What are Americans?

[godnotgod]

This still allows "self reliance", since one provides something of equal value to others... And this is what is typically meant in a political or economic sense, since no one does things like make their own cel phones, ie, mine the ores, process the materials, design the chips, make the chips, build the phone, etc, etc.

'Self-reliance' is a farce. The primary objective both domestically and internationally has always been to maximize profits at the expense of the cheap labor force and resources you are exploiting. The ****** has hit the fan all over the world. Governments attempt to impose austerity measures while the people protest. The wealthy need to maintain their level of luxury and utilize armed force whenever necessary. But as crime increases, we are told we need more police force and technology to control it and provide peace of mind, so we continue to pony up.

'Self-reliance' is just another form of the old 19th century concept of 'rugged individualism'. It's just another form of the myth that keeps us believing in some false notion we call 'The American Dream', or 'Freedom', or 'Democracy'. The 'rugged individualist' is a microcosmic emulation of the Hero Myth. It's kind of nostalgic and sad, actually, as these images become eroded away, and the suffering underneath the fluff becomes a reality.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is to select a single definition, & declare the others invalid.
One may not unilaterally narrowly redefine words.

I'm not. Self = nobody else.

This still allows "self reliance", since one provides something of equal value to others. This is a commonly used definition (not the only one, of course) of the phrase. And this is what is typically meant in a political or economic sense, since no one does things like make their own cel phones, ie, mine the ores, process the materials, design the chips, make the chips, build the phone, etc, etc. Your strict & narrow definition has little meaning out side of hermit mountain men who reject modern tools & conveniences. None of them post here.

Then I declare it a misnomer, alongside "PC", "JRPG" (respectively more accurately described as IBM-Compatible and Visual Novel RPG), etc. Words put together to convey a meaning that contradicts what the words themselves mean.

Oh, well, that's how languages evolve.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ah, now you add the real modus operandi behind the facade and rationale of the Hero Myth, except that you need to expand that a little more to include the rest of the world. 'What we can do for ourselves' translates at some point to 'what we can get for ourselves'. Once the markets have been exploited locally, one must expand outward to the rest of the world. We must 'protect our national interests', you know. So paint the Robber Baron as a Friend and Protector.

But Duck Tails is such a great game!! :sad4:

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

'What we can do for ourselves' translates at some point to 'what we can get for ourselves'.

Well, yeah... That's exactly what I meant.

Once the markets have been exploited locally, one must expand outward to the rest of the world. We must 'protect our national interests', you know. So paint the Robber Baron as a Friend and Protector, and package it to make it look like a gift. Enter the Trojan Horse.

I see no need for the repackaging... We're about our money. If you don't like it, declare war and see how far that gets you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not. Self = nobody else.

You must face the fact that it is common for people to use "self reliant", without excluding cooperating with other people. Example: If I say my daughter is self reliant, I'm describing her ability to solve problems on her own, & support herself without needing money from mom & dad. I am not saying that she raises her own food, makes all her own clothing, does her own dental work, makes her own car out of sticks & stones, & generally doesn't use anything which anyone else grew or fabricated.

then I declare it a misnomer, alongside "PC", "JRPG" (respectively more accurately described as IBM-Compatible and Visual Novel RPG), etc. Words put together to convey a meaning that contradicts what the words themselves mean.
Oh, well, that's how languages evolve.

Language is not about stringing together words, & then selecting particular narrow definitions. There are conventions, idioms, cultural references, contextual definitions, & other complexities which give meaning to a phrase.
If someone says they "got polluted & are now driving the porcelain bus", does this mean:
1) They got infused with toxic substances & are now driving a bus which is made out of porcelain.
2) They got drunk & are puking in the toilet.

If you're going to take things extremely literally, you must consider all the dictionary definitions of a word, & work out all the combinations of a phrase. If you have 4 words, & each word has 3 definitions, then you have 3 to the 4th power possible meanings. Context should tell you which of the 81 possibilities you should infer.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, yeah... That's exactly what I meant.

I see no need for the repackaging... We're about our money. If you don't like it, declare war and see how far that gets you.

I don't need to declare war. Aggressive exploitation of others and materialism both have their repercussions. We are paying for them now. Both are empty lures.

We are not about our money. It's value has slowly been eroding. What we are about is the IDEA of our money, which we mistake for wealth, and therefore, POWER. A fatal error.

 

[LuisDantas]

Godnotgod has a point.

There is a serious trap that American culture faces, caused by a dangerous mix of extreme individualism (as opposed to solidarity and mutual responsibility) with an utterly contradictory and narcisistic expectation of universal support from the world itself.

That can't help but degenerate into aggressive conflict fueled by paranoid perception of disagreements as "enmity with freedom" or even outright "terrorism". Or in other serious diseases, including consumerism and drug culture. All of those three evils that are eating American culture alive are direct consequences of its failure to challenge the utter insanity of those conflicting expectations of individual triumph melted with universal appreciation and support. That is not just unreasonable, but rather completely insane.

Support must of course be earned. The unpleasant yet undeniable fact is however that earning support is difficult and sometimes simply not possible. A sane and mature individual must learn and come to terms with that, but it sems that far too much of regular American life since about 1990 is centered on attempting to prove it wrong.

The cost has been truly obscene.

 

[Riverwolf]

You must face the fact that it is common for people to use "self reliant", without excluding cooperating with other people. Example: If I say my daughter is self reliant, I'm describing her ability to solve problems on her own, & support herself without needing money from mom & dad. I am not saying that she raises her own food, makes all her own clothing, does her own dental work, makes her own car out of sticks & stones, & generally doesn't use anything which anyone else grew or fabricated.

Language is not about stringing together words, & then selecting particular narrow definitions. There are conventions, idioms, cultural references, contextual definitions, & other complexities which give meaning to a phrase.
If someone says they "got polluted & are now driving the porcelain bus", does this mean:
1) They got infused with toxic substances & are now driving a bus which is made out of porcelain.
2) They got drunk & are puking in the toilet.

If you're going to take things extremely literally, you must consider all the dictionary definitions of a word, & work out all the combinations of a phrase. If you have 4 words, & each word has 3 definitions, then you have 3 to the 4th power possible meanings. Context should tell you which of the 81 possibilities you should infer.

At least now it makes sense why English is such a difficult language, and that nobody can speak it properly, even native speakers.

'Cause it's frequently breaking its own rules.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, yeah... That's exactly what I meant.


I see no need for the repackaging... We're about our money. If you don't like it, declare war and see how far that gets you.

I have a nonviolent alternative for you: GNU/Linux.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least now it makes sense why English is such a difficult language, and that nobody can speak it properly, even native speakers.
'Cause it's frequently breaking its own rules.

It happens in other languages too.....except Fortran.

 

[Riverwolf]

It happens in other languages too.....except Fortran.

Never learned it. C/C++ for life.

 

[Sunstone]

...extreme individualism (as opposed to solidarity and mutual responsibility)...

I think you are right, and I would like to ask a related question: How would a nation of immigrants from diverse backgrounds and countries be encouraged to achieve solidarity and mutual responsibility?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you are right, and I would like to ask a related question: How would a nation of immigrants from diverse backgrounds and countries be encouraged to achieve solidarity and mutual responsibility?

It is not easy, because it runs against the grain of many deep-rooted human instincts. But it would involve a high degree of community self-reliance and political autonomy; a serious abhorrence to the very existence of humiliating poverty (which is to say, both extremes of wealth should be erradicated); widely available opportunities to earn a living with dignity and to learn useful job skills (and languages); well-distributed population levels (casual social contact among people of diverse backgrounds is essential, therefore the poor districts can't be too far away - and in fact can't be allowed to exist as such); extremely accessible urban public transportation; and some governmental incentive towards social education - for instance, physicians might be receive financial incentive to begin their field careers in communities that are quite diverse from those of their own past.

Basically, anything that makes those people with diverse backgrounds and origins and values actually interact with each one face-to-face and therefore have that harder a time thinking of each other as less than truly human, less than truly deserving of safety, respect and happiness.

At the family level, I would suggest wide acceptance of the whole gamut of LGBTQI variations, including for one thing individual cabins in public bathrooms; newly pregnants should have the option of receiving practical advice and orientation from experience or skilled mothers, particularly if it turns out that the mother-to-be is single or comes from a less-than-quite-whole family. Adoption should be valued, and I would certainly spread the idea (which I sincerely subscribe to) that blood relationship is basically meaningless, and that it is in truth adoption that a family makes.

Oh, and recreational drug use should be annihilated, of course. It serves little purpose beyond enabling unhealth situations to persist and worsen. Drug users should be chastised automatically (no recourse allowed) with at least a day of forced assistance to communities of user recovery, every time. The trouble with drugs is certainly not enforcement, and not even the traffic or production; it is the existence of demand.

 

[Aquitaine]

It is not easy, because it runs against the grain of many deep-rooted human instincts. But it would involve a high degree of community self-reliance and political autonomy; a serious abhorrence to the very existence of humiliating poverty (which is to say, both extremes of wealth should be erradicated); widely available opportunities to earn a living with dignity and to learn useful job skills (and languages); well-distributed population levels (casual social contact among people of diverse backgrounds is essential, therefore the poor districts can't be too far away - and in fact can't be allowed to exist as such); extremely accessible urban public transportation; and some governmental incentive towards social education - for instance, physicians might be receive financial incentive to begin their field careers in communities that are quite diverse from those of their own past.

Basically, anything that makes those people with diverse backgrounds and origins and values actually interact with each one face-to-face and therefore have that harder a time thinking of each other as less than truly human, less than truly deserving of safety, respect and happiness.

At the family level, I would suggest wide acceptance of the whole gamut of LGBTQI variations, including for one thing individual cabins in public bathrooms; newly pregnants should have the option of receiving practical advice and orientation from experience or skilled mothers, particularly if it turns out that the mother-to-be is single or comes from a less-than-quite-whole family. Adoption should be valued, and I would certainly spread the idea (which I sincerely subscribe to) that blood relationship is basically meaningless, and that it is in truth adoption that a family makes.

Oh, and recreational drug use should be annihilated, of course. It serves little purpose beyond enabling unhealth situations to persist and worsen. Drug users should be chastised automatically (no recourse allowed) with at least a day of forced assistance to communities of user recovery, every time. The trouble with drugs is certainly not enforcement, and not even the traffic or production; it is the existence of demand.

If you wanna eliminate the demand for drug use (AKA escaping reality) you're going to need a pretty ideal, healthy and happy society.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you wanna eliminate the demand for drug use (AKA escaping reality) you're going to need a pretty ideal, healthy and happy society.

Darn. Busted!

On all seriousness, Aquitaine, I don't think that is aiming too high. Not for a society that prides itself on having global reach, and that has become so reliant on such sophisticated levels of technology.

In fact, I would argue that exactly because we have come to expect and demand so much of the environment (economical, social, political and ecological) the need for a solid, well-cared emotional environment became that much higher a priority. Each generation is more empowered and more demanding than its predecessor. Logically, they should also expect to have that much higher of a responsibility towards itself and its constituent people.

I don't think there is any alternative that can be morally justified as worth accepting.

 

[godnotgod]

Darn. Busted!

On all seriousness, Aquitaine, I don't think that is aiming too high. Not for a society that prides itself on having global reach, and that has become so reliant on such sophisticated levels of technology.

In fact, I would argue that exactly because we have come to expect and demand so much of the environment (economical, social, political and ecological) the need for a solid, well-cared emotional environment became that much higher a priority. Each generation is more empowered and more demanding than its predecessor. Logically, they should also expect to have that much higher of a responsibility towards itself and its constituent people.

I don't think there is any alternative that can be morally justified as worth accepting.

The problem is that, in the pursuit of the goals you mention, we have lost touch with precisely that which is the original source of our genuine happiness! We have become overwhelmed with the fruits of those pursuits and their management, to the point that it has destroyed our potential for genuine happiness, and so, we are in confusion and misery amidst a sea of gadgets and wealth, coupled with a culture that has no real spiritual base. Enter drugs to help us cope with the fallout.

To borrow an idea from Zen: "We have one eye on the path and one eye on the goal, rather than both eyes on the path".

Then, there is the pursuit of 'Gross National Happiness', to replace that of 'Gross National Product', as in Bhutan:

Bhutan's model of Gross National Happiness a glorious goal for modern society | National Catholic Reporter

One of the big problems for America is how we saw our relationship to the land. We saw it as something, along with its indigenous people, needing conquering and taming via our sheer will, sanctioned by a loving God, which resulted in abuse and destruction. What contributed to this abuse was the idea of a 'land of plenty' with natural resources available 'as far as the eye can see', and 'there's more where that came from, buddy!". So we became very wasteful, dumping toxic chemicals and refuse in profusion into our air, soil, and waters. Couple this with the voracious demand for everything 'new', fed by the advertising agencies, and demand becomes addiction.

As a society, we are driven by the three lower centers of consciousness: Power, Security, and Sensation, in varying degrees of combination. All three are Addictions. Only via the Fourth Center, that of Love, can these three become transformed from Addictions into Preferences.

Because of our great power in the media and government, we have convinced many other countries that our model of over-consumption and selfish greed is the way to go. We berate them for not opening up to our market influence and exploitation as being backward and ignorant, using our glitz as 'proof' that we are the the model they need to pursue. At the beginning of the Iraq war, our military held fashion shows for the Iraqi villagers, flaunting furs and other very expensive Western clothing to titillate their appetites.

 

[godnotgod]

On all seriousness, Aquitaine, I don't think that is aiming too high....

Then again, Luis, we Buddhists have a tendency to spit into the wind, yes? Save everyone, eh? Yeah, right....heh..heh...heh...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

On all seriousness, Aquitaine, I don't think that is aiming too high. Not for a society that prides itself on having global reach, and that has become so reliant on such sophisticated levels of technology.

There's no problem with the technology or the spread of the idea. It's just that nobody wants to get rid of drugs.

 

[Whiterain]

You guys are speaking our language, always remember that

Bellicose laughter.

English has a tremendous history in its making with a Germanic origin and later becoming a
hybrid of Latin/Germanic words.

The 'Meerika' is a diverse culture with constant cultural destruction and it's always progressive.

One 'Meerikan is usually not like another 'Meerikan the next state or even city over.

Some Ameerikans have a lovely pioneering personality while those that came out of the geto
have a criminal sensibility about them. There's a cultural fallout every generation or so do to
the progressive nature of the country and it's all in 300 years.

This county will not even be recognizable in a hundred years, think about a thousand years
from now.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Some Ameerikans have a lovely pioneering personality while those that came out of the geto
have a criminal sensibility about them.

I resent that...