America the Beloved

Anna Gregoline | November 8, 2004
At a scientific conference, Russia's chief space scientist, Leonid I. Sedov, taunted a U.S. colleague: "You Americans have a better standard of living than we have. But the American loves his car, his refrigerator, his house. He does not, as we Russians do, love his country." If you had to answer Mr. Sedov, what would be your reply?

While I don't agree with him - I do feel that most Americans love their country! - this quote made me think.

What is it exactly that the average American loves about their country?

I would have to say top on the list for me is the level of free speech we have - that we can have the political discussions we do, for example, and know that we won't be killed by the government for saying what we say.

And yes, there is a level of convenience I love about America - everything is well-geared for that.

I have to think about it more, but those are up there for me. What about you?

Scott Hardie | November 11, 2004
Great question; I'm surprised nobody answered.

I think Mr. Sedov defines love differently than we do. Unlike Russians, most of us aren't willing to suffer and sacrifice for our country, except in times of war. Russians give their all to their scientific programs for the greater good of their nation; we give it our all so that we can see our name on the Nobel Prize. Russians, like most other current and former Communist states, place the welfare of the nation and populace about the welfare of the individual; most of us Americans lean the other way.

And, being American myself, I think that's a good thing for us. It allows us to progress and adapt, and it's fair. If I'm wrongfully accused of a crime in Russia, I'm more or less doomed to rot in prison, but in America I'm given a chance to defend myself. I'd cite our legal system, with its individual protections for the accused, as one of the things I love most about our country.

That is, until last week, when plain bigotry trumped civil rights in eleven states, and Americans allowed their religious values to have arbitrary influence over crucial legislation. It's a nation where the "values" of the many are more important than the basic freedoms of the few. That's America in 2004, and I no longer love America.

Erik Bates | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Todd Brotsch | November 11, 2004
It was Voltaire, the direct quote is:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

I agree totally with this quote.

Steve Dunn | November 11, 2004
I hesitate to atttribute the result in eleven states to "plain bigotry" in America in general. For one thing, sizeable minorities voted against those initiatives in all eleven states. For another, as I understand it a majority of Americans oppose "gay marriage" yet support some form of civil unions or other concepts of equal rights for homosexuals. There seems to be something uniquely appealing and emotional about "marriage," probably having something to do with procreation.

I don't think it's any reason to give up your patriotism. If anything, it's reason to use your freedom of speech and association to make this nation the sort of place where you want to live.

Scott Hardie | November 11, 2004
I agree that the freedoms involved are good, that each party had the right to vote for or against the amendments, and that I have the right to speak out on the subject. I simply dislike the outcome, and I will continue to speak out about it, not that it's worth a good goddamn to bother.

How do the people voting against the proposed amendments, whether many or few, have anything to do with whether the people voting for the amendments are bigots? Those people do not like the homosexual "lifestyle" (what an idiotic phrase) and will not recognize that homosexual people have the same rights that heterosexual people do. Having an intolerance of homosexuality despite strong approval for heterosexuality fits the dictionary definition of a bigot.

If we want to get technical, intolerance of any alternative idea is bigotry. But I'm not voting away those people's freedom to hate queers; I believe they should have that freedom. It's small comfort to know I'm more tolerant of people who want to hate and deny than the voting majority is of people who want to live their lives in peace and happiness.

Civil unions are unacceptable. This country has proven long enough that there's no such thing as "separate but equal." Gay people who get civil unions will not enjoy the same legal benefits that marriage will give them. Besides, for most gay people, marriage itself is exactly what they want, not some makeshift alternative version.

I don't support gay people getting better treatment under the law than other people have. Hate crime sentencing, under which you would get a longer sentence for killing a faggot because you hate queers than you would for killing Mr. or Mrs. Straight Marriage for any old reason, is patently unfair and should be eliminated. What I seek are equal rights for all. I will support my gay brothers and sisters in their quest for equity for as long as it takes for this country to wise up.

If it seems like my rhetoric on this subject has grown more vitriolic lately — I would not normally use a charged word like "bigot" to describe people who number many among my own friends — it's a reflection of my outrage on this issue. I am utterly, thoroughly disgusted with the disregard some of my countrymen have for the equal rights of their fellows. I will not be a proud American until this matter is settled with liberty and justice for all.

John E Gunter | November 11, 2004
I love this country due to the freedoms that we have. True, not everyone always makes the best selections in my opinion, but we have to live with the decisions of our fellow Americans, just as they have to live with our decisions.

Case in point about hate crimes going the other way, I understand that being the target of prejudice is not a nice thing, but I'm sure everyone has had it happen to them, not just minorities. What really bothers me is the fact that to make up for the inequality that has happened in the country, we swing to far the other way.

October 20, 2004 I read an article in the newspaper that made me very angry. Apparently, a youth set up a Halloween display in his yard. It was a newspaper stuffed dummy, with a Frankenstein face and Wolf man hands. The dummy was being hung on a gallows.

Another student happened to be riding by on the bus, don't remember if it was a school bus or not, and became very upset about seeing this. Obviously, at least according to this student, this was a hate crime against African Americans.

So she called someone she knew who got in touch with an Uhuru activist in the area. They proceeded to the house, and while there somehow the police became involved. I don't remember exactly how the police showed up, but I think the officer in question was just driving by. Anyway, they were extremely angry about this supposed hate crime, so while the police officer attempted to contact the home owner, they entered her fenced property through a closed gate and proceeded to tear down and destroy the decoration, scattering the remains all over the yard.

The activist had stated that the police were taking too long and he just couldn’t wait anymore. He also stated that the homeowner’s private property meant nothing to him. This same activist has destroyed a mural at city hall in the past, stating that it also portrayed racial hatred.

While I am for everyone living together with no prejudice against his or her fellow man, there is a point where you are doing more damage to your cause, rather than helping it. The woman apologized to the group for the decoration and did not file any trespass or destruction of property charges against the group.

I later found out from my son’s girl friend, which knows this woman that the reason that they did not file any charges against the group is that they are afraid of retaliation from this individual and the group in general. So who is really the victim of a hate crime? I’d say it’s more the homeowner than it is the Uhuru movement.

Imagine what would have happened if one of them had injured themselves while trespassing on this woman’s property. Would they have sued her because they were on her property? If they had sued, would they have been awarded a settlement by the court?

There is a point where you have to ask yourself, have I gone to far, but obviously in this man’s pursuit of equality, he has crossed over the line from being a concerned citizen into an extremist, even possibly a terrorist.

John

Anna Gregoline | November 11, 2004
That was an interesting example, John, of "sensitivity" run amok - obviously the person is a little off - but I don't think it's ever extreme to want equality among our fellow Americans.

John E Gunter | November 11, 2004
I agree with you, nothing wrong with wanting equal treatment from your fellow human beings, but some people take that want to the point where they are making others unequal as it were.

John

Anna Gregoline | November 11, 2004
I have to agree with Scott's statements and make my own...

I've never been more disappointed with both the actual America and what it proposes to stand for. We are in no way what we say we are.

Scott Hardie | November 12, 2004
I agree, John. The activist should have been prosecuted for his crimes. I would guess he suffers from psychopathy.

Amy Austin | November 12, 2004
Anna -- Your last post seems to be somewhat of a 180 from your first... and this is your thread!

I *so* would have pressed charges against that "activist" -- any retaliatory efforts had better damn good & slick on their part, too. And I'd have brought up every point you made, John, if it ever got into a courtroom.