Insular Americanism

[vanir]

Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.

Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.

 

I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

 

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.

[The Doctor]

I couldn't agree more, though I don't see that this will turn into anything but an "Americans vs. the World" thread. Especially with some of the more... shall we say, "opinionated" American citizens on the forum. I think everyone knows who I'm talking about.

[Astor]

So the largest, most advanced Battleship ever constructed is 'inferior technology'?

 

I will say, in defence of Americans, all of the Americans i've ever spoken to (and i've also spoken with a number of WWII veterans) have never made such claims about 'saving the world'.

[jrrtoken]

What kind of sites do you visit anyhow?

 

Yeah, I hate the whole "American is the BESTEST!!!" attitude. It's not like its nothing new, I mean, there was the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which practically declared that the U.S. had the right to police the entire Western Hemisphere to its whim.

[Web Rider]

Oh please, most nations laud their contribution to *conflict* far more than others because as you say, they're just like everyone else(as long as they were on the winning side).

 

Russia believed that without them, Europe would have been lost to the Germans. It's a very common attitude to say that "my country did more!"

 

It takes years to learn about all the contributions to any conflict that all involved nations gave, primary(K-12) education simply does not cover it, and yes, some places, even in higher education, teach that America is the greatest and that we did everything. It simply is one of those things that happens.

 

And don't start going on about how Americans are insular to the world, every European nation tries it's hardest to protect their country and their interests just as much as the US does. see:world history.

[Darth333]

Having lived in several countries, the "we are the best and the others are wrong" attitude seems like it can be found anywhere. Every country tries to protect its interests to some point.

 

However, it seems rather more common in countries such as Canada and the US (perhaps because some people tend to rank the possibility to amass pure material individual comfort above anything else, no matter what and/or perhaps because I also have "my nose right on it".). Apart from popular opinions, one of the things that come to my mind are the IMF and World Bank policies: in the end, it is not surprising that there are some reactions such as the Banco del Sur in response to that.

 

My simple take on that for this evening (I can elaborate more later on): there are good and bad things everywhere...although the good and bad are not necessarily at the same "place" and that still depends on perspective and/or context for a lot of things: what is good or fitting for one isn't necessarily the best for the others.

[ForeverNight]

So the largest, most advanced Battleship ever constructed is 'inferior technology'?[/Quote]

 

Yep, since bigger battleships == bigger targets.

 

Anyway, to say that we 'liberated' Europe nigh singlehandedly is not really a fallacy. The Russian's did not Liberate any square millimeter of European soil to say otherwise is to say that the Soviet Union never oppressed it's people. The Canadians and the English did their bit to be sure, but the US seems to have done the bulk of the effort in the European theater. As well as the various resistance groups scattered throughout Europe at the time.

 

However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?

 

England was working a lot with US built planes and equipment. Same with the Russians. Monty was paralyzed in North Africa, following his pattern of attack, build up forces until you have near-perfect intelligence and at minimum a 2:1 force ratio. The Soviets might've pushed out Germany, and have gone to Berlin without any US designed and/or built equipment, but who knows.

 

As for Japan, yes they were technologically inferior if I dare to use the term. They didn't have many Aircraft carriers and those were quickly proven to be the penultimate navel vessel.

---

Anyway, where is America any different in terms of Human Potential?

 

You seriously have to ask this question?

 

America's strength is it's immigrants looking for a better life. Almost all of the most important inventions and people in the history of America have been first or second generation immigrants. Now, granted, this isn't occurring as much as it used to, but then we have a bunch of immigrants who can't be bothered to learn the language.

 

As for Righteousness, I think that the past sixty years are to blame for this. We had the Soviet Union who was communist and Marx believed that Socialism is just the transition to Communism. So, Europe was steadily becoming more and more Socialist, more like our enemies, and then starting to disagree with us more and more with how to deal with the Union.

 

So, we see the world as starting to turn there backs and we're the only one's -in our eyes- really doing something about it, so we are the righteous. Also, that helps with the don't trust the rest of the world as much as you can mentality.

 

At least, that's my take on it.

[vanir]

Mmm, I will apolegise more directly for this kind of thread's potential to start a bash America thread. This is definitely neither a productive nor objective course, and I would hope the impressive debaters of Kavar's have a little more gnads than to be so droll.

 

I've a bit of respect for this forum developed over the past few days I've been a regular visitor.

 

Myself, I'm a member of dozens of forums, partly for networking and some for research purposes. Some excellent good friends I've made include a PhD physicist and some acquaintence with a literary/academic author (mine is well researched fiction).

 

It's just I feel like my brain's being shoved into a box every time I encounter this attitude of using statistics to further a political argument of national superiority. It's tiring to argue with those involved and ultimately it appears a violent argument is all they're searching for. A case of "I'm the King of the Castle and you're the dirty rascal."

 

But its the consequences of what's being said that indeed bother me. Japanese culture is less technologically capable, one insinuation. It's the old "Barbarians are less than human" argument of imperial colonialism.

 

what is good or fitting for one isn't necessarily the best for the others.

It seems on some days this wonderful realisation is so very painfully rare.

 

I have come across the poorer attitude among poms, Indians and Russians, so obviously it's not an entirely American phenomenon. However, in a purely anecdotal capacity I seem to hit it head on at sites with predominant American membership more often than anywhere else. Whilst it may be annoying that popularisms have little reference, therefore little to debate with, nevertheless it is a common popularism outside America that Americans are commonly politically and philosophically insular.

There was even a very popular local workers movement as I recall, back in the nineties to determine that Australia (and its government) not become too, "Americanised."

 

Now, for example, what exactly does that mean? What is Americanised?

[Q]

Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.

While this is true in several cases, the opposite could be said in several others. It really came down to three basic factors: resources, production capacity and design philosophy. I believe that it could safely be said that the US had an overwhelming advantage in the first two factors and were just about even in the third. Please note that this is a very broad statement. I could go into detail if you wish, but I'm feeling too lazy to go into specifics if I don't have to.

Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.

I'm of the opinion that while it was the Soviets who saved Europe from the Nazis it was the combined efforts of the US, the UK and Canada that saved western Europe from the Soviets.

And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

Actually they're doing the exact opposite by teaching students that it's chic to feel guilty for the sins committed by their forefathers 50+ years ago; sins for which they are in no way responsible. The result is mindless drivel like this:

Do some research on America and you'll find out we're really a horrible nation, and that we've done the exact opposite of what you believe throughout history.

Which, IMO, is just as ridiculous as the belief that we saved the world all by ourselves. We are neither angels in white, nor are we "The Great Satan," or the next Nazi Germany.

However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?

Yes, I believe I can. Ever heard of the Battle of Britain? Stalingrad? How about Kursk? First and Second El Alamein, perhaps? Yes, I know that El Alamein is in Africa, but my point is that none of these major turning-points in the war against Nazi Germany involved US forces.

The Soviets might've pushed out Germany, and have gone to Berlin without any US designed and/or built equipment, but who knows.

I believe that I know. Even without our aid, it would have merely taken them longer (probably much longer) to do so. While our production capacity certainly made a difference in providing much-needed material support, it does not subtract from the fact that the Soviet Union took on over 2/3 of the Wehrmacht and obliterated it. What happened in the West was little more than a sideshow in comparison. I have little doubt that the Soviets would have eventually crushed Nazi Germany on their own had they needed to. Even after 20+ million dead, they were in no danger of running out of manpower and with all of that land mass, they were in no danger of running out of territory into which they could strategically retreat, rest, lick their wounds, reform and then get back into the fight. And they were so utterly and righteously pissed off at the Germans that they would have fought them down to the last man and the last bullet. Germany could never have beaten them without the bomb, period, and they were a lot farther from producing a working example than what is generally believed.

As for Japan, yes they were technologically inferior if I dare to use the term.

Wrong. At the start of the war, the Zero was the most advanced carrier-borne fighter in the world and outclassed its US opponent, the Wildcat in nearly every way. It could out-run, out-turn and out-climb it, and the only thing that kept the Wildcat from becoming a veritable deathtrap for our fighter pilots was that it could fall like a stone by going into a steep dive (useless at low-level) and the fact that it was built like a tank (a Grumman legacy) with armor and self-sealing fuel tanks that the Zero lacked and could therefore absorb enormous amounts of punishment and keep on flying. It was these features and the invention of the Thach Weave tactic that helped our pilots hold their own against the Zero until the belated arrival of more advanced fighters. The Japanese designed advanced types as well, but were unable to introduce them due to their limited production capacity which was already strained to the breaking point in trying to produce enough examples of existing types to meet the demands of their armed forces. Germany had very similar problems, but this has been downplayed somewhat due to the fact that they did manage to be the first nation to introduce jet-powered combat aircraft.

They didn't have many Aircraft carriers and those were quickly proven to be the penultimate navel vessel.

Wrong again. Yamamoto had realized the carrier's pre-eminence, and was actually opposed to the construction of the superbattleships Yamato and Musashi because he believed (correctly as it turned out; both were sunk by carrier-based aircraft) that they were an enormous waste of resources that could have been better-used elsewhere. They actually had more carriers than we did at the beginning of the war, two of which, Shōkaku and Zuikaku, were the most advanced in the world until the introduction of the Taiho, also by the Japanese, and of the Essex Class by the US in 1943. Once again their lack of production capacity prevented the Japanese from replacing ships lost in combat as their first-rate navy was ground into dust by our overwhelming numerical superiority.

 

Well, it looks like I went all into detail anyway. Good topic, vanir.

[vanir]

Okay, definitely don't want to turn this into a 'bash ForeverNight' thread but dude, take a step back man. Always argue the other side before forming an opinion.

Yep, since bigger battleships == bigger targets.

Although not according to pre-war US Naval doctrine. Carriers were designated escort vessels whilst the Battleship remained the flagship of the Fleet. This was forcibly changed by Pearl Harbour, and it was Yamamoto who changed it. But the statement was obviously intended to provide a simple comparison, who had the best battleship, which was at the time (prior to Pearl Harbour) the flagship of any navy. The answer would be Japan, by a longshot. The Yamato and Musashi were designed to almost single handedly wipe out an entire surface action force and they could do it too.

However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?

Indeed no Operation Overlord may have happened, no invasion of northern France almost wholly due to changes therefore to Operation Point Blank and no attainment of air superiority in western Europe due to a severe downgrading or cancellation of the daylight bombing campaign.

 

But this is the most important point: it would have changed nothing for Germany, only for British and American involvement in the defeat of Germany. Gaining air superiority over western Europe, the Channel Front was necessary only to permit an invasion of northern France, and it was only around 200 Luftwaffe fighters defending it at the best of times, in the final years. It started off with only 26 operational defensive fighters in 1942 (edit; and iirc, this was a low point at the beginning of '42 in terms of immediate response units, total strength was about 80 109F capable of being directed to a region if somewhat prepared), covering the entirety of nothern France and the Low Countries.

 

Had these been freed for service on the Eastern Front they could have made no difference whatsoever, it was a case of a few hundred in total against some 15,000 and getting worse.

 

Hence post war soviet control of western Europe by simple occupation and adamant claims of sole liberation. And keep in mind a great proportion of western Europe not only believed in communism, but was reaffirmed by Nazi Germany in this belief, not in capitalism which let's face it, a fair number believed helped cause the whole matter to begin with.

 

England was working a lot with US built planes and equipment. Same with the Russians. Monty was paralyzed in North Africa, following his pattern of attack, build up forces until you have near-perfect intelligence and at minimum a 2:1 force ratio. The Soviets might've pushed out Germany, and have gone to Berlin without any US designed and/or built equipment, but who knows.

The drive to Berlin involved at best guess around 15,000 Soviet combat aircraft comprising roughly 50% numbers of the IL2 Sturmovik ground attack fighters as the primary tactical doctrine, next to the T-34/85 tank and ISU series SPG's. And the variety of Soviet made fighters in service, Yak-7, Yak-1B, Yak-9, Yak-9T, Yak-9U, Yak-9D, Yak-9M and Yak-9B, plus La-5F, La-5FN and La-7 (series 1), plus LaGG-3 (series 35), LaGG-3 (series 66) and LaGG-3IT and a partridge in a pear tree. At one time on the whole Eastern Front there were around 24,000 IL2 Sturmoviks alone listed as currently in action, a figure never surpassed in aviation history.

 

There were relatively small numbers of American made P-39N and Q Airacobras (remodelled to Soviet specifications by the manufacturer), and these were equipped only to Guards units (because they had such good comparative pilot equipment when they first appeared in numbers in 1943, more than any other single reason). The USSR also received a number of LF Mark Vb and later a handful of Mark IX Spitfires but performance was downgraded due to lower quality available fuel. Other than that a small number of Hurricanes and Warhawks were used around the Stalingrad period (mid-42 to early 43) and didn't see much more action due to their obsolescence compared to any Luftwaffe fighter types in service. Hurricanes were used almost exclusively for ground attack by this stage and Warhawks for escorting Sturmoviks, alongside early build LaGG-3 fighter-bombers (roughly equivalent to a Mark Ia Spit).

 

The United States had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the USSR driving to Berlin being a wholesale victory. US lend-lease primarily saved Stalingrad from certain defeat by October '42. Without the US Stalingrad would've been lost, then recaptured, all in all it was worth an extra, poorly equipped Soviet army along with the two already lost by September, out of about 15 in the immediate vicinity. Trust me, America made mostly a political difference, and one of international morale, they even made a logistical one insofar as it helped out of a bad period there for a few months, but it ultimately made no strategic difference whatsoever. Nothing would've changed...bar more people killed amid millions being killed. It's even up for some very loose speculation if it could possibly have delayed anything, the forces being built by Zhukov were being equipped from Ural factories. Most of the US stuff either went to second echelon units in the field (those not involved in Uranus or Little Saturn), or second echelon units in the Kuban (Cossacks, Gherkas and Kyrghs, whom the Russians had a bit of antipathy with...ahem along with Georgians, Baltics and Ukrainians lol).

 

Similarly the United States did as much for the Battle of Britain, adamantly supplying England, as far as relative impact this was far and away more significant. But in terms of direct US involvement it hardly played any role at all in Europe. America's role in Europe during WW1 was far more significant, representing a reserve force Germany was too exhausted to continue hostilities with. In WW2 Germany already had no chance against the Soviets alone anyway, not after Moscow, the Mediterranean (in terms of cost to the Luftwaffe and merchant navy) and Kursk. Combining the results of those three campaigns is what directly defeated Germany.

[Web Rider]

So, in the end, the US did a lot to help everyone else out, but didn't do it single-handedly.

 

Personally, I love it when the UK or France complains that Hollywood doesn't make enough movies about their WWI/II soldiers. Srsly, make your own movies, you'll like 'em, we won't, just like we like our movies, and you don't. Every country loves a hero, and they love them more if they're from their own country, so it's only logical that a country will parade their efforts more than their buddies.

[vanir]

Hmm, I appreciate the sentiment Web Rider, but I don't know if I agree with it wholeheartedly. I feel that it is more productive to promote a cultural attitude of entertaining the perspective of others to fullest capacity, in order to truly found a benevolent system of government.

And it is that after all, government is ultimately performed by you, your attitudes towards others is their perception of government. People, us, govern.

[Web Rider]

Hmm, I appreciate the sentiment Web Rider, but I don't know if I agree with it wholeheartedly. I feel that it is more productive to promote a cultural attitude of entertaining the perspective of others to fullest capacity, in order to truly found a benevolent system of government.

And it is that after all, government is ultimately performed by you, your attitudes towards others is their perception of government. People, us, govern.

 

No, I disagree. I think a country's primary goals and obligations are to it's own people, to make us healthy, wealthy, and wise. Yes, it is good to know that the Allies ALL worked together to win WWII, but I have no problem with the US promoting to it's citizens the US side of the story. The US helped, a LOT, and there's nothing wrong IMO, with saying that, there is a problem IMO, with taking ALL the credit.

 

But first and foremost, our concerns should be ourselves. We have no right to help others if we cannot help ourselves. We have no right to educate others if we cannot educate ourselves, you get the idea. We have every right to put our concerns above others, because you can bet that they are putting their concerns above ours.

[Astor]

However, can you say that without the US Operation OVERLORD or any other Major Battle in Europe would've happened?

 

Ever heard of this man? or this?

 

General Sir Bernard Montgomery was named as commander of the 21st Army Group, to which all of the invasion ground forces belonged, and was also given charge of developing the invasion plan.

[mur'phon]

The Russian's did not Liberate any square millimeter of European soil

Wrong, northern Norway was liberated by the reds, no occupation folowed there. Besides, the people in several countries actually wanted to join the Soviet Union, so you could argue those were liberated as well (that they weren't alowed to leave is a diferent matter).

[vanir]

No, I disagree. I think a country's primary goals and obligations are to it's own people, to make us healthy, wealthy, and wise. Yes, it is good to know that the Allies ALL worked together to win WWII, but I have no problem with the US promoting to it's citizens the US side of the story. The US helped, a LOT, and there's nothing wrong IMO, with saying that, there is a problem IMO, with taking ALL the credit.

 

But first and foremost, our concerns should be ourselves. We have no right to help others if we cannot help ourselves. We have no right to educate others if we cannot educate ourselves, you get the idea. We have every right to put our concerns above others, because you can bet that they are putting their concerns above ours.

 

You do realise this would be to define my concerns regarding insular Americanism. Many historians relate nationalism directly with race wars and colonial imperialism. The Nazis had this view, and do not forget they weren't doing what we see them as doing from their point of view. They were doing what you just said you'd do.

 

The trick about human evils are they are perfectly benevolent from the perpetrators point of view and he cannot see this, until he has finally climbed into the eyes of somebody else's point of view (speaking in terms of cultural/political perspectives). This would be to define objectivity.

[Web Rider]

You do realise this would be to define my concerns regarding insular Americanism. Many historians relate nationalism directly with race wars and colonial imperialism. The Nazis had this view, and do not forget they weren't doing what we see them as doing from their point of view. They were doing what you just said you'd do.

Well if you want to take it that far then maybe the fact that Britain does not allow Budweiser to call itsself beer because it fears them undermining british beers is a sign that Britian is going to kill some Jews....or maybe some rednecks.

 

Look I hate to pull Goodwin's Law on you but you basically said "putting your nations interests first makes you a Nazi". And that's simply not the case. Yeah, it CAN be the case if you want to take it to the extent they did, but moreover, it is NOT the case. Nations put their interests first all the time, Germany protects it's businesses and workers over foreign companies. Japan favors their businesses and citizens over foreign ones. China is happy to accommodate foreign business but slaps down a load of China-centric regulations on them.

 

Ireland(I think it's Ireland) has continually voted against certain EU treaties to protect their interests. Every nation on this green earth favors the people and mindsets in their dominion over the people and mindsets beyond them. Does this mean we're all gonna start marching off to war on each other? Of course not. It may in some cases, but such is human nature.

 

The trick about human evils are they are perfectly benevolent from the perpetrators point of view and he cannot see this, until he has finally climbed into the eyes of somebody else's point of view (speaking in terms of cultural/political perspectives). This would be to define objectivity.

Please show me where this mystical second holocaust is going on. I'm not saying don't try to see their point of view, or understand their point of view, remember I said "Wise" in "healthy, wealthy and wise", but that doesn't mean we should just give creedence to every opinion under the sun as though they were all equal.

 

That kind of wanton cultural relativism is just as bad as the kind of cultural insulation you're complaining about(the kind that doesn't exist and you're doing a fine job exaggerating.)

[vanir]

Nations put their interests first all the time, Germany protects it's businesses and workers over foreign companies. Japan favors their businesses and citizens over foreign ones. China is happy to accommodate foreign business but slaps down a load of China-centric regulations on them.

So now we're talking business administration and I understand the philosophy, "well everybody else is doing it," really I do. But it is not the only means of business management.

Some businesses believe that you invest for a return.

 

You seem very young to be so cynical, Web Rider. From experience I might suggest funding patriotism with cynicism to garner a sense of belonging is a very bad idea. It is smartest to consider yourself belonging to an international community first and work back from there. It simply opens more doors. Most importantly it is the responsibility of your government to represent and to change for you, not the other way around. And it will.

[jonathan7]

I just want to point out at this time that this thread has the potential to spire out of control quickly into "anti-Americanism" - if it does it will be locked, and infractions will result, so please be careful about what you post, be sensitive to our American friends here on the boards. Please also remember that America is a very diverse place, and I don't think the government truly represents any Americans viewpoints, there is also a difference between government policy and what the people want. Finally I would like to note, having been the the U.S. recently I actually prefer the States to the U.K. - in my experience they are usually more friendly, more helpful, and far more direct that many from the U.K (and by extension Europe) - all the former are qualities I admire. -- j7

[True_Avery]

I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

 

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.

The irony of this OP is that it contradicts the point of what you are trying to point out.

 

"Why are Americans such douchebags! Us here in the UK and such arn't as bad as them"

 

Congrats, you are now an insular European.

 

Oh, and by the way...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

 

You should probably look up the derogatory term "Yank" before you use it in a sentence asking why Americans are such ignorant tools...

 

It really, really makes your argument look bad.

 

Hmm, I appreciate the sentiment Web Rider, but I don't know if I agree with it wholeheartedly. I feel that it is more productive to promote a cultural attitude of entertaining the perspective of others to fullest capacity, in order to truly found a benevolent system of government.

And it is that after all, government is ultimately performed by you, your attitudes towards others is their perception of government. People, us, govern.

Yeah, too bad that doesn't sell in the box office.

 

Also, point out a "benevolent" government that hasn't gone bankrupt by its bleeding heart.

 

You do realise this would be to define my concerns regarding insular Americanism. Many historians relate nationalism directly with race wars and colonial imperialism. The Nazis had this view, and do not forget they weren't doing what we see them as doing from their point of view. They were doing what you just said you'd do.

You do realize that by placing yourself above America and the Nazi's, you yourself are being insular? You've done nothing but bash America, but you've done so in a very subjective way. Meaning, you are a European who's nationalistic views (however big or small) are showing through in your argument.

 

Your view of what is "benevolent" is probably subjective, and thus your view of what the world should be so by extension insular.

 

And before you pull out the Nazi flag, realize that the Nazi's weren't so much for themselves as they were extending their influence and teachings across the world.

 

Remember, the Nazi's thought of themselves as liberators of the world. They were the benevolent bleeding hearts in World War 2, not the rest of the world. Trying to free the world is hardly "keeping to yourself" as Web Rider put it.

 

So no, Web Rider's suggestion is hardly Nazi Germany. If you want to pull up comparisons to World War 2, then Web Rider is isolationist America and your world view would be closer to that of the Nazi's.

 

I'm not calling you a Nazi, I'm just saying that a desire to change the world to fit your supposed view of a Utopia puts you in their general category along with thousands of other groups.

 

The trick about human evils are they are perfectly benevolent from the perpetrators point of view and he cannot see this, until he has finally climbed into the eyes of somebody else's point of view (speaking in terms of cultural/political perspectives). This would be to define objectivity.

That would be fantastic if it wasn't for the fact that Empathy only reaches so far. It is in fact -impossible- to know what another person thinks and sees through their eyes, because you can never be them. You can only make vague assumptions based on your subjective and short interactions with a side of them that is only shown in a social environment.

 

You've never met anyone in your life if you think about it. We all have our self, and we have a mask we put on for everyone else. Our Self only shows when we are alone, and the mask goes on whenever we interact with another social being.

 

You can try to think objectively, but its really a fools game in the end. You'll always have a subjective bias working upon you. Its why you posted "Yank" at the beginning of the thread. Its why you've pointed out America, but not your own country or even yourself.

 

Sorry, but welcome to being alive.

 

So now we're talking business administration and I understand the philosophy, "well everybody else is doing it," really I do. But it is not the only means of business management.

Some businesses believe that you invest for a return.

Just because the business takes and chance and invests doesn't make it -any- less selfish. They invested because the want to try and make more money off of the investment. Its self interest, and its a basic part of being alive and its Human Nature down to the core. Self preservation and interest is one of the few pre-programmed things that keep us from being born Tabula Rasa.

 

You seem very young to be so cynical, Web Rider.

Optimism is just as bad as being a cynic.

 

From experience I might suggest funding patriotism with cynicism to garner a sense of belonging is a very bad idea. It is smartest to consider yourself belonging to an international community first and work back from there. It simply opens more doors.

You could start by not calling Americans ignorant "Yanks" who are the problem. While to some degree I agree, but you started this entire thing on the wrong foot by pointing at Americans first and not yourself and your own country along the way.

 

Most importantly it is the responsibility of your government to represent and to change for you, not the other way around. And it will.

The definition in the dictionary is often completely different from how real life works.

 

You are selfish for wanting the government to appeal to you and your peoples demands. The government is selfish for wanting to do what it wants to do. That nun is selfish for helping that kid in order to get into heaven.

 

What you are talking about is this:

 

Independent thought is "evil". Too bad that is what makes you and I human, and if you'd like that to go away then we would be "animals" again. Nothing else to it.

 

People are not designed to be bleeding hearts. We are actually incapable of being selfless. If you do manage to be 100% selfless, than it is an act of either insanity, or you are not even part of this universe. Even atoms selfishly try to balance their charges, or something. Not a physics whiz myself.

 

Here, a post from another thread:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2558971&postcount=24

For that answer, take a sociology/psychology class.

 

A pretty much universal rule is that everything people do has a selfish motive behind it. Even if it is a nun helping a homeless child, the nun is doing it for the self knowledge and satisfaction that what she is doing is right, helps her god love her, and will get her heaven points.

 

Selfish motive drives us into doing anything. So, you do something because you think it is "good" or "right" for you in your current situation and will benefit you in some way more than other options.

 

So, a Sith Lord kills a bunch of people. Are they Jedi? Because the Sith religious belief is that Jedi are fools that don't deserve the power they have. By killing them, they believe what they are doing is "right" and have justified it in their mind in a way that personally benefits themselves.

 

Now, if they are killing for the fun of it then it is also deemed "right" in their minds. By killing someone, they are gaining entertainment and a good feeling that personally benefits themselves in either a financial, spiritual, etc way.

 

Same goes for a Jedi, a mother, a nun, etc. They step in and help someone, they are doing it for a motive of self interest. Whether that a feeling of self satisfaction, entertainment, or an escape from a depressed lonely feeling, etc.

 

Without this self interest, people would not kill each other, but mothers would also not take care of their children.

 

Now, there are a few types of people that this rule does not fully apply to: The insane, and Sociopaths/Psychopaths, or rather people with Antisocial personality disorder or Dissocial personality disorder.

 

The legal definition of insanity is someone who mentally have no concept of an action being "right" or "wrong", thus the selfish interest is not always there as the action seemingly has no benefit for themselves as far as they can see.

 

If you do something under the personal knowledge that it is wrong and do it under the personal knowledge that you will gain nothing from it, then the action is an action of a Sociopaths/Psychopaths, or someone with Antisocial or Dissocial disorder. Its only 1 or 2 of them, but I'm not exactly sure which so if anyone knows the clear differences between them you can correct me.

 

I could go into the differences between Sociopaths/Psychopaths, Antisocial personality disorder, and Dissocial personality disorder, but it would take me a few hours to write.

 

All the Sith Lords and Jedi I have seen thus far have been motivated by some form of self interest. Thus, they are for the most part like every other human being, but now with the ability to move **** with their minds.

 

So, in summary, killing for fun and killing for a purpose are the same thing.

 

That help at all?

 

Sorry, but selfless people and selfless societies do not and will not exists as long as human nature exists within humans. As being living beings part of this Universe, we are driven by self interest. Selfish desire.

 

You are selfish by wanting America to conform to your standards. America is selfish for wanting you to conform to theirs. You are selfish for calling them out for it, but not yourself or your own country.

 

I am selfish for every action I have ever done ever, and so are you, and so is Web Rider and everyone else on this forum, country, earth, and universe down to electrons.

 

If you think you can finally bring about Communism Utopia, then be my guest and try.

 

It wont work though, and you would be selfish for trying.

 

And just to clear this out, I am not insulting you or anyone else. I'm selfish, your selfish, he's selfish. We're all selfish and always will be. And by extension, so is our government, country, continent, world, planet, solar system.

 

For more, take some Sociology classes. I've found them all to be fascinating.

 

By the way, sorry if you're not from Europe. I really have no clue where you live, but I'm just assuming by what you're saying.

[Lance Monance]

Is it considered fact that humans are purely motivated by self-interest? Incapable of being selfless?

 

It is in fact -impossible- to know what another person thinks and sees through their eyes, because you can never be them

Yet psychologists or sociologists happen to know what motivates our actions?

[TKA-001]

If absolutely everything is motivated by selfishness, then selfishness itself has no meaning and therefore can't be said to be the motivation for anything.

[vanir]

Well, True_Avery satisfactorily convinced me of J7's point and to avoid further bloodshed I'm going to leave this thread where it stands.

 

In any case I'd like to thank all contributors for their insights, including yours T_A and Web Rider. All in all it formed a most interesting point of reference I may use at an anthropology site I'm a member of.

 

Thanks again.

[Web Rider]

Yet psychologists or sociologists happen to know what motivates our actions?

They know how you work, but they don't know YOU. That's the difference here. They know how the average human of your age bracket and socio-economic standing should operate based on what others have done.

 

That does not mean they know the specifics of you.

 

If absolutely everything is motivated by selfishness, then selfishness itself has no meaning and therefore can't be said to be the motivation for anything.

Not exactly, since there are still the "rational" motivations for doing something, like giving to the poor. But what you gain out of that is maybe a tax writeoff or a sense of doing good that you like. Your motivator may be helping the poor, but the fact that you also enjoy what you get out of it makes it somewhat selfish.

 

There are degrees to everything, that's just life.

[Vaelastraz]

They know how you work, but they don't know YOU. That's the difference here. They know how the average human of your age bracket and socio-economic standing should operate based on what others have done.

 

That does not mean they know the specifics of you.

If they don't know what's going on in my head then they cannot claim that I act due to self-interest when I do something altruistic. A model of self-interest or rational choice may be able to predict what I do, but they can't make a qualified statement about my motivations.