Why are Americans so Patriotic?

[mjc0961]

"Why are [insert name of people from TC's country here] so quick to assume everyone in an entire country acts a certain way because of a few examples of its people?"

Hey, look, see, I can make stupid sweeping generalizations too. Of course, I don't, because that would be dumb. I'm sure there are plenty of people in your country who are intelligent, TC. Stop lumping together everyone in one country based on the actions of a few of its people and maybe you could be one of those intelligent people someday.

 

[DRes82]

it might be just an unfair stereotype, but it's generally believed that if you badmouth america, any nearby americans will go up in arms and get very angry, and i'm just wondering why. Just to clarify, i have nothing against america, but i hardly think it's anything to write home about. and don't say that anyone would be that way about their home country, because if someone came up to be and said "hey, england's crap!" i'd just say "yeah, it is a bit"

well, it's because its our home, and we like it because we can do and say want we want. We have opportunities very few other countries provide. Here you can be an American and still retain culture. And we get up in arms because of how much crap we tend to take, eventually people just get pissed at all the insults.
Yeah we have done stupid things, but if you can't stick by your country (read NOT GOVERNMENT) even with its problems, then that is the opposite of patriotism. Quite frankly, i Love this country, and i don't mind a bit of mudslinging but i never tolerate straight up anti-american sentiments. After all, i make fun of Europe, but damn it, you guys have stuck by us in hard tithank you for mes and i love you guys.....even france, and i respect you.

"It may be dirt, but damn it its MY dirt."
-Grandpa from The Grapes of Wrath

Thank you for explaining this more eloquently than I could. OP, here is the answer to your question.

 

[Dango]

I just don't think we like people generalizing the entire country, speaking of which...

 

[repeating integers]

Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.

hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.

Why not?

Seriously, what are the downsides?

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...

 

[Kopikatsu]

Never use wikipedia as a source. Never.

That's just a silly thing to say. Wikipedia works as a source.

Try telling that to a college professor.

 

[Frost27]

In a nutshell: Because our internal propaganda machine is second to none.

This country has a habit of drumming up nationalism right about the time it is about to take something from us. I could list examples but I'm at work and A) doing so might make my current lack of productivity more apparent and B) It would just make me angry.

Also, as someone said above, the country is still young. That, coupled with the fact that we essentially fight a war every 20 - 30 years, we keep getting inundated with "patriotism" once or twice per generation to distract us from the fact that taxes are going up to feed the rich through no bid defense contracting etc.

 

[Baneat]

Isn't/wasn't instilling patriotism part of government policy fairly recently? Only buy american, that kind of shit.

 

[Blow_Pop]

A good portion of us just don't care. However it is our very vocal minority that gets shown and because of them we all get labelled as exceedingly patriotic. Personally I can't wait to get the fuck out of America....

 

[NapoleonWilson]

It's because Americans are allowed to be patriotic. It's not compulsory like it is in certain, "Eastern" countries. And as for other western countries, after watching Greece, Italy, Spain, France in recent weeks and months, they don't seem to have much too feel patriotic about. Although admittedly, with the OWS crowd, I have never felt more disgust in America than I do now. Americans acting like a bunch of entitled, ignorant children who if they put as much effort into their belly-aching about fairness as working they would have everything they want.

 

[EvilPicnic]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.

hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.

Why not?

Seriously, what are the downsides?

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...

I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Generally most people like the country they live in and to some extent prefer it to the alternatives (otherwise why do they still live there?).

American culture tends to be relatively vocal about its opinions and emphasises having ones opinion heard.

2+2=4

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

 

[Fbuh]

From my point of view, and as an American, I believe that it is because that we are such a young country. As a people, we are still full of ideals about how we're not going to take shit from anybody anymore. Essentially, we are the equivalent of the twelve year old who likes to bash people on X-Box Live because he thinks it makes him cool. We'll grow out of it in time.

 

[repeating integers]

Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.

hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.

Why not?

Seriously, what are the downsides?

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...

I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.

Yeah, so I imagine we'd have to be veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful when coding said computers. I'm still convinced it would work better than the current best (Democracy).

 

[Daystar Clarion]

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?

Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?

The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...

The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.

Ask that to the people who live there.

The islands were uninhabited when they were discovered, so it was fair game.

When soverignty came into dispute, they even let the islanders vote on who they wanted to be part of.

The British did many terrible things in their colonial days, but the Falklands was not one of them.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.

hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.

Why not?

Seriously, what are the downsides?

To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.

Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...

I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.

Yeah, so I imagine we'd have to be veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful when coding said computers. I'm still convinced it would work better than the current best (Democracy).

lol, yes we would have to be "veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful" when build and coding the computer. Also it would be good if it didn't have absolute power and if we had a self destruct switch built in as well.

 

[gphjr14]

Never use wikipedia as a source. Never.

That's just a silly thing to say. Wikipedia works as a source.

Try telling that to a college professor.

Try considering the reasons instead of just mimicking them. Life is not an academic paper where people should be using more direct sources.

But at the same time just about anyone can put anything on wikipedia so its authenticity is under constant scrutiny. That and the fact most people (employers) expect you to do your own work not take short cuts which is often what people are doing when using wikipedia. Also the college I graduated from considered it an ethics violation. Sources cited for wikipedia articles can work but not the condensed and sometimes flat out wrong interpretation people often see in wiki articles.