QUOTE:
I hope at any rate that I've acknowledged the legitimate aspect of the criticisms raised in this thread.

Was that before or after you said that it was because we all wanted to bring Americans down a peg or two?

Anyway, I want to go back a bit:

QUOTE:
That's because our brand of nationalism, or national ideals, strikes many if not most as having panned out quite well... the general feeling during the 20th century was, hey, America's actually pretty legitimately great...

Yes. And this is, wouldn't you say, a political position? And one with which there's a certain pressure to publicly appear to agree.

You don't notice that pressure because you agree with that position anyway. But I don't--I think America is Good In Parts--so I feel it.

BrunoMaggiore wrote:

QUOTE:
Nope. They're mostly empty of meaning, in the sense that people don't spend any time thinking about them. My talk of meaning was in answer to your objections to love of country at all.

How are they synonyms? The symbols I spend least time thinking about are precisely the ones whose meaning I've most completely assimilated.

John Banville had a great line about this a few years ago when being interviewed by Liam Fay. He was talking about Irish nationalism at the time.

QUOTE:
How could you love a country? You can love certain parts of it, but you can't even see all of a country. There are parts of Ireland I've never been to. How can you love places that you ve never seen and know nothing about?

(edited to include full quote)

Hieronymus of Hesselink wrote:

QUOTE:
John Banville had a great line about this a few years ago when being interviewed by Liam Fay. He was talking about Irish nationalism at the time.

QUOTE:
How could you love a country? You can love certain parts of it, but you can't even see all of a country. So how can you love it?

Mind you, I wouldn't say the missus is fat...

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
Was that before or after you said that it was because we all wanted to bring Americans down a peg or two?

Cmon, even I want to bring Americans down a peg or two. Surely.

QUOTE:
That's because our brand of nationalism, or national ideals, strikes many if not most as having panned out quite well... the general feeling during the 20th century was, hey, America's actually pretty legitimately great...

Yes. And this is, wouldn't you say, a political position? And one with which there's a certain pressure to publicly appear to agree.[/quote]

You mean like peer pressure? No I don't really think so. I'm quite sure that no one pays attention to who sings at a baseball game and who doesn't anyway. Everyone's too busy mumbling to himself, or gazing adoringly at the Stars and Stripes. Politicians, of course, have to be seen to agree with it, but to what country would that not apply I wonder. But no, I definitely don't think there's any undue pressure in the United States to be seen acting patriotic, or subscribing to some triumphalist narrative - which isn't necessarily how I meant to characterize the broad assumptions behind American exceptionalism anyway. I.e. things could have just panned out well more or less accidentally. Americans simply feel justified in loving their country for some pardonable reasons, and yes there are always the crazy right-wingers who wish you'd 'love it or leave it', but mainly it's about as 'live and let live' a culture as you'll find up to the point of the actual political arena where these things get hashed out, frustrations aired, and usually blown out of all proportion.

QUOTE:
You don't notice that pressure because you agree with that position anyway. But I don't--I think America is Good In Parts--so I feel it.

But we do agree. We both feel America is Good In Parts. I don't notice that pressure because I live here and it really isn't noticeable. I don't normally sing at national anthems, and nobody looks askance at me. I'm severely critical of my government and haven't spent a single minute of my life feeling any pressure about it. The overwhelming vast majority of people here who are critical of the government are allowed to carry on completely at ease. I've been known to tell blinkered warmongering jingoistic Republican assholes to go fuck themselves. But I still love the basic idea behind America, silly sap that I am - that of government by the people and the guaranteed freedoms and blah blah blah, which while not without historical precedents still broke some honest new ground back in the day. And I feel that actually loving the ongoing experiment in self-governance is an important part of the bargain, since as I've alluded nothing worthwhile survives or improves without love.

QUOTE:
Cmon, even I want to bring Americans down a peg or two. Surely.

See, I've found Americans I've met to be unusually kind, open-minded and (very importantly in a work context) good at what they do. Arguing from American foreign policy to American national character is just an error in reasoning, and that's all there is to it.

But mechanisms for "manufacturing consent", or even things that look like they might be, need a beady eye trained on them, I'd argue. All nations, even post-revolutionary ones, have top-level agendas that reflect the interests of certain of their citizens more than others, and anything that deflects the attention of the "others" away from that fact needs criticising.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
How are they synonyms? The symbols I spend least time thinking about are precisely the ones whose meaning I've most completely assimilated.

One thing we haven't touched on is how for many, perhaps the most immediate associations surrounding the flag and the singing of the national anthem is that of paying respects not to the country itself but to 'those who fought and died to preserve our freedom.' I think a lot of Americans are still fairly deeply impressed by the sense that things could have turned out otherwise absent some huge sacrifices.

That's hardly a historical experience unique to the US is it?

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
See, I've found Americans I've met to be unusually kind, open-minded and (very importantly in a work context) good at what they do. Arguing from American foreign policy to American national character is just an error in reasoning, and that's all there is to it.

You're perhaps exposed mainly to those Americans who get out and about. They're a pretty good lot I agree.

QUOTE:
But mechanisms for "manufacturing consent", or even things that look like they might be, need a beady eye trained on them, I'd argue. All nations, even post-revolutionary ones, have top-level agendas that reflect the interests of certain of their citizens more than others, and anything that deflects the attention of the "others" away from that fact needs criticising.

While I agree with you 100% in principle, I don't see the singing of national anthem as a method of manufacturing consent. At all. Neither as something that looks like it might be. It is an opportunity to pay respects, and one that is, crucially, desired or at least accepted by most of the participants. I don't see those participants expecting everyone to do as they do, beyond keeping quiet for the duration out of basic respect. Anyone's free to sing along or not, but objecting to the existence of the ritual seems to ignore how such rituals are not normally the product of top-down, manufactured consent, but rather are much more spontaneous, grass-roots type phenomena. Or am I missing your point.

BrunoMaggiore wrote:

QUOTE:
Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
How are they synonyms? The symbols I spend least time thinking about are precisely the ones whose meaning I've most completely assimilated.

One thing we haven't touched on is how for many, perhaps the most immediate associations surrounding the flag and the singing of the national anthem is that of paying respects not to the country itself but to 'those who fought and died to preserve our freedom.' I think a lot of Americans are still fairly deeply impressed by the sense that things could have turned out otherwise absent some huge sacrifices.

I'm not sure that makes much difference really. For one thing, it's as open to abuse as any other nationalist trope; for another, it doesn't alter the fact that reflecting, before every sporting event, on the bloody, agonising death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers is, by international standards... unusual.

E10 Rifle wrote:

QUOTE:
That's hardly a historical experience unique to the US is it?

Nope.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
I'm not sure that makes much difference really. For one thing, it's as open to abuse as any other nationalist trope; for another, it doesn't alter the fact that reflecting, before every sporting event, on the bloody, agonising death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers is, by international standards...unusual.

It's more present when we're currently engaged in a war, of course. I just thought I'd mention it. I'd never try to argue that sporting events are appropriate venues for such reflections, but people obviously have come to accept that they are. Any time you get a bunch of Americans in one place, I guess. But it's also a way of demonstrating how opposing fans are Americans first and have some larger, worthier allegiance.

Heh, I don't think that last line is designed to convince GO that it's not weird!

Of course not, but the dispute centered around whether it's different-weird or disturbing-weird.

Anyway, this comes down, as everyone here realizes, to the different national narratives instilled in Americans versus Europeans. American exceptionalism has probably long outlived its usefulness if it ever had any. But the greater sense of patriotism experienced by even relatively cynical, open-eyed Americans like me, compared to what I take to be the average, suspicious European attitude, is in fact more or less legitimately based on some fundamental differences in the way each side of the Atlantic experienced the last hundred years, and the conclusions they could be expected to draw from it. The United States came through it all (the narrative goes) as a single entity that had endured fundamental, existential challenges and prevailed, and Europe came through it all as a collection of warring entities that only survived because intervening outside powers (I include Russia/USSR) stopped it from destroying itself. The European Union thrives today largely because of a subjugation of the individual national identities, whereas America feels it has thrived because of an assertion of its national identity. Now whether that accurately characterizes things or not, it's at least an understandable conclusion or explanation on superficial grounds.