Ginger Yellow wrote:

QUOTE:
"I can't really think of a nation that's defined by its ideas or ideals."

Indeed - otherwise anyone who subscribed to those ideals would be a citizen (quite a cool idea, actually) and anyone who didn't would be stripped of citizenship.

I don't see how this follows actually.

QUOTE:
Certainly Americans, and many non-Americans, think of the US as a nation founded on ideals, but that doesn't mean its status as a nation state has anything to do with that.

What exactly do you mean by "its status as a nation state"?

QUOTE:
Pledging allegiance to the flag is another thing, and has a definite creep element, and is also a distinctly un-American ritual.

OFFS. Look, I see what you're getting at, but you can't simply say that a distinctly American ritual is a distinctly un-American ritual and leave it at that. The whole point is that while Americans (in general) see these sorts of ritual as an affirmation of American ideals and idealism, non-Americans often see them as a betrayal of them in favour of unthinking nationalism - substituting the object for the idea.

ursus arctos wrote:

QUOTE:
C'mon Wyatt, you know that Austen was talking about a completely different game.

No, she was talking about a very similar game.

But yeah, I'm being a bit facetious: the modern form of the game in the US was codified there, no doubt about that.

(And a bloody good job the codifiers did, I should perhaps stress, in case anyone other than Bruno thinks I'm slagging off American stuff in general.)

FWIW, they never did before the Reagan administration. A lot of this crap is relatively new (at least to someone as old as I am).

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
Come on: "for whatever reason" won't do. Why don't car dealers everywhere have massive fuck-off flags?

I don't know how that particular trend started. Some of them are hilariously big, though. They're quite awesome, and definitely make the wind think twice before having a go at flapping them. Look, it's well established that Americans tend to be much more at ease with silly expressions of patriotism/nationalism than Europeans. That's because our brand of nationalism, or national ideals, strikes many if not most as having panned out quite well (cf the War for Independence, the right side prevailing in the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the right side prevailing in the Cold War, rising peace and prosperity, etc etc). Obviously the residuals of those past victories can only last so long, but the general feeling during the 20th century was, hey, America's actually pretty legitimately great, and not just great in a Hitler or Red China phony kind of way. So a big-ass flag just said, "How fucking great is that?"

"Americans (in general) see these sorts of ritual as an affirmation of American ideals and idealism"

GY, I don't think that's true at all. I think that most people see them as content-less traditions (and less "sacred" than the tradition of eating turkey on Thanksgiving). There are excellent arguments that they are not in fact content-less, but that doesn't mean that those arguments are shared by (or even apparent to) the majority of people who participate in the tradition.

QUOTE:
I happen to love what America stands for, or is supposed to stand for.

Well, this is certainly the root of the difference: American-ness is bound up with an ideology, as much as with a territory.

And one level I approve. In particular, I like the fact that "American" doesn't describe an ethnicity. But, you know, nationalism is nationalism. It's never a good thing. And I think the ideology of American-ness is in itself problematic, not to mention contested.

I mean, can you tell us what America is "supposed to stand for"? We could perhaps start from there.

I get your wife analogy, by the way. I've lost count of the number of times I've taken off my hat and gazed at one of her skirts hanging on the line, while singing a song about how great she is. And she doesn't see that as creepy at all.

Ginger Yellow wrote:

QUOTE:
OFFS. Look, I see what you're getting at, but you can't simply say that a distinctly American ritual is a distinctly un-American ritual and leave it at that. The whole point is that while Americans (in general) see these sorts of ritual as an affirmation of American ideals and idealism, non-Americans often see them as a betrayal of them in favour of unthinking nationalism - substituting the object for the idea.

It's no longer a distinctly American ritual, FWIW. And saying something is 'un-American' ALWAYS, in usage terms, refers to the American ideal, not the actual practice. Nowhere near as ubiquitous as it once was, unless I'm very much mistaken. But we agree so I don't see what you're on about.

QUOTE:
And saying something is 'un-American' ALWAYS, in usage terms, refers to the American ideal, not the actual practice.

Yes. And you don't see this "American ideal" business as problematic, at all, in view of the history of that particular usage?

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
Well, this is certainly the root of the difference: American-ness is bound up with an ideology, as much as with a territory.

And one level I approve. In particular, I like the fact that "American" doesn't describe an ethnicity. But, you know, nationalism is nationalism. It's never a good thing. And I think the ideology of American-ness is in itself problematic, not to mention contested.

The American ideal is that anyone can become an American. If you can overlook the territorial limitation that sort of transcends nationalism doesn't it? (And yes, I know...)

QUOTE:
I mean, can you tell us what America is "supposed to stand for"? We could perhaps start from there.

I would start with the Bill of Rights.

QUOTE:
I get your wife analogy, by the way. I've lost count of the number of times I've taken off my hat and gazed at one of her skirts hanging on the line, while singing a song about how great she is. And she doesn't see that as creepy at all.

Maybe you should try buying her flowers or a nice dinner instead. Women tend to have differing needs from nation states.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
And saying something is 'un-American' ALWAYS, in usage terms, refers to the American ideal, not the actual practice.

Yes. And you don't see this "American ideal" business as problematic, at all, in view of the history of that particular usage?

I do. Everything's potentially problematic, everything can be corrupted. Ideals are hard to live by and require frequently renewed commitment.

BrunoMaggiore wrote:

QUOTE:
The American ideal is that anyone can become an American. If you can overlook the territorial limitation that sort of transcends nationalism doesn't it? (And yes, I know...)

But (a) not everyone can become an American, and indeed much American "patriotic" opinion is in favour of making this ever harder; (b) most other countries have procedures for immigration and naturalisation, so this would hardly be a distinctive "ideal" even if the country came within a million miles of living up to it; (c) while you could argue that naturalisation as a French citizen doesn't make you French (because "French" is also an ethnicity), this non-ethnic character of American-ness also applies to most other New World countries. Look at G-Man. He's a South African, ain't he? Properly so?

QUOTE:
I would start with the Bill of Rights.

Apart from a wobble round about number 2, that's a good thing, yeah. But to whom does America "stand for" the Bill of Rights? To some, certainly: to Lech Walesa back in the day, and so on. But not to anyone in My Lai, I'll bet. So it all depends on your point of view.

Inevitably, making your country an object of "love" and, in allowing yourself to do so, insisting on identifying it with its best aspects while describing its worst as "un-<insert name of nation state>", becomes a self-sustaining, criticism-resistant, reality-averse process.

The distinctive characteristic of which is that one reacts in a shrilly defensive way to any criticism that is voiced.

QUOTE:
Maybe you should try buying her flowers or a nice dinner instead. Women tend to have differing needs from nation states.

America "needs" your "love", does it? Who in America needs your love, and what do they need it for? Again, I think to ask the question is to answer it.

Bruno, have you now shifted your ground? Do you still think the frequent affirmations of love of country that punctuate American life for so many are "emptied of meaning"? Or is your position now that they're full of meaning, but that it's cool because America's got an Ideal, unlike other countries in which it would, genuinely, be a bit creepy?

Aren't there two things which make American display of patriotism different

Firstly that a country which is both federal and with a high percentage of immigrants needed to reinforce the thngs (often the only things) which its people could be said to have in common.

And secondly the Amercian flag is a symbol whcih is capable of many readings, from symbol of liberation from oppression and the triumph of democracy for a Jeffersonian Democrat to symbol of power and wealth for a neocon republican.

QUOTE:
the Amercian flag is a symbol whcih is capable of many readings

Is that not true of all flags?