Why is there a general sneering going on east to west?

[mrmitchell]

I'm not from Europe, so I can't explain their half.

Most Americans know that Europe exists, know minor history about it, and know typical tourist destinations of it plus major cities. The knowledge comes to a grinding halt when between Italy and Russia, but what can I say? Can EUROS name all those countries?

The small minority of Americans that actually sneer back at Europeans are exactly that: small. They seem more because they all have big mouths

There is an extremely small minority of Americans that creates the "Europeans are asshats" garbage, and actually believe it. They're typically conservative and see anyone who's successful (AND disagrees with them) as an elitist *******.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I'm not from Europe, so I can't explain their half.

Most Americans know that Europe exists, know minor history about it, and know typical tourist destinations of it plus major cities. The knowledge comes to a grinding halt when between Italy and Russia, but what can I say? Can EUROS name all those countries?

I can, but I might not be representative - I can name all countries of Africa as well as most American states and, I think, all Canadian provinces, which definitively is more than most Europeans can.

I suspect most Western Europeans would be challenged to name all the countries of east-central Europe and of the Balkans. I recently found out that a Spanish friend of me was unaware of the existance of Belarus, which isn't exactly tiny.

The small minority of Americans that actually sneer back at Europeans are exactly that: small. They seem more because they all have big mouths

There is an extremely small minority of Americans that creates the "Europeans are asshats" garbage, and actually believe it. They're typically conservative and see anyone who's successful (AND disagrees with them) as an elitist *******.

Well, outright America-bashers are not too common in Europe either. Most people have better things to do than whining about the country who gave them Seinfeld, unenthusiastic as they might be about Dubyah or the Iraq war if you ask them.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, but by that Wernazuma, you make the assumption that people who go to the Opera are superior, a simple choice of aesthetics. You could argue that americans are too individualist, or loud and annoying , or inconsiderate, or any other thing that regards to how they behave to other people, but saying that they're inferior, or cultureless because they don't like operah is very snobbish. haven't heard of "different strokes for different folks"?

That's why I put "high culture" under "". I, for my part, don't like going to the opera too much myself. But I consider the existance of an opera and theaters as vital elements in a culturally interested environment. Like a decent jazz event in a city is vital. If you read more closely, at the beginning of my post I expressed clearly that I consider the US to be the leader of modern music culture. Yet rich cultural life needs a broad variety of choice and offers, just because of what you said: It's not possible to establish a linear ranking of better and worse when it comes to aestetics.
Although accepting a complete aesthetical relativism can't be a solution either. For sure, Austrian "folcloroid music" (as I don't want to use an American example, I'm sure everyone is able to find one for his own nation) with it's endlessly repeating harmonies without any interesting kick and its completely unoriginal and primitive texts is inferior to other types of music even though surely more people here in Austria like that crap than estimate Bach. Aesthetically relative or cultural ignorance?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kidicious


My dad goes to the ballet, and brings his binoculars to check out the chicks.

Your dad is cool as hell.

[Agathon]

"Why is there a general sneering going on east to west? " Because compated to the USA Europe is impotent, thus is limited to sneering when it comes to rivalry.

Hey, the Euros aren't the ones getting their asses kicked by a third world country.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But I don't think we're sneering back for the same reaons. Ours is more a reaction to you telling us we're just a bunch of yokels, which you have been continually doing since we left on boats from your ports.

Obviously THEY started it.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon


Hey, the Euros aren't the ones getting their asses kicked by a third world country.

Tell the Brits ...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The Europeans never really wanted us in their countries in the first place. It's no wonder they look down on us.

Not true in every instance.

The English Puritans left because they couldn't turn the Anglican Church into a purer, less 'Catholic' version of what it was- there wasn't any notable exodus from the Americas back to Great Britain after Cromwell's triumph in the English Civil Wars, and some of them had also left safe haven in the United Provinces, whose Calvinist rulers could hardly have been said to have been unfriendly towards them.

The truth is that, in many of their writings, you see their desire to establish a theocratic state, which they were never going to be able to impose on Great Britain- thank goodness.

Other English settlers left to make money, and set out to become the landed gentry in a country where there was room to expand.


In any case there is truth in both that there was some sneering at the provincials (just in the same way big city folk look down at cow country dwellers) and there was also frank admiration- for people like Franklin, Cotton Mather, Edgar Allan Poe, and of course for American money- the avidity with which cash poor European aristos snapped up newly rich American husbands and wives has to seen to be believed- and the enthusiasm with which some Americans trace their lineage back to some minor European duke is bizarre in such a supposedly democratic nation.

[Agathon]

It's unfair to pick on the Americans for being the most boorish, uncultured people in the world. Most of you have never been to Australia.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's unfair to pick on the Americans for being the most boorish, uncultured people in the world. Most of you have never been to Australia.

Still feeling that chup on the shoulder, hmm?


And after I'd been so pleasant about New Zealand's infinitesimally small contribution to world culture. *


The National Gallery of Victoria is currently hosting an exhibition from the Musee D'Orsay, Sotheby's in London has a forthcoming sale of Australian art, in which Rover Thomas's painting of Uluru is tipped to fetch the highest price for a Koori landscape so far, and the Royal Exhibition Buildings in Carlton, Melbourne, became the first built World Heritage site in Australasia, and the best New Zealand has to offer is Helen Clark's social worker hairdo and 'badly dressed lesbian' couture.

Tcha.




I rest my case. ;










* Just jesting.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The English Puritans left because they couldn't turn the Anglican Church into a purer, less 'Catholic' version of what it was- there wasn't any notable exodus from the Americas back to Great Britain after Cromwell's triumph in the English Civil Wars, and some of them had also left safe haven in the United Provinces, whose Calvinist rulers could hardly have been said to have been unfriendly towards them.

Why would they return after the Civil War? Life was good in the colonies. That doesn't mean that most of them were wanted by the establishment when they left.

Originally posted by molly bloom
The truth is that, in many of their writings, you see their desire to establish a theocratic state, which they were never going to be able to impose on Great Britain- thank goodness.

Some of them were intolerant, but in general the colonists shared a desire for religious tolerance.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Other English settlers left to make money, and set out to become the landed gentry in a country where there was room to expand.

And they largly couldn't inheret land like many of the English who stayed could.

Originally posted by molly bloom

In any case there is truth in both that there was some sneering at the provincials (just in the same way big city folk look down at cow country dwellers) and there was also frank admiration- for people like Franklin, Cotton Mather, Edgar Allan Poe, and of course for American money- the avidity with which cash poor European aristos snapped up newly rich American husbands and wives has to seen to be believed- and the enthusiasm with which some Americans trace their lineage back to some minor European duke is bizarre in such a supposedly democratic nation.

True Dat

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Some of them were intolerant, but in general the colonists shared a desire for religious tolerance.

They shared nothing of the sort. Religious 'tolerance' was the furthest thing from their minds.

Familiarize yourself with the execution of the Quakers, John Winthrop and the Antinomian affair, and the expulsion of Anne Hutchinson.

It's one of those great American myths that the Puritans were at all interested in religious liberty or toleration (they were, but for themselves alone) or democracy (they governed through a religious intellectual elite).

John Winthrop, Governor Masschusetts Bay Colony:

'He was—with the possible exception of John Cotton—the most distinguished citizen of Massachusetts Bay colony, serving as governor some 12 times. He helped to shape the theocratic policy of the colony and opposed broad democracy. It was while he was deputy governor and Sir Henry Vane (1613–62) was governor that Winthrop bitterly and successfully opposed the antinomian beliefs of Anne Hutchinson and her followers, who were supported by Vane. '

http://www.bartleby.com/65/wi/WinthrpJ1.html

Anne Hutchinson:

"Denied any legal advice or counsel and pregnant for the 16th time, this first female defendant in the New World was called to stand before 40 magistrates for two days of relentless questioning and condemnation. She defended herself with alternating wit, humility, and defiance, parrying every Bible verse thrust at her with references of her own.

She was expelled (to Rhode Island) because her spiritual claims threatened a fledgling government that took spiritual claims seriously."

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0330/p14s01-bogn.html

Mary Dyer and the Quaker martyrs of Boston Common:

"Among the women skilled in midwifery who attended Mary Dyer's last labor was Ann Hutchinson, friend and troublemaker. A year later, Hutchinson, who had organized intellectual and theological salons for Boston's women and believed God spoke directly to individuals--not through the intervention of the clergy--was put on trial for what amounted to subversion of male authority in church and state.

Hutchinson left those proceedings excommunicated from the Puritan church. Mary Dyer rose and walked out with her. Both rebellious women moved with their families to the more tolerant Rhode Island colony, leaving behind a vicious campaign against them led by Governor John Winthrop. A chance remark had brought news of Mary Dyer's stillborn infant to the governor's attention and he had the body dug up.

Winthrop used the body to demonize Dyer and her friends, including Hutchinson, as "unnatural" women. "Monster child," he declared in broadsides loaded with lurid details, "talons instead of toes!"

Dyer heard ideas from George Fox, founder of the Religious Society of Friends, that reminded her of Ann Hutchinson's ideas. The Quakers believed not only in the primacy of individual conscience, but in gender equality.

Mary Dyer later became a Quaker preacher and minister. But Massachusetts was off limits. As Quakers were arrested and threatened with death in that increasingly repressive colony, Dyer returned from Rhode Island several times to plead for their lives. In 1658, she was arrested and sentenced to die herself. As she stood on the gallows with two fellow Quakers, noose around her neck, a last-minute reprieve came through.

She was, however, once again, banished. And once again, she returned, determined to be a witness for freedom of conscience. This time--June 1, 1660--there was no reprieve. Surrounded by drummers to drown out anything she might say, she was marched to the giant elm on the Boston Common and hanged.

Today, two statues stand near the site--one of Ann Hutchinson, one of Mary Dyer--martyrs to freedom of belief."

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1371/context/archive

In 1681 a community of Anabaptists who had been living in Charlestown published an attack on the repressive government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This attack they justified by comparing themselves with the first settlers whom they saw as fellow nonconformists who had sought to establish a haven for those persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Here's what a dyed in the wool Puritan minister had to say about that erroneous notion:

'I perceive they are mistaken in the design of our first Planters, whose business was not Toleration; but were professed Enemies of it, and could leave the World professing they died no Libertines. Their business was to settle, and (as much as as in them lay) secure Religion to Posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God.'

That's the charming sounding Samuel Willard, minister of the Third Church in Boston in his tract, 'Ne Sutor Ultra Crepidam' published in Boston in 1681.


They weren't exceptional in this religious intolerance by any means, but there grew to be a shrill note in the excessive zeal (other than the numerous fines, whippings, brandings and judicial executions of course)- fining a sea captain who had returned home after a lengthy period at sea, because he had the rashness to kiss his wife on the Sabbath day.

One of the reasons (other than the fact as you also note that life was proving rather good in the colonies) that there wasn't a mass exodus after Cromwell's victory was that the Puritan establishment was actually baffled by the growing religious tolerance in Great Britain (certainly in comparison with the New England) because they of course were assured that they alone knew what the true word of God was- to allow no dissent from their view of the Bible was why they had emigrated.

You can see their descendants today, in the likes of Falwell and Robertson and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Gangerolf]

Europe
America
.

[Ben Kenobi]

that the Puritan establishment was actually baffled by the growing religious tolerance in Great Britain

Which I suppose extended to the Catholics, eh?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


you forgot Faulkner

JM

Well, I was trying to mention ones that hadn't been brought up, yet.