So, is it just me or is it just Americans who so frequently seem to feel the need to fall into one of two extreme camps with regard to their nationality? One: disavowing their country of origin as quickly as possible to new acquaintances when off national soil; or Two: finding it appropriate (despite it flouting flag etiquette with which I am aware) to don entire outfits consisting of randomly dismembered national banner particles and looking like a Bedazzling adventure gone terribly awry.
Although it will seem that I am indulging in compatriot bashing, I am not. This is merely my observation, albeit not entirely non-judgmental. I must say that I am quite tired of the monotony of listening to people who have such an inferiority complex about where they are from that they cannot refrain from denigrating and disavowing their country within thirty minutes of arriving into a new group. Why can’t one just either a) be normal and a positive representative for their country or b) keep entirely to polite conversation, which upon intial acquaintance should not involve religion or politics, esp. if one is not sufficiently informed to discuss it intelligently. For the record: hysterically and over-eagerly shaming and disclaiming your country to garner acceptance with does not constitute intelligent discussion. If one has problems with national decisions, one may certainly voice them, ideally naming situations or circumstances in which one may feel (with one's in-depth knowledge of policy, secret intelligence and so forth) an issue of national or international importance might have been handled better. Please give specific examples in discussion.
For example, one might say, for example, ‘It is my opinion that practices at Guantanamo have not adhered to internationally acceptable civilised procedure. Perhaps some different decisions could have been made and maybe justice could have been met in another way.’ (Perhaps one could go ahead here and insert one’s opinion on how, procedurally, they might have differed from the powers that put this unfortunate situation in place. Perhaps one might want to suggest exactly how they would have dealt with someone like David Hicks were they in charge of US national security issues.) Or, in another situation, one might opine, ‘The US population’s mass disregard for environmental frugality is an unfortunate quandary.’ (Here might be a good time to list recent California laws – light bulb manufacturing being a critical one – and how this does or does not affect individual liberties.) It is another matter altogether to claim that, ‘George Bush is the single most evil person on the planet.’
This is good that you are aware that George Bush is the President of your nation and that he is apparently seen as a powerful individual on the planet. However, as flattering as this is to Mr. Bush’s Diabolical Omnipotence, I question the logic that leads one to this conclusion. Let us pretend for a minute that the US President is, in fact, able to control the entire planet.
All.
By.
Himself.
Let us pretend for a minute that the US President is, oh, so much more than a mere figurehead at all. And, above all, let us pretend that the existential state of being elected to the most diabolical position of worldwide omnipotence (wow. are we talking about Brain here?) endows the person existing as such with absolute infallibility. Yes, you go ahead with your arm-chair quarterbacking. It is really helping! I think things will be so much better now that we have your opinion influencing the world!
It is not my intention to make a political statement here in support of a political side or other. It is my intention to b---- about bloody people who cannot just act normal or have a normal discussion over dinner. Let us not try to demand that others (in a totally separate topic, btw) join your conversation by demanding consensus on the second quotation above (I mean, how American is that!? smirk.).
Let me see, can I think of anyone who would be a contender against the Diabolically Omnipotent Mr. Bush? Hmmm… let’s see. How about Robert Mugabe? (There is actually discuss at the moment in Australia about how the Aussie cricket team playing in Zimbabwe is currying favour and actually in a way supporting Mugabe) How about people who kidnap children from villages and teach them to become killing machines in an exceptionally horrid Stockholm Syndrome? How about looking at any newspaper in the world? Is the D.O.M.B. really the worst individual you can think of? How about instead of distancing yourself from your country and building up stereotypes from within, you try to be an ambassador of goodwill and make an intelligent effort to be a person instead of a vituperative being spouting more foulness into the world. I think we have quite enough already, thank you.
Perhaps readers of other national origins might join this discussion to confess whether they fall into the camp of disavowing their country when in international company or maybe they just got a Bedazzler and are busily embossing flag remnants with jewels and planning to drape them over their bodies. B and I had a sort of discussion concerning issues relating to the first camp once, comparing S. Africa origins to US and getting sh*£ for it, but B doesn’t seem to me to be hysterical – he just lost the accent and the issue doesn’t need to be addressed every time he meets someone new. Or maybe he really does leave the table sometimes to go off and bash his countrymen to random persons at the fruit machine instead of following the brightly coloured lights to riches and fame as we assume he is.
*******
And my final inquiry of the day is: Would sunscreen count as a work expense?
No comments:
Post a Comment