Death of the American Icon: A Homicide Investigation

[MKSheppard]

The utterly imbecilic "American icon" past that you refer to is McCarthyism, where all diversity was deemed un-American (and where the Pledge was mutilated). It was the rise of Old World Christian theocratic intolerance in America.

But hey, why don't you just continue to spout your mindless diatribes about how you're being persecuted if you can't shove your close-minded attitudes down everyone else's throats against their will?

McCarthyism was against COMMUNISM, and he turned out to
be right in the END.

Alger Hiss was a Communist spy after all, and I find your mindless diatribes
against the so-called "theocratic Christian intolerance" to be quite tiresome.


Have you ever thought about selling your rants as a sleeping aid?

[Darth Wong]

McCarthyism was against COMMUNISM, and he turned out to be right in the END.

Nonsense. Communism only became stronger during McCarthyism, remember? McCarthyism didn't hurt communism; it hurt innocent people in America.

Alger Hiss was a Communist spy after all, and I find your mindless diatribes against the so-called "theocratic Christian intolerance" to be quite tiresome.

Of course, since you have no rebuttal for them other than your mindless recital of right-wing religious idiocy. You never even attempt to explain why intolerance is OK; you simply scream that other viewpoints are liberal crap and expect to defeat them that way.

[Darth Wong]

Not that I want to spar with you, Mr. Wong, because I agree with your basic intentions. However, any society that exercises political and cultural independence for a long enough period of time and places value on that independence will inevitably evolve certain cultural characteristics that are both distinctive to and widely accepted within that society. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as the majority of that society's members don't start declaring that their new culture represents the only way or the best way to behave and believe. That's McCarthyism. There's a very big difference between cultural pride alone and xenophobia.

Agreed. Unfortunately, a whole lot of Americans believe strongly that this is precisely what an American icon is: the only "right" way to live. All other ways are wrong. Just watch MkSheppard in action in this very thread, defending McCarthyism proudly.

[Wicked Pilot]

I have a question for you Mr. Wong. Where there ever any Canadian McCarthys, or is this bullshit unique only to the U.S.?

[MKSheppard]

Of course, since you have no rebuttal for them other than your mindless recital of right-wing religious idiocy. You never even attempt to explain why intolerance is OK; you simply scream that other viewpoints are liberal crap and expect to defeat them that way.

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

I haven't gone to church for the last 10+ years, and we don't
even have a Bible in our house, and you're attempting to paint
ME as a religious extremist?

And please don't spout line after line of mindless liberal idiocy
such as buzzwords like "tolerance", "diversity" and how "intolerance"
is bad.

As for intolerance, I reserve the same right that my video store does:

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE."

[Darth Wong]

I have a question for you Mr. Wong. Where there ever any Canadian McCarthys, or is this bullshit unique only to the U.S.?

Canada went through its own xenophobic period in the 1950s, but it was nowhere near as bad as McCarthyism. As usual, the difference between Canada and the US is one of degrees. Americans tend to go hogwild on things, where we tend to be more reserved. This works in both good and bad directions.

[Darth Wong]

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

I haven't gone to church for the last 10+ years, and we don't
even have a Bible in our house, and you're attempting to paint
ME as a religious extremist?

Why not? You repeat all of their claims about how intolerance is good, Christians should be allowed to run roughshod over all other religions, etc. You can claim that you're not a right-wing Christian if you like (you can claim pretty much anything you want; this is the Internet), but that doesn't change the fact that you mysteriously support all of their bizarre beliefs about their divine right to squash all behaviour which offends them.

And please don't spout line after line of mindless liberal idiocy
such as buzzwords like "tolerance", "diversity" and how "intolerance"
is bad.

In other words, you did precisely as I predicted. While I have written at length about why it's bad to be intolerant, you simply say it's "liberal" and expect to leave it at that, as if this proves anything.

Did you know that in their time, America's founding fathers were considered liberals?

As for intolerance, I reserve the same right that my video store does:
"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE."

That's what right-wing conservatives used to say to black people (still do, in the ignorant states).

[NecronLord]

I keep two bibles by my bed, but it doesn't mean that i belive any of it, i find it amusing to laught at the rampant xenophobia and race hate in there, and scientific ignorance, and slaughter and....

[NecronLord]

Though i also keep Dark force rising there too, and a model dalek.

[Darth Wong]

What- no porno?

[Carcharodon]

Agreed. Unfortunately, a whole lot of Americans believe strongly that this is precisely what an American icon is: the only "right" way to live. All other ways are wrong. Just watch MkSheppard in action in this very thread, defending McCarthyism proudly.

Agreed, up to a point. Some of us–and I'm one of them–think we have an obligation to use our wealth and power to help free the oppressed in the world. This is a very noble sentiment of which I'm quite proud. Unfortunately, it also begs more questions than anyone can count. I interpret it simply to mean working to spread basic Jeffersonian ideals and free markets. Other people think that it also means what you refer to above. They're wrong, and damn annoying, and sometimes I want to stuff wadded up newspapers down their throats to shut them up, but I still have to give them credit for backing some of the policies of our government that actually have lead to greater human freedoms around the world. Even if their behavior after the fact is rather embarrassing. Look at the Reagan era.

You're free to disagree, but I think the substantive progress which the mindset I described has contributed to outweighs the annoyances and indignities it has also contributed to. The analogy of chemotherapy comes to my mind. McCarthy himself wasn't much use–like the radiation from a reactor meltdown–but attitudes and behavior vary along a continuum. Misguided but well-meaning people can piss a lot of us off, but in some cases they manage to do more good than harm. A few people obviously deserve to be strung up by their toenails for being so egocentric, but as for the rest, I certainly won't be the one to draw the line as to just when that's warranted.

As a high-minded idealist, I will always admit that we need to work on being more respectful. But as a realist, I have to face the fact that American egoism and American engagement in world affairs to productive ends are closely entertwined, and probably always will be to some degree. The cause and effect relationship runs both ways. The balance just needs to be skewed more toward the latter than toward the former. And that isn't easy. My last post was mostly idealistic. This post is mostly practical. We have a lot to contribute, but we're also flawed in our own ways. Who's not? It is necessary to acknowledge the curious duality inherent in America's actions and her psyche. Focusing on one aspect or the other exclusively will not achieve any improvement. But you already know that.

We don't invariably ask others to adopt all our ways. We allowed Afghanistan to remain an "Islamic Republic" with traditional sharia law, even though sharia law is based on the very same definitions of morality that one finds in the Old Testament. I'm afraid that may have been a mistake, but we did it nonetheless.




And another thing. We're not just forcing everyone to adopt our culture by opening up their markets to our stuff. Equally a factor in the "Americanization" of the world seems to be a genuine desire on the part of some people to emulate us. I don't entirely understand that. In fact, I question whether it's even a good thing. Some facets of our culture are absolutely brain dead. (Star Trek? ) A world where everyone is just like us sounds unbearably boring. Nevertheless, there it is. Kids in Iran risk beatings, imprisonment, and death on a daily basis to spraypaint "Metallica" graffiti in public places. What do you think this is symptomatic of?

Lastly, a word about McCarthyism. It wasn't just an imperious demand that everyone in the world become like us. It wasn't even just about preserving the superior virtues of American culture from pollution by foreign ideas. It came about through fear. Terrifying fear. The same fear that was gripping the USSR at the time. China's acquisition of nuclear arms wasn't reassuring. After all, we still thought they were a puppet of Moscow. People literally believed a preemptive strike on their homes was likely to happen next week. And I'm sure there were some Russian double agents in our ranks, as there were probably some of ours in theirs. None of this excuses anything that was done, but anyone studying this historical period must always bear in mind the broader context of the situation to understand how it all happened. When a threat to survival comes from outside, then the human mind naturally tends to overgeneralize and be suspicious of anything not familiar to it. Any society with a similar history facing a similar situation could easily have had a similar response. Reason can and should check reactionaryism, but we're all vulnerable to prejudice. Yoda was truly right. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side.

Am I being fair here?

[Darth Wong]

Agreed, up to a point. Some of us–and I'm one of them–think we have an obligation to use our wealth and power to help free the oppressed in the world. This is a very noble sentiment of which I'm quite proud.

It's a nice sentiment, but ask yourself what face America really does present to the world. You may like to think it's your constitution or your ideals, but that's not the case. Guess who your emissaries usually are, particularly in the developing world: multinational corporations. Either that, or the CIA. Neither tends to march in there with any interest in helping people.

You're free to disagree, but I think the substantive progress which the mindset I described has contributed to outweighs the annoyances and indignities it has also contributed to.

You are assuming that they come from the same mindset. They don't. McCarthyism is about xenophobia: paint everyone who is different as a threat to our freedom and then attack/suppress/destroy them. Efforts to promote democracy around the world, on the other hand, stem from altruism: look for people who are not free, and try to free them. The former is about protecting oneself from "the enemy", inventing enemies, and using paranoia as an excuse to advance an ulterior motive (eg- restoring Christian theocracy). The latter is about helping others, even if it can be overly egostistical at times. They are not connected, apart than the fact that proponents of both mentalities come from the same country.

We don't invariably ask others to adopt all our ways. We allowed Afghanistan to remain an "Islamic Republic" with traditional sharia law, even though sharia law is based on the very same definitions of morality that one finds in the Old Testament. I'm afraid that may have been a mistake, but we did it nonetheless.

Actually, if you look at the history, American foreign policy is rarely conducted with human rights in mind. American governments have propped up tin-pot dictators when it suited them, fomented terribly destructive civil wars for the sake of geopolitik (and shrugged off horrible civilian suffering if it occurred as a direct result), and cozied up to all manner of scum (including Osama Bin Laden, using the rationale that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; one of those popular sayings that is not necessarily true).

Historically, American foreign policy is based on what they call "larger geopolitical goals", ie- fuck 'em all if it will give us a military base, help us gain access to an important resource, or hurt communism. This may be changing now, but that's the reality if you look at their conduct over the last half-century.

Was that Machiavellian policy good? Did it bring down communism? Does that make it worthwhile? Or was the impact of all that questionable behaviour irrelevant, and did communism bring itself down by virtue of being a bad system? I don't know, and perhaps this thread is the wrong place to ask, but I do know that many of the "American icons" mentioned in the original post which started this thread are of pretty questionable value, and the implicit argument (that we need to return to an earlier cultural mindset) is deeply flawed. Look at the list:

• John Wayne: to most of the world, John Wayne stands for an ignorant American who thinks his cultural values are universal and who has no respect whatsoever for anyone else. I think he's a questionable icon.
• Lucky Strikes: anyone who thinks a particular brand of death-sticks should be considered "icons" is on drugs ... wait, that was redundant and obvious, wasn't it?
• Corvettes: I love Corvettes. I love 'em, love 'em, love 'em. If I had that kind of play money, I'd get a 1966 Stingray. Having said that, they're just cool cars, not cultural "icons".
• Pabst Blue Ribbon: this is an icon? A beer? A watery American beer? Sorry, I just couldn't help saying that
• Baseball: most boring spectator sport ever invented. Go to the ballpark, pay a small fortune, and then watch the most slow-moving game in the world besides chess. I can't figure out for the life of me why Americans think baseball is synonymous with Americana. Football is a much cooler sport.
• Rock 'n' Roll: is that an American icon? A lot of the world's greatest rock and roll came from the Brits.
• Yankee Dogs: is he referring to hot dogs? What's a Yankee dog?
• The Pledge of Allegiance: don't get me started on that "one nation under God" horseshit.

What a pile of crap. Do you want a real American icon? Try Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King Jr., or the fucking Statue of Liberty. Unfortunately for social reactionaries, these icons aren't useful in promoting exclusionary politics so they just won't do, hence the desire to return to shitty icons like John Wayne or Joe McCarthy's butchered Pledge of Allegiance.

And another thing. We're not just forcing everyone to adopt our culture by opening up their markets to our stuff. Equally a factor in the "Americanization" of the world seems to be a genuine desire on the part of some people to emulate us. I don't entirely understand that. In fact, I question whether it's even a good thing. Some facets of our culture are absolutely brain dead. (Star Trek? ) A world where everyone is just like us sounds unbearably boring. Nevertheless, there it is. Kids in Iran risk beatings, imprisonment, and death on a daily basis to spraypaint "Metallica" graffiti in public places. What do you think this is symptomatic of?

This is going even further off-topic so I probably shouldn't answer, but ...

• Some parts of your culture may simply appeal to them for their intrinsic values. I'm Canadian but I like lots of American things such as Corvettes, Harleys, big dumb action movies, blue jeans, etc. The image and wonderfully worded plaque of the Statue of Liberty is also a powerful and memorable image the world over, even if many won't admit it (and many inside your own government wish to undermine the idea).
• Never underestimate the power of marketing.
• Perhaps many people associate Americana (which still exists, despite the thread starter's claim that it's gone because his preferred icons have fallen by the wayside) with America's success.

When a threat to survival comes from outside, then the human mind naturally tends to overgeneralize and be suspicious of anything not familiar to it.

And if the mindset is extremely narrow, the range of suspicious behaviours will be much larger. McCarthyism still stands as proof of a deplorable mindset predominant at the time. Today, most clear-minded people don't react to a threat by rushing out and attacking anyone who seems different. In the 1980s, we felt the threat of nuclear war every day (people forget how much it was discussed, even in childrens' classrooms), but people didn't act that way. It is overly charitable IMHO to chalk up McCarthyism to the presence of a threat rather than the mindset of the people who promoted it.

[Mr. B]

Everyone knows that the only American Icon remaining is money and more money.

[Graeme Dice]

[*]Corvettes: I love Corvettes. I love 'em, love 'em, love 'em. If I had that kind of play money, I'd get a 1966 Stingray. Having said that, they're just cool cars, not cultural "icons".

I prefer the 67 actually.

[*]Baseball: most boring spectator sport ever invented. Go to the ballpark, pay a small fortune, and then watch the most slow-moving game in the world besides chess. I can't figure out for the life of me why Americans think baseball is synonymous with Americana. Football is a much cooler sport.

Baseball is a great sport because it is extremely technical. Your technique has to be close to perfect to even have a chance to hit the ball.

And if the mindset is extremely narrow, the range of suspicious behaviours will be much larger. McCarthyism still stands as proof of a deplorable mindset predominant at the time. Today, most clear-minded people don't react to a threat by rushing out and attacking anyone who seems different. In the 1980s, we felt the threat of nuclear war every day (people forget how much it was discussed, even in childrens' classrooms), but people didn't act that way. It is overly charitable IMHO to chalk up McCarthyism to the presence of a threat rather than the mindset of the people who promoted it.

How many people born in the 1970's or 80's had nightmares about nuclear war? I'd imagine it's a whole lot less than those born in the 50's.

[Next of Kin]

Baseball is only enjoyable when large amounts of booze are present. Without a frosty beer in hand, who the hell would pay to sit through 3 hours of obese pitchers, bunts, fouls, tabacco spittin, and crotch scratching?!? I rank baseball up there with lawn darts in terms of excitement.