Most young people are no longer proud to be Americans, poll finds

Flying Squid@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 975 points –
axios.com

Overall, 39% of U.S. adults say they are "extremely proud" to be American in the most recent poll.

Meanwhile, only 18% of those aged 18-34 said the same, compared to 40% of those aged 35-54 and 50% of those 55 and over.

18% is still too high. As Obama's pastor said, God damn America! Americans have very little to be proud of at this point.

345

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

Abolishing slavery, ending Jim Crow, giving women the vote, becoming one of the first dozen countries on the planet to legalize gay marriage, helping win WW2, helping support Ukraine, donating more to foreign aid than any other country on the planet, the Marshall Plan, everything about NASA, best national parks on the planet, entertainment capital of the world, first country to land a man on the moon, the whole "nation of immigrants" things making us one of the most diverse countries on the planet.

  • Slavery isn't abolished; it can still, per the constitution, be used as punishment.
  • Jim Crow may be ended, but the racism that enables it has always been alive and well
  • Gave women the right to vote way later than it should have
  • Same as above
  • Only after being directly attacked
  • Only because we spend so obscenely much on war. A billionaire that gives $1000 is not as generous as someone making min-wage that give $10.
  • Self-serving imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall\_Plan#Modern\_criticism
  • like defunding it to where we have to privatize space flight now? Elon Musk approves!
  • I... guess? Arguably has nothing to do with being an American. Lots of countries were throwing money at this-- we just randomly got there first.
  • We're openly and emphatically racist, as a country. We simultaneously reject immigration while requiring immigrants to be used as borderline slave labor to ensure our produce doesn't get too expensive.

We've never been the shining city on the hill, but we sure want to pretend we are.

Self-serving imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Modern_criticism

Something benefiting you doesn't make it wrong? The US compared to the other powers of the time extracted much less wealth to its conquered territories, and genuinely benefited them in a lot of ways. Compare the US to what the USSR did to Mongolia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. Or, compare the US to what France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal did trying to hang on to their colonies and extract as much wealth from them as possible. Not to mention how many citizens of those countries are proud of that! The US obviously did engage in disgusting acts at the time, particularly in Vietnam, in support of the KMT, and genuine imperialism in Latin America. But- the Marshall Plan is not anywhere near on those levels.

We’re openly and emphatically racist, as a country. We simultaneously reject immigration while requiring immigrants to be used as borderline slave labor to ensure our produce doesn’t get too expensive.

I see you're speaking for yourself.

From the wikipedia article you didn't read:

The Marshall Plan's role in the rapid recovery of Western Europe has been debated. Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe since the evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway. The Marshall Plan grants were provided at a rate that was not much higher in terms of flow than the previous UNRRA aid and represented less than 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951,[110] which would mean an increase in GDP growth of only 0.3%.[7] In addition, there is no correlation between the amount of aid received and the speed of recovery: both France and the United Kingdom received more aid, but West Germany recovered significantly faster.[7]

Criticism of the Marshall Plan became prominent among historians of the revisionist school, such as Walter LaFeber, during the 1960s and 1970s. They argued that the plan was American economic imperialism and that it was an attempt to gain control over Western Europe just as the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe economically through the Comecon. In a review of West Germany's economy from 1945 to 1951, German analyst Werner Abelshauser concluded that "foreign aid was not crucial in starting the recovery or in keeping it going". The economic recoveries of France, Italy, and Belgium, Cowen argues, began a few months before the flow of US money. Belgium, the country that relied earliest and most heavily on free-market economic policies after its liberation in 1944, experienced swift recovery and avoided the severe housing and food shortages seen in the rest of continental Europe.[132]

Former US Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan gives most credit to German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard for Europe's economic recovery. Greenspan writes in his memoir The Age of Turbulence that Erhard's economic policies were the most important aspect of postwar Western European recovery, even outweighing the contributions of the Marshall Plan. He states that it was Erhard's reductions in economic regulations that permitted Germany's miraculous recovery, and that these policies also contributed to the recoveries of many other European countries. Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate and low taxes. Japan saw a large infusion of US investment during the Korean War.[133]

compare the US to what France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal did trying to hang on to their colonies and extract as much wealth from them as possible. Not to mention how many citizens of those countries are proud of that!

I was not suggesting the people can't be proud of the not-good things their country does-- only that they shouldn't. Also: whataboutism never defends any given position or stance; don't rely on it too much, if at all.

I see you’re speaking for yourself.

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that the United States isn't generally pretty racist and that I'm just projecting? Or was this just a halfhearted attempt at an ad hominem attack? Elaborate please.

From the wikipedia article you didn’t read:

I did? (For the ad hominem accusation later this seems like an ad hominem too) I don't see how that changes what I said. The Marshall plan was giving aid to countries to buy loyalty. It was still giving aid. The Soviets orchestrated coups in countries and seized their wealth to distribute throughout the USSR.

I was not suggesting the people can’t be proud of the not-good things their country does-- only that they shouldn’t.

I wasn't suggesting they were right in being proud of it. I was arguing that compared to other powers of the era(and now) the Marshall plan was lacking harm.

I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that the United States isn’t generally pretty racist and that I’m just projecting? Or was this just a halfhearted attempt at an ad hominem attack? Elaborate please.

I'm criticizing you collectivizing Americans in a "we". Giving collective responsibility, actions, and desires where there are none. If you say "we did x" you are taking responsibility for x- but I didn't do x and I will not take responsibility for it. So, I said I see you are speaking for yourself when you say "we did x"

I did?

I assumed you didn't read it because the criticism is also that it didn't actually help. That is to say, countries that got the money didn't recover faster than those that didn't. So what would you call something that benefits just yourself?

I was arguing that compared to other powers of the era(and now) the Marshall plan was lacking harm.

Is "lacking harm" something to be proud of?

If you say “we did x” you are taking responsibility for x- but I didn’t do x and I will not take responsibility for it.

I try not to take an aggressive stance, but this is 100% Grade-A bullshit. Where is this stance of yours when it comes to the Marshall Plan? The entire topic is about taking pride in the collective actions of the country. If "we" did things to be proud of, then "we" did things you should be ashamed of. You have to pick one mode of thought-- you can't claim pride in just the good things while refusing responsibility for the bad.

That is to say, countries that got the money didn’t recover faster than those that didn’t. So what would you call something that benefits just yourself?

I never argued the aid guaranteed faster recovery on national level. I argued aid helped people who had their lives destroyed by a massive war. There are billions of factors that influence GDP growth, of course its not guaranteed aid can create it.

Is “lacking harm” something to be proud of?

For a major geopolitical action from a superpower- honestly yeah.

If “we” did things to be proud of, then “we” did things you should be ashamed of. You have to pick one mode of thought-- you can’t claim pride in just the good things while refusing responsibility for the bad.

We didn't do things. I am not proud of the Marshall Plan, I am not proud of any actions by any government or any country at any point. I disagree with the person saying that you should be proud to be American- just as you do. But, I also disagree with your criticism of the Marshall Plan as harmful imperialism. I can disagree with two things at once. I said here you shouldn't be proud of your country in another thread before even seeing your comment

Your entire discussion seems milquetoast at this point. You didn't mean this, you didn't say that. Even here you send mixed messages-- is "lacking harm" something to be proud of? You say: "honestly, yeah".

I think you're just wasting my time at this point.

What am I supposed to say when you accuse me of saying something I never said?

Well, first off, you should have never made the dig about "speaking for yourself". Unless, of course, you just didn't know what I meant or what we were talking about, which clearly you did. You may disagree with whether it's correct to have national pride, but in a comment where I was replying to someone who did suggest they had national pride, your remark is borderline trolling, and it is what caused by misunderstanding at your actual point.

I see from the link you provided that you're a mod of this community. Behave better, lest we end up right back where we were with Reddit.

Well, first off, you should have never made the dig about "speaking for yourself". Unless, of course, you just didn't know what I meant or what we were talking about, which clearly you did. You may disagree with whether it's correct to have national pride, but in a comment where I was replying to someone who did suggest they had national pride, your remark is borderline trolling, and it is what caused by misunderstanding at your actual point.

That's how you interpreted it, but I stated my intent clearly when you asked for clarification- yet you're still using it as a way to criticize.

Edit: Also, I don't see how me being a mod is relevant.

My point is that you shouldn't have made that comment at all. What purpose did it serve? You are aware that many people do take collective responsibility for their country, right? You would agree that if one is to take pride in the good, they should also shoulder responsibility for the bad, right? You are aware that when someone uses the collective "we", especially in the context of criticizing a country, that they may not (and are probably not) including their own personal stance in that comment, right?

You were trolling. The new question is: why? Are you so emotionally attached to the Marshall Plan being seen as an overall good thing that you needed to lash out? I don't get it. In fact, the only non-troll reason I see is that you do take credit for the good but refuse to take responsibility for the bad.

And since we're obviously belaboring this point: If not the individual citizen's responsibility, whose is it? Do you believe "every vote matters", or not? Do you believe in "of the people, by the people, for the people"? You may not feel comfortable taking pride in any national accomplishments, and that's fine-- I'm not sure there are even many in which to take pride-- but we all have a say in how society conducts itself and when it conducts itself badly, that is a failing for all of us. And if I'm being blunt, it has the same general feeling of some white man first learning about white male privilege and saying "You must be talking about yourself; I wasn't privileged!"

My point is that you shouldn’t have made that comment at all. What purpose did it serve?

To critique your assertion of collective responsibility? You are free to disagree with what I said, but just as I have no authority to tell you what you should or shouldn't say- you have no authority to tell me what I should or shouldn't say. So, please stop(at least from my perspective) talking down to me in a condescending way.

You are aware that many people do take collective responsibility for their country, right?

Yes, and I have and will continue to voice my opposition to that.

You would agree that if one is to take pride in the good, they should also shoulder responsibility for the bad, right?

Yes and no, it depends on what their reasoning is for what they do take pride in.

You are aware that when someone uses the collective “we”, especially in the context of criticizing a country, that they may not (and are probably not) including their own personal stance in that comment, right?

I don't agree with "probably not" but yes they may not be. But when they say we they are regardless collectivizing responsibility.

You were trolling.

(Accused me of ad hominem)

The new question is: why?

I explained why I said what I said, you continue to use it to derail the conversation and criticize me personally.

Are you so emotionally attached to the Marshall Plan being seen as an overall good thing that you needed to lash out?

I oppose the Marshall Plan.

If not the individual citizen’s responsibility, whose is it?

That depends what you mean, it is a lot of individual citizens responsibility- but it is not mine. I do not advocate hate, I do not vote for hateful politicians, and I don't fund hateful organizations?

Do you believe “every vote matters”, or not?

What does that mean? A vote can be used to have some impact, sometimes, but usually most votes don't have much of an impact when taken individually. That is to say, if one person changed who they voted for individually it wouldn't have much of an impact. Of course individual actions can add up?

Do you believe in “of the people, by the people, for the people”?

Not really the principle or the reality, the reality really is "of some people, by some people, for some people"

but we all have a say in how society conducts itself and when it conducts itself badly, that is a failing for all of us.

No one has any obligation to act unless they agree to it. Inaction doesn't make them responsible for the actions of others. Furthermore, I have and do act in advocating for, voting for, and funding what I support.

And if I’m being blunt, it has the same general feeling of some white man first learning about white male privilege and saying “You must be talking about yourself; I wasn’t privileged!”

Because it is the same rejection of tribalism.