Ian Buruma- Mind The Gap

[John Uskglass]

http://search.ft.com/search/article...y=Ian+Buruma&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form


Genius!

 

[Brother None]

Interesting crap.

But I grew up in a country, the Netherlands, where not only most political parties but almost all organised institutions, from broadcasting stations to football clubs, were organised along religious denominational lines.

Cute, but he forgets to mention the fact that of the Four denominational lines ("zuilen"), only 2 were religious. The Netherlands was (uniquely, I must add) split along Catholics, Reformed, Socialist and "Neutral" (mostly progressive democrats and neo-liberalists)

So what he's saying is basically incorrect

This is enough reason to loathe America, or, some time ago, Margaret Thatcher, the closest thing to a European American.

And incidentally the worst MP England has EVER had. Ever been to England? It's a fucked-up place, by European standards

And here, perhaps, lies one difference with Europe. American populism, from Andrew Jackson to Arnie Schwarzenegger, may sound coarse to our fastidious ears, but it has, on the whole, been more libertarian, even democratic, than European strains of populism.

I like how he just states this without any back-up whatsoever. How is America's television-minded populism more demoratic than the European strains? He doesn't name a single argument for this. The following paragraph, for instance, states how America is democratic by following AMERICAN wishes, but doesn't state the opposite for Europe

There have always been racist, even Nazi elements in the wackier fringes of American populism, too, but they never became the mainstream as they did in European history.

Oh dear, so the Federation never existed during the Civil War?

I love it how so many Americans have been taught to ignore such an essential part of your history. Half of the US was basically an anti-progressive and RACIST state. Like it or not, it's true.

Also, a lot of people would argue the Red Scare was a form of fascism too.

That statement by him was so wrong

And his whole father-son analogy for the relation between the US and Europe is so historically wrong, it's not even funny

 

[Sander]

three things:

A) That guy must've changed his name if he actually grew up here. Ian is never used as a name. Jan is.

B) How is my post in the religion thingie more relevant here? Nothing about religion here, you know.

C) What bull. Europe is not the little kid of the USA(in fact, the USA is factually the little kid of Europe, but that aside), and it isn't reacting against the USA because it thinks of it as dad and wanting to react against dad. Bulllshit. It reacts against the USA ecause it does't think that the USA is doing things the right way.
That has nothing to do with a father-complex, it's called simple policies.

 

[John Uskglass]

And incidentally the worst MP England has EVER had. Ever been to England? It's a fucked-up place, by European standards

Grandparents live in Sutton Coldfield, the one nice place between Birmingham and anywhere before the radius of Lichfield. Lived there for a year.

Frankly, I think that has alot more to do with the pre-Thatcherian, pre-Blair Socialist Labor party, and it's pathetic attempt at socialization.

A joke on the subject-
Winston Churchill is at a urinal. The next Prime Minister (forgot his name) comes up. Winston Churchill zips up his pants quickly.
"Why are you running?" The Labor Minister asks.
"Because whenever you see something big, you want to nationalize it"

I like how he just states this without any back-up whatsoever. How is America's television-minded populism more demoratic than the European strains? He doesn't name a single argument for this.

Unfair. The comment on Arnie's Governership was pretty interesting. And I think he has a point with the diffirence between American and European populisim.

I love it how so many Americans have been taught to ignore such an essential part of your history. Half of the US was basically an anti-progressive and RACIST state. Like it or not, it's true.

The Dixies made up about 20% of the American population, and about 5% of that owned slaves. Frankly, I think it is to some extent the opposite. Before the abolitionist movement, and to a large extent even afterwards, Slavery had a reputaion as being a nessicary evil for the prosperity of America. Thomas Jefferson said as much. The Abolitionists kind of backed the "Dixie" way of life into a corner, and accused all southerners of being backward slave holding rascists. True to some extent, but not across the board. There where even distinctly abolitionist movments in the Confederacy- Lee was certainly not a friend of the slave holder, even if he had a few.

And his whole father-son analogy for the relation between the US and Europe is so historically wrong, it's not even funny

Found it a little silly myself, but true to atlest some extent. Saying that German democracy is not the child of American Democracy is idiotic, and to a large extent most Democracies in Europe where founded by America after WW2 or the collapse of Communisim. Dutchies may be exempt, though. Even the rebellion against the Spainish had some Democratic leanings.

B) How is my post in the religion thingie more relevant here? Nothing about religion here, you know.

Well, he says that the wave of secularization in Europe will fade either with the growing influence of the Mosque or a rise in the Church.

 

[Sander]

Well, he says that the wave of secularization in Europe will fade either with the growing influence of the Mosque or a rise in the Church.

No, that that's happening, which is interesting, considering it contradicts your own posts. But that still doesn't explain why the fuck you haven't replied to it yet.

and to a large extent most Democracies in Europe where founded by America after WW2 or the collapse of Communisim.

Not true.Most Western countries had democracies before WW2, and a lot of countries after the fall of communism either went back to totalitarianism, or formed a democracy more or less by itself.

 

[John Uskglass]

Not true.Most Western countries had democracies before WW2, and a lot of countries after the fall of communism either went back to totalitarianism, or formed a democracy more or less by itself.

Well, Germany springs to mind, and I said primarily Germany. Germany, Germany Germany......
And France is modeled after the American system of democracy, even during the Revolution that was fairly clear.
And I hope you are not downplaying the Marshall plan.

No, that that's happening, which is interesting, considering it contradicts your own posts. But that still doesn't explain why the fuck you haven't replied to it yet.

I did not reply to it because it is, like all athiest-diest religious arguments, a dead end. I could show you the Holy-Fucking-Grail at this point and you would give me some brainded excuse.

 

[Sander]

Well, Germany springs to mind, and I said primarily Germany. Germany, Germany Germany......
And France is modeled after the American system of democracy, even during the Revolution that was fairly clear.
And I hope you are not downplaying the Marshall plan.

All of those countries had.those.democracies.before.the.war. Which means that the USA freed them, yes, supported them with the Marshall plan, yes, BUT they did not create those democracies. In the case of Germany, the democracy was there before Hitler came to power. While the USA did many good things in Europe after the war, you can't pin everything on them.

I did not reply to it because it is, like all athiest-diest religious arguments, a dead end. I could show you the Holy-Fucking-Grail at this point and you would give me some brainded excuse.

Guess how I feel about your arguments, CCR? It's about point of view, you are convinced of one thing, I"m convinced of the other, you not responding to my post shows some form of....weakness, almost.

By the way, just if, IF, you're going to ask me why I didn't reply to those other points you made in this thread: They're Kharn's.

 

[Sander]

CCR, I hate your style of posting. Seriously, when you decide that a topic is "done" for you(ie. you're all out of arguments), you just don't post. NOTHING.

 

[John Uskglass]

In the case of Germany, the democracy was there before Hitler came to power.

Yet it was always teetiring between the far left and the far right. Frankly, that is not democracy, it is the calm before the storm.

Guess how I feel about your arguments, CCR? It's about point of view, you are convinced of one thing, I"m convinced of the other, you not responding to my post shows some form of....weakness, almost.

Meh, Ill get around to it, just do not feel like any kind serious argument for a while, mkay?

 

[Sander]

Yet it was always teetiring between the far left and the far right. Frankly, that is not democracy, it is the calm before the storm.

You do realise that this is absolute bullshit, don't you? It's as much democracy as anything else, even though it was a calm before the storm.
And again you ignored EVERYTHING else I said. *sigh* I'm getting used to it....

 

[John Uskglass]

All of those countries had.those.democracies.before.the.war.

Astruia did not. America CERTAINLY had much to do with the formation of Democracy after the war, and it is certainly fair to say that modern Europe is an American invention. For if it where not for Us conrtibuting everything we did, you would be either a part of Greater Germany, or the greater USSR. That simple.

You do realise that this is absolute bullshit, don't you? It's as much democracy as anything else, even though it was a calm before the storm.

No, not at all. Having a democracy for 20 years is not really being deomcratic at all. A democracy needs at least a half a century to develop and become stable...look at the CSA, or France.

 

[Sander]

Astruia did not.

Austria isn't one of the countries you mentioned. Look at my quote.

America CERTAINLY had much to do with the formation of Democracy after the war, and it is certainly fair to say that modern Europe is an American invention. For if it where not for Us conrtibuting everything we did, you would be either a part of Greater Germany, or the greater USSR. That simple

I never denied that. However, pinning every good thing you find now on the USA is stupid. This includes democracy. As I've said, the USA helped economically, freed most of Western Europe, but they had little to do with the creation of democracies, they had more to do with the support of governments already in place before the war. At some points, they adversely affected countries. Think of Greece, which was pretty much an oligarchy, where they supported the ruling class in oppressing every strand of liberalisation(With very decent demands. Like freedom.), simply because there was a suspicion that Stalin was involved(While he was not. This was proven after the collapse of the Soviet UNion.)
SImply put: Did the USA help Europe? Yes, tremendously evem.
Did they CREATE democracies?: No. Maybe Austria, although my historical knowledge on that point is weak, but overall, they created virtually none. They supported Germany, and helped it become autonomous again, but did they create the democratic state there? Not really, they merely continued what had been there before Hitler's rise to power.

No, not at all. Having a democracy for 20 years is not really being deomcratic at all. A democracy needs at least a half a century to develop and become stable...look at the CSA, or France.

What.the.fuck? So I guess America didn't become democratic after half a century? Do you have ANY clue how stupid this statement is?
Dictionary.com:
e·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Wow, nothing about a certain timespan needed there. Democracy is a democracy when it is founded, it may not be stable BUT DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRACY.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wow, nothing about a certain timespan needed there. Democracy is a democracy when it is founded, it may not be stable BUT DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRACY.

Well, to some extent certainly. But in order to be long lasting, and stable, and insure democracy, you need a flourishing economy, making centrific politics a goal and a lack of Government domination in anything.

Well, I just realized that half of Europe does not fit under that any more, but anyway....
America created stable democracies, which are alot more important, and require alot more work then a gap between dictators (as was the case with Germany).
My exapmple is Chile. The pople where stupid, so they elected a total baffon (Allende). So a bad dictator takes control, but helps the economy along by leaps and bounds.
Now, because the Chilean economy was doing well (as the direct result of the policies of Pinochet), Democracy could develop. Same thing happens in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan (McArthur in that area, btw), Attaturk....

 

[quietfanatic]

The pople where stupid, so they elected a total baffon (Allende). So a bad dictator takes control, but helps the economy along by leaps and bounds.
Now, because the Chilean economy was doing well (as the direct result of the policies of Pinochet), Democracy could develop. Same thing happens in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan (McArthur in that area, btw), Attaturk....

The reason these nations got stronger economies was mostly because they accepted Western ideas, practices and trade relations.

In Chile American investment and the lack of corporate restrictions was very good for economy. Although Allende might have sunk them for a while, the country was still a democracy and it was their right to choose to fail if they wanted to. They would have voted for the more capitalist faction next election. NO need for the dictator to force the people to open the floodgates to foreign investors (even if this might not be advantageous to the average person). Pinochet does have a disturbingly large powerbase today and Chile is on the brink of civil war. If he wasn't so old, powerful and demented, and the people seeking justice so impotent, there would be war there today.

BRAVO AMERICA you put him in power

Japan had terrible technology even during the war but 'improved' on Western designs as it went on. Likewise they could have copied a better system which may have been American
without the direct interference of McArthur. During the Meiji Restoration Japan sent emmissaries out specifically to find a good model for a system of government. They chose the militaristic Prussian system with predictable results. He may have been a good influence but today Japanese are having an identity crisis as young people dye their hair blonde and use American slang. This goes far beyond the usual influence of popular culture, as Japan was thrust into an American world before it had time to establish its own new national identity and way of thinking. Again they could have become a democracy without a tyrant.

Attaturk may have also hastened the move to democracy but his westernisation and secularisation of Turkey could have been done by a democracy that formed over time. He got the trust of the English by making these changes but the reign was not neccessarily a dictatorship.

For change to occur you would need an ideal, support people, power and a figurehead. Thus democracy can decide to make beneficial reforms and does not need the reforms to become a democracy in the first place, but instead, a willingness of the people to want that sort of government.

The Western democracies of today were once also monarchies, oligarchies etc. but they evolved with popular support, individual actions and the influence of classical democracy. The Ancient Greek tyrants helped democracy form not because of economic stability, but because the people wanted more freedom after the previous greedy bastard. The classical philosophers and people did not force, say America, to become a democracy but their influence helped. Time is of the essense.

 

[welsh]

I read through the article and don't see what's the big deal.

So there are lots of Europeans who are feeling anti-american because either (1) They hate George Bush, or (2) They don't like american tourists, or (3) they don't like US service men.

At the same time they like the business, the economic vibrancy across the ocean, the movies and popular culture and the fact that they probably have family on the other side of the atlantic.

So how has this changed?

(1) I can't blame them for hating GB. Hell the popular vote was against him in the last election and a lot of people probably hate him more. If he wins it will probably be due to the fact that democrats are not fielding viable candidates. SO if half the american public hates Bush too, than where is the difference?

(2) There have been ugly americans in Europe for a long time. No change.

(3) American servicemen = protection and savings. But for NATO I doubt you'd have an EU, and I would assume that states would have spent vastly more on defense and not on social programs.

Honestly except for that brief flair up of anti-French sentiment (and the US has always been somewhat anti-french for being more like New Yorkers than than the rest of the US), most americans don't even think enough of Europe to be anti-europe.

So is there a Father-Son complex between the US and Europe. Maybe, but if so it's been going on for awhile. During the Cold War, when we were all allies, the US let the French run happy in "the back garden" of Africa. But the US was also involved in suppressing communist movements in France. So you still had that heirarchy of power.

Is this troubling? No. Why? Because the gains of trade and interaction are better than not. So what if a bunch of French farmers burn a couple of McDonald's or hate Euro Disney. Euro Disney was a bad idea (I mean- in France?) and McDonald's isn't good for you anyway. At the same time there is a franchise of French restaurants in the US- and the food is great. Can't recall the name of it though.

If we accept that power transitions, that Europe is gaining relative power vis-a-vis the US, than perhaps this is a good thing. We have more in common than we did perhaps 60 years ago. Do we disagree, sure. But so what.

Should the Euros take a bigger role in the world? Maybe- the question is are the Euros willing pay for it.

As for Chili- yes, they elected a president that probably would have undercut the economy. But that's democracy. If you want a democracy, you take a risk that the people will make bad choices. Sometimes you take the risk that the people will make a good choice but the institutions of democracy will lead to less favorable outcomes. Remember how Bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral one? So yes, the US should not have removed Allende for Pinochet, and that's something that history will judge the US harshly on, and justifiably. Today we pay for the costs of the Cold War- same goes for Europe.

 

[John Uskglass]

As for Chili- yes, they elected a president that probably would have undercut the economy. But that's democracy. If you want a democracy, you take a risk that the people will make bad choices. Sometimes you take the risk that the people will make a good choice but the institutions of democracy will lead to less favorable outcomes. Remember how Bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral one? So yes, the US should not have removed Allende for Pinochet, and that's something that history will judge the US harshly on, and justifiably. Today we pay for the costs of the Cold War- same goes for Europe.

I am not so certain. Pinochet certainly did help the Chilean economy, and is largely responsible for Chile being the wealthiest south American nation.
And I think Allende would not have given another election. Do you know anything about the way his government worked? Stop thinking "Swedish Social-Democracy" start thinking "Castro"....

 

[welsh]

Well, CC it was not usual at the time for military strong men to intervene and remove socialist leaning if democratically elected governments. This happened quite a bit in Latin America. And while Chili has a very good GDP per capita it is not the wealthiest country of the region- look to Brazil and Argentina as the two economic powers. Chili does well in part because it has a small population.

(For more- check-
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html)

Would Allende have been removed without the US support? Probably. As mentioned, it was fairly common for militaries to remove democratic governments to maintain economic growth.

Would Allende have stopped further elections? Perhaps. But so did the far right. SO there seems little difference there.

My point is this- if you are going to be a nation that supports democratic values than you put up or shut up. The US is a democracy, we like to be the champions of freedom. If you believe in something, than stand up for it. If the Chilians want a left wing, than so be it. It's their country, let them choose.

Better that than have the US remove a democratically elected government for the benefit of ALCOA and get its hands bloody by supporting a rather ruthless dictator.

Is this naive? Maybe. But I think the US could have done a better job supporting democracy rather than using covert operations to further its interests through military strongmen. Yes, sometimes politics requires that one play dirty. But I don't believe the ends always justify the means. Sometimes those means transforms the agent itself, making it something it would rather not be.

At the end of the Second World War the US had championed democracy and decolonization, it had defeated facism and was taking a stand against the spread of communism while supporting democracy. Near the end we were supporting right wing death squads, trying to overthrow elected governments and protecting military tyrants.

 

[Sander]

Well, to some extent certainly. But in order to be long lasting, and stable, and insure democracy, you need a flourishing economy, making centrific politics a goal and a lack of Government domination in anything.

And now you've switched the argumentation round. Nice.
YOu do ralise, though, that this is also absolute bullshit. The lack of Government domination in anything? Ehh, do you know ANY democracy without government domination in anything?
"YOu need a flourishing economy"
So I guess that what the USA is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is absolutely useless, since they don't have flourishing economies?

America created stable democracies, which are alot more important, and require alot more work then a gap between dictators (as was the case with Germany).

No.it.didn't. It helped with the marshall plan, it helped with a lot of other things too. But it didn't "create" democracies. Germany being the sole possible exception, because (Western) Germany wasn't really a stand-alone country until 1949.
France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg just continued on the way they had before the war. I don't know about Austria, though.

My exapmple is Chile. The pople where stupid, so they elected a total baffon (Allende). So a bad dictator takes control, but helps the economy along by leaps and bounds.
Now, because the Chilean economy was doing well (as the direct result of the policies of Pinochet), Democracy could develop. Same thing happens in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan (McArthur in that area, btw), Attaturk....

So you support the undemocratic coming to power of a dictator(Pinochet), over the democratically elected POSSIBLE dicator(Allende), simply because the ECONOMY might've gotten better??? Wow, for a supporter of democracy, you have some weird ideas.
*points at welsh's post* Nice one.

Welsh: About the article, the main problem with it, is that it's absolute bullshit to anyone who lives in the EU. The father-son relationship is too farfetched, simply because a country doesn't want to oppose a different country because of "father-son complexes" but because of policies, ideals and economic interests. There are several factual errors, and gross misjudgements in it as well. Although the reasons for anti-americanism are correct, that isn't the problem(ALthough I have to admit that when I see an American tourist, there is a 30% chance he/she is incredibly annoying, loud and ignorant. But hey, 70% isn't.)

 

[Gwydion]

Remember how Bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral one?

That's actually impossible to prove. The difference in the popular votes was like half a percent, which is much smaller than the margin of error in the vote counting process. There's no way we can ever know for sure who actually won the election.

 

[Ozrat]

Especially since less than half of the eligible voting population voted anyways...