered the place and were living there quite nicely on their own.

If you add to that tales of the Vikings making it to the continent, how do we treat Columbus' voyages and the cascade of results therefrom? How much of his "discovery" is undermined by the presence of Ogam scripts from Iberia and Ireland occurring in North America, or the curious "hinge Ogam" found in the twelfth-century Book of Ballymote that has only ever been identified in North America?

The revolution in modern flight starts with the Wright brothers, and while it might be, technically, improper to say they "discovered" flight, I would only note that you sound in that much like many of the people to whom I am sympathetic when they continue their argument that Columbus didn't discover anything.

With those, I agree that they are correct, but it's a futile argument. From the perspective of European history, Columbus discovered America, and as American history derives primarily from European, that's good enough for most of my countrymen.

You're going to run into the same sort of issue with flight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

at some point you have to have some common sense. sure we can say that the first person who first saw a bird fly discovered flight but that is like something a child would think.

 

Does a rock really "fly through the air"?

I would agree.

 

Patel issued no challenge to me in particular, first,

and the things I listed, in relevant response to a general challenge, were examples of American cultural achievement and superiority as requested, not necessarily uniqueness as not requested. There might be many nations with jazz bands, for example, but they pretty much suck compared with the upper levels of American jazz. The fact the jazz was invented in the US, as well, just underscores the assertion.

 

Which is precisely why I put "invented" in quotations. But to return to my earlier argument, what is the point of the literalism you seem so intent on embracing?

To take your example, in all the terms that matter, Columbus "discovered" America. The fact others migrated or traveled there means not a whit to history -- European or otherwise.

And the motives of the individual here are clear, and seen by others beyond myself. He has ignored what he cannot refute in favor of nitpicking and playing spoiler over this or that -- all under the mistaken notion that he has some overarching point. He does not.

And to reiterate, my initial post had to do with the fact that I loathe Europeans who continually assert the superiority of their culture and pretend as if America is this backwards place that has given nothing of value to the world. Why that ethnocentrism is okay, but I am singled out and subtly accused of the same, is beyond me.

That is, I am making no claims about American cultural superiority. I hesitate doing so for several reasons, but chief among them, I think it's pretty damn hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons between cultures. Not to mention, how does one even begin to separate "America" for "Europe," when it's fairly obvious, to me, that American culture is an extension of European culture? Meanwhile, we have what I presume are Europeans in this thread calling America "backwards" and talking about us "catching up." Are they not proving my initial point about the sense of superiority?

 

The tangled skeins of history

It derives mostly from the argument that rose in the late '80s and early '90s when indigenous advocates began protesting the Columbus Day holiday; the backlash from that was nearly obscene insofar as they were accused of revisionism; but how is it revisionism to note Columbus' brutality when we have it in his own hand? It helps us understand history to recognize the vast impacts of his "discovery", and the literalism applied then was largely a response the elevation of Columbus to heroic status.

I would suggest it's important to the study of history insofar as we are intended to learn anything from it. The idea of the "empty continent", for instance; Americans have long learned a false version of history that understates the tremendous changes brought to the continent and its people by the European encounter.

The problem with these historical myths is that if you learn the wrong history, you learn the wrong lessons from history. This is part of how history comes to "repeat" itself so dramatically.

I won't disagree with that or the remaining paragraphs in your post. This whole thread is a pissing contest, though, and unfortunately brought on by one of our own. Right now, it seems culturalist chest-beating is about all we can expect of it.

 

Yes, I've seen that Sopranos episode, and I find the Native American arguments as ridiculous now as I did then. I mean, sure, only a fool would deny what actually happened, but to pretend Columbus is completely unheroic largely because he was a rather ordinary man of his time and because of what came after his life and because it's simply convenient to assign him as a scapegoat for hundreds of years of history sounds like little more than cheap victim-ology, a point Tony makes at the end of aforementioned episode.

Historians these days seem obsessed with pulling down the granite and making everyone a racist or a sexist -- and that's if they aren't trying to claim historical figures were actually all gay. It's all very chic in cause de jour kind of way, and at some point, perhaps already (see the re-revisionism of the Founders), I think that goes away and the study of real and substantive history returns. Columbus was a rotten guy who exploited natives and foreshadowed the conquering of a continent that inevitably would have been conquered? Sure, okay. But he also was a venture capitalist who had the guts to get in a ship and see what's out THERE. I can't help but respect that, especially given what passes for risk for today's venture capitalists...

Perhaps, but it seems like trivia. The intellectual equivalent of the guy who always one-up's the other guy's story. The Vikings et al came before Columbus, that's what, one interesting line in the ole Encyclopedia? A line that does not really change the relevance and importance of all the other lines? Forgive me if I am not impressed.

Funny, I was taught nothing but, to the point that the cruelty, greed and wantonness of the Native Americans was totally hidden from view. Read something like Mayflower and you realize nobody looked "good" back then, red or white, probably because they were all human and life was pretty damn violent and cruel. And yeah, America was pretty damn "empty," given any real calculation of the term "full" that we -- or they -- would understand, but I have no interest in arguing history with you, as I am willing to bet what ideology you use to interpret it all.

Agreed. But you can't slag off somebody's culture and expect people to remain mum about it. I avoided conversations about American culture for long periods of time during my recent time abroad, but one night I just couldn't stomach the bullshit anymore and lashed out. I mean, it's one thing to try to put down some intellectual boundaries for the ugly Americans who crow about the greatness of the US of A, because those people are asking for it. However, it's quite another to intentionally goad people with inaccurate assessments of both your culture and theirs.

 

Cough. The US is definitely the daddy of jazz, but the best jazz I ever heard came straight out of Manenberg, Cape Town, South Africa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, but goodhumored culturalist chestbeating is kind of fun.

The ugliness of the political scene otherwise, with the dead and abused as backdrop to the oblivious and thuggish, needs a break, eh?

 

You also mentioned 'team sports' and my challenge to your assertion of superiority stands; To whom are you superior when the most popular team sports in the US are rarely played professionally outside the US and you do not compete internationally?

 

See, here's where we disagree, and history disagrees with you.

Da Vinci sketched out the plans for a glider. Others made and flew them. Others added engines. There was a long development of flight in many nations.

I know the Wright brothers meme is popular, but if we are honest, we know it's not true, despite the romantic notion of pioneeing.
They were just a step along the way, although deserved of recognition for their developments in control, even if they chose an impractical method.

 

It's awesome this topic is about Europeans bashing Americans, and it's turned out to actually be that.

Top marks, all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Think of it as a reality check

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It says more about the people responding. are they bitter due to personal issues? I would say yes.

 

As an aside, it takes only one or two bad apples to ruin a wet dream.

 

when millions are responding, its not "personal" issue, its a big issue.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Hello again Mrs Sock!