CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are Americans brainwashed nationalists?
I heard that their national anthem is sung in primary schools daily, nearly everyne has a flag on a flagpole (which is almost considered a sacred symbol) and bad things are considered 'unamerican'.
As an a American, I am troubled by nationalism in my country. In any country. I know that my country has room for improvement, and I would like to help make that happen. I do partially disagree the description though. Under the Constitution, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and part of that is the freedom to not speak. While I am a Bible thumping Christian, I am troubled by the fact that the American government added the God clause to the pledge, because that violates the seperation of religion and state clause as stated in the First Amendment. I feel that when religion and government combine, corruption thrives.
What are you talking about? Plenty of Americans criticize the government. What about the Tea Party? The Libertarians who are the weary of government altogether. Plus plenty of people loved Ron Paul (though he didn't win).
Generally, yes. No country's citizens takes more uncalled for pride in it's nation, than Americans. That's part of the reason the rest of the world hates us, and theirs a meme (that we actively take part in) called 'Merica.
I heard that their national anthem is sung in primary schools daily
This is false, we say the pledge everyday. With the exception to "under God", I don't see a problem with a tribal species indoctrinating it's offspring with tribal pride.
nearly everyne has a flag on a flagpole (which is almost considered a sacred symbol)
This is false. Not even close to everyone. Where I live I would say it is 5% private, 20% public, with regard to displaying the American flag. I would consider it a "sacred" symbol. Symbols are important to show something without the use of language, and the flag is a symbol of our tribe, of who we are. It makes sense for those who are feel as part of the tribe to hold the symbol to high esteem. Sacred may not be the right word, but I understand your intent.
bad things are considered 'unamerican'.
No, you have it backwards.
Unamerican things are bad > if X is unamerican > X is bad
Compared to:
Bad things are unamerican > if X is bad > X is unamerican
This is how our pledge should be (under God taken out):
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
I understand this to mean that I am pledging my allegiance to the symbol used to represent a republic that is one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I don't see anything objectionable about that.
This is what I found for the UK Oath, this could be incorrect:
I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
I read this as an Oath to a person, that person's heirs and successors. This oath changes as the laws change, and isn't targeted at an ideal.
Pledge allegiance: Oath of loyalty- basically signing your life away. An oath is something that should not be imposed on anyone. Marriage is an oath of loyalty also. You can possibly see how having an oath said in schools is pretty terrible.
The differences are: UK oath, sworn by certain public servants in the United Kingdom, and also by newly naturalised subjects in citizenship ceremonies. US pledge, Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do many government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations. It is also commonly recited in school at the beginning of every school day, although the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, or punished for not doing so. (added: things like peer pressure and bullying would factor in)
In primary schools, students would be saying the oath barely understanding what a pledge is.
Pledging is just giving an oath. You are basically saying your never going to betray your own kind or country.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, into the Republic for which it stands, one nation, (under God), indivisible for liberty and justice for all".
That's all it is. You are saying your are an American and you will stand for what Republic (not Democracy) stands for. Saying that you will give liberty and justice for all.
When American Soldiers join the military. They say they will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Their oath is actually saying they will go to war.
Marriage is an oath (yet again), and oaths shouldn't be taken lightly at an age when you still can't read words like psychology and don't know where babies come from. Even though they don't have to take the oath, it is seen as normal for them to take the oath, and any child that doesn't would be subject to peer pressure and bullying.
Which is one of the reasons why I believe we should teach our kids about the nation before teaching them the pledge in which I stated in one of my post on this thread. So yes I agree with you.
I heard that their national anthem is sung in primary schools daily
Yep, that is true. But it is a sign of respect and while in primary school you are suppose to learn the Constitution and how the US became a nation. However, I believe the last two are ignored now.
Personally, I believe our school children should learn the Constitution and how the US was started way before they pledge their allegiance.
You have to think about it. An allegiance is an oath, not some words coming out of your mouth.
Though it is request that everyone stands up as a sign of respect, a lot of people did not say the allegiance if they disagreed with something currently going on in the nation.
nearly everyne has a flag on a flagpole
Not everyone. A lot of people have flags on flag poles but not everyone. Less then have of the nation does. You'll find a flag on flag poles at state, local, and national building along with schools, some factories, and some small shops.
A Colonel in the United States Air force once told me Europeans believe we are aggressive due to civilians having flags on flag poles. When I asked him why he said that in Europe, due to World War 2, it is a basically saying that you are preparing for war. He said before Germany attacked Poland, everyone was a Nazi and everyone had a sense of nationalism. Therefore, today the scares of WW2 lives in most Europeans. When they see Americans with flags raised, they think we are imperialist.
and bad things are considered 'unamerican'.
The term, un-American, is basically saying that you did a shameful thing. It really carries no weight as basically everyone that uses that term is over pointless things anyway.
Brainwashed isn't the right word, indoctrinated is more accurate. Also, I think we are indoctrinated to respect our flag and that our constitution is flawless, although incomplete. With the exception of our military force (which would be much more impressive if we actually needed it), America isn't the best country right now, we aren't the best in most things, and I can state from personal experience that most of us are idiots, but I believe that we have the foundation to be the best. I will happily debate someone about this if they would like, although out of everything I believe I think this would be the hardest to change, I was indoctrinated after all.
Not true. Maybe they indoctrinate them to have a feeling of superiority. But most proud Americans point to it objectively. We have a lot of things other countries have. You can criticize the government freely without fear of being beheaded. You can't do that in most countries.
I'm not sure if everyone on this site has English as their second language, or you all are just too lazy to look up words for yourself. Yet again, I will provide the definitions to words that the person I'm debating should have looked up for themselves.
Brainwash:
To make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.
Indoctrinate:
To imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
Brainwashing is a subset of indoctrination, which is why I said that indoctrinate is more accurate.
I did look up brainwashing and indoctrination, which is why my disputed you. Please stop patronizing my intelligence, I didn't do that to you, have some respect.
Brainwashing: any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. Dictonary
I did look up brainwashing and indoctrination, which is why my disputed you.
Well then you have my apologies, I took my frustration with the general users of this site out on you.
Brainwashing: any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials.
Can you give me an example of indoctrination that is not systematically controlled?
I don't think this definition has any value, brainwashing is indoctrination meant to change someones position on something, not set the initial position. This definition, unlike the others, defines indoctrination as brainwashing, the context of my argument demonstrates I was not using this definition.
Unlike in other countries, most American who say it is make the case objectively. They point to things that support their argument. For instance, with the exception of Scandinavia, Spain and Israel, no country can really claim they have limited government interferance.
In fact, in Denmark, you could be fined for insulting the church (they still have the Lutheran Church as the state church).
In this country, it don't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, we all have equal rights. A lot of countries don't have that.
Many great things were born in this country -- electricity (Benjamin Franklin), the light bulb (Thomas Edison), things that helped flavor food much better (a black man whose name I forgot).
Are there some who arrogantly belittle other countries and say America is better (like Woodrow Wilson did in WWI)? Without a doubt. But most American nationalists are humble people.
We have a lot of things that make us a great country.
In terms of racism, yes white Americans (I'm Hispanic, a Rivera) did a lot of horrible things, but so did Denmark, Sweden, Israel, Great Britain, and no one from those countries has ever apologized. White Americans have. They've also come a long way.
Unlike in other countries, most American who say it is make the case objectively.
It is inherently subjective, as they choose the metrics they use to make the claim.
For instance, with the exception of Scandinavia, Spain and Israel, no country can really claim they have limited government interferance.
"Limited governance" depends on what aspect of government you are talking about. Dozens upon dozens of countries have plenty of negative social freedoms, and plenty (not as many though) have negative economic freedom as well.
In fact, in Denmark, you could be fined for insulting the church (they still have the Lutheran Church as the state church).
Yeah and in New York it's illegal to have a tiger in the bathtub. Everyone has outdated laws that aren't ever enforced.
In this country, it don't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, we all have equal rights. A lot of countries don't have that.
That's incredibly recent. Only a few decades ago you couldn't legally run for office in many states if you were atheist, for example, while quite a few other countries already have freedom of religion that extended to public office.
Many great things were born in this country -- electricity (Benjamin Franklin), the light bulb (Thomas Edison), things that helped flavor food much better (a black man whose name I forgot).
In terms of the great inventions of humanity, most either weren't invented here, or the framework inventions that led to them were invented elsewhere.
We have a lot of things that make us a great country.
That's true, but America can be unnecessarily nationalistic (I'd say jingoistic in this case) even though there are great things about our country.
"That's true, but America can be unnecessarily nationalistic (I'd say jingoistic in this case) even though there are great things about our country."
I disagree with that for the most part. Most Americans I've met are humble people who just love their country. Showing love for your country doesn't = thinking you're better. Yes there are some like that, especially up North. Just hear what this scumbag said on "Howard Stern"
I'm not saying that it's necessarily the majority, but American culture is ingrained with the idea of "American Exceptionalism", this idea that America is a country is an exception within the world with no comparison. We are taught from a young age that we are the "Shining City upon the hill", the "global police force", etc. Even our pledge implies that we are singled out for blessings by god.
It's not that Americans as individuals are generally nationalistically arrogant. It's that our culture ingrains a sense of superiority over other countries.
Yes and no to an extent. I don't wanna say "definitely" or "no," but I have to choose. It's disputable. In terms of the historical context of "American exceptionalism" that's 100% true. But remember, it was racists who came up with that. Not all Americans did though.
I disagree that pledge singles us out for blessings.
Cause it saids that God protects us. I don't the pledge says that God favors us. It's a big difference. Regardless of how you may feel about religion, you can't really say that favoritism is in our speech.
As far as exception, you can't deny that there are some things in America that you won't get anywhere else. For instance, and this is a small thing, no other country has a system of chain restaurants, not like America. Which has made catering much easier. In other countries, you'd have to cook food for a party. Here you can call Uno, or Bennigan's or Cracker Barrell.
Why would God protect us if he didn't favor us, exactly?
As far as exception, you can't deny that there are some things in America that you won't get anywhere else. For instance, and this is a small thing, no other country has a system of chain restaurants, not like America.
"That's incredibly recent. Only a few decades ago you couldn't legally run for office in many states if you were atheist, for example, while quite a few other countries already have freedom of religion that extended to public office."
I didn't say this country didn't make mistakes, but it's now that counts. We've come a long way.
I agree that we have come a long way, but when we are comparing this country's freedoms to the freedoms of other countries in the context of determining which countries are "better", it's important to look at the historical context.
On certain things, it's subjective. Denmark, Sweden, and Israel are not better for having certain government programs like free medicare and welfare on that. Some object to it.
But on many things there are fundamental agreements. On things like government interference, I think we can all agree that America, Sweden, Israel and Denmark all have that.
In terms of racism, I would say the later three don't do so good on that one. It depends what we're talking.
But when you are making a holistic claim regarding the overall quality of a country, the criteria used to determine them are almost always subjective. Eastern countries and western countries will use different criteria. Americans and Europeans will use different criteria. If you want to determine which country provides, say, the best over all health care to their citizens, that is something that can be objectively determined, I grant you that.
As for racism, we aren't particularly great on it either. Maybe not Israel levels, but considering one of our two presidential candidates has demonized Hispanic immigrants, called global warming a Chinese hoax, and called for a ban on Muslim immigration (all on top of our non-political race issues, such as African American-Police tension), we don't have too much room to talk in relation to the Nordic countries.
I think you're wrong. In Sweden and Denmark, they're already talking about banning refugees. Plus racism is very strong in Denmark. A futball commentator made some really nasty remarks about Senegalese players in 2002, and was never fired for it. If that happened here, there would resignation almost instantaneously.
I actually dealt with a racist "Friends"-watching family from Sweden who gave me and my sister looks because we walked into a Denny's, and the things they had to say were not very nice (I don't know Swedish well but from the communication I saw, it didn't seem to be pretty). I would say Swedes are pretty openly racist generally. And Danes as well. And they're arrogant. One user from Denmark actually called me a "rambler" on Personalitycafe, like he was smarter than me, to my face.
Let us not forget the words "butch" (to insult) tomboys is Germanic in origin. And Denmark never apologised for being the first Western country to have eugenics. Not to mention they are slangphobic. "Bro" is an Italian/Spanish word, and they mock any slang.
For the most part I never experienced this in the American South. I experienced more of this in the American North.
I think you're wrong. In Sweden and Denmark, they're already talking about banning refugees.
That's been happening here for quite a while too.
Plus racism is very strong in Denmark. A futball commentator made some really nasty remarks about Senegalese players in 2002, and was never fired for it. If that happened here, there would resignation almost instantaneously.
Trump makes racist comments all the time and he's a stone's throw away from becoming president.
I would say Swedes are pretty openly racist generally. And Danes as well. And they're arrogant.
You know, calling an entire ethnicity arrogant is, itself, racist.
Hate that there isn't a middle ground choice. As I don't completely agree but I don't completely disagree
Where I don't agree:
That's been happening here for quite a while too.
I don't think I can agree. Especially under our liberal administration, we've coddled them for a long time.
Trump makes racist comments all the time and he's a stone's throw away from becoming president.
I agree that Trump is a racist, bro. I don't even think any other Republican was ever like this. He's a "Friends"-watching "bro"-hating anti-"Seinfeld" scumbag. I give you that. I don't disagree. I'm only voting for him, cause I don't want Hilary. Hilary would be worse... Trump is a racist but at least he won't be a dictator. He has the country's interests at heart. Hilary will just declare dictatorship on the country. We really don't have much of a choice.
Where I agree completely:
You know, calling an entire ethnicity arrogant is, itself, racist.
Yeah you're right. I just haven't had many good experiences with them, as a Hispanic. And I don't mean racists who are racists out of bad experiences. I mean feelings of superiority and uptightness.
Put two stars (shift 8)'s before and after a sentence to bold. People think of it as quotes. Put one in front and behind to add italics. Put an underline before and after to underline.
I don't think I can agree. Especially under our liberal administration, we've coddled them for a long time.
Under this liberal administration, we have accepted a small number of refugees, and it has been met with widespread criticism by somewhere around half the country.
I agree that Trump is a racist. I don't even think any other Republican was ever like this. He's a "Friends"-watching "bro"-hating anti-"Seinfeld" scumbag. I give you that. I don't disagree.
But the fact that he has so many supporters is indicative of how problematic this still is in this country.
Yeah you're right. I just haven't had many good experiences with them, as a Hispanic.
As argumentative as I'm being about this, I'm actually well aware that Scandinavia has a xenophobia problem, more so than most of Europe (outside of some Eastern European countries). I just reject the idea that our country is sufficiently better that we can particularly criticize them, particularly in the wake of this election.
Under this liberal administration, we have accepted a small number of refugees, and it has been met with widespread criticism by somewhere around half the country.
True.
But the fact that he has so many supporters is indicative of how problematic this still is in this country.
Without a doubt, but I think it's more the case in the North than the South. A lot say the South is still stuck in that mentality. As a Hispanic, I can testify there's more open racism in the North than South.
As argumentative as I'm being about this, I'm actually well aware that Scandinavia has a xenophobia problem, more so than most of Europe (outside of some Eastern European countries). I just reject the idea that our country is sufficiently better that we can particularly criticize them, particularly in the wake of this election.
I agree with that. I think most of the West really feels superiority towards non-whites. To be honest, for the same reasons I don't consider Hispanics white, I don't consider Italians white.
But to play Devil's advocate, I don't think Americans, except for up North, really feel a superiority complex, at least to blacks, I think they're just fed up with Sharpton's race-baiting and how types like him can get away with it, and have been getting away with it for years. In other countries, the older more arrogant type of racism is common. Racism from feelings of uptight superiority. Which is worse than the resentment you might see. But I do agree that in the North, that more arrogant presumptous type of racism does exist.
Without a doubt, but I think it's more the case in the North than the South. A lot say the South is still stuck in that mentality. As a Hispanic, I can testify there's more open racism in the North than South.
Do you have any evidence of that? I'm well aware that the South isn't more racist than the North, but I've yet to see any evidence that shows the North is more racist than the South.
But to play Devil's advocate, I don't think Americans, except for up North, really feel a superiority complex, at least to blacks, I think they're just fed up with Sharpton's race-baiting and how types like him can get away with it, and have been getting away with it for years. In other countries, the older more arrogant type of racism is common. Racism from feelings of uptight superiority. Which is worse than the resentment you might see. But I do agree that in the North, that more arrogant presumptous type of racism does exist.
Having lived in the North (all over, west of the Appalachians at least) all my life, I've yet to see any of that form of racism. The kind of racism I always see is the clutch your wallet when a black guy walks by, or don't go down that street because the people "look sketchy", etc.
Do you have any evidence of that? I'm well aware that the South isn't more racist than the North, but I've yet to see any evidence that shows the North is more racist than the South.
Mind you, the accident wasn't racist, but rather the Jewish ambulance's refusal to help the kids was.
Then we have the cops sodimizing the Haitian immigrant in 1997
The last time something like this took place in the South was in 1981.
Mind you yes, racial attacks happen all over America, but in the North, the Howards Beach incident was not indicted. Neither were the ambulance drivers.
Having lived in the North (all over, west of the Appalachians at least) all my life, I've yet to see any of that form of racism. The kind of racism I always see is the clutch your wallet when a black guy walks by, or don't go down that street because the people "look sketchy", etc.
That can be arrogance. But I have seen open racism in the North. It's more common than you think. Maybe the neighborhood you live in is not like that, but that don't mean it's uncommon in the North.
I was more thinking statistical evidence, rather than a couple examples. It's pretty easy to find examples of racism in the South too, but neither would show a trend.
Maybe the neighborhood you live in is not like that, but that don't mean it's uncommon in the North.
The same could be said about the South too. Without some sort of statistical evidence, we are at kind of an impasse either way.
In the South at least the cases are indicted, as was the recent case with a couple of girls in Georgia running over a black guy.
In the North, sometimes there is no indictment at all. It took at least a few years to indict the perpetrators of the Howard Beach lynching. And the ambulance drivers of the Yosef Lisch (the Crown Heights Riots) was never arrested. It was criminal negligence.
Something worthy of note. I know this is just a movie, but movies do reflect reality.
In one scene from the movie "Fresh" (a movie set in Brooklyn about drug dealers) there is a racist detective named Abe Sharpe (played by a Jewish actor named Martin Shakur) belittling blacks and Hispanics in one scene, openly. And he never gets in trouble. In all fairness, it's the only time we see him in the movie, but given that he's probably said this multiple times, and never got fired for it. I think it's pretty common, at least in the Northeast.
I said it was just a movie, but movies do reflect reality to a degree. I've seen this kinda systematic racism, at least in the Big Apple, which is where this movie is set.
I wish they had an inbetween. On a lot of the points you make there's areas of agreement and disagreement.
I recommend you see "Fresh," even if you're not a fan of hood movies. It's bizarre to say the least. It's a movie about this boy who lives in a dangerous part of Brooklyn -- Bedford-Stuyvesant, and it was released in 1994, at the end of the crack epidemic. The natures of the killings though are so bizarre, they are bound to traumatize. I think this movie was threatened with an NC-17 for bizarre behavior (officially it's rated R, but for me it's too NC-17 to be rated R, you might not wanna expose your kids to this movie).
The main thing is about a boy who wants out. He's born into the drug dealing life (cause he has no positive influences to stear him). It's the plan he devises to get out that makes it a clever watch. There's no hood movie like this. Most hood movies are cliche. This one is different.
