The war between the US and Europe.

There's probably something to that, but there are other factors too - some of the cultural contrasts can create a little friction, especially when the 'big dog' has so much effective cultural 'muscle' in the world of global media.

I do wonder whether there was a difference in the way Romanticism entered the public conciousness on the differnet sides of the Atlantic. One obvious cultural difference, if you watch TV (of all kinds), is the apparent 'perfectionism' of the US, with people in particular. I'm sure this is partly aspirational rather than actual, but there does seem to be an apparent need for TV people to be 'perfect', and a relative lack of acceptance for 'glorious imperfection' in some ways. Our newsreaders, for example, aren't expected to have 'perfect faces', 'perfect hair', 'perfect teeth', and so on (less than perfect people obviously do exist widely in the USA, but they just don't seem to be given prominant jobs on TV!). Perhaps the neo-classic cultural and artistic ideals of the Enlightenment persists to a greater extent in the cultural background of the USA.

It's one of the aspects that makes many European see American culture as somewhat 'shallow'. There is, I think, a fairly common perception that it's all about money, 'the quick buck', the 'fast food', the expectation of 'perfect', 'have a nice day' service, perfect hair, perfect make-up, and so on. Much of that no doubt tems again from 'Hollywood', but it's seen as prioritising the surface appearance of things, rather than 'deeper' and more 'substantial' aspects.

That perception extends into things like music, with American music being seen often as having had the 'rough edges' taken off it (and UK bands often adjust their sounds in that way to attempt to appeal to the US market). Such 'rough edges' are seem to be seen as more appealing over here than they do over there (in the public perception, at least) - they are part of the charm of something, not things that make it 'less perfect and therefore less good'.

To some extent I suspect that kind of difference plays slightly into the feelings some in the US seem to have of their own 'superiority' - the lack of understanding about the different appreciation of 'imperfection' possibly makes it appear (from the US point of view) that things in other places aren't as good, or don't look as good, or aren't done as well, and that could breed a level of arrogance about certain issues. One manifestation of that, as an example, could be the need that Americans have to 'remake' TV shows from the UK (the UK as a specific example, because of the language, obviously!) rather than just show them as they are, 'warts and all'. There seems to be an assumption that they have to be made more 'slick and shiney' for American audiences - whether that is actually true or not I don't know (although I know that opinions on UK TV vary in the US), but it not only could have an element of genuine 'arrogance', it also gives an appearance of 'arrogance' from the outside.

There's also the whole 'gung-ho', 'hell yeah', leaping up and down thing. It's just not something that is generally done in the same way at all on this side of the Atlantic, and does give and appearance (from this cultural angle) of a kind of unthinking entheusiasm that goes beyond what is seen as 'normal' (which some inevitably interpret as a kind of 'stupidity', but again it's really just a cultural thing - we just tend to express ourselves in slightly different ways).

Combining those things, it's not hard to see why Europeans see Americans as 'arrogant' and 'shallow', and Americans view Europeans as 'inferior' and 'less perfect', but it's really just a different cultural background that puts slightly different interpretations on the way things are commonly viewed. As with most things, though, getting one 'side' to attempt to actually understand the other, rather than view them as just being 'different and strange' (and therefore somehow 'inferior') will never be easy!

 

would agree there is alot of "anti toni blair sentiment" and he was a good friend with the US so there is no doubt many of the brits left leaning socialist ones do not like americans

it is legitimate however the euros do better than US at treating their people fairly by redistributing the wealth the US does horrible at it and that leaks into their foreign policies and that affects other countries when the americans are so oppressed by their own rich that they support world domination ignorantly.

 

Can't we all just get along.

Europe needs to move more away from their socialist tendencies. It would help out them and our relationship.

 

I say this with respect, but you are being unfair to Cenyyd, who is one of the most balanced and even handed posters here.

Of the links you provided, the Telegraph was the only half-way reliable source. One was an obviously anti-Islamic blog, and the others were the Daily Mail (probably the least reputable, and most sensationalist, tabloid in the world).

This reporting of 'Sharia Law' by the Mail -

implying as it does, that this is possible in the UK, is willfully misleading.

There are no Sharia 'courts' in the UK. There are Sharia arbitration councils which operate identically to the Beth Din Jewish councils. Neither can legally impose penalties or conditions that are outside English Common Law. They are an alternative to taking domestic matters to court, and are entirely voluntary.

As for the Muslim population of Britain doubling in 20 years time, that is possible but unlikely, given the rate of increase over the past 60 years. Even if it were to so do, that would put the Muslim component of these isles at 5% - hardly a significant majority.

So can you see why any sensible Brit would question the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information?

 

Or - perhaps the US needs to move away from its capitalistic tendencies, which would help its people, and our relationship.

 

that is the best part of europe, the socialists there they give the US a great model on how to operate

even the social policies like allowing other religions to come there, european countries may be the first ones to have large muslim populations in the first world and that will change the culture that was once influenced by just christianity as maybe islamic holidays will be celebrated the same as christmas and other christian holidays in the west

 

I should have been more clear. I was speaking of fiscal socialism which made them insolvent.

 

We tried that in California; it made the state insolvent.

 

NY and CA being the mega planet literal pulse of media imagery definitely have a play on how people must look pretty, but they are not exclusive to that club, despite their global power. Camilla comes to mind, regarding Englands media and beauty and your leading fashion industries, going back to Twiggy, mini, midi and maxi etc.

I think the gung ho perception is correct though. There is an in your face ness to America. They will always think football is the 49ers and Redskins, duh, and like...what's so great about soccer? With being said, soccer riots seem much more frequent in Europe in comparison and contrast to football/baseball/basketball/hockey/NASCAR events in America.

Still, I think Europe has a fair bit of gung ho, jump up and down in the culture (at least regarding sporting events). Europeans are either acting more polished, or, they are more polished. Politically, maybe. They are so predominently all centrists, they are artfully smooth in the cumbersome act of straddling amongst the other centrists. Renegade acts, such as austerity measures of a clear cut position...produces riots, and an absence of polish with an abundance of gung honess.

There was another point that may be worth mentioning. Leo2 directed this thread as Europeans. Taken in that vein of thought, America the virtual upstart, seems to be facing endless criticisms from a Europe of old big, very big, and titanic dogs.

Greece seemed a tad important in history. So was Spain. France made it's mark on the world, as did England and Rome. A rather impressive assortment of resumes of global imperialist powers, and maybe they think that entitles them to pompus rock throwing at the upstarts.

 

in that case europe does beat the US again in an economic war as their systems are heavily regulated that is a requirement when redistributing wealth the US is too privatized that is why it corrupted the world economy not only its own when it allowed a few private enterprises concentrated with too much wealth the power to gamble with the economy

 

My own personal view of the U.K. is that it's similar to the U.S. in its problems but without most of our advantages.

For example, the U.K. is more culturally diverse than a lot of continental Europe and therefore faces many of the same culture clashes that we do (although with different cultures from the ones here), but at the same time, you don't have the cheaper cost of living that most of us have here or the wide open spaces to spread out. You also don't have the vast amount of resources we have.

In that respect, I feel kind of sorry for the U.K. I like a lot of the U.K.'s music (especially from the 70s, 80s, and 90s), and a lot of my favorite actors and actresses are from there. So, there are plenty of things I admire about the U.K., but I just wouldn't want to live there.

The problems that the U.K. seems to have that we don't have as much of here are mostly connected to political correctness.

In another thread, there was a discussion of blasphemy laws in Europe. The U.K. seems to have certain laws in place that essentially criminalize the "denigration" of religion. In a weird way, it's like the U.K. views religion the same way we view race.

In America, we have laws in place to combat racism in certain aspects of life like employment. However, our protections are less extensive for religion, because it's assumed that race is something you're born with, whereas religion is a choice.

Following that logic, it seems odd to have laws in place that are as defensive regarding religion as the blasphemy laws are. I wouldn't want to live in a place where a remark I make against a religion could result in a fine or prosecution in general. Here, that would be considered rather fascist.

So, this is one of the more negative views I have toward the U.K. and Europe in general. I get the general impression that America is one of the few countries in the world where true free speech is respected -- even if it's offensive.

Social democratism is more prevalent in Europe than here, and while it has positive aspects, I believe it has shown itself to be more negative than positive regarding speech.

I know I said I was a social democrat in the past, but at this point, I have to say that I mostly reject it now. Civil libertarianism seems to make far more sense. The problem is that this particular ideology is hard to experience anywhere outside of America, and due to recent legislation, we're becoming less and less civil libertarian overall.

 

Europeans want to harness American power to their own ends. They do not appreciate our resistance.

I've never liked the British. Since 2003 I've come to see all Europeans as hostile.

I've encountered lots of British tourists along Monterey Bay. I never fail to insult them about their bloody history. They stand there and take it because they are unsure how to react.

 

I would like to respond. But, I simply cannot decipher your post.

I never want to be a grammar cop, but help me out with your point. A few commas, periods, etc... would go a long way.

 

Fine

In the case of Europe and the US in an economic war the European systems are heavily regulated and that is a requirement in socialism as redistribution of wealth can only be accomplished efficiently through tight regulations.

The US is too privatized that is why it was able to corrupt not only its own but the world economy.

This was accomplished in a direction away from socialism unlike Europe where a few private enterprises are concentrated with too much wealth and they are granted the power to gamble with the economy.

 

Thank You.

I would recommend a book written by a liberal called Crisis By Design. It tells the story of how Goldman Sachs, The Swiss Government/Bankers, U.S. Government, and the U.S. Federal Reserve, have manipulated the world market. The only real private entity in that equation is Goldman Sachs. The rest are highly socialized entities.

The book tells the exact story on how we got to where we are today. It is a great read.

 

The interests of African America and White America are opposed. Zero sum game. The only thing you face is struggle without end or mercy.

 

I think it is probably true that religion is widely seen in the UK as similar to race in terms of it being something that people shouldn't be abused or discriminated against for (partly because of the problem of people who want to attack someone for the colour of their skin, knowing that that would be frowned upon, using religion as a way of effectively attacking the same people in the same way). The laws that exist shouldn't be misunderstood, though - they are there to stop people preaching religious hatred and inciting violence against religious groups. A casual remark against a religion won't land someone in trouble - the only people who would need to be concerned about such laws are those who are real rabble-rousing troublemakers with an agenda to promote hatred and violence against religious (or racial) groups.

Part of it, I guess, is also a recognition that although religion is in a sense a 'choice', in reality most people are born into a certain religion, and stay in that religion throughout their lives. Children in particular usually have little real choice in the matter - that choice is made by their families, but the children would still have to suffer the consequences of abuse over it in exactly the same way as they would from racial abuse. Hate-speech against religious groups that promotes hatred and/or violence is hatred against children with little real choice in the matter, and could be inciting mistreatment of those children, leaving them subject to hatred, abuse and attacks from others (particularly those without the maturity to see that such things are wrong, and to fully understand the possible consequences of their actions).

In practise, if a kid whose grandparents came originally from Pakistan, for example, is being abused and bullied every day (by morons who have been listening to some public hate speech, violence-inciting, rant somewhere), it doesn't really matter whether it is 'justified' in the morons' minds because of the kid's skin colour or because of his family's relgious beliefs - the problem is the same, the ignorance and bigotry behind it are the same, and the influence of the person promoting such behaviour with their public rants would be the same.