• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

What does the USA do better than other countries?

Cream Gravy? said:
Lol yes, it’s really just a play on my username which is a long story.

I love me some biscuits and gravy but I’ve never crested 150lbs and I was eating 6-8000 calories a day and working out at least two to four hours a day. I’m blessed and cursed with skinniness for life.
Click to expand...
Never feel like you gotta apologize for liking biscuits and gravy.
 
S.J.B. said:
"Some freedoms that could be clearly identified, such as the freedom to use drugs, could not be included because internationally comparable data could not be found."

That's unfortunate.
Click to expand...

yeah, it is. but i believe it's a sincere attempt to objectively measure.

alasdair
 
thegreenhand said:
This coming from the continent that brought us two world wars ? And centuries of imperialism and colonialism ?

I‘m not saying the US isn’t violent as well. But I think it manifests in different ways.

To say that Europeans are simply more peaceful is not entirely accurate imo
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you there mate :). In the past, European civilizations were probably responsible for some of the most systematically brutal, violent, warlike and expansionary behavior of any group of peoples ever to inhabit the earth (with the possible exception of the Mongols! ;) )

But I think you mistook the point I was making. I wasn't referring to historical or nation-on-nation attitudes to violence, but rather to contemporary, domestic dynamics. I think it might help to look at the issue from a different perspective.

The end of WW2 led to very conscious post-war efforts to enhance the interdependence of European states. This was realized in practical terms through the development of cross-European institutions like courts and instruments of arbitration, through deeper and more complex economic links and trade arrangements, and now takes its form in the various institutions and treaties of the European Union. This peaceful cooperation (notwithstanding the exception of the former Soviet sphere, and now parts of Eastern Europe and the periphery...) marks a very definite break from those thousands of years of violence and competition. Frankly, Europe had no choice but to become more peaceful, since future wars like WW2 would probably have killed billions, European and otherwise, and left much of the planet an uninhabitable ruin.

This 'coming of age', and the incipient self-awareness among Europeans of the potentially catastrophic risks of intra-European violence (coupled to - and not by accident - the expanding capacity and responsibility of the state to provide cradle-to-grave welfare and security), also seems to be reflected in substantially lower levels of domestic violence (eg shootings, violent crimes, rapes, murders etc). And because of that, I think it safe to say the average European is generally now far less exposed to - and thus cognizant of - the risks of extreme or lethal violence in their day-to-day lives.

In consequence, and the reason for my waffly efforts at perspective above, I think Europeans often struggle to fathom why a people and culture that otherwise seems so similar and familiar to them (the US), would feel the need, or have reason, to normalize the ownership and carry of weapons for personal protection that can so casually and efficiently kill (often unintentionally) those around them? Naturally, this attitude and perception works both ways: many Americans are just as bemused by the seemingly illogical and laissez-faire attitude of most Europeans to their personal safety and security: what bizarre illogical people they are to have neither the willingness nor ability to protect their families, friends and livelihoods from violent criminals?

Clearly, the perceived risk equation in both places is radically different. And that's because the actual risks really are, objectively, radically different - to the point that violent crime, shootings and murder really are vanishingly rare events in much of Europe, even in some fairly large cities. More generally, I think cultural clashes over things like gun control illustrate the fact that when you're prepared to look deeper there are almost always logical (and often perfectly valid) reasons to support attitudes and preferences in one place that may, from the outside, look unfathomable, even alien, in another.

***

FWIW I didn't bring any of this up as a point of judgement against the US, or to start a pissing contest with anyone. I have always understood to some extent the many valid and historical reasons for gun ownership in the US, and also why there are high(er) rates of violent crime. It just seemed relevant in the context it came up. And I think it's one of the more widely misunderstood ethnographical distinctions between us that, when analyzed, seems less irrational than the gut reaction might imply, and can help explain why rational cultures sharing such similar values can, nevertheless, arrive at contradictory outcomes and solutions.
 
thegreenhand said:
This coming from the continent that brought us two world wars ? And centuries of imperialism and colonialism ?

I‘m not saying the US isn’t violent as well. But I think it manifests in different ways.

To say that Europeans are simply more peaceful is not entirely accurate imo
Click to expand...
Funny when Americans forget they're Europeans.

The world wars are just names given to the status quo in Europe for millenia. When is there ever not war in Europe? Not often rly. And when there isn't, some powerful asshole nation is sure to bomb slavic states

And is all out war really worse than plundering poor countries for their resources? Depends on who you ask, but many would call that cowardly. The US only fights when it knows it will win or against the British Empire. Dont get me wrong, i value strategical thinking and the US has taken many measures to keep global power and respect. But honour there is not much in it.

Then again im German. We betrayed our Russian brothers not once but twice durring the world wars, we have negative honour
 
they make some pretty good beef jerky too :)

large meal servings another thing they do well and service in hosp (mainly because no gets paid if they dont get tips)

large roads (much bigger than anywhere else I have seen)
 
Or maybe he understand that there is a difference between high priority targets wanted for orchestrating crimes against the country and a lot of the other terrorist that flea other countries to operate there with damn near impunity ? Nuance….
 
CFC said:
I fully agree with you there mate :). In the past, European civilizations were probably responsible for some of the most systematically brutal, violent, warlike and expansionary behavior of any group of peoples ever to inhabit the earth (with the possible exception of the Mongols! ;) )

But I think you mistook the point I was making. I wasn't referring to historical or nation-on-nation attitudes to violence, but rather to contemporary, domestic dynamics. I think it might help to look at the issue from a different perspective.

The end of WW2 led to very conscious post-war efforts to enhance the interdependence of European states. This was realized in practical terms through the development of cross-European institutions like courts and instruments of arbitration, through deeper and more complex economic links and trade arrangements, and now takes its form in the various institutions and treaties of the European Union. This peaceful cooperation (notwithstanding the exception of the former Soviet sphere, and now parts of Eastern Europe and the periphery...) marks a very definite break from those thousands of years of violence and competition. Frankly, Europe had no choice but to become more peaceful, since future wars like WW2 would probably have killed billions, European and otherwise, and left much of the planet an uninhabitable ruin.

This 'coming of age', and the incipient self-awareness among Europeans of the potentially catastrophic risks of intra-European violence (coupled to - and not by accident - the expanding capacity and responsibility of the state to provide cradle-to-grave welfare and security), also seems to be reflected in substantially lower levels of domestic violence (eg shootings, violent crimes, rapes, murders etc). And because of that, I think it safe to say the average European is generally now far less exposed to - and thus cognizant of - the risks of extreme or lethal violence in their day-to-day lives.

In consequence, and the reason for my waffly efforts at perspective above, I think Europeans often struggle to fathom why a people and culture that otherwise seems so similar and familiar to them (the US), would feel the need, or have reason, to normalize the ownership and carry of weapons for personal protection that can so casually and efficiently kill (often unintentionally) those around them? Naturally, this attitude and perception works both ways: many Americans are just as bemused by the seemingly illogical and laissez-faire attitude of most Europeans to their personal safety and security: what bizarre illogical people they are to have neither the willingness nor ability to protect their families, friends and livelihoods from violent criminals?

Clearly, the perceived risk equation in both places is radically different. And that's because the actual risks really are, objectively, radically different - to the point that violent crime, shootings and murder really are vanishingly rare events in much of Europe, even in some fairly large cities. More generally, I think cultural clashes over things like gun control illustrate the fact that when you're prepared to look deeper there are almost always logical (and often perfectly valid) reasons to support attitudes and preferences in one place that may, from the outside, look unfathomable, even alien, in another.

***

FWIW I didn't bring any of this up as a point of judgement against the US, or to start a pissing contest with anyone. I have always understood to some extent the many valid and historical reasons for gun ownership in the US, and also why there are high(er) rates of violent crime. It just seemed relevant in the context it came up. And I think it's one of the more widely misunderstood ethnographical distinctions between us that, when analyzed, seems less irrational than the gut reaction might imply, and can help explain why rational cultures sharing such similar values can, nevertheless, arrive at contradictory outcomes and solutions.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit tipsy right now so this response will be brief but let me try to offer some rebuttals…

I don’t think one can simply exclude Eastern Europe when judging wars/violence. It’s a bit intellectually dishonest imo to say it’s all
peaceful if you just exclude the Soviets and the East. That is still very much a part of Europe. I could say the US is peaceful if you exclude large urban areas right? But that’s not exactly a fair assessment. Also the question of what “Eastern Europe” actually consists of is a tricky one. Zizek is talking about the Balkans in this joke here but the idea is quite easily extended to “Eastern Europe” too :



With respect to the welfare state… I would argue that the wealth to do that may actually come from the history of colonialism itself. When European powers can artificially enrich themselves for centuries via exploiting the global south, it is much simpler to provide such services to the citizenry.

One noteworthy example is France’s lasting legacy in Africa:

“In France, one out of every three light bulbs is lit thanks to Nigerien uranium. In Niger, nearly 90% of the population has no access to electricity”

-Oxfam

While I can agree that such social welfare can greatly reduce interpersonal violence, is it fair to say that it reduces violence overall when this wealth likely came from colonialism (even if that word is no longer explicitly used)?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the French lose their shit when an African leader proposes ending the use of the CFA franc in their respective nation…

In my view, the security that modern Europeans have is a direct result of the violence of centuries past. Thus, I don’t think it’s a valid argument to say that the lack of violence is some brilliant humanitarian accomplishment. I think y’all just got lucky tbh

I’m not even arguing against strong social programs/welfare. I think the US would be a much better place with them. But i think it’s dismissive to imply that such a societal structure can be replicated on other continents to reduce violence when those continents have been economically disadvantaged for centuries

And yes, I know that the US is a “wealthy country” too, but we have many areas of extreme, destitute poverty. And those are pretty much exactly where the violence is.

The average US citizen just has not benefitted from colonialism in the way that the average European has (although we still benefit a lot)
 
Last edited:
December Flower said:
Funny when Americans forget they're Europeans.

The world wars are just names given to the status quo in Europe for millenia. When is there ever not war in Europe? Not often rly. And when there isn't, some powerful asshole nation is sure to bomb slavic states

And is all out war really worse than plundering poor countries for their resources? Depends on who you ask, but many would call that cowardly. The US only fights when it knows it will win or against the British Empire. Dont get me wrong, i value strategical thinking and the US has taken many measures to keep global power and respect. But honour there is not much in it.

Then again im German. We betrayed our Russian brothers not once but twice durring the world wars, we have negative honour
Click to expand...
Americans are not Europeans

America has never been an ethnolinguistic state and never will be (despite the wishes of some far right extremists). Many European countries still are

I have 4 “best friends” here. Two of the four do not have any European ancestry. They are still Americans. We have quite a bit of racial and ethnic diversity here, believe it or not.

And don’t get me wrong, we have our own social problems that need to be addressed

But lumping us in as a essentially a failed European state doesn’t really speak to the problems we have. They are quite unique to this country, and the European societal model is not easily applied here imo

Moving onto the war question…

The US absolutely does fight unjust wars, typically in middle eastern countries. But the difference is that your average American probably recognizes that this is senseless violence. Europeans would rather deny that they even commit any violence

I’m not trying to say that America is peaceful or just in its actions. I’m extremely critical of the American political machine.

I’m just saying that Europe does the same shit, and violence (in general) is not a uniquely American phenomenon.
 
December Flower said:
Funny when Americans forget they're Europeans.

The world wars are just names given to the status quo in Europe for millenia. When is there ever not war in Europe? Not often rly. And when there isn't, some powerful asshole nation is sure to bomb slavic states

And is all out war really worse than plundering poor countries for their resources? Depends on who you ask, but many would call that cowardly. The US only fights when it knows it will win or against the British Empire. Dont get me wrong, i value strategical thinking and the US has taken many measures to keep global power and respect. But honour there is not much in it.

Then again im German. We betrayed our Russian brothers not once but twice durring the world wars, we have negative honour
Click to expand...
No, these people are not European. Not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top