USA players.......most patriotic? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

USA players.......most patriotic?

The Freak
09-21-2007, 09:52 PM
When it comes to Davis Cup, it seems to me like the US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC. We always put our best players out there. It's a priority for the Americans, and most other countries players' either wimp out with a little injury or complain about the schedule.
What does everybody think?

Deboogle!.
09-21-2007, 09:55 PM
As a team of singles and doubles players, maybe - the US has lots of guys who seem to all want to play very badly. But you have people like Hewitt, Massu and Gonzalez, and many more, who are also always ready and willing to play, despite what effects it might have on their singles careers.

CyBorg
09-21-2007, 09:57 PM
When it comes to Davis Cup, it seems to me like the US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC. We always put our best players out there. It's a priority for the Americans, and most other countries players' either wimp out with a little injury or complain about the schedule.
What does everybody think?

I think that this thread is a waste of everyone's time.

Allure
09-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Probably. I know the US team puts DC on the very top of their priorities.

Beforehand
09-21-2007, 10:06 PM
I wouldn't say it's a problem as much as people say. I think with Federer and Nadal it's a big problem right now, but I mean, who can really blame them with the amount of matches they play and amount of stress they put on their body. Roger does a LOT of work to give us the kind of tennis he plays, and gobble 7,000 rankings points a year, and with Nadal at an astronomical 5,000 and still sitting in the distance at #2, nobody can really blame him if all the work results in him not being able to commit himself without question to 4 random weekends during the year.

Bilbo
09-21-2007, 10:14 PM
well, it's no secret the USA is the most patriotic country in the world and that's their big problem

LoveFifteen
09-21-2007, 10:18 PM
well, it's no secret the USA is the most patriotic country in the world and that's their big problem

As much as you and your Eurotrash friends would love this to be factually true, it's not. :shrug:

CyBorg
09-21-2007, 10:26 PM
well, it's no secret the USA is the most patriotic country in the world and that's their big problem

Why do you hate America?

DrJules
09-21-2007, 10:32 PM
When it comes to Davis Cup, it seems to me like the US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC. We always put our best players out there. It's a priority for the Americans, and most other countries players' either wimp out with a little injury or complain about the schedule.
What does everybody think?

John McEnroe would not agree and questioned the commitment of Sampras and Agassi when he was captain:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=884706

scarecrows
09-21-2007, 10:34 PM
When it comes to Davis Cup, it seems to me like the US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC....

after the 1995 win Sampras and Agassi werent going often with the team, were they?

DrJules
09-21-2007, 10:45 PM
after the 2005 win Sampras and Agassi werent going often with the team, were they?

And Connors before them.

For many players the attraction of tennis is that your destiny is in your own hands rather than team mates.

Snowwy
09-21-2007, 10:49 PM
Why do you hate America?

Well, there is no good from patriotism, but I dont see him saying in his post he hates America.

Allure
09-21-2007, 10:58 PM
Sometimes it's patriotism that makes people dislike America. An example would be when someone asked Roddick what does he like about the US Open and he said that Americans were still in the tournament.

RagingLamb
09-21-2007, 11:35 PM
after the 2005 win Sampras and Agassi werent going often with the team, were they?

1995?

R.Federer
09-22-2007, 12:13 AM
Sampras always put his personal goals ahead of Davis Cup. Agassi up to a point put Davis Cup ahead of his personal goals. This generation has always been there to play for Davis and try hard to be the two selected for the singles.

fmolinari2005
09-22-2007, 12:29 AM
If you will measure patriotism by having the top players on the team, I just dont know if this is true. Russia and Argentina, for example, seems to frequently have their top players playing.

World Beater
09-22-2007, 12:31 AM
despite the apparent patriotism, the americans still haven't won davis cup with this current team


the US team know they have a great chance to win the whole thing and roddick knows that this would enhance his career.

switch federer with roddick, and you may see andy with different priorities.

scarecrows
09-22-2007, 12:37 AM
1995?

yes, titty me http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/style_emoticons/default/doh.gif

CyBorg
09-22-2007, 01:04 AM
Well, there is no good from patriotism, but I dont see him saying in his post he hates America.

Eh, I knew no one would get the reference. This is mostly a Euro board anyway.

Johnny Groove
09-22-2007, 01:29 AM
It always seems that Roddick is ALWAYS playing DC, like basically every tie in the past 4-5 years :lol: Blake also more recently, since hes been a top guy.

Then you have countries like Russian and Argentina, who just have SOOOO many great players, it makes it difficult to choose who to play. I mean, if Chela doesnt get picked because Dave, Gaudio, Coria, and Calleri are already on the team, is Chela unpatriotic? Of course, you always have the Dave/Marat factor, as i like to call it, because you never realy know when one of them will, oh I dont know, skip 2 months of the season with the most points to defend to go rally car racing, eating burgers and drinking beer, or simply go off on a mountain expedition up the 6th highest mountain on earth :lol:

And of course, Fed/Nadal. Both seem to get alot of schtick for their lack of DC play, Nadal for pulling out before being out of a tourney the week before in the case of Nadal, or having a committment to get a shave and make a commercial with his butt-buddy Tiger Woods :shrug:

RickDaStick
09-22-2007, 01:33 AM
Guys like Gonzo, Massu , Ancic and Ivan have played every tie that they could and both teams have something to show for it. Chile with the olympics and Croatia with Davis Cup title.

jcempire
09-22-2007, 01:50 AM
well, it's no secret the USA is the most patriotic country in the world and that's their big problem

IS it a big problem? To me, That was not a problem. They have their own schedule, Yes they do.

Come on, This is U.S. OF course, Shaq and KG, This two never play for US National Team. They alway play for money, that was not a problem./ All depends who the guy is????

You can't tell them what should they do, or what shouldn't do>????

robinhood
09-22-2007, 02:02 AM
despite the apparent patriotism, the americans still haven't won davis cup with this current team


the US team know they have a great chance to win the whole thing and roddick knows that this would enhance his career.

switch federer with roddick, and you may see andy with different priorities.

Yeah, I agree, but at the same time I think Roddick is the type of guy who will always play for his country no matter what.

By the way, as to the thread's question "who is the most patriotic,"
it's got to be Radek Stepanek after what he wore against Federer today.

User ID 29337
09-22-2007, 03:02 AM
I don't know why so many of the USA players make it a priority, but for the fans there are so many issues in the USA right now, its nice to have a reason to show colors and cheer without feeling guilty. But, I still can't go out and cheer so proudly when I'm still embarassed by our countries foreign policy among other things.
(waiting for some mega proud america is king nitwit to start bashing me, bring it)

Deboogle!.
09-22-2007, 03:33 AM
switch federer with roddick, and you may see andy with different priorities.I disagree - he has said repeatedly that this is one of the biggest priorities in his career. For him it is equal with winning slams and he's wanted to play, and win, Davis Cup ever since he went to his first tie as a kid. I think he'd still play Davis Cup all the time - at least until winning the title.

It always seems that Roddick is ALWAYS playing DC, like basically every tie in the past 4-5 years Since 2001 when he was first picked, he's only missed one tie (when he was hurt in 2003). He's played DC through injury more than once and then had to pull out of singles tourneys. It's just really important to him :shrug: And yes, James (and Mardy and Robby and others) have always been ready and willing to play and the Bryans asked PMac to pick them for a couple years until he finally put them on the team in 2003.

As for some of the comments about American patriotism in this thread, I just came back from 6 weeks all over Europe and saw plenty of stuff that would rival anything we have here in the US. and racket, I certainly wouldn't bash you because that's just not my style, but I do disagree. Disagreeing with my current government's policy has no bearing on how proud I am to be an American or whether i'd cheer for American athletes in international competitions. If it has that effect on you to the point where you are actually ashamed to root for your home country, I just think it's very sad :awww:

NYCtennisfan
09-22-2007, 03:46 AM
well, it's no secret the USA is the most patriotic country in the world and that's their big problem

:lol: Not even close...

Fee
09-22-2007, 03:52 AM
Sometimes it's patriotism that makes people dislike America. An example would be when someone asked Roddick what does he like about the US Open and he said that Americans were still in the tournament.

Some people dislike America because our athletes never make comments that are meant to be jokes.

darnyelb
09-22-2007, 04:21 AM
Patriotism is a personal thing, so i wouldn't equate Davis Cup play with one's loyalty to their country. I almost feel like people trot out the Davis Cup issue just to passive aggressively slam certain players for not playing in every single tie.

In any case, Roddick deserves most of the credit for the cohesiveness of the US team. He's the one everyone looks up to, and the friendships with him are so tight that it'd almost be taboo for any of them (Fish, Blake, whoever) not to make themselves available when the leader readily does so every time. Plus we have a totally rocking doubles team. Just wish we had a more dependable 2nd singles player to seal the deal.

wenty
09-22-2007, 05:44 AM
Yeah, I agree, but at the same time I think Roddick is the type of guy who will always play for his country no matter what.

By the way, as to the thread's question "who is the most patriotic,"
it's got to be Radek Stepanek after what he wore against Federer today.

What did he wear? :D

Allure
09-22-2007, 06:03 AM
What did he wear? :D

http://www.daviscup.com/shared/medialibrary/image/gallery/DC_8096_gallery.JPG

laure xxx
09-22-2007, 06:11 AM
Sometimes it's patriotism that makes people dislike America. An example would be when someone asked Roddick what does he like about the US Open and he said that Americans were still in the tournament.

:rolleyes:

He was most likely referring to the fact that all Americans were out of RG on Day 1, and they got a lot of criticism for that. Also the fact that Roddick is always the only American left in the GS draws by the middle of the first week has got to come with a lot of pressure.

Fensler
09-22-2007, 06:39 AM
Sometimes it's patriotism that makes people dislike America. An example would be when someone asked Roddick what does he like about the US Open and he said that Americans were still in the tournament.

That's one way of interpreting his comments there.

However, perhaps that example was just Roddick's droll way of satirizing the fact that other Americans are known to perform poorly in tournaments outside of North America. Also, given the context, I'd say his response had less to do with jingoism than it did simply entertaining his audience at the time.

Bilbo
09-22-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't know why so many of the USA players make it a priority, but for the fans there are so many issues in the USA right now, its nice to have a reason to show colors and cheer without feeling guilty. But, I still can't go out and cheer so proudly when I'm still embarassed by our countries foreign policy among other things.

you are the only one who understood what I meant :yeah:

SwiSha
09-22-2007, 11:43 AM
Come on, This is U.S. OF course, Shaq and KG, This two never play for US National Team. They alway play for money, that was not a problem.



a little more research

Shaq was a member of the Dream Team II in 1994,

Garnett 2000 in Sydney

cobalt60
09-22-2007, 01:26 PM
I disagree - he has said repeatedly that this is one of the biggest priorities in his career. For him it is equal with winning slams and he's wanted to play, and win, Davis Cup ever since he went to his first tie as a kid. I think he'd still play Davis Cup all the time - at least until winning the title.

Since 2001 when he was first picked, he's only missed one tie (when he was hurt in 2003). He's played DC through injury more than once and then had to pull out of singles tourneys. It's just really important to him :shrug: And yes, James (and Mardy and Robby and others) have always been ready and willing to play and the Bryans asked PMac to pick them for a couple years until he finally put them on the team in 2003.

As for some of the comments about American patriotism in this thread, I just came back from 6 weeks all over Europe and saw plenty of stuff that would rival anything we have here in the US. and racket, I certainly wouldn't bash you because that's just not my style, but I do disagree. Disagreeing with my current government's policy has no bearing on how proud I am to be an American or whether i'd cheer for American athletes in international competitions. If it has that effect on you to the point where you are actually ashamed to root for your home country, I just think it's very sad :awww:

Oh dear, there you go making sense again.

tangerine_dream
09-22-2007, 05:44 PM
I still can't go out and cheer so proudly when I'm still embarassed by our countries foreign policy among other things.
Why would you equate American politics with American sports. :scratch: A lot of non-Americans make this same illogical conclusion. How does "Rooting for American player A" equal "Rooting for American Bush politics." I don't get it. What does Bush's foreign policy have to do with Davis Cup? :confused:

Johnny Groove
09-22-2007, 05:55 PM
Sports should not have politics involved in it, it should be sport in its purest form, but of course we know that is not true, and we've seen it time and time again.

But not rooting for your home country because you disagree with Bush's policies? Give me a fucking break :retard: Move to Europe then :rolleyes:

fmolinari2005
09-22-2007, 06:50 PM
Sports should not have politics involved in it, it should be sport in its purest form, but of course we know that is not true, and we've seen it time and time again.

But not rooting for your home country because you disagree with Bush's policies? Give me a fucking break :retard: Move to Europe then :rolleyes:

Politics are highly connected to nationalistic feelings. What makes a nation isnt only the geographic spot people live at. If you see a nation only as "people that shares a common space", then it makes even less sense. Ultimatelly we all live in the same place, because countries boundaries are highly artificial.

But I agree with you: sport should be taken in its most pure form. To me that means not cheering for a guy only because we share the same birth place.

But if you connect nationalsim and your choice on who to cheer for, it is not a total absurd not cheering for your country if you dont agree with a country's policies. How many times we saw in sports history, sport being used with a political agenda?! I can tell you that in Brazil, often times soccer is used in that way. However, usually players arent aware of that, so it it not that fair not cheering for them too.

Johnny Groove
09-22-2007, 06:55 PM
Politics are highly connected to nationalistic feelings. What makes a nation isnt only the geographic spot people live at. If you see a nation only as "people that shares a common space", then it makes even less sense. Ultimatelly we all live in the same place, because countries boundaries are highly artificial.

But I agree with you: sport should be taken in its most pure form. To me that means not cheering for a guy only because we share the same birth place.

But if you connect nationalsim and your choice on who to cheer for, it is not a total absurd not cheering for your country if you dont agree with a country's policies. How many times we saw in sports history, sport being used with a political agenda?! I can tell you that in Brazil, often times soccer is used in that way. However, usually players arent aware of that, so it it not that fair not cheering for them too.

Oh, football has a long standing political undertone, whether in Brazil, Argentina, Europe, everywhere.

Its a shame that in the 1980 Moscow Olympics for example, the Americans boycotted because of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, among other Cold War reasons. In return, the Russians then boycotted the 84 Olmypics in Los Angeles. Fortunately we dont have that nowadays, unless the 2016 Olmpyics are in Baghdad or something

Burrow
09-22-2007, 06:56 PM
When it comes to Davis Cup, it seems to me like the US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC. We always put our best players out there. It's a priority for the Americans, and most other countries players' either wimp out with a little injury or complain about the schedule.
What does everybody think?

... and every other team puts out the worst players.

Bilbo
09-22-2007, 06:58 PM
Capriati once was walking in while they played "Bombs over Baghdad". This was during the war a few years back. So much for politics has nothing to do with sports. She should have get banned as well as the tournament director. I also know Roddick is a friend of the Bush's and I'm pretty sure he's a friend of his politics too. Wouldn't surprise me with his crazy patriotism.

Johnny Groove
09-22-2007, 07:00 PM
Capriati once was walking in while they played "Bombs over Baghdad". This was during the war a few years back. So much for politics has nothing to do with sports. She should have get banned as well as the tournament director. I also know Roddick is a friend of the Bush's and I'm pretty sure he's a friend of his politics too. Wouldn't surprise me with his crazy patriotism.

Yeah, because Roddick frat boy sure seems like the politician type :lol:

Stensland
09-22-2007, 07:02 PM
i like andy's attitude when it comes to davis cup and helping out his buddies. he's a decent guy.

and i have no problem with american patriotism, that country's got every damn right to be proud of its nation, its heritage and everything they've achieved in the last couple of centuries.

period.

Bilbo
09-22-2007, 07:13 PM
i like andy's attitude when it comes to davis cup and helping out his buddies. he's a decent guy.

and i have no problem with american patriotism, that country's got every damn right to be proud of its nation, its heritage and everything they've achieved in the last couple of centuries.

period.

you haven't told us about all these innocent people they've killed in their history.

here in germany it's forbidden to say you are proud of your country. people don't like to hear that for the same reason in the past.

Fee
09-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Capriati once was walking in while they played "Bombs over Baghdad". This was during the war a few years back. So much for politics has nothing to do with sports. She should have get banned as well as the tournament director. I also know Roddick is a friend of the Bush's and I'm pretty sure he's a friend of his politics too. Wouldn't surprise me with his crazy patriotism.

You've made a lot of assumptions in that post. First, Capriati said she liked the beat of the song, she had no idea what it was about (just like the thousands of people who have no idea that 'Another day in paradise' is about homeless people). The TD wasn't involved in the decision to play it, and when he was asked about it, he said he would not allow it again. Capriati is the same woman who had NO IDEA what Title IX was, so can we all agree that she is not the brightest bulb when it come to non-tennis matters.

Roddick is a friend of George Bush Sr, as are many of the players who have played the Houston tournament the last few years because the Bushes invited the players to a barbeque. That friendship says absolutely nothing about Andy's politics, just as Bill Clinton's friendship with George Bush Sr says nothing about his politics either.

I've never seen Andy exhibit 'crazy patriotism' (whatever that means). He plays Davis Cup every time he can, he does almost everything the USTA asks him to do to promote tennis, and he says that he is happy for his friends when they achieve success on court. When a Davis Cup tie is won at home, he takes a trip around the court with the flag along with his teammates. Perhaps you would like to give us some examples of Andy's 'crazy patriotism' that you have witnessed personally? Has he run through any part of Germany with a flag, shouting USA USA USA at the top of his lungs?

It's a shame that Germans can't say that they are proud of their country (if that statement is even accurate). I visited 3 cities in 2001, and I loved it there. I can hardly wait to get back and see the cities that I missed the first time. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't be happy with where we live, regardless of the jerk temporarily in charge.

Stensland
09-22-2007, 07:40 PM
here in germany it's forbidden to say you are proud of your country. people don't like to hear that for the same reason in the past.

bullshit. neither is it forbidden, nor is the fact that we just can't be as 'happy' as the americans about our home country something to feel victimized by.

we're alright, i like it here and our country's done amazing stuff over the last 50 years, but what you're referring to happened about 60 years ago in germany whereas major american 'guilt' is like hundreds of years ago.

Stensland
09-22-2007, 07:44 PM
It's a shame that Germans can't say that they are proud of their country (if that statement is even accurate).

are you kidding me? you really think that was anything else but pure exaggeration?

people normally don't get beaten on the streets if they have a german flag, y'know...

Fee
09-22-2007, 07:47 PM
Thanks for the correction Rrainer. Can you send me some maltaschen? ;)

(I'm sure I spelled that wrong)

Stensland
09-22-2007, 07:57 PM
Thanks for the correction Rrainer. Can you send me some maltaschen? ;)

(I'm sure I spelled that wrong)

sorry, i wasn't trying to offend you in anyway, it just seemed as if you really believed in every single word of bilbo. ;)

he's right to some extent, like when soccer fans get drunk, take off their shirt and run around wildly screaming stuff like "now we're gonna take back what belonged to us anyways" when entering foreign countries superficially claiming to support the national team. that is something people are ashamed off (and rightly so) and as an effect they hesitate to show true patriotic feelings in order not to be associated with those pricks.

i've heard the same thing in england as well, where lots of people feel weird about the amount of flags hanging around in the streets during world cups.

i guess the good thing for americans is that the country doesn't have as much bad stuff in the past as almost every european country. britain has had its share (colonialism etc.), france (african occupation), spain (colonialism plus franco), austria (with germany), russia (stalin etc.), italy (mussolini etc.), netherlands (the boers in south africa), germany (you know...) and so on...

whereas america pretty much is just the result of european trouble: they've just taken in the bright heads that left europe because of all the struggle we've been through.

Stensland
09-22-2007, 08:04 PM
and, adding to that posting:

this is also the main problem in europe these days: europeans don't now how to act on many issues like immigration, crime etc. we're confused because of so many happenings in our past, nobody knows the right direction.

take immigration for example:

the european way: we're superficially nice to everyone, be it terrorists or bright heads. we're nice out of guilt, because europe has been rude to other people for a long time (colonialisation etc.).
but still it's just superficially because on a whole, the society doesn't like them, they don't like the terrorists AND they don't like the bright ones.
so it comes down to a phony mixture: both groups are kinda tolerated but not liked.

the american way: terrorists out, bright heads big welcome party. the way it should be. but this scenario is impossible in europe because of pangs of remorse (like "after all, terrorists are still people looking for asylum"...)

Fee
09-22-2007, 08:13 PM
I wasn't offended by your post at all, and yes, I usually take most posters on this forum at their word (unless I have a specific reason not to). I'll take Bilbo at his word (as ridiculous as some of them are).

The US has plenty to be embarrassed about in its history, especially recently, but as a citizen I don't feel responsible for the behavior of Bush and his cabal at Halliburton. The unnecessary deaths of the soldiers and the civilians are on their heads, not mine. We also have a huge immigration problem here, but I'm not going to discuss that here for obvious reasons.

I appreciate the comments you've posted here. Now seriously, send me some maltaschen, I love that stuff. :)

Stensland
09-22-2007, 08:17 PM
I appreciate the comments you've posted here. Now seriously, send me some maltaschen, I love that stuff. :)

i'm a little confused, you mean maultaschen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maultasche

and one more time referring to bilbo's words:

so you thought it was actually forbidden to be proud of germany in germany? like people would be punished for saying that or go to prison? :confused:

Winston's Human
09-22-2007, 08:21 PM
I also know Roddick is a friend of the Bush's and I'm pretty sure he's a friend of his politics too. Wouldn't surprise me with his crazy patriotism.

I have never gotten the impression that Andy is political at all. I recall reading that he did not even vote in the last presidential election.

Fee
09-22-2007, 08:22 PM
No, I mean the apple/pastry dessert.

As for Bilbo's comments, no, I didn't think he meant it was forbidden to be proud of Germany. I thought he might be loosely referring to some type of law about 'nationalism' in print and demonstrations and such. Unfortunately my husband wasn't around while I was writing my post, so I just responded directly to Bilbo's comment (hoping that he would be the one to come back and admit that he was being a tool).

Stensland
09-22-2007, 08:33 PM
I thought he might be loosely referring to some type of law about 'nationalism' in print and demonstrations and such.

no, there's just a law concerning holocaust denials. i don't think a nationalism-law is needed since mentioning stuff like "hitler wasn't that bad" or "we should once again invade poland" is basically a social suicide anyways.

and, to defend "my" country a little: there's way more nationalism all across europe than over here. we're pretty much healed after all we've been through while others have tons of nationalist groups even in parliament (bulgaria, poland, le pen in france, the lombards, the flemish etc.). so pls don't get a wrong impression about my examples about the soccer hooligans. that's just a tiny group of people, but its effect on the german society as a whole is huge.

ok, don't wanna ruin this thread for you guys, so that'll be my last posting off topic. :)

Julio1974
09-22-2007, 10:59 PM
Bilbo should get married with mtw.

Bilbo
09-22-2007, 11:11 PM
but as a citizen I don't feel responsible for the behavior of Bush and his cabal at Halliburton. The unnecessary deaths of the soldiers and the civilians are on their heads, not mine.

not if you voted for him especially for his 2nd period. i would feel responsible too if i voted for him. but as you are from northern california it's unlikely you voted for him.

jayjay
09-22-2007, 11:13 PM
When it comes to Davis Cup, it seems to me like the US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC.
What does everybody think?

I think you haven't done any research at all to come to the conclusion that the "US is the only country where the players' make room in their schedule for DC.". If you have, please detail it to back up your perception (which is all it is).

I can't be bothered to go through every top player, you may want to in order to be better informed about what other countries are doing when it comes to DC participation. When you do you'll find that pretty much all the top players are playing for their country when they are not injured, and some play with injuries that end up derailing their personal objectives.

Injuries are part of sport, so if players pull out for such reasons then that's just sport. That's the way it is, sometimes a player can't bring his best to the court and therefore it's a better decision to miss a tie. There are players out there who will play inspite of it not being the best decision for them individually. And contrary to what your belief may be, they are not all American.

scoobs
09-22-2007, 11:21 PM
Thing with us here in the UK is that the flag, especially the English flag (as opposed to the British flag, the Union Jack) has been somewhat corrupted by association with extreme right wing groups like the National Front and so on, who use Nationalism as an excuse to vilify and victimise minority groups and eliminate foreigners from the country.

This is one reason why some people feel a bit uncomfortable about overt displays of the flag at times though on sporting occasions it doesn't bother me so much.

I personally think nationalism and patriotism is a good thing - in small doses. There's nothing wrong with an affinity to ones country of origin.

The trouble starts when other things are pinned onto the concept of your country - superiority, ideology, territoriality, ignorance, a disregard for the wider concerns of the whole world. You can't disconnect a country from the rest of the planet and treat it as a complete entity anymore. We live in an interconnected world, now more than ever and that is a trend that will only increase.

To get back to the original point about tennis, I think the USA has the most overtly patriotic team but then the USA is the most overtly patriotic nation that I know - again, I think this is a double edged sword. I think there are probably other teams who are intensely proud to play for their country, but who aren't as vocal or visual about it.

And on another point, the current US Davis Cup team is the most consistent in making Davis Cup a priority out of many countries - but that only applies to the recent past. Before Roddick and Blake and the Bryans became a settled team, players like Sampras, Agassi and so forth were more equivocal in their desire to play for their country on every occasion.

Fee
09-22-2007, 11:22 PM
not if you voted for him especially for his 2nd period. i would feel responsible too if i voted for him. but as you are from northern california it's unlikely you voted for him.


The hits just keep on coming!

Bilbo, you need to look at a really good map of California's electoral districts and county election returns. Plenty of people in 'Northern California' voted for Bush (considering its an area comparable to some states, it is silly to make the type of generalization that you just made). I didn't vote for Bush when I lived in So Cal, and I didn't vote for him when I lived in Nor Cal. My address had nothing to do with my decision.

CyBorg
09-22-2007, 11:24 PM
bullshit. neither is it forbidden, nor is the fact that we just can't be as 'happy' as the americans about our home country something to feel victimized by.

we're alright, i like it here and our country's done amazing stuff over the last 50 years, but what you're referring to happened about 60 years ago in germany whereas major american 'guilt' is like hundreds of years ago.

Well, Americans should have a lot of guilt but they have short memories. Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a crime against humanity that's second only to the Nazis in the 20th century.

scoobs
09-22-2007, 11:28 PM
The hits just keep on coming!

Bilbo, you need to look at a really good map of California's electoral districts and county election returns. Plenty of people in 'Northern California' voted for Bush (considering its an area comparable to some states, it is silly to make the type of generalization that you just made). I didn't vote for Bush when I lived in So Cal, and I didn't vote for him when I lived in Nor Cal. My address had nothing to do with my decision.
Strange assumption really, since California has had two prominent Republican Governors in the past 50 years - the Governator now (soft Republican admittedly) but also Reagan. There's plenty of Republicanism in California, though it rarely gets anywhere at the National level except in the House of Representatives and the Governor's mansion. The Senators are returned are usually comfortably Democrat and the Electoral College also.

Julio1974
09-22-2007, 11:31 PM
Well, Americans should have a lot of guilt but they have short memories. Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a crime against humanity that's second only to the Nazis in the 20th century.

Really? worse than Stalin? worse than the tutsi genocide in Rwanda? Worse than Pol Pot? I suggest that you read some book about genocides in the 20th century.

scoobs
09-22-2007, 11:37 PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible things that shouldn't have happened - especially the second one after we saw what happened with the first one.

But no, as a crime against humanity that pales into insignificance compared to Stalin's purges and forced relocations, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the Rwandan genocide and even in Darfur now there are estimated 200,000 - 400,000 people dead from the conflict that has been going on there right now and is ongoing - still more than the estimted lives believed lost to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Fee
09-22-2007, 11:38 PM
Strange assumption really, since California has had two prominent Republican Governors in the past 50 years - the Governator now (soft Republican admittedly) but also Reagan. There's plenty of Republicanism in California, though it rarely gets anywhere at the National level except in the House of Representatives and the Governor's mansion. The Senators are returned are usually comfortably Democrat and the Electoral College also.

Exactly. California also put Pete Wilson and George Dukemejian into the governor's office, and elected Wilson to the Senate. Moderate Repbulicans can win statewide elections here, the hard right types usually win Congressional seats (and state house seats) from certain areas like Orange County, parts of San Diego, and the rural areas of Nor Cal.

So this Davis Cup thread turned into a lesson on California politics. Yay. :banana:

Julio1974
09-22-2007, 11:41 PM
Exactly. California also put Pete Wilson and George Dukemejian into the governor's office, and elected Wilson to the Senate. Moderate Repbulicans can win statewide elections here, the hard right types usually win Congressional seats (and state house seats) from certain areas like Orange County, parts of San Diego, and the rural areas of Nor Cal.

So this Davis Cup thread turned into a lesson on California politics. Yay. :banana:

MTF magic. This thread has totally derailed.

Lee
09-23-2007, 12:05 AM
Strange assumption really, since California has had two prominent Republican Governors in the past 50 years - the Governator now (soft Republican admittedly) but also Reagan. There's plenty of Republicanism in California, though it rarely gets anywhere at the National level except in the House of Representatives and the Governor's mansion. The Senators are returned are usually comfortably Democrat and the Electoral College also.


And the very red state of Arizona has voted for a female Democrat governor to her 2nd term and probably more to come unless she has other ambition. :lol:

calvinhobbes
09-23-2007, 01:25 AM
Nationalism is the most explosive pest since 1900. We should not permit it to infect tennis and tennisforums.

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 01:54 AM
and, adding to that posting:

this is also the main problem in europe these days: europeans don't now how to act on many issues like immigration, crime etc. we're confused because of so many happenings in our past, nobody knows the right direction.

take immigration for example:

the european way: we're superficially nice to everyone, be it terrorists or bright heads. we're nice out of guilt, because europe has been rude to other people for a long time (colonialisation etc.).
but still it's just superficially because on a whole, the society doesn't like them, they don't like the terrorists AND they don't like the bright ones.
so it comes down to a phony mixture: both groups are kinda tolerated but not liked.

the american way: terrorists out, bright heads big welcome party. the way it should be. but this scenario is impossible in europe because of pangs of remorse (like "after all, terrorists are still people looking for asylum"...)

sorry, don't quite understand what you mean by bright heads. And by terrorists you mean actual terrorists?

Forehander
09-23-2007, 02:27 AM
davis cup is pretty fun.

Winston's Human
09-23-2007, 03:31 AM
Well, Americans should have a lot of guilt but they have short memories. Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a crime against humanity that's second only to the Nazis in the 20th century.

Really. Worse than what Japan did to China through the 1930s and early 1940s. I do not think so.

Moreover, Japan initiated the war with the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbor.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 05:09 PM
sorry, don't quite understand what you mean by bright heads. And by terrorists you mean actual terrorists?

with "bright heads" i mean the well-educated immigrants. and terrorists, well, are dangerous guys who've been trained at terror camps and stuff.

europeans tend to let everyone in but don't really like any of 'em whereas american woos the good ones, integrates them rapidly etc. and kills the bad ones, to make it bluntly.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 05:11 PM
Well, Americans should have a lot of guilt but they have short memories. Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a crime against humanity that's second only to the Nazis in the 20th century.

i'm not sure if you can compare defense measures (basically to end the war ruffly but rapidly) with pure aggression like the japanese, german or italian actions during that period.

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 05:48 PM
with "bright heads" i mean the well-educated immigrants. and terrorists, well, are dangerous guys who've been trained at terror camps and stuff.

europeans tend to let everyone in but don't really like any of 'em whereas american woos the good ones, integrates them rapidly etc. and kills the bad ones, to make it bluntly.

oh...ok. Sorry I was confused, because sometimes bright can refer to a color.

so recognized terrorists can get asylum in Europe? wow.

Johnny Groove
09-23-2007, 05:56 PM
Well, Americans should have a lot of guilt but they have short memories. Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a crime against humanity that's second only to the Nazis in the 20th century.

Bullshit. Not even close to some of the other shit that occured that century, as others had highlighted. But Truman had a tough decision to make. Either drop the bombs and end the war quickly, killing thousands and screweing over many generations to come with radiation and destroyed Japanese cities, or embark on a long tough road to take over, by invading Japan and costing more lives, time, and money.

Neither was good, but he had to make a decision

Stensland
09-23-2007, 06:20 PM
so recognized terrorists can get asylum in Europe? wow.

well, yeah, basically. people who attended terror camps in pakistan, afghanistan etc. can seek asylum in most european countries because to the authorities that doesn't appear to be any hint of what they're up to (duh! :o ). why would you attend terror camps other than preparing youself for "something"? pure vacationing sure looks different.

in the states stuff like that just isn't possible. there's the line o was referring to: we're superficially nice to everyone instead of being nice to the good guys and rude to the bad ones. which is why there's quite a likelihood that europe's way of dealing with these things is gonna get them into major trouble over the next decades. you can see it every day on the streets.

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 06:22 PM
Bullshit. Not even close to some of the other shit that occured that century, as others had highlighted. But Truman had a tough decision to make. Either drop the bombs and end the war quickly, killing thousands and screweing over many generations to come with radiation and destroyed Japanese cities, or embark on a long tough road to take over, by invading Japan and costing more lives, time, and money.

Neither was good, but he had to make a decision

you'd have to assume that those were in fact the only two options the US had, i.e no diplomatic options were available.

and prior to dropping the bombs, Turman would have to assume that dropping the bombs in fact would be the alternative with the fewest long term casualties.

Maybe the second assumption was a reasonable one. But I'm not sure the first one was.

I don't wanna get into a long arguement about it, I just want to point out that maybe dropping those two bombs was not the absolute necessary thing to do.

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 06:25 PM
well, yeah, basically. people who attended terror camps in pakistan, afghanistan etc. can seek asylum in most european countries because to the authorities that doesn't appear to be any hint of what they're up to (duh! :o ). why would you attend terror camps other than preparing youself for "something"? pure vacationing sure looks different.

in the states stuff like that just isn't possible. there's the line o was referring to: we're superficially nice to everyone instead of being nice to the good guys and rude to the bad ones. which is why there's quite a likelihood that europe's way of dealing with these things is gonna get them into major trouble over the next decades. you can see it every day on the streets.

WOW. I had no idea it was like that. giving asylum to people who have been to terror camps, just because they haven't done anything yet. that's shocking to me.

I am a proponent of tolerance, but that's too much.

Johnny Groove
09-23-2007, 06:26 PM
you'd have to assume that those were in fact the only two options the US had, i.e no diplomatic options were available.

and prior to dropping the bombs, Turman would have to assume that dropping the bombs in fact would be the alternative with the fewest long term casualties.

Maybe the second assumption was a reasonable one. But I'm not sure the first one was.

I don't wanna get into a long arguement about it, I just want to point out that maybe dropping those two bombs was not the absolute necessary thing to do.

Of course not, i agree, it may not have been the ABSOLTELY necessary, like Japan had bombs as well and it was an "either us or them" situation, that was not the case.

Either way, bombs or mass invasion, neither were good. Diplomacy was out of the question, from what ive read and heard, i mean, they didnt even surrender after the first bomb :shrug:

There may have been other avenues, i mean, the Russians joined the Americans in the Japanese war effort as well, just a few days before it ended. Perhaps Truman wanted to end the war sooner so as not to let Russia get involved and try to reap some benefits :shrug:

scoobs
09-23-2007, 06:28 PM
WOW. I had no idea it was like that. giving asylum to people who have been to terror camps, just because they haven't done anything yet. that's shocking to me.

I am a proponent of tolerance, but that's too much.
That's because it's a major over-simplification of what happens.

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 06:33 PM
Of course not, i agree, it may not have been the ABSOLTELY necessary, like Japan had bombs as well and it was an "either us or them" situation, that was not the case.

Either way, bombs or mass invasion, neither were good. Diplomacy was out of the question, from what ive read and heard, i mean, they didnt even surrender after the first bomb :shrug:

There may have been other avenues, i mean, the Russians joined the Americans in the Japanese war effort as well, just a few days before it ended. Perhaps Truman wanted to end the war sooner so as not to let Russia get involved and try to reap some benefits :shrug:

well, from what I've heard, the Japanese refused the surrender agreement because the fate of their emperor wasn't clear in it (apparently the emperor was a god to them)...but i'm not entirely familiar with the details.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that it was one of the ugliest events in human history, regardless of whether it was necessary or not.

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 06:35 PM
That's because it's a major over-simplification of what happens.

can you be a little more specific?

scoobs
09-23-2007, 06:58 PM
can you be a little more specific?
Look, I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we don't just let asylum seekers come in willy nilly if we know they have been in "terror camps" or madrassas that are known to be extremist. However there still exists a burden of proof of guilt of some kind, we don't live in a police state. The impression, though, that was given that we just lay out the welcome mat and cross our fingers they won't do nothing bad to us is just silly. Within the confines of human rights laws and the need to avoid detaining people without charge or trial, the security services and the police do their best to detain and deport people who come to this country who they have reason to believe are a threat to national security.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 07:06 PM
Look, I don't know about other countries, but in the UK we don't just let asylum seekers come in willy nilly if we know they have been in "terror camps" or madrassas that are known to be extremist. However there still exists a burden of proof of guilt of some kind, we don't live in a police state. The impression, though, that was given that we just lay out the welcome mat and cross our fingers they won't do nothing bad to us is just silly. Within the confines of human rights laws and the need to avoid detaining people without charge or trial, the security services and the police do their best to detain and deport people who come to this country who they have reason to believe are a threat to national security.

well, then maybe the uk does have different policies regarding this matter. true, we don't lay out a welcome mat or stuff like that, but it's a fact that people coming from terror camps are treated the same way as people who don't. at least in germany it is. there's no law prohibitting people from attending camps in afghanistan.

and don't tell me this assumption would have somethign to do with a police state. it's rather common sense.

another thing regarding the initial matter (european guilt): why do you think america, canada or australia habe no problem "measuring" their immigrants by what they work, how much money they have etc.
they have lists of things immigrants have to "accomplish" in order to be let in (have enough money, be well-educated etc.). european countries don't have that sort of stuff, because we just couldn't cope with the fact that we'd judge people by other things than pure humanity. why is that? because of our past i think.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 07:11 PM
...and we do have interesting stats regarding immigration (there've been lots of reports about that because of frattini's blue card statement from the european commission):

85% of undereducated people who emigrate go to the european union, 5% go to the states.

65% of well-educated people who emigrate go to the states, 5% go to the european union.

that does say a lot about general immigration policy.

Scotso
09-23-2007, 07:21 PM
Well, there is no good from patriotism, but I dont see him saying in his post he hates America.

No good from patriotism? I think think that's a pretty ridiculous statement.

I love my country, and it inspires me to make it better. A lot of good comes from people who love and want the best for their respective countries.

And Bilbo definitely does hate the United States, he makes such comments in every thread. But uninformed bigots really don't concern me.

tennis2tennis
09-23-2007, 07:53 PM
But look at this way US players can afford to be patriotic when it come to DC 'cause they know their efforts won't be wasted that the talent in the team is spread out that they can afford to GIVE IT 100%...Roger can dedicate himself 100% to SUI but he knows that it'll be in in vain...

Stensland
09-23-2007, 07:59 PM
But look at this way US players can afford to be patriotic when it come to DC 'cause they know their efforts won't be wasted that the talent in the team is spread out that they can afford to GIVE IT 100%...Roger can dedicate himself 100% to SUI but he knows that it'll be in in vain...

i'll never understand how patriotism in switzerland even works. you're basically germans, italians and french people. i wouldn't be surprised if what is happening with belgium right now would happen to your country as well. one day switzerland will simply fall apart, there's just too little a foundation to build upon.

Lee
09-23-2007, 09:39 PM
well, from what I've heard, the Japanese refused the surrender agreement because the fate of their emperor wasn't clear in it (apparently the emperor was a god to them)...but i'm not entirely familiar with the details.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that it was one of the ugliest events in human history, regardless of whether it was necessary or not.

If you believe the nuclear bomb is the ugliest event in human history, I suggest you do some research on Nanjing, China massacre during Japanese Occupation of WWII and also the human guinea pigs in Manchuria used by Japanese for chemical weapons.

World Beater
09-23-2007, 09:44 PM
i'll never understand how patriotism in switzerland even works. you're basically germans, italians and french people. i wouldn't be surprised if what is happening with belgium right now would happen to your country as well. one day switzerland will simply fall apart, there's just too little a foundation to build upon.


lolz. switzerland is nowhere near close to america in that sense.

Bilbo
09-23-2007, 09:54 PM
i'm not sure if you can compare defense measures (basically to end the war ruffly but rapidly) with pure aggression like the japanese, german or italian actions during that period.

of like the americans in iraq. i'm pretty sure it's just for defense :rolleyes:

Stensland
09-23-2007, 09:56 PM
If you believe the nuclear bomb is the ugliest event in human history, I suggest you do some research on Nanjing, China massacre during Japanese Occupation of WWII and also the human guinea pigs in Manchuria used by Japanese for chemical weapons.

i second that. there've been way more gross events even in the last century alone than the nuclear bomb that, after all, had exactly the effect it was supposed to have. who knows about what time frame we'd be talking about if it wasn't for that shock? ww2 might have lasted like forever, japan wasn't gonna go down without a serious fight, and you better don't imagine what us germans would have been up to if it wasn't for the bombings of our cities where civilians died. this was the only way to make us give in and surrender. i think most people coming from the allied nations wouldn't even believe how massivley indoctrinated the whole german empire was during those ww2 years and the ones leading up to them.

plus, as i remembered when they were showing the steuben parade on cnn, our and japans main problem was this little thing that steuben mentioned back in the days: when he ordered americans to do something, they'd ask "why?". when he ordered germans to do something, they'd just do it. even my granddad only surrendered as he heard that hitler was dead. that meant that he was free to go, the oath he and all the other soldiers took was over. not because he was such a big nazi, but because the whole fighting squad was amazingly duteous, til death.

put that nation into good hands and you're fine, like the years after ww2 where this sort of tidy, disciplined "ruthlessness" lead us to rise from the ashes economically. but put that nation in bad hands and...you know, pray to the lord. they were able to deactivate their brains like this *snap*.

man i could tell you stories about my granddas time back then...phew *sigh* but that's worth a whole other thread i guess. ;)

star
09-23-2007, 09:56 PM
If you believe the nuclear bomb is the ugliest event in human history, I suggest you do some research on Nanjing, China massacre during Japanese Occupation of WWII and also the human guinea pigs in Manchuria used by Japanese for chemical weapons.

There have been so many ugly events in human history, it is hard to rank them. From the Romans to Ghengis Khan and right down to the last century, the incidents are too numerous to list. Some of the events are more understandable than others given the context in which they occured, but all are dreadful.

One of the fall outs (really didn't intend a pun when I typed that) from the nuclear bombing of Japan is that Japan somehow has emerged as a victim from that war rather than a perpetrator of unspeakable crimes against humanity as did Germany. The Japanese committed unspeakable acts in China and Korea as well as southeast Asia, yet those crimes haven't resonated with the rest of the world as has the Holocaust. Maybe that's because the victims were Asian rather then European as well as because of the nuclear bombing. I'm not sure what has caused the difference.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 09:58 PM
of like the americans in iraq. i'm pretty sure it's just for defense :rolleyes:

no sure it's not, but one country in the world has to act on guys like saddam. obiously europe wasn't going to, russia wasn't, south american can't and china doesn't care. so what would you suggest? you do remember that saddam was basically taking the piss out of the whole world regarding the weapons inspections etc..

what would have been your solution? i'm not saying what they've done is the best solution but i've rarely heard other suggestions that would have made even slightly more sense. you're free to go, i'm listening.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 10:01 PM
Maybe that's because the victims were Asian rather then European

i think that's the main point combined with the fact that asia has quite a population whereas jews, had it lasted a while longer, wouldn't even exist anymore on this planet. erasing a whole population is quite something...

Bilbo
09-23-2007, 10:05 PM
no sure it's not, but one country in the world has to act on guys like saddam. obiously europe wasn't going to, russia wasn't, south american can't and china doesn't care. so what would you suggest? you do remember that saddam was basically taking the piss out of the whole world regarding the weapons inspections etc..

what would have been your solution? i'm not saying what they've done is the best solution but i've rarely heard other suggestions that would have made even slightly more sense. you're free to go, i'm listening.

saddam was better than bush is now. what bad has iraq done in the last few years? there were no problems at all after that 1st gulf war. as far as i remember they've found no mass destruction weapons until today. i think there are many more countries where people live under terrible circumstances of their government especially in africa (rwanda for example).

star
09-23-2007, 10:11 PM
saddam was better than bush is now. what bad has iraq done in the last few years? there were no problems at all after that 1st gulf war. as far as i remember they've found no mass destruction weapons until today. i think there are many more countries where people live under terrible circumstances of their government especially in africa (rwanda for example).


Yes. We could have gone into Sudan. There's oil there. :)

Johnny Groove
09-23-2007, 10:12 PM
lolz. switzerland is nowhere near close to america in that sense.

The difference is that while the USA has people from every nook, cranny, and corner of the globe in our country, there is a distinct American personality that amounts from all that.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 10:12 PM
what bad has iraq done in the last few years?

he was a dictator wie er im buche steht: killed his own population, harboured terrorists, funded lots of anti-western pressure groups (and remember, that kinda "pressure" is different to what we associate with that term...) and so on. you could go on like these for hours, just check his record on wikipedia or somewhere else.

and now you're telling me bush is worse? come on...that's just childish anti-americanism, nothing else. people may have valid points when it comes to criticizing the states, but these kinda lines just make me giggle.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 10:16 PM
The difference is that while the USA has people from every nook, cranny, and corner of the globe in our country, there is a distinct American personality that amounts from all that.

exactly. it's always such a great party whenever immigrants get naturalized and stuff. there's some kinda spirit that unites the country whereas europe's just a bunch of wannabe-weltverbesserer (you google that or lok it up, don't know how to translate it) claiming moral and intellectual superiority. interesting, since the most intelligent ones from over here constantly emigrated to the states...make you go hmmm....

and somehow we don't even manage to get our backyard sortet out (kosovo). we're calling america for stuff like that and as a result keep offending them as military fetishists etc. :rolleyes:

Johnny Groove
09-23-2007, 10:20 PM
exactly. it's always such a great party whenever immigrants get naturalized and stuff. there's some kinda spirit that unites the country whereas europe's just a bunch of wannabe-weltverbesserer (you google that or lok it up, don't know how to translate it) claiming moral and intellectual superiority. interesting, since the most intelligent ones from over here constantly emigrated to the states...make you go hmmm....

and somehow we don't even manage to get our backyard sortet out (kosovo). we're calling america for stuff like that and as a result keep offending them as military fetishists etc. :rolleyes:

The thing that Ive seen alot is that a vast majority of Europeans cant stand America. Whether it due to pure hate, jealousy, whatever im not sure. Like you said, they then emigrate here, interesting :lol:

When I was in Vienna this summer, I was just astounded with how homogenaic everyone was. I mean, everyone looked and sounded about the same. :shrug: I saw the same when I was in London a few years back as well :shrug:

Then I came back here and saw all my friends, and everyone was different

Stensland
09-23-2007, 10:32 PM
The thing that Ive seen alot is that a vast majority of Europeans cant stand America.

i wouldn't say it's a vast majority, but it's a lot, that's true.

i guess it's a mixture of jealousy (reg. cultural and political influence), hate towards the anglo-saxon economic model (most europeans loooove a model resembling socialism-modelled economies) and anger because of military interventions. that sort of rambo-attitude is pretty frowned upon over here because you know, we've hard our share of rambo stuff in the past from all angles and all side of the continent. so we rather just give in instead of defending ourselves.

europe had no problem coping with over 10 mio dead after ww1. these days, the continent would collapse if we had 2000 dead. the societies would simply panic.

and as a result, the bright ones would leave for america. :D lol...

Castafiore
09-23-2007, 10:36 PM
Ok, this discussion is beyond silly.


Politics has very, very, very little to do with Davis Cup. The notion "I'm proud to be American/French/European/whatever" is strange to me. Why should you be proud just because you happen to be born in a certain place. Having said that, some people love to wave the flag, supporting their DC team, why not?

However, all this USA vs Euro BS that keeps going on on MTF is pointless and that goes in both directions.
European posters resenting the US government and making stupid sweeping statements of the USA and American posters defending their country from these stupid sweeping statements by making a couple of sweeping statements in return. What's it all leading to?

I'm born in Belgium. My country is in the process of falling apart. Other than that, it's a good place to live, high standard of living, good educational system, fantastic health care system, etc. But, I'm sure that I could be happy in the US and on various other places in this world.
If we're going to compare ugly histories, practically no country comes away innocent.

When I was in Vienna this summer, I was just astounded with how homogenaic everyone was. I mean, everyone looked and sounded about the same. I saw the same when I was in London a few years back as well
I don't doubt your experiences, Jonathan, but maybe you haven't seen enough of Europe.

Bilbo
09-23-2007, 10:42 PM
and as a result, the bright ones would leave for america. :D lol...

seems like you are happy about that for whatever reason. maybe you like the USA more than Germany?

World Beater
09-23-2007, 10:43 PM
Ok, this discussion is beyond silly.


Politics has very, very, very little to do with Davis Cup. The notion "I'm proud to be American/French/European/whatever" is strange to me. Why should you be proud just because you happen to be born in a certain place. Having said that, some people love to wave the flag, supporting their DC team, why not?
However, all this USA vs Euro BS that keeps going on on MTF is pointless and that goes in both directions.
.


I think many americans feel proud that they live in a country that embraces many of their values and ideals. Freedom, equal rights for the most part, opportunities for many, religious ideology for etc.

i don't think it has anything to do with just being born in this land but more to do with the American way of life. We have many comforts in this country and are grateful for them, and we like to express them through the vehicle of patriotism. At least that's how i feel.

Davis Cup is nothing more than a team competition. I don't look at it as Americans versus Russians or whatever. i see it as team A Vs. team B, where country functions as the convenient organization for these teams.

Some people do take patriotism to a somewhat fanatical level and many of their judgements and prejudices of people are nationalistically based.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 10:45 PM
i think the discussion is interesting. you're right, lots of times stuff like this ends up in pure insults. i haven't seen that so far in this thread though.

Stensland
09-23-2007, 10:50 PM
seems like you are happy about that for whatever reason. maybe you like the USA more than Germany?

...yeah, and that's exactly the kinda response you normally get when you step up for america. :rolleyes:

i love germany with all its shortcomings, trust me, all i'm saying is that we wouldn't die if we'd just take the american way of dealing with certain things (not all!) into consideration. they're no devils over there, y'know, and not all of them desire to hump george bush i guess.

Johnny Groove
09-23-2007, 11:10 PM
I don't doubt your experiences, Jonathan, but maybe you haven't seen enough of Europe.

Perhaps :p Maybe I need to do some more research :p

Lee
09-23-2007, 11:18 PM
Perhaps :p Maybe I need to do some more research :p

Just like people from other continents that had been to NYC or LA or Miami, etc doesn't mean they see enough of USA. ;)

RagingLamb
09-23-2007, 11:43 PM
If you believe the nuclear bomb is the ugliest event in human history, I suggest you do some research on Nanjing, China massacre during Japanese Occupation of WWII and also the human guinea pigs in Manchuria used by Japanese for chemical weapons.

I said one of the ugliest.

But I will look those events up. Thanks.

star
09-23-2007, 11:43 PM
Just like people from other continents that had been to NYC or LA or Miami, etc doesn't mean they see enough of USA. ;)

I knew a German woman who said that a foreigner couldn't really understand the U.S. unless they had driven through the Southwestern states. :)

DrJules
09-23-2007, 11:53 PM
If you believe the nuclear bomb is the ugliest event in human history, I suggest you do some research on Nanjing, China massacre during Japanese Occupation of WWII and also the human guinea pigs in Manchuria used by Japanese for chemical weapons.

All are extremely brutal and savage ways of killing people; Radiation sickness (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) or Butchery (Nanjing) or infection with disease (Manchuria).

DrJules
09-24-2007, 12:04 AM
Personally I believe the world wide web is creating a global community which will replace the national identity.

Nationality is an artificial creation. Race, religion and ethnicity are far more powerful and derive from our genetic identity.

People living in different parts of the world know each other better than their neighbours; in many ways strengthening race, religion and ethnic ties.

Who is to say whites in Australia, UK or USA do not have more in common with each other than black and white Americans have with each other.

Who is to say Jews in Israel, the US, Canada, France, Australia, UK etc do not have more in common with each other than they do with people whose nationality they share.

Who is to say Chinese people in the US, Canada, Malaysia etc do not have more in common with each other than they do with people whose nationality they share.

Lee
09-24-2007, 12:17 AM
All are extremely brutal and savage ways of killing people; Radiation sickness (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) or Butchery (Nanjing) or infection with disease (Manchuria).

Yes but the major difference is the bomb stopped further butchery and infection with disease. But somehow, people nowadays only condemn the nuclear bomb.

I have no problem with Japanese people. Most of them are peace loving people. But one thing that most posters here don't know is existing Japanese government while making the nuclear bomb a BIG DEAL, at the same time, teaches their own children that Japan ENTERED China instead of INVADED China and other Asian countries plus Australia. It may be shocking to the democratic countries (especially Western countries) that in Japan, the education department controls all the text books used by students there. All wordings in the text books need approval from the education department.

CyBorg
09-24-2007, 12:23 AM
Really? worse than Stalin? worse than the tutsi genocide in Rwanda? Worse than Pol Pot? I suggest that you read some book about genocides in the 20th century.

Yeah, you heard me. Worse. A crime not in the name of religous idiocy or socialist philosophy but in the name of ego and politics. One and done - a flick of the wrist and bam. Like they were cockroaches.

I've lived through Brezhnev. Stalin's effects are considerable, but at least I don't have a second head growing out of my ass.

CyBorg
09-24-2007, 12:24 AM
Bullshit. Not even close to some of the other shit that occured that century, as others had highlighted. But Truman had a tough decision to make. Either drop the bombs and end the war quickly, killing thousands and screweing over many generations to come with radiation and destroyed Japanese cities, or embark on a long tough road to take over, by invading Japan and costing more lives, time, and money.

Neither was good, but he had to make a decision

Nice decision by Mr. God Harry Truman. I'm glad he made it so quick and simple for all of us. You're sheep.

star
09-24-2007, 12:33 AM
Yes but the major difference is the bomb stopped further butchery and infection with disease. But somehow, people nowadays only condemn the nuclear bomb.

I have no problem with Japanese people. Most of them are peace loving people. But one thing that most posters here don't know is existing Japanese government while making the nuclear bomb a BIG DEAL, at the same time, teaches their own children that Japan ENTERED China instead of INVADED China and other Asian countries plus Australia. It may be shocking to the democratic countries (especially Western countries) that in Japan, the education department controls all the text books used by students there. All wordings in the text books need approval from the education department.

And my understanding is that the war crimes Japan committed are not even taught in the schools in Japan.

Not only that, but the current Japanese government is quite reluctant to apologise for any of the war crimes. For example, the government was loathe to make amends to the Korean women who were captured and forced to be sexually satisfy the Japanese soldiers. I would say forced into prostitution, but that infers that they were paid when they were really prisoners forced into degradation.

Pretty much everything Japan did during it's occupation of Asiatic countries has been swept under the rug, and I'm not exactly sure why that has happened.

Stensland
09-24-2007, 12:39 AM
But one thing that most posters here don't know is existing Japanese government while making the nuclear bomb a BIG DEAL, at the same time, teaches their own children that Japan ENTERED China instead of INVADED China and other Asian countries plus Australia. It may be shocking to the democratic countries (especially Western countries) that in Japan, the education department controls all the text books used by students there. All wordings in the text books need approval from the education department.

i never got the impression that japan was trying to dismiss their obligation after being the aggressor in ww2. don't they even have lots of quite submissive stuff manifested in their constitution? plus not even germany bows and scrapes like japan does on the international stage, be it concercing international aid, climate policies or ruff lobbying for their own companies (which is something american politicians are quite good at btw). japan's the second biggest economy in the world, germany the third biggest. yet countries like france and britain make way more waves internationally. so in that respect, there's a lot of reservation when it comes to laying down the law on certain matters. and i bet education is one of the things where they most likely wouldn't wanna interfere with the international community, especially now, in the wake of the rising of the dragon to their west.

so i'm not sure about your statement regarding their alleged "belittling" of their wrongdoings.

MCL
09-24-2007, 12:41 AM
Personally I believe the world wide web is creating a global community which will replace the national identity.

Nationality is an artificial creation. Race, religion and ethnicity are far more powerful and derive from our genetic identity.

People living in different parts of the world know each other better than their neighbours; in many ways strengthening race, religion and ethnic ties.

Who is to say whites in Australia, UK or USA do not have more in common with each other than black and white Americans have with each other.

Who is to say Jews in Israel, the US, Canada, France, Australia, UK etc do not have more in common with each other than they do with people whose nationality they share.

Who is to say Chinese people in the US, Canada, Malaysia etc do not have more in common with each other than they do with people whose nationality they share.

Actually I think that race, religion, and ethnicity were groupings that helped to solidify the creation of nation-states.

Broadly categorizing people from a particular land mass and promoting a superiority complex with respect to those not in those categories has historically reinforced the national identity. It's good politics for what that's worth.

Lee
09-24-2007, 12:44 AM
And my understanding is that the war crimes Japan committed are not even taught in the schools in Japan.

Not only that, but the current Japanese government is quite reluctant to apologise for any of the war crimes. For example, the government was loathe to make amends to the Korean women who were captured and forced to be sexually satisfy the Japanese soldiers. I would say forced into prostitution, but that infers that they were paid when they were really prisoners forced into degradation.

Pretty much everything Japan did during it's occupation of Asiatic countries has been swept under the rug, and I'm not exactly sure why that has happened.

Mostly because after the war, the people in the Asia countries could only focus whatever that's left into rebuilding their tattered lives. Then, China went into "civil war" and mainland Communist China was closed to the rest of the world. And USA was not big on airing the dirty laundries of what the warlords committed.

One more thing is, I am not bashing any government here, but it is believed that US government recovered most of the documents of the chemical/infectious diseases studies by then Japan government in Manchuria. Instead of exposing them, they used those results for their own research. It's speculated the "yellow rain" used during Vietnam war was from those studies.

DrJules
09-24-2007, 12:47 AM
Yes but the major difference is the bomb stopped further butchery and infection with disease. But somehow, people nowadays only condemn the nuclear bomb.


I was presenting ordinary peoples experiences resulting from the actions of politicians. Politicians make the decisions and the public suffer them.

Lee
09-24-2007, 12:51 AM
i never got the impression that japan was trying to dismiss their obligation after being the aggressor in ww2. don't they even have lots of quite submissive stuff manifested in their constitution? plus not even germany bows and scrapes like japan does on the international stage, be it concercing international aid, climate policies or ruff lobbying for their own companies (which is something american politicians are quite good at btw). japan's the second biggest economy in the world, germany the third biggest. yet countries like france and britain make way more waves internationally. so in that respect, there's a lot of reservation when it comes to laying down the law on certain matters. and i bet education is one of the things where they most likely wouldn't wanna interfere with the international community, especially now, in the wake of the rising of the dragon to their west.

so i'm not sure about your statement regarding their alleged "belittling" of their wrongdoings.


Do you know why Japan and Germany become the 2nd and 3rd biggest economy in the world? Because they don't have to spend tons and tons of money into weapons or army. And not having their own army is the only major "submissive stuff" that Japan had agreed to after WWII. Japan did not pay any compensation in montery term to any Asia countries that were invaded.

Economic power is actually much more useful than brute force. The Chinese government had protested many times to the Japan government about the "changes" in WWII history but because Japan is one of the major investor in China, Japan can just ignored whatever protest.

DrJules
09-24-2007, 12:52 AM
Actually I think that race, religion, and ethnicity were groupings that helped to solidify the creation of nation-states.

Broadly categorizing people from a particular land mass and promoting a superiority complex with respect to those not in those categories has historically reinforced the national identity. It's good politics for what that's worth.

How much national cohesion can be achieved in a nation with diversity of race, religion and ethinicity within its borders. In Britain when sporting teams from India or Pakistan come to Britain, Britain nationals of Indian / Pakistan extraction will mostly support the visiting team.

star
09-24-2007, 01:06 AM
How much national cohesion can be achieved in a nation with diversity of race, religion and ethinicity within its borders. In Britain when sporting teams from India or Pakistan come to Britain, Britain nationals of Indian / Pakistan extraction will mostly support the visiting team.

I don't know exactly how it is done, but the U.S. is composed of people of different races, religons, and ethnicities and it's holding together all right. It hasn't been smooth sailing and some ethnic groups have suffered a lot after first coming to the U.S. (for example, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, and also the Germans during WWI and the Japanese during WWII) But, I think now, a 4th generation American of whatever heritage is going to feel more American (or USian if you will) and identify with America more than with the country of their ancestry. But, most people I know still look with pride on their national heritage even though it is remote. In the last 40 years U.S. has absorbed more people from India, Pakistan, and Southeast Asia. That means more religous and ethnic diversity for the country, and there may be conflict to come as the muslim religion becomes more prevalent, but so far so good.

MCL
09-24-2007, 01:09 AM
How much national cohesion can be achieved in a nation with diversity of race, religion and ethinicity within its borders. In Britain when sporting teams from India or Pakistan come to Britain, Britain nationals of Indian / Pakistan extraction will mostly support the visiting team.

(:o disclaimer - a bunch of gross generalizations herein I'm just trying to respond.)

I'm referring to when the non-colonized modern nation-states were formed. Some were damned close to being mono-ethnic and mono-religious.

As a result of mass exploitation and exploration in the form of colonization (and other things), countries opened themselves up to the outside world. It seems to me that many of the immigrants to Europe are from former European colonies.

I see nothing wrong with having ethnic diversity in a nation. I enjoy being exposed to persons from different cultures but I grew up in the US so :shrug:. With respect to the sports issue, the ability (or lack thereof) to assimilate into the majority culture vastly affects how minorities view being a national.

Of course, countries must control/limit immigration but that's a different topic.

star
09-24-2007, 01:21 AM
I see nothing wrong with having ethnic diversity in a nation. I enjoy being exposed to persons from different cultures but I grew up in the US so :shrug:.

Ditto. It's great to walk down the street and see black people, white people, latino people, etc. Right now I live in an area with few black people and I miss black people on the streets. Also, it's really nice to have a diversity of religions because when there is one religon that the vast majority of people belong to, it's kind of opressive to those who don't belong to it even when the majority don't mean to be opressive.

And new people bring new food and new music and everything is just better and better. "Mexican food" is part of everyone's regular menu now. People use salsa routinely and have tacos at home and buy tortillas in the store. Here, it is great because the store is always full of tourists speaking foreign languages. I like that. It was so funny because I saw some foreigners (french or german) looking at the tortillas sort of distainfully like "look at what Americans eat." and it was good because I like it that ethnic foods just become part of American food.

Stensland
09-24-2007, 01:32 AM
Instead of exposing them, they used those results for their own research. It's speculated the "yellow rain" used during Vietnam war was from those studies.

...which would be like the 18372623rd time that american military benefitted from research results they "seized" after defeating germany and japan. americans are the best businessmen the world has ever seen.

Stensland
09-24-2007, 01:36 AM
Do you know why Japan and Germany become the 2nd and 3rd biggest economy in the world? Because they don't have to spend tons and tons of money into weapons or army.

hmm i'm not sure if you're right about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

maybe you're referring to the actual wars they're involved in; true, the japanese don't intervene around the world, and neither do we. but their military expenditure is still pretty big.

Lee
09-24-2007, 02:49 AM
hmm i'm not sure if you're right about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

maybe you're referring to the actual wars they're involved in; true, the japanese don't intervene around the world, and neither do we. but their military expenditure is still pretty big.

These figures are recent years when Japan and Germany are already economic giants. Check and compare the military expensive for Japan and Germany after WWII and before they became economic giants. ;)

scoobs
09-24-2007, 10:28 AM
There's been a lot of silliness in this discussion but also a lot of interesting things.

On the issue of Switzerland, it seems rather silly to predict that one day it will collapse - it has existed with only brief interruptions during invasions, in one form or another, for the last 800+ years and has been in its current territorial form for nearly 200 years. The diversity and weak Federal structure of Switzerland has proven extremely durable. This, to me, is primarily because of Switzerland's neutrality means that the sense of Swiss nationality has rarely been put to extreme test. However, I think you'd find that if it were to be challenged in the future, you'd find a great deal of underlying patriotism there that currently has no need to find expression.

On the wider subject of patriotism, I also view it as a double edged sword.

In the UK there is a general sense, of which I approve, that we like a bit of patriotism but are very suspicious of it going too far. This has led, with immigration, to what has been said earlier - sometimes the population that has come from fairly recent immigration do not feel the same ties of loyalty to the UK as they perhaps should - cheering for the visitors in sporting occasions for example, and perhaps don't feel as integrated into the UK as British citizens as we would like. This can lead to problems, such as that we had in July 2005 when the London Underground bombers were all home grown terrorists who felt so little loyalty towards this country that they were prepared to inflict death on fellow citizens for a cause.

The problem with patriotism is that the nation, the state, often ends up getting confused with the Government.

That's a trap we have mostly avoided, in this country - we have a very healthy, if not slightly cynical, political discourse here, where we rather force the politicians to explain why they are taking certain actions and seek to prevent them if there seems no need. This has definitely increased since trust was further eroded by the circumstances surrounding the Iraq war and British participation in it. This was last given real expression a couple of years ago over the issue of detaining terror suspects without charge - the Govt wanted to extend this to 90 days and it was thrown out. Not because we want terror suspects to run around freely - but because we don't want to hand over such wide powers to the State without them proving it necessary, and on that occasion it was felt they didn't make the case for it.

The problem with the sort of patriotism I see in the US is that, while it has done wonders in knitting together a national identity from a hugely disparate population based on waves and waves of immigration - it's drilled into you there that once you become an American citizen, you are American and that's where your loyalty lies - the somewhat negative side effect to all this is that Nation gets confused with Government and the Government is given too much power and too much trust to take care of the the interests of its population. So that it became, during a crucial period, positively unpatriotic to criticise Government policy, which allowed Bush and Co to do whatever they wanted to do to further their own policy ends, regardless of whether these were in the best interests of the country. How the Dixie Chicks were treated by the public and the media, tantamount to a witch-hunt, is a damning indictment of why too much patriotism is a bad thing - it ends up trampling on the rights of the citizen to peacefully speak out against things they think are wrong with the nation.

nisha
09-24-2007, 12:01 PM
well, it's no secret the USA is the most patriotic country in the world and that's their big problem

Why do you hate America?
:rolleyes:

Winston's Human
09-24-2007, 12:16 PM
How the Dixie Chicks were treated by the public and the media, tantamount to a witch-hunt, is a damning indictment of why too much patriotism is a bad thing - it ends up trampling on the rights of the citizen to peacefully speak out against things they think are wrong with the nation.

How the Dixie Chicks were treated is an example of the double-edged sword of free speech. As US citizens, they were free to speak their mind. Then, other US citizens were free to speak their response. That is how free speech works.

I do not remember any governmental entity clamping down on the Dixie Chicks for their comments or otherwise trampling on their free speech rights. I recall President Bush responding that they had the right to say whatever they want.

What shocked the Dixie Chicks (and other celebrities) is that regular US citizens exercised their rights to publicly criticize them, which is something unusual for celebrities. The Dixie Chicks were not denied any right to speak freely. They just learned that free speech has consequences.

scoobs
09-24-2007, 12:25 PM
How the Dixie Chicks were treated is an example of the double-edged sword of free speech. As US citizens, they were free to speak their mind. Then, other US citizens were free to speak their response. That is how free speech works.

I do not remember any governmental entity clamping down on the Dixie Chicks for their comments or otherwise trampling on their free speech rights. I recall President Bush responding that they had the right to say whatever they want.

What shocked the Dixie Chicks (and other celebrities) is that regular US citizens exercised their rights to publicly criticize them, which is something unusual for celebrities. The Dixie Chicks were not denied any right to speak freely. They just learned that free speech has consequences.
Yes but why were they criticised?

They were criticised for being critical of the Government. It was a time where America's patriotism and ire were so aroused that an attack on its Government by its own citizens was equated with an attack on the nation. This isn't to do with free speech, you are right to say that it was a response from the public and media against the Dixie Chicks and they were equally as free to speak their mind. That's not my point at all. My point is that the was this mindset that existed at the time that an awful lot of Americans didn't want to hear any criticism of their Government, however much it was needed, because it was seen as unpatriotic at a difficult time. Thankfully that silly notion has diminished a good deal since the US Government's actions in hindsight look a good deal less clever than they seemed at the time.

I would also add that for a period after this, America's celebrities practised a form of self-censorship, where they declined to be overly controversial for fear of inflaming the population again and destroying their own careers. Madonna, that embracer of controversy, pulling her war-themed American Life video, is the sterling example of that. Even she knew that it would be a major mistake in the climate of the time.

Winston's Human
09-24-2007, 12:53 PM
I do not disagree with you on patriotism driving the public response to the Dixie Chicks' comments. I think that was particularly true with the portion of the American populace who were a major portion of their fan base -- country music fans.

I am simply a free speech absolutist. I think that, if one makes a public statement on a public matter, one should expect a response.