Ooooh! How rude - one for the MAGAs to gloat over

[Debater Slayer]

I think the author of the article is mostly stating the obvious: Making generalized, absolute claims about a whole country—let alone one of over 300 million people—is bound to be off base in many ways, and I would go farther and say that even if one has lived their entire life in a given country, they still don't have authority to generalize about everyone else living there. (Many people make erroneous generalizations about others in their own country, after all, and they may even be ignorant about many other groups living in the same country.)

That said, I also think the author overgeneralizes about Britons and the UK, ironically, and falls for the same mistake she's calling out in the article. She's talking about Britons as if most of them had the attitude she's talking about, but her own experience doesn't necessarily reflect on the entire country, especially when it is as highly diverse as the UK is.

 

[PureX]

Well, the writer does have a point. In my own online experience, I have discerned that people from outside the U.S. speaking of American politics often rely on skewed perceptions viewed from afar. It's one thing to look at America through books or the internet, but one has to actually live here, grow up here, and have friends/family here to be able to truly understand how things are. Outsiders who presume to speak with authority about how much they "know" America can come off as rather arrogant and off base.

Sounds a whole lot like Americans professing to know all about the rest of the world, though, doesn't it.

People always think they know far more than they actually know. And the result is that they imagine themselves to be the superior 'tribe'.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I can understand when people have complaints about the American government and what it does around the world. If someone says "I don't like what America did to my country (or my people)," that's a direct and fair complaint. It's tangible and specific. They don't have to know about America to make such a complaint; they only need to know what America did to their country. Or if it's more a matter of personal preferences, such as those who don't like American food or American beer, then that's just someone expressing their personal tastes and opinions.

But there have been times when I've seen people from outside America speak about internal American events as if they have a personal stake in the matter, which I consider to be somewhat intrusive and presumptuous. If they do so purely out of sympathy and compassion for the American people, then I might think differently, but oftentimes, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Speaking for myself, the reason I sometimes discuss or debate domestic American political issues (like reproductive rights, gun laws, etc.) on RF is twofold:

• First, I see those as issues that affect millions of people, much like, say, the issue of religious freedom in parts of the Middle East. It usually wouldn't bother me if an outsider discussed the latter from a place of genuine thoughtfulness and concern rather than moralizing and self-aggrandizing or self-serving lecturing. If an issue deeply affects millions of people, regardless of where they're from or where they live, I think it's understandable that some outsiders may become interested or invested to one extent or another in that issue.

Of course, one could ask, "Why be interested in this domestic issue of X country/countries and not the domestic issues of other countries out there?" I think the answer to that will almost always be subjective and/or dependent on personal factors, such as whether one has direct personal connections like family or friends in X country. People don't tend to be consistently and equally interested in issues from all other parts of the world, and I don't think anyone could even be so—their emotional bandwidth and capacity for absorbing information would simply hit the limit. For example, I admit that I have read far less about, say, internal strife in Colombia or cartel wars in Mexico than I have gun laws or abortion laws in the US. This ties into my second point:

• I don't know anyone in Colombia, but I have a lot of friends from the US or who live in the US. This doesn't mean that the well-being and rights of Colombians matter any less or any more than those of Americans, but from a strictly personal viewpoint, I have more reasons to care about American abortion or gun laws than guerrilla wars in Colombia or cartel wars in Mexico. Not that I can change anything in either case, but I will naturally be concerned when a friend leaves a state for another because of a mass shooting at a mall near where she lives, or because abortion has been so severely restricted as to practically be almost banned in her state.

I do get your point about presumptuousness and intrusion, though. I think I can relate to it when I see people make condescending, misinformed, and sometimes downright racist claims about what the culture or people are like in my part of the world, without showing much or any nuanced understanding or having any direct experience with the places and people they so readily generalize about. I have seen such rhetoric about the US and Americans, including stereotypes about how Americans in general, rather than a subset thereof, are supposedly obsessed with guns, don't know what's best for them, don't know anything about the world, etc. Such generalizations strike me as ironically an example of being ignorant about the world, in addition to being prejudiced against an entire country and its people instead of having more focused and grounded criticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But there have been times when I've seen people from outside America speak about internal American events as if they have a personal stake in the matter, which I consider to be somewhat intrusive and presumptuous. If they do so purely out of sympathy and compassion for the American people, then I might think differently, but oftentimes, that doesn't appear to be the case.

There's an expression here: "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold." Events and decisions in, say, Michigan or Ohio will often have much more of an impact here in Ontario than they will in California or Louisiana.

Your consumer safety standards dictate what products Canadians can buy. Your firearm laws determine what guns end up on the Canadian black market. When a factory closes in Tennessee, feeder plants in Ontario and Quebec lay off staff. When housing construction ramps up in Indiana, the cost of lumber in goes up in Alberta. Our Navy does joint coastline patrols with your Coast Guard. American popular culture - whether films, religion, or conspiracy theories - easily flows across the border and gets adopted by Canadians.

So what's an "internal American event"? I can't think of a single one.

On top of that, some of us have a lot of friends and family in the US.

 

[PureX]

There's an expression here: "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold." Events and decisions in, say, Michigan or Ohio will often have much more of an impact here in Ontario than they will in California or Louisiana.

Your consumer safety standards dictate what products Canadians can buy. Your firearm laws determine what guns end up on the Canadian black market. When a factory closes in Tennessee, feeder plants in Ontario and Quebec lay off staff. When housing construction ramps up in Indiana, the cost of lumber in goes up in Alberta. Our Navy does joint coastline patrols with your Coast Guard. American popular culture - whether films, religion, or conspiracy theories - easily flows across the border and gets adopted by Canadians.

So what's an "internal American event"? I can't think of a single one.

On top of that, some of us have a lot of friends and family in the US.

I am an "internal American event".

 

[Stevicus]

Speaking for myself, the reason I sometimes discuss or debate domestic American political issues (like reproductive rights, gun laws, etc.) on RF is twofold:

• First, I see those as issues that affect millions of people, much like, say, the issue of religious freedom in parts of the Middle East. It usually wouldn't bother me if an outsider discussed the latter from a place of genuine thoughtfulness and concern rather than moralizing and self-aggrandizing or self-serving lecturing. If an issue deeply affects millions of people, regardless of where they're from or where they live, I think it's understandable that some outsiders may become interested or invested to one extent or another in that issue.

Of course, one could ask, "Why be interested in this domestic issue of X country/countries and not the domestic issues of other countries out there?" I think the answer to that will almost always be subjective and/or dependent on personal factors, such as whether one has direct personal connections like family or friends in X country. People don't tend to be consistently and equally interested in issues from all other parts of the world, and I don't think anyone could even be so—their emotional bandwidth and capacity for absorbing information would simply hit the limit. For example, I admit that I have read far less about, say, internal strife in Colombia or cartel wars in Mexico than I have gun laws or abortion laws in the US. This ties into my second point:

• I don't know anyone in Colombia, but I have a lot of friends from the US or who live in the US. This doesn't mean that the well-being and rights of Colombians matter any less or any more than those of Americans, but from a strictly personal viewpoint, I have more reasons to care about American abortion or gun laws than guerrilla wars in Colombia or cartel wars in Mexico. Not that I can change anything in either case, but I will naturally be concerned when a friend leaves a state for another because of a mass shooting at a mall near where she lives, or because abortion has been so severely restricted as to practically be almost banned in her state.

I do get your point about presumptuousness and intrusion, though. I think I can relate to it when I see people make condescending, misinformed, and sometimes downright racist claims about what the culture or people are like in my part of the world, without showing much or any nuanced understanding or having any direct experience with the places and people they so readily generalize about. I have seen such rhetoric about the US and Americans, including stereotypes about how Americans in general, rather than a subset thereof, are supposedly obsessed with guns, don't know what's best for them, don't know anything about the world, etc. Such generalizations strike me as ironically an example of being ignorant about the world, in addition to being prejudiced against an entire country and its people instead of having more focused and grounded criticism.

It may be different for Americans, too, as there are plenty who take the same stance as many from outside the world.

Although from an American's viewpoint, we don't see it as "America" being the source of political strife or dissension, but identifiable factions within America. I don't take issue with factual criticism about what the government does. Constructive criticism can often be useful.

I think what I might take issue with is conjecture about how things happen in America and how Americans come to a given point of view. As the OP article points out, people often make assumptions that Americans are simply "dumb" or "uneducated," or any number of other assumptions which, in their minds, explains the reasons behind many American actions and policy decisions. That's not what I would consider constructive criticism.

Also, in recent times, there have been allegations about foreign influence of elections. We hear about hackers from Russia and China, or troll farms trying to influence elections, etc. The insinuation here is that they're trying to influence Americans to vote a certain way so as to benefit their country, not America. Their motives for participating in discussions on American politics are alleged to be purely selfish, caring more about their own country's interests than about America or its people. Not that I'm accusing anyone specifically here, but gaining influence over the hearts and minds of Americans seems to be a priority for a lot of folks, both within and outside of America.

 

[Stevicus]

There's an expression here: "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold." Events and decisions in, say, Michigan or Ohio will often have much more of an impact here in Ontario than they will in California or Louisiana.

Your consumer safety standards dictate what products Canadians can buy. Your firearm laws determine what guns end up on the Canadian black market. When a factory closes in Tennessee, feeder plants in Ontario and Quebec lay off staff. When housing construction ramps up in Indiana, the cost of lumber in goes up in Alberta. Our Navy does joint coastline patrols with your Coast Guard. American popular culture - whether films, religion, or conspiracy theories - easily flows across the border and gets adopted by Canadians.

So what's an "internal American event"? I can't think of a single one.

On top of that, some of us have a lot of friends and family in the US.

Well, sure, if you're sympathetic to friends and family on that basis, then that might be different from those who might have more selfish reasons for taking a position involving America.

But I remember another guy from Canada who used to post here. I won't say his name, but you might know who I'm talking about. He was quite a warmonger and kept trying to take a position where he was practically dictating what America's foreign and military policies should be. He wasn't even American, yet he was trying to set himself up as an authority as "I know what's best for America."

If the U.S. and Canada were the same country, then we might look internally on a more regional basis. Like, if a factory closes in Tennessee which has a ripple effect on other states, then we might name the company involved, rather than saying "America closed a factory." Our perception of the event might be more specific to a given region or industry and not really viewed as something that "America" did as a collective whole.

Of course, there's also regionalism within America. One might hear about "coastals" versus those who live in "flyover country." I'm not sure if people outside of America can understand those kinds of nuances on an up-close and personal basis as those of us living here might be able to see it. The current political dissension, for example, becomes more complicated for me personally because I have friends and family "on both sides of the aisle," so to speak. Those who have no such personal connection might find it easier to simply dismiss and scorn the half of the US population they disagree with, but I've always found it difficult to do that.

That could be the reason I tend to focus on the top 1% or what might be called the establishment or ruling class. They're the ones calling all the shots anyway, at least when it comes to America's foreign and domestic policies. If anyone has any complaints about America, that's where they should be directed, not against regular people living in Podunk.

 

[PureX]

People living in other nations don't realize the extent to which the U.S. is the Mount Olympus of capitalism, and how that effects people.We in the U.S. have been told 24-7 for well over a century that if we want anything (no matter how foolish or ineffective it is) and we have some money, WE SHOULD HAVE IT. If we want to hear this pack of lies that make us feel good about ourselves, by all means, they are ours for the purchase! If we don't like 'em, we can just go down the street to the next truth-for-sale vendor. He's selling a whole different pack of lies that we might like to purchase as our truth. In fact, he'll even give them to us for free so long as we agree to let him rob the guy next to us. And maybe even us, later on. And we say, FREE!?! Sign me up!! Because we are so used to everyone trying to rob us for everything we need or want, every day of our lives.

It's not that Americans are any dumber than people anywhere else, it's that they are drowning in lies and deceit and greed and willful stupidity to a degree that people living in other places have not yet experienced. But they will. Because it's spreading.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, keep telling yourselves that Trump supporters are uneducated blue collar workers, and/or misogynists, rapists, fascists, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, keep telling yourselves that Trump supporters are uneducated blue collar workers, and/or misogynists, rapists, fascists, etc.

You don't need to be a misogynist, fascist or racist yourself to support Trump; you just need to be the sort of person who's okay with misogyny, fascism, and racism.

 

[Kathryn]

You don't need to be a misogynist, fascist or racist yourself to support Trump; you just need to be the sort of person who's okay with misogyny, fascism, and racism.

Yep, keep telling yourself that.

 

[anna.]

You don't need to be a misogynist, fascist or racist yourself to support Trump; you just need to be the sort of person who's okay with misogyny, fascism, and racism.

Truth.

 

[Kathryn]

Truth.

Yep, keep on telling yourselves that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't need to be a misogynist, fascist or racist yourself to support Trump; you just need to be the sort of person who's okay with misogyny, fascism, and racism.

If any of those things were deal-breakers for you, you wouldn't be a Trump supporter.

One example:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/12/trump-racist-rhetoric-immigrants-00183537