peterbirks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peterbirks) wrote2007-06-27 02:39 pm
peterbirks) wrote2007-06-27 02:39 pm
A Given
It's always slightly embarrassing when something which is assumed to be "a given" (usually a common set of values) turns out not to be a given at all. As I have said before, most Americans are very friendly people, but they will often try to express that friendship by establishing a sense of commonality. This works well within their own sphere, but can lead to embarrassment when it turns out that what they had assumed to be universal values are not so universal after all.
I saw Solomon Burke supporting Van Morrison back in mid-2003. This was at the height of pro-Iraqi invasion fervour in the US, and I have no doubt that if, as an entertainer in the US, you did not make some kind of comment regarding "our brave boys in Iraq". or did not wear a US flag-pin, people wanted to know why the hell not. If there was a "universal value" at the time, then this, he must have thought, was it.
Unfortunately, to a 60s hippie-left-over crowd at the Royal Albert Hall, most of whom had probably been on a march only a few months previously against the invasion, this kind of line from Solomon was met with a response that could best be described as "you could have heard a pin drop". Next thing, someone started booing.
I felt sorry for Solomon. He's obviously not a political guy. It just hadn't occurred to him, or, presumably, his manager, that not all of the UK was with Tony Blair on this one. Personally, I just felt embarrassed for Solomon Burke, because he was clearly absolutely baffled by the crowd's response. It hadn't been like this in Iowa, he must have thought.
I mention this because Mr Blair departed today, and, if there has been one recurring theme of my visits to LV over the past four years, it has been that some friendly American will say how great the British are because Mr Blair stood firm with the US, unlike the duplicitous French. I usually remained diplomatically silent on this matter, but there does seem to be a belief in the US that the leader mirrors the views of the people.
This matter was reflected interestingly when some poor American tourists in Italy were there at the same time at, I think, the G8 meeting. This generated the predictable anti-American marches, which the Italians take more seriously than, say, the British. While the adult American tourists interviewed seemed somewhat relaxed about the matter, their adolescent offspring were less so. "I don't think they should disrespect the president like that", was one quote.
You can hardly imagine a British teenager saying this kind of thing about Blair.
I once asked an American why, given the nation's steadfast belief in democracy and free speech, journalists would dutifully stand up when the President entered the room for the weekly press conference. Someone duly announces "THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES", and, well, up do all the journalists stand. I pointed out that we had no equivalent of this in the UK, where journalists and politicians held each other in a manner of mutual contempt.
The guy thought about this for a few minutes, because, well, clearly it had not occurred to him before NOT to stand up when the President entered the room in such a fashion.
"I guess", he said "it's respect for the office, rather than the holder of the office itself".
Which was the right answer, of course. But presidents tend to get it confused, thinking that it is respect for them, rather than for the office. Occasionally they need a kick to let them know that, actually, we think you are wrong.
Anyhoo, with luck, the "thanks for supporting us over Iraq" line will fade away as more and more Americans come to the view that it was all a disaster. The general line now (which I heard a couple of times when I was in LV in March) is: "our politicians lied to us".
The difference between the UK and the US could not be plainer, because they actually seemed surprised at this. In the UK, meanwhile, we took it for granted that we were being lied to, which was why there was that massive march in early 2003, opposing the invasion. We knew that Blackhawk Down was fiction, that war wasn't like the movies. It seemed sad that the US politicians were not aware of this, and sadder still that the vast majority of the US population believed them.
In a way, that's one of the most lovable things about Americans -- beneath it all there is an underlying innocence that you just don't get in the older and more cynical England. Perhaps that's why the Americans, as a rule, don't "get" irony. There's a niceness beneath the surface, wanting to see the best in everybody, that just doesn't fit with irony. In England, we are cynical and twisted before our time.
I saw Solomon Burke supporting Van Morrison back in mid-2003. This was at the height of pro-Iraqi invasion fervour in the US, and I have no doubt that if, as an entertainer in the US, you did not make some kind of comment regarding "our brave boys in Iraq". or did not wear a US flag-pin, people wanted to know why the hell not. If there was a "universal value" at the time, then this, he must have thought, was it.
Unfortunately, to a 60s hippie-left-over crowd at the Royal Albert Hall, most of whom had probably been on a march only a few months previously against the invasion, this kind of line from Solomon was met with a response that could best be described as "you could have heard a pin drop". Next thing, someone started booing.
I felt sorry for Solomon. He's obviously not a political guy. It just hadn't occurred to him, or, presumably, his manager, that not all of the UK was with Tony Blair on this one. Personally, I just felt embarrassed for Solomon Burke, because he was clearly absolutely baffled by the crowd's response. It hadn't been like this in Iowa, he must have thought.
I mention this because Mr Blair departed today, and, if there has been one recurring theme of my visits to LV over the past four years, it has been that some friendly American will say how great the British are because Mr Blair stood firm with the US, unlike the duplicitous French. I usually remained diplomatically silent on this matter, but there does seem to be a belief in the US that the leader mirrors the views of the people.
This matter was reflected interestingly when some poor American tourists in Italy were there at the same time at, I think, the G8 meeting. This generated the predictable anti-American marches, which the Italians take more seriously than, say, the British. While the adult American tourists interviewed seemed somewhat relaxed about the matter, their adolescent offspring were less so. "I don't think they should disrespect the president like that", was one quote.
You can hardly imagine a British teenager saying this kind of thing about Blair.
I once asked an American why, given the nation's steadfast belief in democracy and free speech, journalists would dutifully stand up when the President entered the room for the weekly press conference. Someone duly announces "THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES", and, well, up do all the journalists stand. I pointed out that we had no equivalent of this in the UK, where journalists and politicians held each other in a manner of mutual contempt.
The guy thought about this for a few minutes, because, well, clearly it had not occurred to him before NOT to stand up when the President entered the room in such a fashion.
"I guess", he said "it's respect for the office, rather than the holder of the office itself".
Which was the right answer, of course. But presidents tend to get it confused, thinking that it is respect for them, rather than for the office. Occasionally they need a kick to let them know that, actually, we think you are wrong.
Anyhoo, with luck, the "thanks for supporting us over Iraq" line will fade away as more and more Americans come to the view that it was all a disaster. The general line now (which I heard a couple of times when I was in LV in March) is: "our politicians lied to us".
The difference between the UK and the US could not be plainer, because they actually seemed surprised at this. In the UK, meanwhile, we took it for granted that we were being lied to, which was why there was that massive march in early 2003, opposing the invasion. We knew that Blackhawk Down was fiction, that war wasn't like the movies. It seemed sad that the US politicians were not aware of this, and sadder still that the vast majority of the US population believed them.
In a way, that's one of the most lovable things about Americans -- beneath it all there is an underlying innocence that you just don't get in the older and more cynical England. Perhaps that's why the Americans, as a rule, don't "get" irony. There's a niceness beneath the surface, wanting to see the best in everybody, that just doesn't fit with irony. In England, we are cynical and twisted before our time.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-06-27 06:23 pm (UTC)(link)gl
bdd
Patronise 'em
The current cycle of this started with Ronald Reagan's whole 'morning in America' thing and that slow spiral of increasing confidence rode on through intervention in all sorts of parts of the world and by the current era, they've over-reached themselves in all sorts of ways.
Very like a teenager they are a society conditioned to being able to have what they want, whether it's good for them or not. They put no value on delayed gratification and misread the constitution which promises, life, love and the *pursuit* of happiness. They think this gives them a right to happiness.
At times you wish you could just slap them but I guess that's none too practical. They've grown a bit too big to be giving them a smack or sending them to bed early. But I think the cycle is turning again and we'll see a much more maudlin America emerge in the post-Iraq, post-Bush world. Maybe they'll grow up one day.
Re: Patronise 'em
Somebody needs to grow up, and it wouldn't hurt "the Americans," whoever they are, but it's a bit much to describe an entire society (and I agree, I'm both paraphrasing and traducing your original intent here) as "juvenile." Some of the little critters are quite grown up, y'know.
I mean, ya shoulda seen the boobies on that one that just walked past. Believe her name was Jamie. Didn't get the phone number, but I'll send you the Kleenex.
Warmongering
(Anonymous) 2007-06-30 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)On the Iraq war, I think I've been pretty consistent right from the start in believing that, while it may have been a good idea to drop a bomb on Saddam Hussein's head (if it had been feasible), to invade the country with ground troops was just asking for trouble in every possible way.
There may have been times in history when war made practical sense as national policy -- though often it did not, even in olden times. But increasingly these days, it never seems to make sense, unless perhaps you're faced with a phenomenon like Hitler. Saddam Hussein was likened to Hitler, but I think in reality he was a mini-Hitler whose awfulness was limited to his own country and its immediate neighbours. The USA would have done better to have dropped a bomb on his head, or, failing that, to have supported its own allies in the region in a measured way.
I don't think Britain should have got involved at all, beyond perhaps tactful expressions of good fellowship. It may be worth remembering in this context the resounding lack of support from the USA in the Suez crisis.
I don't know how many more hot potatoes the Americans will have to pick up before realizing that they tend to burn the fingers. Surely the thought will start to occur to some future president that going to war may not be good for his re-election prospects.
Margaret Thatcher's experience in the Falklands war notwithstanding. She benefitted because (a) she won and (b) the inhabitants of the area being fought over were securely on her side, no complications.
-- Jonathan