Do you think America's lack of history affects their perspective of the world and their actions upon it? Do you think this leads them to feel the need to impose themselves in order to create a legacy?
Just a little thought I had. It must be weird having literally no national heritage.
>inb4 Native Americans
You know what I mean.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
How is American history radically different from Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, etc.? How is there any less history there?
>Do you think America's lack of history affects their perspective of the world and their actions upon it?
The country was founded almost 250 years ago. In historical terms that's pretty damn short, but seeing as America was created at the beginning of the industrial age, a shit load has happened in those 250 years.
Constant growth and success from having a ton of land and not being remotely close to any other major power, and then being far stronger economically than any other country for almost a century, has had a bigger impact on our perspective. As an American, I really only learn about other countries because I like to learn about geopolitics and history, otherwise there's almost no tangible benefits in doing so. Nothing other countries do affect me nearly as much as what my own does.
Maybe our lack of history has had an effect on the American psyche, but our actions could be better explained through other reasons IMO.
>Do you think this leads them to feel the need to impose themselves in order to create a legacy?
Most Americans already think their country has the greatest legacy. Having the world's oldest currently standing democracy, going to the moon, being a superpower, Hollywood, jazz, the oldest current practice of free speech, and having their parts in both world wars (which are overblown in most schools). Instead they are made to believe that the United States exists as a force for democracy.
>Having the world's oldest currently standing democracy
implying
I feel that what they need is a war at home, more recent than the Civil war, to give them some perspective for their invasions
I don't think it's so much the lack of history but it's inception during the Age of Colonialism where European power was wrapped up in a purpose to civilize and improve the world around them either ethnically or culturally. Also, the US has usually been 40 years or so culturally behind European trends.
That didn't stop, say, the Soviets in Afghanistan.
And it's not just Wilsonian-ism, but also an economy that heavily benefits off war, and maybe a bit of a religious aspect too (Promised Land).
Oh, and literally the only reason other countries are no longer intervening in others is because they are no longer able to, unless they have the approval of America (sometimes the British and French still do). It's incredibly hard and expensive and usually geopolitically infeasible to project power beyond your own borders. Europe only stopped when they became weak, but of course even though they frequently fought in large wars between each other, it rarely made them rethink their actions.
Meanwhile America only fighting in unjust, unnecessary wars has badly damaged the image of the military. Contrary to what Europeans on Veeky Forums believe (or neets who never leave their house), most Americans do not worship the military, the vast majority of people who sign up to join are poor people who want better education than what they'd otherwise receive.
>Meanwhile America only fighting in unjust, unnecessary wars has badly damaged the image of the military. Contrary to what Europeans on Veeky Forums believe (or neets who never leave their house), most Americans do not worship the military, the vast majority of people who sign up to join are poor people who want better education than what they'd otherwise receive.
t.Someone who has no experience dealing with the general public or the military.
This, and that's to say nothing of the flag.
Many americans at least seem to feel some inferiority for it, and usually bring up their invasions and current power as a response. I think it would be harder to justify war to most other countries that are older.
its a common misconception that we lack a history. We lack a unified history but all of us have our own histories. Im 3rd gen from britain, my great grandfather fought in WW1 for the British army, my grandfather on my other side was 2nd gen from france and fought in WW2 for the US. Ive got a lot of cops and military in the family, theyre all fairly patriotic red-blooded american types because their ancestors were soldiers. My history up until 100 years ago WAS british and french history. Ive got nothing but white-ass blood in me and Im barely a couple generations apart. Culturally Im distinct but if I were to go to britain and not say a word people would assume I was born their because I look the part, I also share your sensibilities in my own bastardized way, my grandmother could have fit into any victorian drama and my mother raised us british as fuck as a result. You make fun of us for clinging to national identities despite the fact that we have no native history to speak of and you see our families as having "betrayed" you by leaving or something, so we're damned if we do and damned if we dont.
its still taboo to openly disrespect people in the military but
just because one person says "thank you for your service" when your walking around in your uniform doesn't mean the majority of people respect the wars you fight or that they think the military consists of anything close to "the best and brightest"
>t.Someone who has no experience dealing with the general public or the military.
wrong. the only decent people in the military come from military families. the rest are poor people who'd have gone to college if they had a scholarship.
the flag is a different subject almost entirely, it stands for more than the military
>the oldest current practice of free speech
no...
Who? I'm just curious.
great britain my friend
Britain doesn't even have free speech now.
It all depends where you go. When I was visiting my aunt in Missouri, someone at a bar caught wind that I was in the army and everyone in there treated me like I was Elvis for the night.
American troops are treated better than any other county's military personnel by the public.
it had de facto free speech throughout the 18th century, ever since the repeal of censorship laws in the late 17th centry.
lol americans would be the last people to agree with that though
Serious question: how do you go about free speech in a monarchy?
why would they be at odds? because lese majeste laws? as far as i know even those weren't that enforced
Who is responsible for protecting freedom of speech in the UK? In the US, it's the judicial branch.
i've read a lot of british history but its all rusty in my head. i think i had my mind on this excerpt i read a while ago
...
...
the last post and this one discuss freedom of press
final
>Do you think this leads them to feel the need to impose themselves in order to create a legacy?
Whew lad.