Do Americans Really Care About Other Countries?
Inspired by the India vs. America thread.
inWhat's your thought on how the rest of the world views you?
Trending Content
| +81 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 12h | |
| +52 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 5h | |
| +41 | How to sound more eloquent? | 16 | 2h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 23h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 7h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6h | |
| +25 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 7h | |
| +25 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 6 | 6h |
Career Resources
Some do. Some don't.
It's hard to generalize Americans given the amount of diversity within the country. Age, region, urban/rural, political affiliation, etc. all factor into an answer to your question.
I feel like people who have some sort of heritage to other countries where they have a connection almost care a little too much about other countries. Like a lot of people vote on the basis of a general world good view. I'm fine with that, but sometimes people here in America don't seem focus on fixing problems here first.
Absolutely. It is especially egregious when these people act on behalf of their countries of origin to involve Americans in dangerous conflicts we have no reason to be a part of. And there are countless examples of this in recent history:
Irish-Americans sending arms to the IRA and lobbying their politicians to provide cover to terrorist attacks.
Serbian/Bosnian/Armenian/Turkish/Greek Americans attempting to recreate their ethnic turf wars on the streets of American cities.
Ukrainian Americans lobbying our government to play chicken with a nuclear power.
Chinese-American corporate espionage in critical industries.
Indian-Americans lobbying for looser immigration restrictions.
And of course, basically everything to do with Israel. Imagine if the "I" in AIPAC stood for "Iranian"...
Diaspora politics are a scourge on this country and a gateway for foreign interference in our political process. Dual-citizenship should be banned for all political offices, law enforcement, and officer-ranking military positions. This is the norm in most of the world. Why can't we have it here?
Not sure about official offices. It's just a priorities issue for me. During college I was fundraising for an organization i was part of, and the initiative had an international focus. People who had a lot of questions about our program wanted me to explain why we didn't put more emphasis on the US and provided some of the domestic issues as evidence. I had no problem with it and I agreed, but they just were talking to the wrong program as it wasn't our mission.
Because of meeting more people who have an international background, whether they're first/second/third gen, I have noticed some people's domestic political stance doesn't even consider the US at all. Like their main interest is some global ideology, but it's usually because they have that global background in the sense that they are folks who have traveled to and from the US between their land of heritage.
Obviously, IRA gun trafficking is something political, but it's also illegal too, and I get you're just giving anecdotal evidence. But it's a real domestic issue when you say America's priorities, while the richest and most powerful country in the world, are still very important to you, but people tend to think about treatment of "the poor" first, because they have close ties to a country like the Philippines or Cameroon. Like, those are good things to think about within the context of the foreign relations corner. It shouldn't be the basis of how Americans are voting.
I care mostly about the US.
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!
FUCK THE REST OF THE WORLD! FUCK WHAT THEY THINK! NOBODY MEANS SHIT WHEN COMPARED TO THE USA!
USA USA USA USA USA!
I'm an American who certainly cares. I've even lived in foreign countries before, and my social circle includes people from very international backgrounds. Contrary to common political stereotypes, I've found that it's establishment types (both neoliberals and neoconservatives) who have those most ignorant views of the rest of the world. Neoliberals believe that their moralist social norms apply around the world while being totally ignorant of the situation on the ground, and neoconservatives believe that foreign countries can be reconstructed into American-style democracies if we just throw enough money and bombs at them. Both deranged ways of thinking are rooted in very weird conceptions of American exceptionalism and blank-slate theories of human behavior. You are not going to create a cosmopolitan, multicultural, Western nation on the ruins of whatever enemy of the moment we just destroyed (or are trying to destroy), be it Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Venezuela, Ukraine, China, or Russia. The only times it did work (West Germany and Japan) is because we had the full commitment of a world war, which is something absolutely nobody should want to repeat.
Meanwhile, it is the sober minded, geopolitical realists of the world who have a more pragmatic view of the globe and take societies for what they fundamentally are: nationalist, tribal, and self-interested. Unfortunately, these people have been absent from foreign policy decision making for about 80 years. Nations are organic entities based on the people who comprise them. They are not abstract concepts, imaginary lines in a map, nor ideas.
I mean the American government cares about the rest of the world, probably more than any other country does.
American people are mixed bags. I know people who travel to Europe all the time for their Instagram photos, but don't know there's a country called Andorra.
There are also people who have a great understanding of what Germany is doing domestically that America can learn from.
Normally, I don't like to wade into these types of conversations, but here we go. Sometimes I feel like I put too much effort into these things, but it has been a slow day.
It is a long one.
Personal perspective:
Personally, yes, I do.
First of all, I don't like the idea of being involved in another country's politics. Additionally, I know that the USA has its own problems, and it is in no way perfect. But I believe it is pretty damn good as it relates to individual rights. I believe countries should have their own sovereignty and other countries should respect that that sovereignty, to an extent.
I believe there are universal inalienable rights, that pre-exist government, that exist for all people regardless of where they live in the world (granted by God, whatever power you believe in, or generalized morality): freedom of speech, freedom of practice of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to petition government. Yes, I know, this is the first amendment. Whether that be through a democracy, a parliamentary system, a constitutional representative republic, or any other form of representative government, I believe every citizen should have individual rights that pre-exist government. I believe it is the duty of government to protect and never infringe on those rights.
If people around the world live in countries / areas under political leadership that violate these rights, in an extreme way, the political leadership has lost its right to represent their people, and therefore, lost their sovereignty. I find it then it is the duty of countries, who guarantee those rights, to intervene on behalf of peoples who are not guaranteed those rights. Whether that be through diplomacy, military intervention, economic pressure, etc., feel free to have that argument. If we are going to piss off one foreign group, we might as well do them all. In my opinion, it is morally bereft for the United States to abandon Hong Kong as China chips away at their autonomy and freedom's, to continue trading with China as they allow China to imprison Uighurs in Xinjiang Province, to allow Kim-Jong Un to continue ruling North Korea, to allow for the Russian annexation of Crimea, to allow for Maduro to rule over Venezuela, to allow the Communist Party to rule over Cuba, and any other authoritarian regime. Since all of these situations are infringing on, what I believe to be, universally inalienable rights.
I know some people might start pointing out all of the United States' past atrocities. Feel free. I already stated we are far from perfect. I am not attacking your country as a people; I am attacking the political leadership who choose to infringe on your rights and the rights of others. I have zero problem with the Chinese/Russian/Venezuelan/Cuban peoples, but I think the Chinese/Russian/Venezuelan/Cuban governments are reprehensible. You are free to think the same way about me v. the US government.
I know the United States is motivated by, if not a plurality of the time than likely a majority of the time, economic and national interests. I DO NOT deny that. I DO NOT deny that cessation of trade with China due to their imprisonment of Uighurs is likely never to happen and is mutually economically destructive. I do not have some misguided view that the highest levels of the US government are motivated by altruism. I DO NOT believe that. But I definitely believe that my individual rights are almost never infringed upon, and that I can have some command and control of my own future. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there can be a level of authoritarianism that can exist in concert with a somewhat free market, people can gain wealth, and people can be happy under that type of system.
But that is not what I personally believe.
I was privileged enough to attend a university that hosted numerous foreign politicians as visiting faculty. I got to meet with one politician from Afghanistan. With the politician from Afghanistan, I got to discuss Afghanistan's future as it related to the United States. I told her I did not like that the US military was over there risking our soldiers'/airmen/sailors/Marines' lives to protect a country that will never adopt our ideals. She agreed that Afghanistan is culturally dissimilar, and that hoping Afghanistan will transition to any form of a representative government is highly unlikely. So, we agreed the United States should not stay indefinitely. Her only protest is that in the areas in which United States could exercise its influence, Afghani girls were much safer to pursue education and exercise, what I referred to above, their individual rights. I do not expect every other person in the military to feel the same way that I do, but if spending 9 months in a foreign country, at risk to my own life, guarantees 9 additional months of preserving those inalienable rights & improving access to education for those who would not have it without my presence: I will take that risk. I do not believe I have the right to ask my soldiers to take that risk, but many of them feel the same way and are willing to take the risk. Since military officers take the oath, "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I would not want the military policy to be to guarantee the rights guaranteed in the Constitution & Bill of Rights for all the peoples of the world. But if they want to put that idea into practice, I would be more than happy to do it.
TLDR: For all of the situations above, if it came to it, I am willing to fight, for people I do not know and with whom I have no common culture, language, etc., if I were helping those people gain access to their previously denied universal inalienable rights. I would never ask anyone else to do the same. That being said, I know many other US military officers who share the same beliefs as me. So yes, from this one person’s perspective, I do care.
You seem like a nice guy and I hate to break it to you bud, but not everyone in the world prioritizes the same inalienable rights you just defined.
Just because you think their people don't have the rights you treasure so much doesn't mean you can and should interfere with foreign countries, because how do you know what their people want? What if they don't give a cent about religious freedom.
Also, "I don't like their government but I have no problems with their people" is very naive thinking. The people's fate is almost always closely tied with their government's. How many times have we seen a government overthrown and the country becomes a shittier hole? In fact, the purpose of economic sanctions is to make the people suffer so that they can help overthrow the government you don't like.
no
Why would I care? I just want to maximize my npv
Aut ut corporis et quod sed. Quas sint iste vel nisi. Ut dolore unde facere doloremque illo reprehenderit iste. Voluptatum tenetur optio omnis et et dolor culpa. Nulla omnis est vero beatae earum odio vitae. Libero voluptatum fugit sit deleniti sequi explicabo. Facere qui magni quis voluptatem.
Delectus voluptas sunt et expedita distinctio. Odio ipsam ab et officia nemo minima. Et et repudiandae quia quisquam dolor omnis deserunt. Ad et voluptate beatae.
Consequatur ex hic expedita quos atque. Dolores fugit quo dolores possimus veritatis. Et modi natus a dolorem. Nesciunt explicabo repudiandae voluptatem. Magni suscipit molestiae dolorem nostrum voluptas nihil.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...