What The World Knows About America

[Imran Siddiqui]

I really don't.

It seems like a bunch of ranting and raving... of him not comprehending what the author wrote in the first place.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Seeker
A few wierd things:
-The author seemed to equate Chruch attendance with idealism...WTF? If anything, in most other countries church attendance varies inversely with education levels.

What do education levels have to do with being idealistic? And what is wrong with equating Church attendence with idealism? Those who are religious tend to be a little more optimistic about life. No?

-The author mentions that half of Italian immigrants returned home, and seems to those who returned as 'failed immigrants'.

I took it as him simply pointing out the fact that times were so hard in the US at the times that immigrants actually went back instead of staying. No where does he say they "failed"

-He implies that this was because of a lack of Yankee 'frontier spirit' or some such nonsense, that the European Italians were 'soft'..

Again, I don't see it. Where are you getting that?

The author of the first article, in an attempt to imply the softness of a European people, instead just showed what an ass he was.

Did we read the same article. You get this from

Things were so hard for the migrants that a large proportion of them - nearly a third of the Poles, about half the Italians, more than half the Greeks - returned home. America's affluence, as a general condition, was quite a recent, post-World War II, phenomenon.

Whatever bias in this quote is of your own making. In your eyes you say he implies one thing. But all he says is things were so hard that many migrants choose to go back to their homeland. A very simple statement. Actually of all the things he says, I couldn't imagine this being controversal.

[Alexander's Horse]

And you all live like the Brady Bunch, right?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Way to showcase your national insecurity complex, guys...

Just an excercise. It's turning just about how I thought it would go. Including your remark

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think living in America is like one long episode of COPS. Am I wrong?

After hearing about some of the stuff that goes on down your way Horsie, I would say that good ole OZ isn't too far behind us


This is fun to wach

[Alexander's Horse]

You must be joking - we don't have hand guns.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sprayber


Just an excercise. It's turning just about how I thought it would go. Including your remark

No problem. Just needed to break up the circle-jerk you guys had going...

[Roland]

1. "Yet it is also true that Americans are the most self-critical people on earth." - Whoever wrote that has never witnessed german whining.

2. "The best American universities - Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Princeton - are easily the best in the world." - They are ? Did anyone adjust for grade inflation ?

3. "America's affluence, as a general condition, was quite a recent, post-World War II, phenomenon." - Most estimates put US wages in the 19th century 30-50 % above european levels. Part of the reason for that is the simple lack of labour and the possibility to just go west on some farm.

4. "As she says, "America is never less loved in Europe than when . . . it is angry, determined, and certain that it is in the right"." - I think that's a good point. People who are absolutely certain they have a monopoly on being right tend to scare us just a bit. And it's also slightly annoying to hear the gospel of the world according to dubya.

Nice article overall. Scrap some errors, and some "best/biggest/largest in the world" garbage, and it has potential.

Which is in contrast to the article dino posted. Hopeless crap.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Roland
1. "Yet it is also true that Americans are the most self-critical people on earth." - Whoever wrote that has never witnessed german whining.

2nd that

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Which is in contrast to the article dino posted. Hopeless crap.

You mean that the US IS universally loathed in Europe?!?!

[Roland]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


You mean that the US IS universally loathed in Europe?!?!

Not at all, though you try really hard.

The worst nonsense in the article is about Berlusconi.

[Seeker]

"Things were so hard for the migrants that a large proportion of them - nearly a third of the Poles, about half the Italians, more than half the Greeks - returned home. America's affluence, as a general condition, was quite a recent, post-World War II, phenomenon"

You can't see the implication??

He is relating THIS:"Things were so hard... "

To THIS: "about half the Italians....returned home"

As if one was cause, and the other effect....which is demonstrably untrue, as I have already pointed out.

Second, in the same paragraph, he mentions that:
"America's affluence, as a general condition, was quite a recent, post-World War II, phenomenon".

Firstly, in relation to immigrant source countries that is a bogus statement. America tended to pay a far higher wage, and a generally higher living standard, relative to areas like Apulia, Calabria, etc since after the Civil War, and especially after world war 1.

This is a statement that is true only relative to later American prosperity. By 1950s standards, the depressions of 1890, 1870s WERE the American version of poverty...but compared to the situation of a landless second or third son tenant farmer in southern Italy, it was relatively easier to make a buck.

The question then, is how did Italians prosper, relative to their original circumstances on the average, during times of 'poor' American economic circumstances?
1. Citizens of certain paese had certain specialized, 'recession proof' skills, and were so respected in these fields that they could outcompete the 'natives'.
2. Willingness and ability to do jobs at rates natives would not, plus highly skilled and self-organizing, example masonry, rail road construction, Italians quickly formed little companies of highly skilled labourers at unskilled labour rates--a major reason for the 'racial' prejudice of unskilled english speakers.

So why is this statement in that paragraph (scholars trained in exegesis can follow me here)?

Either the author is:
a) Conflating a statement that is true under certain relative circumstances "America's affluence, as a general condition, was quite a recent, post-World War II, phenomenon", with a restricted meaning, with a (false) conclusion based on different relative circumstances, that conclusion being that Italian immigrants were leaving because they were unable to cope with these 'tough times'.

b) Not aware of the historical context of Italian immigration.

And why is this paragraph in this article? In this part of the article, the author is contrasting the supposed American qualities with an 'other', that 'other' being Italian immigrants.

The author is saying in this section that Europeans believe Americans have never endured hardship on a national scale like Europeans have in the recent past, and that therefore Americans are somehow 'soft' or 'untried'.

This supposed belief of the Europeans is then attacked, by recounting difficult times in American history, and the supposed resilience of the American people during these times (note: a strange, militaristic idea that suffering somehow ennobles or builds character, but I digress).

That's all well and good, America has indeed endured times of national suffering comparable to Europe (such as the 1890s depression)....but then he goes on to talk in this paragraph about European immigrants leaving because they couldn't endure the hard times! Implying that the Americans could endure what the Europeans couldn't.

Why couldn't the author just leave it at the assertion that Americans have endured levels of suffering comparable to Europe as a nation? That is fairly uncontroversial. But instead he feels compelled to go further, and say that in these hard times that Americans endure and triumph over, the Europeans leave?

He is clearly implying that it is the European, in this case the Italian immigrant, who was used to the 'soft life' and could not endure the hardship faced by the tough Americans!

The author clearly felt the need to turn the tables on his strawman European persecutors and say: 'They say we are weak and have never faced real pain? Well, look we have, AND we faced pains that caused these same mockers to flee! They are in fact the soft ones and the record proves it!'

It is the AND part that is untrue. His data is that 50% of Italian immigrants returned home during times of crises in America that the non-immigrating American stoically endured. 50% is actually a low number, and must be from the Depression years when it was harder for the men to return home.

They were returning home because they always (mostly) returned home, the goal (in most cases) was to return home, the whole context of Italian pre-war immigration was young men away from home, working hard, and then returning home to buy land.

The author is trying to interpret this high number of emmigrating Italians during the Depression most likely. I can just hear his thought process "Immigrants come to America because of the American Dream. They want to live here and become Americans. What's this? Why are all these Italians leaving during the Depression? Why are they going back to a silly European country? No one leaves America voluntarily unless they've FAILED or because of spineless FEAR. Those weak kneed Italians! Running away at something we Americans endured."

It would never enter his American thought process that pre-war Italian immigrants overwhelming came for one purpose: To quickly make enough money to buy land of their own back in their home paese in Italy. They did not come to put down roots, or join the American Dream, or because of supposed American 'freedom', or because it was so much greater to live in America. They typically came for a relatively short stay, for purely economic reasons, and then returned. They did not return because of harsh conditions. Any crisis in America STILL paid higher wages than Southern Italy. They returned when they had achieved their economic goals. It was when they had bad luck, and failed to make as much money, that they stayed and became Americans.

See scholar Franca Iacovetta. She is respected in the field. Now, she IS a Marxist-Feminist, but don't let her political garbage drown out her excellent factual scholarship.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can't see the implication??

No... it is a true statement. It was harder for migrants. Maybe the cause and effect was wrong for Italians, but that doesn't mean it wasn't difficult.

The author is saying in this section that Europeans believe Americans have never endured hardship on a national scale like Europeans have in the recent past, and that therefore Americans are somehow 'soft' or 'untried'.

You are a paranoid wierdo.

It implicates nothing of the sort.

[KrazyHorse]

You are a paranoid wierdo.

It implicates nothing of the sort

I'm a jelly doughnut, and the proper word to use here is "implies", not "implicates".

[Seeker]

"It implicates"

implies?

"It was harder for immigrants..."

yes, of course....but NOT 'therefore, they started packing up and going home because of that'.

The Italians at least had always been going home in large numbers because that was what Italian immigration was about. It had little if anything to do with tough times in America.

THERE IS NIGH-ZERO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC SITUATION 1870-1939 AND ITALIAN EMMIGRATION BACK TO ITALY.

There is a correlation to the number of immigrants from Italy to America, but not the number from America to Italy.

Pre-war immigration/emmigration levels are related to:
a) racist laws and immigration policies, especially quotas.
b) Mussolini
c) The land tenancy situation in Italy.


"You're a paranoid wierdo"

Yes, of course. Why aren't you??

[Roland]

I'm not sure to join Seeker in the harshness of condemnation, but how else do you explain the comment ?

"Things were so hard for the migrants that a large proportion of them - nearly a third of the Poles, about half the Italians, more than half the Greeks - returned home."

How many Americans do know and acknowledge that 30-50 % of immigrants returned home anyway ? And for those that do, being confronted with the new-jerusalem-shing-on-a-hill-goal-of-all-mankind american propaganda, how tempting is it to dismiss the returners as losers and failures ?

Looks like a rather innocent knowledge and thinking error to me, not like a particlar bias against a group.