Bush: Global Reviews

Jeff Taylor | January 21, 2005

Interesting rundown on world reax to George Bush's inauguration speech, including a take from the People's Daily which helpfully explains the source of America's nationalism.

Evidently, "the nation's superior natural and geographical conditions, and its history of never being invaded, American nationalism is void of historical bitterness found in typical nationalism of some other peoples." Except for being wrong, that sounds like a compliment. I think.

The War of 1812 featured the British thumping plenty of America cities and that whole Civil War thing had quite a few invading armies rampaging around. And don't forget that a major chunk of the Texas-sized nationalism of GWB has Santa Ana's march on the Alamo at its heart.

Comments

|1.21.05 @ 3:18PM|#

I don't think Texas was part of the United States when Santa Ana marched on the Alamo.

|1.21.05 @ 3:23PM|#

We just haven't been invaded over and over like some places in the Old World.

For a communal memory of the enemy and his destructive power come to the South. Even the children of northern transplants get into it.

|1.21.05 @ 3:27PM|#

Parse:

Yes, exactly.

DaveInBigD|1.21.05 @ 4:14PM|#

For a communal memory of the enemy and his destructive power come to the South. Even the children of northern transplants get into it.

This is an interesting phenomenon, and one that I've experienced first hand. I've chosen to redirect it to the Revolutionary War instead, since its a much less morally fraught conflict, especially from a Southern perspective.

Jeff|1.21.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Don't forget the brutal defeat at the hands of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.

|1.21.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Jeff, nobody on this board (or anywhere else, I'd say) remembers the British burning the White House, and the Alamo was a Bunker Hill-type of defeat that made martyrs out of the defenders. So your rebuttal centers around a war many Americans forgot (and no one has memories of), and a glorious defeat that lead to victory.

From the Peoples' Daily's POV, they are correct. Many Chinese alive still remember Japanese brutality, coupled with the flaunting of power of European colonizers in the Treaty Ports like Shanghai. Only in 1999 did the Chinese get back Hong Kong, long a sore spot for them. As they see it, we never got anything close to that. Pearl Harbor and the Attu Islands just don't cut it as "invasions" to more other peoples.

|1.21.05 @ 5:35PM|#

Don't forget the brutal defeat at the hands of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.

That was because of the ARROW GAP.

We wouldn't have lost if the liberals hadn't voted against bringing the 91st Archery Division up to strength.

|1.21.05 @ 5:38PM|#

A know of a guy who moved from Up North to Greenville, South Carolina and lived there with his wife and young kids for a while. He said he knew his kids were growing up to be Southerners when he mentioned the Civil War once and they said, "That's the one we lost, right?"

Once I visited Greenville and was struck by the perception that the place has, like, a cemetary on almost every damn block. There were a lot of Civil War dead to bury, I was told. I guess if I grew up with all the reminders of that sort, it would affect my views of the North too.

Later I may read the article and post something on-topic.

SteveinClearwater|1.21.05 @ 6:31PM|#

"Evidently, "the nation's superior natural and geographical conditions, and its history of never being invaded, American nationalism is void of historical bitterness found in typical nationalism of some other peoples." Except for being wrong, that sounds like a compliment. I think."

ST: The author probably only meant 'invaded by Commies or Towelheads and those people', in which case his statement is close to accurate.

|1.21.05 @ 7:18PM|#

It's pretty inaccurate to call the Civil War an invasion since, technically, we were all one nation. The Alamo was a battle, not a war and Texas wasn't even it's own country before the battle. It was shortly after that Mexico recognized its independence. You wouldn't call Bunker Hill an invasion even though we declared independence before then. With the exception of the War of 1812, it's a pretty accurate statement.

Heck, the fact that we got our asses handed to us so badly and didn't lose territory is pretty astounding. We ARE fortunate in the fact that we haven't been invaded in almost 200 years, never have been ruled by a foreign power since our inception and haven't fought many battles on our home turf. This affects the American psyche significantly, especially wrt foreign intervention.

I noticed this huge difference when I was in Egypt. That country has been invadedand/or ruled by pretty much every major empire to hit the map. It's been invaded by French, British, Germans, Israelis, Persians, Monguls, Arabs, Turks etc. They have a pretty dim view of foreign intervention because to them intervention means some other country is coming over and making the rules.

b-psycho|1.21.05 @ 7:20PM|#

The first thought I had in my mind after my first few days of living in GA after being raised in Iowa:

"if this is the best they can manage after all these years, no wonder the Confederacy lost..."

|1.21.05 @ 7:25PM|#

Mr. Mo,

What about the Hittites and Assyrians? Are the Aegyptae still cheesed off about them too?

QFMC cos. V

|1.21.05 @ 7:39PM|#

Probably not, but considering that since the turn of the 20th century French, British, German, Ottoman and Israeli troops all crossed the border as hostile powers, you can see why they're a tad suspicious of foreign powers.

|1.21.05 @ 7:46PM|#

You forget the Italian Army's 'Operation Egyptian Freedom' of 1940.

|1.21.05 @ 10:36PM|#

Is it bitterness we lack, or arrogance that we have?

You might think it's those darned oceans that make us so arrogant. They make the US mainland toooo hard to invade. To humble our attitudes, we must push all the continents back into one great land mass. Then everybody can invade everybody more easily. We'll all be soooo much humbler. :)

In fact, arrogance is a by product of being rich, powerful, or (more arrogant yet) both. Top dog on the pile always thinks he knows what's best for everybody he's piled on top of.

Historically this is how it's been. That's what makes libertarian views so historically unique. If only our elected leaders necessarily were more in tune....

|1.22.05 @ 8:14PM|#

"That was because of the ARROW GAP.

We wouldn't have lost if the liberals hadn't voted against bringing the 91st Archery Division up to strength."

You've got it exactly backwards. It was our arrogant flaunting of our archerial might, and our provocative installation of battlements near Fenwick's borders, that led to the hostilities.

|1.23.05 @ 7:57PM|#

I voted in favor of more spending on arrows before I voted against it.