Europe's View of America now

Oh, PhD ay??? in what might I dare ask???

Are you sincerely interested or do you doubt wether or not I have one? Anyway I looked it up and I have to confes that I mistook PhD for a masters degree (what we used to call a Doctorandus)... so no, I don't have a PhD and I never will.
If you are still interested; I have my degree in Human Geography and work as a geography teacher.
 
I have my degree in Human Geography and work as a geography teacher.

That's awsome ;) I'm teacher as well :) I will however earn a PhD in Clinical Social Psychology :) it a loooong a** process though lol...why wouldn't you pursue a Doc. degree??? you're almost there ;)
 
Practicality I suppose.
Sometimes having a PhD actually makes you overly qualified for certain fields. Of course there's also time + money etc.
Except in some very technical fields, I think going the PhD route puts you on the theoretical pipeline as apposed to the actual practical work pipeline.
 
Practicality I suppose.
Sometimes having a PhD actually makes you overly qualified for certain fields. Of course there's also time + money etc.
Except in some very technical fields, I think going the PhD route puts you on the theoretical pipeline as apposed to the actual practical work pipeline.

Over qualified in the US, I think not...and of course it requires time and dedication..lol...degree's are not found in cereal boxes ;) lol...I decided to go the PhD route since I will be studying social cultural behavior,...It will help me develope ideas on why cultures behave and believe the way they do and how at the, end we're all binded together in more than one ways :)
 
This thread has been very informative for me. I would especially like to thank Micha for her candid and well thought out responses.

I'm a History guy, it's what I study all the time. Having looked into the histories of both Europe and the US I can understand the divide between us. Americans are QUITE ignorant to cultural sensitivites. It's a handicap that we have and I have an explanation as to why.

America is a big place...we are contained by two oceans that insulate us from the rest of the world. You can literally drive 4500 km in this country, get out of your car, go into a restaraunt and speak, understand, and basically share the same cultural understanding with these people as the people that live where you are from. Hardly any effort or understanding is needed. Apply this same scenerio to Europe...quite different. Of course this is no excuse, but, it sure doesn't help.

The whole patriotism debate is understandable. Nationalism is still within living memory in Europe. There's still war damage in Europe as a result of the rise of nationalism. Patriotism works in America because we haven't lost a generation or two because of it. We haven't had our cities leveled and had our civilians exposed to the harsh realities of war that would be necessary to leave the putrid taste in ones mouth of the stupidity that nationalism can lead to. Of course, I don't think it's going to be far off...not in the sense of WWI or WWII...but more in the economic sense . We're going to see within the next two generations the US slip away from the world scene as the primary player. This debt and this depression we're in is going to have the ramifications of a hard look in the mirror. When it gets bad enough...people here are going to get pissed, and then things are going to change...I hope.

I can honestly say that there is a lot of things I see posted on the internet that Americans say and I have to slap my head and go "doh". It's quite embarrassing really...but, that's America for you...big mouthed and big headed!


My wife is overqualified right now for her profession. She has a Masters degree in education and a ESL (English as Second Language) endorsement. School districts know that she maxes out the pay scale and she's been looked over several times because of it. It is quite frustrating for us...but KS isn't exactly known for it's stellar emphasis on public education...
 
Last edited:
This thread has been very informative for me. I would especially like to thank Micha for her candid and well thought out responses.

I'm a History guy, it's what I study all the time. Having looked into the histories of both Europe and the US I can understand the divide between us. Americans are QUITE ignorant to cultural sensitivites. It's a handicap that we have and I have an explanation as to why.

America is a big place...we are contained by two oceans that insulate us from the rest of the world. You can literally drive 4500 km in this country, get out of your car, go into a restaraunt and speak, understand, and basically share the same cultural understanding with these people as the people that live where you are from. Hardly any effort or understanding is needed. Apply this same scenerio to Europe...quite different. Of course this is no excuse, but, it sure doesn't help.

The whole patriotism debate is understandable. Nationalism is still within living memory in Europe. There's still war damage in Europe as a result of the rise of nationalism. Patriotism works in America because we haven't lost a generation or two because of it. We haven't had our cities leveled and had our civilians exposed to the harsh realities of war that would be necessary to leave the putrid taste in ones mouth of the stupidity that nationalism can lead to. Of course, I don't think it's going to be far off...not in the sense of WWI or WWII...but more in the economic sense . We're going to see within the next two generations the US slip away from the world scene as the primary player. This debt and this depression we're in is going to have the ramifications of a hard look in the mirror. When it gets bad enough...people here are going to get pissed, and then things are going to change...I hope.

I can honestly say that there is a lot of things I see posted on the internet that Americans say and I have to slap my head and go "doh". It's quite embarrassing really...but, that's America for you...big mouthed and big headed!


My wife is overqualified right now for her profession. She has a Masters degree in education and a ESL (English as Second Language) endorsement. School districts know that she maxes out the pay scale and she's been looked over several times because of it. It is quite frustrating for us...but KS isn't exactly known for it's stellar emphasis on public education...

I am a American living in Paris. And I agree entirely with what you said.

We lost 4400 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and while that number isn't unimportant it is puny compared to the butchery that happened elsewhere.

We Americans have never really fought a war on out on soil since the US Civil War (which not surprisingly was also a bloodbath) and because of it we have convinced ourselves that we are superior to others. France, Germany and the UK had similar attitudes in the early part of the 20th century but then things like Verdun and the Somme occurred and there sense of ultra-nationalism pretty much vanished. One major war within the US and you'll see this uber-patriotism vanish.

European have they attitude that when they must fight its because they have no other choice, which is why they are very hesitate to get involved in combat. Americans still seem to think that war is somewhat of a good thing, a glorious thing that brings honor to the country.

But thats because the US has never really been in the absolute nastiness of the fighting. There have been nasty moments like Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima and Tarawa but these only lasted a few hours/days/weeks maximum. We have never been the wholesale slaughter Verdun, Somme, or Stalingrad which lasted months and killed thousands every single day. In Vietnam at its worst, we lost about 100 troops every week, the British at the Somme lost that every 10-15 minutes or so and the battle went on for 3 weeks at that speed.

Think of it this way, the British lost twice as much men in 18 days at the Somme, than the US did in the entirety of WWII. The US have fought some tough, bloody battles, but not at the same level as what the Europeans or Russians have.
 
America's and Europe's self-understanding or identity

To understand Europe and the U.S. it is not enough to look at how they perceive the others. What is crucial is also how they see themselves. Both individuals and countries tend to see themselves as unique and live on an identity that makes us different from everyone else. This also applies to Europe, and - especially - the United States. Presumably one can say that exceptionalism is the mainstay of American identity. Among the reasons that America sees itself as exceptional should include:

- That it was the first "new world", the first colony which became independent from the "old world" colonial domination;

- It probably has an ideology in the usual sense, for example. Liberalism, but the main thing is that America does not have an ideology but is an ideology;

- You can become an American by believing in this ideology while in most other countries you get your nationality by being born there and have a shared history. USA is historically made up by immigrants who just do not have a common history;

- The official American ideology, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence is based on 5 things: freedom, equality, individualism, populism and "let it be (laissez-faire). Freedom is, above all, individual freedom, the freedom to say and do what you want and move around as you like, in geographical and social sense.Also individual progress and success is emphasized. Equality is also about individual opportunity and respect, not that everyone should be equal in the society. This new society of equality ideals stemming from the U.S. is not like in Europe characterized by feudalism, monarchy and aristocracy, and therefore there is no tradition that you must be obedient to the state.

- USA is the most religious of all Christian communities, perhaps with the exception of Poland and Ireland, and religious belief are organized into sects, mainly Methodists and Baptists. In other Christian countries, it is the church that dominates and the individualistic practice implies that one follows his own moral code rather than a clergy or state church interpretations. Americans see human nature as perfect and life as a quest and therefore adopts a more moralistic perspective on those who are not. The Church and States in Europe tend to see man as weak and sinful and think less of perfection.

- Support for the war is just as morality-based a thing as opposition to war. It is again the private moral code, which provides: our country's moral strength and right, listening to my own conscience. To behave morally to war the Americans most define their role as standing at God's side against Satan, against evil, “with God on our side. " There is thus a good dose of patriotism in the venture and it is no coincidence that the U.S. also is viewed as "God's chosen country" and Americans as God's chosen people.

- "Let it be" as a social philosophy that says that the state should not control people, they are expected to be happiest when the state governs least. It is a kind of "God's invisible hand" to regulate the market economy for the common good, not the state. Therefore, the idea of a welfare state as we know it in Europe has not proven successful in the U.S., although it at times has been practiced, for example, in the New Deal. Instead of the welfare state there has been a widespread belief that those who have done the best and become rich, have a moral obligation to help the weaker ones. Society rests on a strong rejection of authority and enforcement, and it is possibly also why one finds more crime in society and lower voter turnout in American elections (about 50% at presidential elections) than in Europe.

- These properties entail that there is no socialist tradition in the U.S., Americans see themselves as bearers of liberalism and as belonging to one large middle class rather than as a class-divided society. Being a leftist in the U.S. is a little like being a Social-Democrat here, what Europeans call liberal is described as conservative in the U.S. Several of today's neo-conservative leaders originally came from intellectual circles in the Democratic Party, and described the U.S. as social democratic in their attitude towards state and society. Several of them later on went to the Republican Party.

- One fundamental element of historical exceptionalism is Manifest Destiny. It is the story of the expansion / colonization from there was the 13 states that signed the Declaration of Independence until they had completed the entire American continent under them. It is history, but also a philosophy, a movement; yes it is the entire U.S.foundation. And it is the myth on what the U.S. global expansion is based, also it is a civilization project and a mission.

Finally, one can point to attitudes towards democracy and the political parties are very different. For a variety of reasons, the U.S. is basically a two-party system, while in Europe we think that multi-party democracy is a treasure. In the United States you elected a president who then chooses a cabinet which is responsible to him and not to a parliament. Since there is only one person and one party who can win then it is a widespread belief that attempts to support a third or seventh candidate or party is tantamount to voting wastage.

It is not difficult to understand how these basic features of American exceptionalism can help create a dominant and self-righteous superpower when the mind are running free and you miss heavier opponents. And then we most remember that not even these properties represent the entire picture of the U.S. There are countercurrent, for example, the war resistance and the flower power in the 1960s. And at times there has been significant government intervention in the economy and war is not just something that Americans engage in for the moral reasons, they do also to maintain their military industry and to control oil sources.

Exceptionalism is the spectacles through which America interprets itself and its community mission in the larger world. It has elements of truth and elements of self-deception. Like all ideologies. But it does not require Europe to see U.S. policy as an expression of pure idealism and devotion.
 
Nice and insightful article, seehund! About sums my views up and brings them better into perspective than I could have done myself!

:pray:

Rattler
 
Well said Seehund. I wish I would have seen this when it was written...Anyways you're right about the effect of religion on this countries conscience. It often gets in the way of the important more pressing issues and causes the population to focus too much on issues that are not terribly important. Abortion and gay rights being good examples.
 
I think much of the European view of the US is based on a lack of understanding or our history--short as it may be by European standards. They don't understand our attitude toward our Federal government and--apparently--think that reality shows and pop culture are representative of our society. Doing that is like judging British society through reruns of the "Benny Hill Show."

As I understand it most European nations have some sort of representative socialist government. Their governments serve many of these countries well as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, etc. Some are not so good such as Italy which has had more than 70 governents since WWII. But for the most part the European norm is government from the top down. The government grants privileges to its citizens and in exchange it cares for their needs. This is not a criticism of these countries systems of government, it's just how their systems evolved over time. To my European friends in this forum please understand that I am speaking in broad generalities about your governments, I am far from an expert on European politics and any corrections to my observations are welcome. No offence is intended.

In the US our freedom was won as a result of armed revolution against a distant and oppressive empire. Our founding fathers created a nation that was governed by a Constitution that explicitly restricted the powers of the Federal government and recognized God-given rights owned by every individual citizen, not privileges granted by the government.

The trade off is that American citizens are expected to be self-reliant and independent, not looking to our government to meet our everyday needs. To this day most Americans retain this characteristic of self-reliance. If we have a problem, we try to fix it without getting the government--at any level-- involved. Indeed, individuals, communities and states are far better equipped to deal with local problems that the Federal government. This is a big country and Washington is far away.

In general most Americans distrust big, intrusive government. The freedom to choose what we do, how we do it and the responsibility to suffer the natural consequences of our actions are more important to us than a government that takes care of us from the cradle to the grave. Is there total agreement with this in the US? No.

Here the majority rules and that means some people or groups are going to get less than what they want, but in this country there is unparalleled opportunity for the individual to improve his or her circumstances.

There is one more thing to keep in mind about the US. We are by far the most generous and open-handed people in the world. Most of us understand that having so much we have moral obligation to help others when they are in need. Currently we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars to assist Japan recover and rebuild. We did the same when Haiti was devastated. Same again after the Indonesian tsunami. When Somalia was starving to death the US along with many European allies tried--in vain--to allieviate the suffering. Except for Somalia--due to the outcome--this humanitarian aid is met without a murmur of protest from the American public. Consider this when you cast a suspicious eye over the so-called imperialism of the US.

Yes we can be a bitter and implacable enemy, but we are also willing to extend the hand of friendship even to former enemies in their time of need.
 
Last edited:
I think you'll find that the more you talk to Europeans, you will discover that we actually understand you pretty well - sometimes however, we just wonder!

U.S. history is a big part of the curriculum in history teaching in Danish schools on an equal footing with the European one. American politics, both domestic and international, are often in the media in Europe.

But let me provoke you now! And don´t take it amiss. This is no way an attack on you as an Americans, just a thought experiment.


The nation’s founders did set up a system where very few people could participate: white, male landowners. They didn’t do so for explicitly racist, sexist or classist reasons, but for the most pragmatic and sensible reason of all: those were the only people who could afford sufficient education to participate intelligently in the government. Thomas Jefferson’s legacy is much admired in the US and beyond, and for good reason. Without his contributions it’s hard to imagine how the American system of “democracy” would have evolved. The genius of Jefferson’s vision is in its ability to make those class distinctions more or less invisible to the rabble. Overt markers were eschewed (no kings, dukes, etc.) and a great fuss was made over the idea that any man could rise in station according to his ability and willingness to work, a myth gleefully propagated by the Church. Jefferson truly felt the nobility of “liberty.” On the other hand, let’s remember that this new system of freedom extended to every land-owning white man in the country. On its face, the new republic was a de jure plutocracy.

Let me restate this: the American system was constructed so that only rich white people had a voice in government.

This is why I smile when I hear Americans criticizing the politicians for trying to “steal” all the power for the wealthy elites. “The system is broken,” they wail. Please. The system is working precisely as designed. They are not stealing power, although I might entertain the argument that they’re stealing it back. In essence, once you stripped away the utopian rhetoric surrounding it, it was nothing more than an innovation in elite rule, more like the monarchy in England than it was different from it. The brilliance of it, though, was that the rhetoric was bound to inflame the hearts of those who weren’t rich white landowners, and that in time more and more groups would agitate for and gain the franchise. “Imagine those slaves of yours lining up to vote for one of their own,”

Now, if you had lost the War of Independence then maybe we would haveThe United Kingdom of Americaor what .........!

A nation which looked like most countries in Europe today.
 
It would be interesting to investigate what America thinks of Europe, and, indeed, what Europe thinks of Europe.

Should America care anyway?
 
Seehund: I am impressed at the amount of American history the Danish schoolchild is required to take. Unfortunately, many Danes are probably more aware of our history that most American schoolchildren. I am concerned however at the kind of American history the Danes are taught (apparently social and economic.) These types of history are relatively recent (in the last 40-50 years or so) examples of revisionist history invariably written by individuals politically left of center (by US standards) with an ideological axe to grind.

I assume that your government has some influence over school curriculum. It seems natural to me that an educational system influenced to any degree by the government would choose textbooks that tend to show seemilngly haphazard representative democracies with capitalist financial systems as less desirable than democratically elected socialist forms of government. It would be a very odd sort of government that taught its citizens that it was not the best choice. Please understand this is not a criticism of your government or the ability of the Danish people to intelligently choose the kind of government that suits them best.

Your points about the economic status of the founding fathers are well taken. I am familiar with the Plutocracy argument. However, you did not have to be rich to have the right to vote. You simply had to be a property owner. A man who owned one acre of land, a business building or house in a city, had the same number of votes at the polls as a tobacco plantation owner who had thousands of acres. One.

Ownership of land was within the reach of most free men. Land--especially along the frontier--was cheap, plentiful and --in the case of homesteaders, free with certain requirements. As a result the electorate grew at a robust rate.

Originally, and for quite some time after--women were not allowed to vote. Of course slaves and indentured servants were likewise unenfranchised. This was pretty typical thinking for the late 1700's even among "enlightened" humanists.

One other thing, if the founders of our country intended to establish a plutocracy they would have simply created a unitized voting scheme, for instance instead of one man one vote; a land owner would have one vote per acre of land; a businessman, one vote per an established monetary value of his yearly trade. This was not done. Each man got one vote, rich or poor, high or low born, educated or ignorant, as long as he owned land or real property. Men as intelligent as the founding fathers could have found a much better way to establish a plutocracy if that was their intent.

As this country evolved things changed. The franchise was extended to all white men, former male slaves received the right to vote after the Civil War--although there is a very checkered history to that issue far too complex to address here. Women received the right to vote in 1920. Of course today we have universal suffrage.

Government by the rich is really a development dating from the second half of the 20th century. Today the rich--especially corporations--have a disproportionate effect on public policy through political contributions and lobbyists. It doesn't have to be that way, and the "great unwashed" of the American public can have a huge effect on this situation.

We the people elect our representatives. If they serve us well we can reelect them, if not we can turn them out of office. The fault is not with our system, it is with the character--or lack of it--of many people who go into politics. Today most people who pursue politics for a career have law degrees. In American law schools students are taught that the truth is irrelevant. They carry this "ethic" with them into public office.

Having an elected office gives a person power. We would do well to remember what Robespierre said about power. This power can be used to do good things for your constituents and good things for your country, It can also be used to serve your own purposes and line your own pockets at the expense of both. At present the system allows far too much of the latter.

Reform would be easy, on paper. Absolute term limits for elected office--no career politicians. They are by far the worst.

Abolish lobbyists across the board and make receiving any sort of payment or gratuity from a lobbyist, no matter how slight, a jailable offense for both lobbyist and recipient with huge fines imposed on the special interest group they represent. If special interests want to plead their case they can do so outside the capitol building like everyone else.

Require financial transparency for elected officials with regular published audits by independent accountants.

Establish laws forbidding corporations from donating millions to candidates and political parties, laws with no loopholes and great big teeth.

Such simple reforms would work wonders. The problem is that you have to convince the foxes to legislate themselves out of the henhouse. Any suggestions on how you do that?
 
Last edited:
As Del Boy said "Should America care anyway?"

Most foreign countries, have the idea that America is a bottomless bank, from which they can receive copious amounts of money, for a whole host of reasons ... some of which no longer make sense. They ALSO view America as the world's police force, from which most countries are not wont to participate with men AND money. What is really contentious as far as I am concerned, is the fact that many European countries complain when America takes action to cure one of these numerous cancers and ills, and then turn right around and complain when we don't. It has gotten to the point, that both complaints sometimes get aired on the same day. I sometimes think that some of the European countries have forgotten the debt that is still owed to America for stopping the Nazis during WWII (a debt that America has never demanded).

Personally, I think we should stop spending millions of dollars every year, funding other country's governments and stop trying to bail out every two-bit clown's claim to government. It's past time that they stand on their own feet.

I realise that I am going to get complaints that I am in favor of isolationism ... and ... that is the furthest thing from my beliefs. When a country like Libya goes through the throes of kicking out a dictator, I believe we have a democratic imperative to lend a helping hand to the forces that are in revolt.

Other than that, other involvements where troops are garrisoned, should be looked at with an eye towards whether the expenditures are warranted by today's picture of the world. Why we need to have the force levels we presently have in various places around the world, are way out of whack. I believe that there are areas where we could have a force draw-down.

Thoughts?????????
 
I sometimes think that some of the European countries have forgotten the debt that is still owed to America for stopping the Nazis during WWII (a debt that America has never demanded).

From the US, the argument is often proposed that the British and the volunteers from the occupied countries were simply treading water until the Americans arrived to save them. But to me, the dismissal of their contribution to the war, from whatever quarter, is an insult to those men who died in its prosecution.

And in the numbers game, you lose out to the Red Army in every category.
 
Amen Chief. I do believe we mystify Europeans, but that mystification seems willful. Maybe they feel threatened on some level by the US being the world's only remaining super power. Though why they would is beyond me.

Maybe they don't understand why we Americans have never had to rely on any other country to come to our aid. Maybe the resent our self sufficiency.

The Europeans, having failed to show themselves superior to the US in any category have invented for themselves the self-styled myth of moral superiority. It's all they have.

Is there a country in mainland Europe that has not been conquered, occupied or subjugated by a foriegn power or ideology--and not needed our help to survive--in the last century except for Sweden or Switzerland? Who came to their aid? Memory is short, gratitude is perishable.

P.S. Did the Russians liberate Denmark Seehund? Could the allies and local resistance forces have defeated the Germans without the US? What were we, just johnny come latelys jumping on the bandwagon of a war already won by the Europeans? What about the Danish Waffen SS, Seehund? What was that about? If the Russians had liberated all of Europe--including Scandanavia--would you have liked living under the Hammer and Sickle. Maybe you should check with the Hungarians and Czechs, the Lithuanians and Estonians and Poles about the wonders of being "saved" by the Soviets. Your comments are an insult to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died for your freedom and the decades of American protection through NATO that kept the Soviets off your front lawn. Respect is respect, Seehund we earned Europe's with blood, and it wasn't any sort of "game". What did Europe do for us? Why do you deserve our respect?
 
Last edited:
Maybe they don't understand why we Americans have never had to rely on any other country to come to our aid. Maybe the resent our self sufficiency.

Never?
Care to explain the French influence during the revolutionary wars?

Is there a country in mainland Europe that has not been conquered, occupied or subjugated by a foriegn power or ideology--and not needed our help to survive--in the last century except for Sweden or Switzerland? Who came to their aid? Memory is short, gratitude is perishable.

Spain?
Andora?
Gibraltar?
Finland?
Sweden?
Switzerland?
Portugal?


P.S. Did the Russians liberate Denmark Seehund? Could the allies and local resistance forces have defeated the Germans without the US?

No the British did, had D-Day not occurred then I am sure the Russians would have defeated the Germans with or without the USA.

What did Europe do for us? Why do you deserve our respect?

Well if it wasn't for Europe America would be nothing more than a vast plain full of Indians except for the bits that spoke Mexican.

Respect is an interesting thing as for it to be meaningful it has to be mutual and given the tone of your post and the fact that you have glossed over vast chunks of your own European history it is clear that you do not respect Europe so the lack of respect seems mutual.
 
Back
Top