'America: Imagine the World Without Her'

[subwayrider]

I saw this the other day. Apparently, this guy gets attacked on all sides by scholars for presenting his audiences with misinformation, but I chose to focus on the ideology of the film rather than the factual arguments it tries to make.

The trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98DfrVjxCQg

I wrote a paragraph on my impression of it:

I appreciate the imploration not to conflate America with its government, with its land, or even with its citizens, but to understand it as an ideal, a revolutionary one. The director seems to think that America has transcended the ubiquitous conquest-and-domination ethic that has so characterized human civilizations, but this is not today the case. Maybe one day it can, but only if America the idea, and not what it is confused for, can be preserved in the hearts of its people.

Whatever else he expounds, I did really appreciate the distinction between the essence of a country and its peripheralities. America as an idea is very different from America as a country. The closer the realities of its existence are to its ideal form, the more it truly is America.

 

[Cognisant]

It's just a nation, the ideals of democracy, secularism and personal liberty have existed since Ancient Greece and have risen/fallen in favour many times, I think we're currently in a era of relative wealth and great stability and the political landscape reflects that, there are no great leaders anymore because we don't want them, we want to maintain a status quo.

 

[Red myst]

It's just a nation, the ideals of democracy, secularism and personal liberty have existed since Ancient Greece and have risen/fallen in favour many times, I think we're currently in a era of relative wealth and great stability and the political landscape reflects that, there are no great leaders anymore because we don't want them, we want to maintain a status quo.

I believe the message of the film was to point out that America has contributed to this era of relative wealth and great stability that you make note of in your post and it also serves as a rebuttal to the anti America propaganda that tries to spread the belief that it is a country of thieves who colonized and stole everything.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I believe the message of the film was to point out that America has contributed to this era of relative wealth and great stability that you make note of in your post and it also serves as a rebuttal to the anti America propaganda that tries to spread the belief that it is a country of thieves who colonized and stole everything.

Why can't America just both?

 

[Absurdity]

Why can't America just both?

Wouldn't that imply that colonialism enriches the colonized? Serious thoughtcrime.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It's the same thing there, give and take, always happens regardless of the form of cultural exchange. Don't you think slavery makes for a better example? Being a black man in America, for instance, might not be as good as being a white man in America, but it beats being a black man in Africa because Africa sucks in general.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

It's the same thing there, give and take, always happens regardless of the form of cultural exchange. Don't you think slavery makes for a better example? Being a black man in America, for instance, might not be as good as being a white man in America, but it beats being a black man in Africa because Africa sucks in general.

I doubt that slavery which occurred up until the end of the civil war is the what causes the plight of poor black people in modern times. Probably what is a better indicator is whether or not they get an education, avoid child rearing before marriage, avoid drug and alcohol use, stable home-life, strive not to be dependent on handouts, etc. These things I mention aren't from any analysis of the black community but rather my analysis of a white trash community I lived in for a few years.

Well, if you just looked at a frequency distribution, it probably looks better to be white than black. Since, we are all good scientists here, a frequency distribution tells you nothing of the underlying causes.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It's part of the what, undeniably. Doing and avoiding those things is harder when you're black. Sure you can point to them and say they are the key thing, but they are still just a couple of links in a chain if you zoom out. Socioeconomic class is just another factor. Sure it sucks WT, but for different reasons. And the very fact that WT is used a counterexample to being Black speaks miles too.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

It's part of the what, undeniably. Doing and avoiding those things is harder when you're black. Sure you can point to them and say they are the key thing, but they are still just a couple of links in a chain if you zoom out. Socioeconomic class is just another factor. Sure it sucks WT, but for different reasons. And the very fact that WT is used a counterexample to being Black speaks miles too.

What does it speak miles about?

 

[Cognisant]

I believe the message of the film was to point out that America has contributed to this era of relative wealth and great stability that you make note of in your post and it also serves as a rebuttal to the anti America propaganda that tries to spread the belief that it is a country of thieves who colonized and stole everything.

But it is, the United States was never going to be a poor country however the exorbitant wealth of the nation didn't come from just natural resources or the sweat of American brows.

It's come from the blatant exploitation of the Middle East, India and China, and this wealth stays in America on account of the many tax loopholes exploited by the rich, in effect you have a wealthy country built by wealthy people for wealthy people and I think the average American would agree with me on that, if not indeed be proud of it.

Seriously I'm an Australian, we're your allies, we think you're assholes.
I can only imagine what the rest of the world thinks.

 

[Jennywocky]

Why can't America just both?

Wouldn't that imply that colonialism enriches the colonized? Serious thoughtcrime.

It's the same thing there, give and take, always happens regardless of the form of cultural exchange.

Pretty much. Maybe there are contexts where there is more of a win-win, but pretty much from a survival/evolution standpoint, expansion of one group leads to absorption/diminishing of another as the ownership of property changes.

I'm capable of thinking the Founding Fathers had positive ideals and set up a decent idea for a country, while at the same time some of those ideals in later contexts end up contributing to abuse of power (like the "free" economy" which might start equal but becomes hugely imbalanced later in the game).

Or hell, maybe I am naive... detailed economic/historical analysis isn't my forte.

Anyway, the binary mindset is a common flaw. Individual humans for example are capable of being two different things that people experience cognitive dissonance over, so they sometimes jettison the one for the other in terms of understanding the person, rather than embracing the duality.

Don't you think slavery makes for a better example? Being a black man in America, for instance, might not be as good as being a white man in America, but it beats being a black man in Africa because Africa sucks in general.

*gasp* What would Rousseau say?

 

[Red myst]

But it is, the United States was never going to be a poor country however the exorbitant wealth of the nation didn't come from just natural resources or the sweat of American brows.

It's come from the blatant exploitation of the Middle East, India and China, and this wealth stays in America on account of the many tax loopholes exploited by the rich, in effect you have a wealthy country built by wealthy people for wealthy people and I think the average American would agree with me on that, if not indeed be proud of it.

Seriously I'm an Australian, we're your allies, we think you're assholes.
I can only imagine what the rest of the world thinks.

So you are saying that the world is in a era of relative wealth and political stability despite the fact that America has stolen and exploited all its wealth from others? or because of it?

I agree with you that the founding fathers were wealthy. I prefer that to peasants or the indigent. It was not built for wealthy people. It was built upon the idea that you could come here as a peasant and become wealthy.

 

[Reluctantly]

Wouldn't that imply that colonialism enriches the colonized? Serious thoughtcrime.

It's interesting to see if people have a problem with this. Some people say it's better to be poorer and individual than to be colonized and richer, as a matter of principle. I don't understand how people could be so unreasonable as to knowingly hurt themselves just to avoid being involved with other people, unless it's some kind of spiritual/philosophical idea where they would prefer being poorer and not having to live a modern life.

 

[Red myst]

Why can't America just both?

That is the way it should be. It is quite frustrating to see how polarizing the topic can be. I feel kind of neutral about it, but there are some that are quite militant and hateful and seem to dig very deep to string world events in such a way that the is always a shadow on the U.S.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

That is the way it should be. It is quite frustrating to see how polarizing the topic can be. I feel kind of neutral about it, but there are some that are quite militant and hateful and seem to dig very deep to string world events in such a way that the is always a shadow on the U.S.

US does what benefits US or people in control there.
In any way the colonies and proxy democracies are exploited and not exploiting the US resources, if some of that wealth ever goes back to them, it doesn't mean they haven't lost a great amount.

The core countries, that have more import than export rely on the commodity price difference and cheap labour. If you can enjoy something in the dominant economy, it is because some workers in the 3rd world country do the cheap labour so that it is availible to you at the affordable price level.

It can be said that the US have had a major negative impact on the world wealth distribution and sovereignty, while having a great success to improve their power at the cost of all the other nations, that's what the successful national politics and governance is all about.

Imagine the world without military powers.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What does it speak miles about?

That being black i whiteland sucks in many ways else it would not be natural to compare it to living as white trash. African American vernacular English uses covert prestige, hence it's not good for your career and will alienate you in some contexts, same shit happens to WT but they don't get it quite as bad. Cop's will be much more suspicious of you if you are black. People will be more suspicious in general. You might feel pushed towards fulfilling racial stereotypes to some degree because they are expected of you.

I don't know what I'm going on about here :S Incoherent.

 

[Cognisant]

So you are saying that the world is in a era of relative wealth and political stability despite the fact that America has stolen and exploited all its wealth from others? or because of it?

Despite, the US is in decline because wealth is being redistributed.

 

[Red myst]

Despite, the US is in decline because wealth is being redistributed.

So the only way to obtain wealth is through redistribution? The only way someone can decline is if someone else is advance? No one can create value on its own? Anyone who has to rely on redistributed wealth will not have it for long.

 

[Red myst]

US does what benefits US or people in control there.
In any way the colonies and proxy democracies are exploited and not exploiting the US resources, if some of that wealth ever goes back to them, it doesn't mean they haven't lost a great amount.

The core countries, that have more import than export rely on the commodity price difference and cheap labour. If you can enjoy something in the dominant economy, it is because some workers in the 3rd world country do the cheap labour so that it is availible to you at the affordable price level.

It can be said that the US have had a major negative impact on the world wealth distribution and sovereignty, while having a great success to improve their power at the cost of all the other nations, that's what the successful national politics and governance is all about.

Imagine the world without military powers.

Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too......

But if there were no trade at all, there would be no labor at all for 3rd world contries? And if it cost just as much to make at home as abroad, then I would just purchase domestic products, so still no work for 3rd world countries. And doesn't the whole world benifit from affordable prices? How much would your deathadder mouse cost if it were made in your local area?
I am exploited. I don't make as higher wages as I could if I lived in the north. Companies come here for relatively cheaper labor. And to get away from unions.
Should I demand more? Have I been a fool for letting these greedy capitalist take advantage of me?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

First why assume the extreme of no trade at all? No trade at all is not comparable to the situations where low and high trade take place.
Secondly if the dominants and importers were focused on the domestic production and consumption (similar to what China is trying to achieve), then it would mean that other countries need to find other consumers of their products, possibly reducing their production and raw material usage and trying to focus on their domestic market too, which would lead to the growth in their own economy and to the increased trade with similar neighbouring economies. They would be limited to what they can do, not to what someone wants to do with them.

warning, a simplified example:
What happens is Johny taking 10$ worth of raw materials for 1$ (labour+extraction costs), sells it in his home country and invests everything$ in the province to make 100$.

In the end, he always gets 9$ relative to their 1$. Naturally, they are poor and he may be rich (relative to them).

So now, in Johny's nation their goods that cost 1$ may be cheap, but in the province the goods still cost 1$ and it is already the amount they earn, so it is very expensive for them.

You can demand as much as you want, as long as there is no one offering less, you are one among many. You were not a fool, you are low enough on the social ladder to be forced to do what you do most likely.

You make it sound as if there was some kind of favour in doing all this. It's pure profit and exploitation efficiency.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

That being black i whiteland sucks in many ways else it would not be natural to compare it to living as white trash. African American vernacular English uses covert prestige, hence it's not good for your career and will alienate you in some contexts, same shit happens to WT but they don't get it quite as bad. Cop's will be much more suspicious of you if you are black. People will be more suspicious in general. You might feel pushed towards fulfilling racial stereotypes to some degree because they are expected of you.

I don't know what I'm going on about here :S Incoherent.

Regardless of the race, people growing up in middle class or higher communities don't have the same problems.

 

[Red myst]

First why assume the extreme of no trade at all? No trade at all is not comparable to the situations where low and high trade take place.

I use it to make a point that some trade is better than no trade. Some trade must be favorable for them or they would not do it, and they are free to demand as much as they want as long as no one is offering to do it for less. The labor is simply going to the lowest bidder willing to do the work. And this undercuts workers in more developed nations.

Secondly if the dominants and importers were focused on the domestic production and consumption (similar to what China is trying to achieve), then it would mean that other countries need to find other consumers of their products, possibly reducing their production and raw material usage and trying to focus on their domestic market too, which would lead to the growth in their own economy and to the increased trade with similar neighbouring economies. They would be limited to what they can do, not to what someone wants to do with them.

^^^^^^This sounds like something to strive for.^^^^

What happens is Johny taking 10$ worth of raw materials for 1$ (labour+extraction costs), sells it in his home country and invests everything$ in the province to make 100$.

In the end, he always gets 9$ relative to their 1$. Naturally, they are poor and he may be rich (relative to them).

So now, in Johny's nation their goods that cost 1$ may be cheap, but in the province the goods still cost 1$ and it is already the amount they earn, so it is very expensive for them.

Why is Johnny getting $10 worth of raw material for $1? How was it determined to be worth $10? He should be paying what ever the going rate is for the raw materials and the raw materials should be worth the market value.

You can demand as much as you want, as long as there is no one offering less, you are one among many. You were not a fool, you are low enough on the social ladder to be forced to do what you do most likely.

That was sarcasm. You do make my point that it is pure profit and efficiency, but I disagree about exploitation. I do not feel exploited. I have undercut the workers in the north and improved my position. My wages are lower than theirs, but because of my modest lifestyle and lower cost of living I can afford to work for less and still have the same or better cash flow. It is a win/win for myself and my employer. And on top of that, I get to work in an atmosphere that aligned with my cognitive function preferences and draw on my innate skill-sets. That is worth so much more than the extra money.

You make it sound as if there was some kind of favour in doing all this. It's pure profit and exploitation efficiency.

I do not mean to sound as if it is some kind of favor. It is not. Just because I ask you if you are benefiting from cheap labor does not mean I am asking you if you are happy about it. You make it sound as if any trade where someone makes a profit is exploiting someone else.

 

[TBerg]

Oh, no. Not again. Judging America by upsized standards that you don't apply equally to other societies? Where is my Noam Chomsky punching bag? Where is my capitulation to Hitler and Tojo and Stalin?

The fact is that, just as I do not deny virtue to others, we should not deny virtue to America, which comprises people, government, and law.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I use it to make a point that some trade is better than no trade. Some trade must be favorable for them or they would not do it, and they are free to demand as much as they want as long as no one is offering to do it for less. The labor is simply going to the lowest bidder willing to do the work. And this undercuts workers in more developed nations.
^^^^^^This sounds like something to strive for.^^^^

I agree

Why is Johnny getting $10 worth of raw material for $1? How was it determined to be worth $10? He should be paying what ever the going rate is for the raw materials and the raw materials should be worth the market value.

The value is determined locally. What is worth 1$ might be worth many times more depending on processing(technology), availability and situations.

That was sarcasm. You do make my point that it is pure profit and efficiency, but I disagree about exploitation. I do not feel exploited. I have undercut the workers in the north and improved my position. My wages are lower than theirs, but because of my modest lifestyle and lower cost of living I can afford to work for less and still have the same or better cash flow. It is a win/win for myself and my employer. And on top of that, I get to work in an atmosphere that aligned with my cognitive function preferences and draw on my innate skill-sets. That is worth so much more than the extra money.

I was fully aware of your mockery. You have a lifestyle that makes you content with your situation, however would you improve it if you had a chance to earn more?
Your employer is much more likely to have a better more flexible lifestyle because he is profitting from your work, which only requires some management and no input on his side.
It is very simple, if your work is worth x USD, you will be paid less and the excess will go to your employers pocket, if it is a good situation for you, it's great. I never said that people cannot be content with their wages and their position on the job market. If this is the case, then you are not exploited, you are selling your resources and lifetime and you find the money satisfying.

I do not mean to sound as if it is some kind of favor. It is not. Just because I ask you if you are benefiting from cheap labor does not mean I am asking you if you are happy about it. You make it sound as if any trade where someone makes a profit is exploiting someone else.

Trade happens when two individuals are willing to exchange.
Trade also happens when one individual is forced to enter the exchange (job market, selling resources at low bids), or suffer from hunger and poverty. What I wanted to draw is that it is a different form of trade when you are forced to enter the exchange sooner rather than later, as opposed to being free to wait and choose a good offer, or use the resources on your own and process them instead.