Europe/United States
The differences between the French and Americans were quickly brought to my attention when I arrived in July. Aside from the obvious factors of ancient history, a truly unique culture, and one common language, I think that the prime difference between the French - and indeed, Europeans in general - and Americans is priorities. In my experiences, Europeans are far more pragmatic and adaptive than Americans are. Take, for example, the issue of prostitution as it occurred in Germany; prostitution has always been around, and always will exist in one form or another. People know this. People understand this. Germans accept this. Americans deny it.
The Germans - and the Dutch, for that matter - decided that since it will always be around, they may as well accept it and find a way to adapt to have this former problem suit their interests. Now, prostitution is a legal occupation in Germany, federally regulated, and a far safer enterprise than it was before; not only that, but the German government receives money from this new business, so it has actually taken a formerly hated social problem and made it profitable.
This, of course, is but a single example of what I call European Pragmaticism; were I to try to record all other instances of this relatively new way of thinking, I would be bored out of my skull. But for the sake of presenting examples of European Pragmaticism, I will list the most pertinent forthwith:
1) Politics - A dirty word in American culture, yet a necessary one in European. The current American administration - and essentially all American government in the 20th century - commits itself to fighting a political and moral ideal with military force: an enterprise which is impossible to achieve, as only ideas can combat other ideas. Ironically, the American government does espouse an idea that fights the "terrorist" idea, and I believe it has proliferated terrorist activities.
The idea is that of "The American Dream," that formerly lofty goal of a peaceful materialistic has been replaced with an American nightmare that instructs its citizens that materialism alone will satisfy all human urges, and that all other cultures should believe this as well. Naturally, other cultures tend to find this "Dream" to be quite contradictory to America's nominal values of "Liberty and Justice for all" and react in a rather hostile manner. Americans should not be surprised at such behavior, as their nation was founded by men who reacted in the exact same manner as the Muslim militants of the current age.
What then, is to be done to solve this bloody problem? The American approach has been to militarily invade countries thought to harbor terrorists, in an attempt to cut out from below the support for militant groups. The problem, however, is not only will countless other militants fill the ranks of those killed by American smart bombs, but will actually encourage Arab states to unite against a common threat to their way of life: America.
Some European states were bullied into this American aggression, but those states that asserted European Pragmaticism objected not only to the baseless American accusations of WMD but to the ideology that military force can quash anti-American feelings and terrorism. I think that Europeans saw that only by recognizing WHY people hated their country would they be able to make the necessary changes to make people cease hating them. And, not surprisingly, countries that pledged complete support to America for the Iraqi War - Britain, Italy, Denmark - have all received either terrorist-based attacks or threats as a result. Countries that abstained from such a venture are strangely ignored by terrorist attacks: France, Germany, Sweden
It should be noted that Adaptivity, the key ingredient for survival and evolution, is present in European Pragmaticism, and is becoming decidely unpopular in American culture, as it relates to morality, politics, and priorities. Cultures and civilizations that lacked the ability to adapt have died out throughout history; recognizing this, one must ask, is America next?
The Germans - and the Dutch, for that matter - decided that since it will always be around, they may as well accept it and find a way to adapt to have this former problem suit their interests. Now, prostitution is a legal occupation in Germany, federally regulated, and a far safer enterprise than it was before; not only that, but the German government receives money from this new business, so it has actually taken a formerly hated social problem and made it profitable.
This, of course, is but a single example of what I call European Pragmaticism; were I to try to record all other instances of this relatively new way of thinking, I would be bored out of my skull. But for the sake of presenting examples of European Pragmaticism, I will list the most pertinent forthwith:
1) Politics - A dirty word in American culture, yet a necessary one in European. The current American administration - and essentially all American government in the 20th century - commits itself to fighting a political and moral ideal with military force: an enterprise which is impossible to achieve, as only ideas can combat other ideas. Ironically, the American government does espouse an idea that fights the "terrorist" idea, and I believe it has proliferated terrorist activities.
The idea is that of "The American Dream," that formerly lofty goal of a peaceful materialistic has been replaced with an American nightmare that instructs its citizens that materialism alone will satisfy all human urges, and that all other cultures should believe this as well. Naturally, other cultures tend to find this "Dream" to be quite contradictory to America's nominal values of "Liberty and Justice for all" and react in a rather hostile manner. Americans should not be surprised at such behavior, as their nation was founded by men who reacted in the exact same manner as the Muslim militants of the current age.
What then, is to be done to solve this bloody problem? The American approach has been to militarily invade countries thought to harbor terrorists, in an attempt to cut out from below the support for militant groups. The problem, however, is not only will countless other militants fill the ranks of those killed by American smart bombs, but will actually encourage Arab states to unite against a common threat to their way of life: America.
Some European states were bullied into this American aggression, but those states that asserted European Pragmaticism objected not only to the baseless American accusations of WMD but to the ideology that military force can quash anti-American feelings and terrorism. I think that Europeans saw that only by recognizing WHY people hated their country would they be able to make the necessary changes to make people cease hating them. And, not surprisingly, countries that pledged complete support to America for the Iraqi War - Britain, Italy, Denmark - have all received either terrorist-based attacks or threats as a result. Countries that abstained from such a venture are strangely ignored by terrorist attacks: France, Germany, Sweden
It should be noted that Adaptivity, the key ingredient for survival and evolution, is present in European Pragmaticism, and is becoming decidely unpopular in American culture, as it relates to morality, politics, and priorities. Cultures and civilizations that lacked the ability to adapt have died out throughout history; recognizing this, one must ask, is America next?


8 Comments:
This is pretty good info Thanks for posting it. To Blog-Rage is human! Network Marketing
By
blogdude69, at 5:17 PM
A Personal Guide to Personal-Finance Blogs
OTHER FREE FEATURES Leaf Blowers: Quiet, Please To placate the neighbors, manufacturers are turning out a new breed of leaf blowers that are quieter and more ecofriendly, but still pack plenty of power.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a make money site. It pretty much covers make money related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
By
mark198712901111, at 5:17 PM
i have read your blog, cool!!
By
rockstar_wanna_be, at 9:01 PM
Hey Russ,
I had to read it again...
19 I'm amazed.. I retract my "pretty good info"
comment and have to say...
really impressive in its stead..
:)
I posted a responce on my blog too... BTW
By
blogdude69, at 11:48 AM
I have to disagree with your implication that pragmatism is always the best route to take in every situation. Even more disconcerting to me is the fact that the example you chose to use to support your assertion of 'European Pragmatism' is a prime example of why this train of thought concerns me. Simply put, just because something is practical doesn't mean it is right. There is a moral standard that we must be willing to hold ourselves to, and the legalization of prostitution is not something to be proud of. Yes, I understand the practical arguments for such an action, but just because legalizing prostitution allows for government regulation and a safer 'industry' (and I use the term loosely) doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Government regulation doesn't make the practice any less perverse. Americans don't deny the existence of prostitution; they just choose not to embrace it. There are many vile practices that have always been around and will most likely always be around. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be defeated by those who choose to act in a way that is contrary to what is right. Turning something that one knows it wrong into a profit is even more sickening.
Running scared from our enemies is not the way to solve our problems, and running scared from what is wrong in this world will only lead to more strife. This same principle applies to the war on terror. If we as a country allow ourselves to be pushed around by those who oppose us, we open ourselves to even more attacks. Negotiating with terrorists would only serve to add validity to their fight. Terrorists use unorthodox methods to attempt to scare their enemies into meeting their demands. As a nation we cannot negotiate with terrorists because such diplomacy would mean that their attacks on our way of life have been successful.
Choosing to ignore a global threat may be beneficial to the French and the Germans in the short run, but it won’t be long until militants see this as a weakness and take advantage of it. Just as Hitler’s rise to power was ignored preceding World War II, ignoring the threat of radical Islamic groups will catch up with the world. The problem isn’t just going to go away. Also, to insinuate that we can somehow change so that militant Muslims will no longer hate us is ludicrous. As long as we value the freedom that our nation was founded upon, we will be hated.
Sometimes fighting for what is right in this world doesn’t always seem practical, but we must not cast our values aside in the face of injustice and evil. We must not be content to take the easy way out, especially considering this route oftentimes leads to larger threats in the future. What you call adapting to a problem I call submitting to it.
-Just a friendly counter-arguement to your post.
By
Ramblin0n61, at 5:36 PM
Indeed, I suppose I should have touched upon the moral aspects of political actions, especially those pertaining to prostitution. However, I think that my statement concerning a moral position is that to present a unified moral front is basically impossible; I imagine there are people who do not consider prostitution to be as revolting as you do, and if one person declares it immoral, then we have a problem with absolutism and subjectivism.
Which is right? Well, I don't think it's for me to decide whether someone's personal, detached opinion on a matter that doesn't really affect them to them is relevant or not. My personal values hold reason and logic in the highest esteem, and for me, a pragmatic point of view is the best course 9/10 times; that 1 time, I would say, would be to confront Hitler. However, I think it would be unfair to compare the Nazi threat to the threat of Islamic militants because of the orthodox means of action that the Nazis took; namely, the fielding of a national army and engaging in direct conflicts. Muslim militants will not do this, and therefore fighting with a national army and engaging in direct conflicts is not applicable.
Also, might I ask you to refrain from "running scared" as I find this to be a grave inaccuracy; running away is not the same thing as refusing to fight, if on no other grounds than the logical one that a person has to be in a fight, and then retreat to be "running scared."
I understand and appreciate comments contrary to my opinion, but please try to keep them a bit more...tolerant, if you please.
By
Russ, at 7:21 PM
I don't think I was being intolerant, but if that's the way you read that statement, then I apologize. Don't take anything I said personally. You sent me a link to the blog, and you know have differing opinions from you and that I love to debate stuff. It's fun to have civil, intellectual discussions with people whos opinions differ from mine.
By
Ramblin0n61, at 7:37 PM
Don't worry, I didn't take it personally; as of my best friends, I do value your opinion, I was just a little surprised at your comments, I guess. And yes, I am very aware of your love for debate: (The Big Plan)
:)
By
Russ, at 7:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home