Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Is it purely by chance that the United States is the birthplace of the super-hero?

What is it about the American psyche that drives the United States to travel beyond its own borders to interfere in affairs it deems "un-American"?

Is it an accident that Superman (the first and greatest of the super-heroes) stands for truth, justice, and the American way?

Does that famous statement mean to imply that the American way is synonymous with truth and justice?

When Superman (who ostensibly represents the United States) interferes in someone else's business, is he upholding truth and justice, or is he upholding the American way of life? Is it possible that "truth" and "justice" can mean something quite different to someone from a country other than the United States?

I don't know but here's my two cents on the take...

(I'm Canadian btw - a Canadian Brainiac...LOL...)

The Americans are people who ACT.  Some people react some others need to pull their act...  If some foreign person invented a prototype magic lamp, someone in the states would go to him and invest in the project.  Canadians would look in awe and most other countries wouldn't even be aware of it.  

You guys don't always do it right but you do it.  If Superman had been "born" in Canada (I know that in theory he has though) and developed, no one would've even given a chance to Siegel & Shuster.  I know I wouldn't have.  I would've invested my dollar on a some milk products and made like 1 penny for every dollar...  

BUT, does Superman come with the territory?  I would guess yes.  First his suit is clearly made to be a pseudo-american flag.  No?  Yes.  Then, Superman always boosts the idealogy of the American Dream.  Basically is:  you can realize all your dreams with hard work.  Sure Superman has powers, ect...but, the main thing that happens when you look at first glance is health, good looks, hair, ect...  He's the kind of guy you would want to represent your country as ambassador, warrior, president, average man - Superman is everything that you want or would want your people to be.  His physical attributs are great but it goes beyond that:  Superman is honest, loyal, peaceloving hard to anger but, when he's pissed, he can beat the crap out of any contender.  Superman is a winner.  We all want to be winners.

Aldous, I wrote a very long (and of course brilliant :-)) response, then got an "invalid session" error and lost the whole thing.

But here's the short version:

No it's not by chance that the superhero was invented in America.  In its purest form, the superhero represents America's belief the power of the individual, the common man made uncommon by his or her unique abilities.  As idealized Americans, superheroes are people who make themselves great via hard work, or people to whom chance, fortune or natural ability grant great potential, and they by their virtuous nature manage to realize that potential while staying spiritually "pure" and true to their common man roots.  

These are concepts you didn't historically find in many cultures, where greatness was traditionally reserved for those born into nobility or the upper castes.  The fictional heroes of these cultures were "great" from day one just by virtue of birth, and when they win battles or show courage or wit, it's always pointed out that this was due to the pure blood in their veins (translation: we'll never be as good as them no matter how we try.  But another way to see it is; if they're superior by birth, ie. through no effort of their own, then how is that heroic?).  Robin Hood, the Knights of the Round Table, Odysseus, Tarzan, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro and so on were all noblemen who, if they fought for the common man at all, did so out of noblesse oblige (after all, we poor ignorant rabble can't very well save ourselves, can we?).  Superman, in contrast, was raised on a farm and works a 9-to-5 job.  As Clark Kent, he is a schlub.  He may be something above us on a genetic level, but in his heart and mind he is one of us, or at least wants to be.  No other culture would have bothered adding this element to the legend...they'd have stopped with the cape, the strength and the flying and never added the "weak alter-ego" bit.

In a way, I guess he might have been invented -- with serious variations -- in the Soviet Union as a champion of the Proletariat, but even that seems unlikely since he represents the ability of the individual to outshine his contemporaries.  

Another thing about superheroes is they always know what's right, even if established authority does not.  This notion...that the common man has more sense than his government...would hardly have flown in much of the world, but it's part and parcel of the American mindset.  

As to your other questions, keep in mind Superman was not envisioned as a jingoistic "America First" character from Day One.  Like all comic heroes -- indeed like all Americans -- he got an infusion of patriotism during WWII, and that's when all the eagles and flags etc showed up on covers.  And when the TV show rolled around in 1951, that "American Way" bit was added (nearly 15 years after the character's debut) in part out of the mood of Eisenhower's America but equally to dodge the kind of scrutiny comics were facing in those days as "subversive" materials.  Ultimately even all the flag-waving in the opening credits didn't keep Joe McCarthy's bloodhounds from coming after Robert Shayne (Inspector Henderson) and accusing him of being a Red.  

Contrary to the opinions of a lot of writers who don't get Superman, like Frank Miller, Superman is not a government stooge and he does not get involved in political affairs (to include wars!).  And taken as a whole, the mythos does not revolve around themes of patriotism or jingoism.

You ask if persons in other cultures have other ideas of truth and justice.  Maybe and maybe not.  If a man is accused of a crime he didn't commit, then he will want someone to fight for the truth.  If he is hurt by crime, he will want someone to provide justice for himself and his family.  It doesn't matter where you're from, those are things everyone believes in.  And those are the things Superman gets involved in, not messy and relativistic notions of what form of government is best.

If the "American Way" phrase gives you trouble, then don't think of it in terms of manifest destiny or us showing the rest of the world how to live.  Think of it like this: the American Way, if you live here, means looking out for your neighbor, showing tolerance to those who are different, doing your duty when called, and working to achieve equal justice for all.  Among other things.  We may not always live up to those standards, but they are the American Way.  

To me, this may have been best illustrated on the Superman radio show, where one storyline featured the KKK as villains -- at a time when they were still a formidable terrorist force, mind you -- and revealed their secret codes to a nation of listeners, despite threats made to the producers and sponsors of the show.  And where another storyline had Superman preventing a hate crime against a Jewish rabbi and telling his young fans:

"Remember this as long as you live: Whenever you meet up with anyone who is trying to cause trouble between people -- anyone who tries to tell you that a man can't be a good citizen because he is a Catholic or a Jew, Protestant or what you will -- you can be sure he's a rotten citizen himself and an inhuman being.  Don't ever forget that!"

That, to me, is Superman being an American.  Stand up for what you know is right, and when you see someone doing wrong, call them out.

But here's the short version:

THIS IS THE SHORT VERSION!?!?!? :shock:


These are concepts you didn't historically find in many cultures, where greatness was traditionally reserved for those born into nobility or the upper castes. The fictional heroes of these cultures were "great" from day one just by virtue of birth, and when they win battles or show courage or wit, it's always pointed out that this was due to the pure blood in their veins (translation: we'll never be as good as them no matter how we try. But another way to see it is; if they're superior by birth, ie. through no effort of their own, then how is that heroic?). Robin Hood, the Knights of the Round Table, Odysseus, Tarzan, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro and so on were all noblemen who, if they fought for the common man at all, did so out of noblesse oblige (after all, we poor ignorant rabble can't very well save ourselves, can we?). Superman, in contrast, was raised on a farm and works a 9-to-5 job. As Clark Kent, he is a schlub. He may be something above us on a genetic level, but in his heart and mind he is one of us, or at least wants to be. No other culture would have bothered adding this element to the legend...they'd have stopped with the cape, the strength and the flying and never added the "weak alter-ego" bit.

BUT THEY HAD A LOT OF HEROES IN OTHER CULTURES - GREEK GOD MYTHOLOGIES, HERCULES, DRAGONS IN CHINA, GODS FROM THE SKY INCA, ROMAN GODS, ECT...  IT "COULD" BE CONSIDERED THE SUPERMAN "ANCESTORS".


Contrary to the opinions of a lot of writers who don't get Superman, like Frank Miller, Superman is not a government stooge and he does not get involved in political affairs (to include wars!). And taken as a whole, the mythos does not revolve around themes of patriotism or jingoism.

SUPERMAN DID GET INVOLVED IN WARS, ECT UNDER SIEGEL AND SHUSTER IN THE EARLY YEARS - WHICH YOU MUST AGREE WAS HIS PUREST FORM.  

OTHER THAN THAT, I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOUR "SHORT" POST...lol...

I'm not kidding, that one was short compared to the original!

Yes, Superman got involved in "wars," but again he did it from the point of view of the common man, and not that of an American per se.  Back in issue #1, he dragged two commanding generals to the front lines, plopped them down face to face and said, basically, "You want to fight so bad, you two go at it and whoever lives, wins!" Right there in front of their men, the generals showed their cowardice and made peace.  Which is probably something every dog-face in every war in history would have loved to see happen for real!  This again, to me, is the way the "common man" views war....it's something started by politicians and generals but the ones who end up paying the price are the Joe Schmoes of the world...guys like you and me.

In other words, Superman was "involved" in that war, but he wasn't promoting any ideology other than common sense.

To your other point, yes the Incas, Romans, Greeks, et al had Gods, but you're making my point for me.  Gods are above us...beings who demand our worship if they're to do anything at all for us.  Superheroes are us, albeit us with great powers.

To a degree, they are all Superman's ancestor's.  But none of them would have been as well-recieved in America as Superman, for the reasons I gave before.

I think that those on the fringes or just outside of a society are better able to observe, dispassionately, that society--rather than those who are entirely outside (and therefore have a skewed distant opinion) or those who are entirely inside.

Siegel, son of immigrants, a working class Jew and Shuster, transplanted Canadian, also a working class Jew--were distant enough from the centre of American culture to observe it while not being entirely beyond its affects.

I'm vehemently opposed to Superman being political. There's no bigger pet peeve I have in comics than writers (and sometimes fans) portraying characters as extensions of their own beliefs. For example, I don't think Superman should ever have a political party (or political ideology) or have controversial beliefs.

Anyway, I think Superman can be compared more to "the American Dream" rather than the Unites States itself. An immigrant who comes to a new home and makes a life for himself. A person who respects both their cultures. In essense, he's a symbol of the hope that America instills in people (particularly immigrants).

Edit: Oh, and I think that the story "Superman takes on The Nazis!" accurately shows what Superman means to America and the world.

America is the last great superpower, and ever since the tail end of World War II has had a reputation as being the John Wayne of Nations, sticking up for what he believes is right, darn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. Like it or lump it you guys are the big dog right now, so it's only natural that people look to America to see what's going to happen next on the world scene.

 I agree with NotSuper on the idea of Superman being politically neutral. While these days I'd see Superman as something of a Liberal (believing in the freedom of individuals to choose the society that works best for them while living in peace with others), by and large he should represent more than just one philosophy, creed or code of a single nation. Superman is a heroic ideal, the kind of person we all secretly wish we could be, that we hope we would be if given those oppurtunities.

 Still, I think the greatest quote about Superman, as an American or an individual, has to have come from (of all people!) Garth Ennis, in his tribute to Archie Goodwin in HITMAN #34.

 In the issue, Superman comes to Gotham City to talk to Batman. He feels doubt because he let an astronaut on a NASA mission to Mars die while saving the others (he wasn't able to see the man pinned beneath a lead radiation shield until just before the reactor exploded. Superman being invulnerable, he made it). He comes across Tommy Monaghan (a telepathic hitman with X-Ray vision and the book's lead) As they talk, he voices his doubts this way:

 " Like I said, I know I can't save everyone. But I also know what I. . .what the idea of Superman means to so many people.
 
 I'm the guy who comes from the sky and helps people. If I'm on the job, everything's going to be all right. And everyone, everyone believes that. Everyone's heard of Superman.

. . .

 There he is, the all-American boy. He's been raised on the Flag, the history, mom's apple pie. . .he's been through the air force and astronaut training, he's risen to the absolute peak of human endeavor, and now he's on his way to fulfill the destiny his country has bestowed, and he's taking all those things he believes in with him.
 
 The things that he is certain of; the shot heard round the world, the Alamo, Custer's last stand, a few marines raising the stars and stripes on Iwo Jima. . .America, the greatest country on God's Earth. . .and Superman. If Superman's there to save him, he needn't be afraid.

 That's what I'm scared everyone believes. The one truth they hold above all else: " No, he can't be everywhere at once, but if he's there for me I'll be safe. "
 
But when the moment came for Colonel James M. Kennedy of the Yeager. . .Superman let him down. "

 Tommy responds:

 " An' you're really going to beat yourself up over that? You're gonna chase this ideal that you yourself know is garbage? This thing you can never live up to?

 Jeez. You're everything that's great about this country and you don't even know it.  "

 " Come again? "

 " Hey, lemme tell you the problem with America, okay?

 This could be the greatest place on Earth. It really could. You got all these different people comin' here to get away from oppression and poverty, all lookin' for a better life.

 But what do they do? They hang on to all the things that got 'em in trouble in the first place. They wanna go on fightin' the same wars an' hatin' the same people they did in the old world.

 They all wanna be Italian or Greek, or Irish or Polish or Russian or African or Vietnamese or Cambodian or whatever. . .so they hang onto alla that. They stick to their own kind, an' everyone stays suspicious of everyone else, an' for what?

 Culture? History? What the hell is that, a bunch of stuff your folks said you hadda believe in all your life? Does that make it real?

 But you, man. You showed 'em how it's done. You're the classic immigrant guy who comes to the States and joins the melting pot.

 It's like you're sayin'--okay, I'm from planet Krypton or wherever, but that's all in the past. I'm startin' over.

 I'm American. What can I do to help? "

 :)

 -Def.

I'm sorry for what was lost (because now I'll never get to read it), but hopefully you have learned your lesson and you will protect things you have written before hitting the Submit button!

True, Superman is not a government stooge, as you put it, even if he is occasionally portrayed this way. Somewhere around here India Ink and I touched on Superman breaking the law of the land because of his recognition of a higher "moral" law. I think Superman wants to obey the laws of the land, and I think he knows he is dangerously close to being a stooge. Does Superman obey the local laws when he's in the States, but not when he's in (say) Iraq? Would he happily hand over a petty thief to Saddam's police to have the thief's hand cut off with a butcher's knife? (That, after all, is the law of the land.)

So you see that Superman is law-abiding, but probably only when the laws are American. So I could come from the angle that Superman is not a champion of the law, but a champion of America. This makes him political, like it or not.

No, the "American Way" phrase gives me no trouble. I am personally glad the United States is the dominant superpower in the world. I would be very nervous if it were anyone else. I can take America as it is, warts and all, and see what a wonderfully stabilising and positive force it is. Too many Americans now, when discussing their country, start off with an apology.

Great thread guys!

:s:

Sure you could argue it, but I'm not buying.

I look at it this way:  Superman has his own internal sense of right and wrong, which inevitably (albeit rarely, in established canon) comes into conflict with "laws" as written and enforced by governments.  And that includes the US government.  After all, justice and law are not at all the same thing.  Superman works for justice, even when that means breaking the law (though in fairness that happens to him a lot less than, say, Batman, for whom breaking and entering, assault, etc are routine exercises).

The difference is that Superman butts heads with the law much less often in America than he would almost anywhere else in the world.  We may argue endlessly about whether our laws are as fair as they should be, but that's something else entirely from countries whose laws are obviously, patently unfair on their face.  For example, if Saddam had a law that whosoever speaks out against Saddam shall have his tongue cut out, well sure that's a "valid" law in the sense that a recognized government decreed it and will enforce it, but it's a law Superman's not going to feel too warm and fuzzy about.

Short version:  if Superman goes against the laws of Iraq or some other totalitarian regime, does that mean he's doing the work of America? No.  It just means he's standing up for his own beliefs, and for the rights of the little guy.  He'd do the same thing in America, and has in fact done so at times.

The fact that he has to do it so rarely here in the States may explain why he chooses to live here and not somewhere else!

I could easily see Superman breaking the law of ANY country to do the right thing. Personally, I would consider justice to supersede the law. Having said that, I don't think Superman would go around breaking laws and enforcing his will on humans: he's not a fascist. I would think that Superman's view of law would actually come from Krypton, rather than America (if we're talking pre-Crisis). Is Superman a champion of America? You bet. His main interests are usually devoted to America. Yet he's also a champion of the world.

I don't think this makes Superman "political." If anything, Earth politics shouldn't matter too much to him (unless lives are at risk). Politics are filled with trivialities and people who care more about their side winning than doing what is right. Superman does the right thing no matter what.

Good point.

Your arguments about Superman personifying America are all good - i agree with them.

BUT, I do NOT believe that the American way, and truth and justice, are wholly compatible. The American Dream would be better than the American Way, and it is this that worries me.

With President Bush's recent attack on Labor (and Opposition) Leader Mark Latham on behalf of John Howard (our snobby, snivvelish little weasel of a Prime Minister) gives me the impression that America is trying to interfere where it should not. The response here has been the opposite of what Howard wanted, with Latham getting an enourmous amount of support from the people. And his restraint in his reply demonstrated what SHOULD be done. If Superman goes into another country, and breaks one of their laws, just because he thinks that his ideals are better, is still no excuse. He must still be heard accountable for his crimes, and even in America, in the comics, he hits crooks so hard they could probably act as witnesses for assault or excessive force charges.

And if he represents the American Way, he does not really represent democracy either. You Americans have your own aristocracy, its the top 5 - 10% of the population who own 95% of the wealth. You essentially elect your monarch. And you censor what you don't want the people to hear (please read Fahrenheit 451 if you want an American's view on censorship). Personally, communism is probably something America should really look at. The basic idea of communism is so blatently compatable with the declaration of Independance and the American Constitution that its almost inconcievable how America would ban communists. Russian communism was perverted by Stalin, but the basic idea of Karl Marx challenged the rich Americans, who decided that it would be in their interests, and hence the nation's interests, to give communism the boot.

Another thing that worries me is the neo-conservatives in the White House. I read an article earlier this week about how the neo-cons want America to become so powerful that no coalition of powers could ever challenge the US. If Superman wants to defend the people who would take over the world and rule it, preaching one thing and then violating their own preachings, then he should take a very good look at himself.

The American Way is what worries me: American justice is not the same as justice elsewhere, as you still want people to get the death penalty, even though 'many that lived deserved death, and some that died deserved life.' American truth... dear God! What a farce! American truth is there to inspire patriotism. In October 2002, 200-odd people were killed while holidaying in Bali. The Americans only heard about the two Americans that were killed. It took a whole year for the Americans to learn that another 200 odd Australians, New Zealanders, English, Balinese, etc people had also died. So much for a wholemeal truth.

And the American way. interfering with other nations affairs, dabbling in thins that should be best left for another time. Like hell i'd defend it!

But the American Dream - now there's something I am not so concerned about. I know I have absolutely drilled America's ways, but this is my view.

So some questions for you - Would Superman protect someone who had broken an American law, but was not an Americna citizen? Would Superman protect an American who broke the law of another sovreign state? Does Superman idealise the American Dream, or the American Way? And for all of these questions, ask yourselves WHY he would or wouldn't.

You paint with a very broad brush, old son.

You enjoy the luxury of being able to denigrate your country's ally.

If the United States had your proposed policy of minding their own business, you and I would not be having this conversation. We would be mumbling platitudes in Japanese and building roads on a bowl of rice per day.

The American Dream is a simple thing - that the children of Americans will have a better way of living/life than their parents.  I am living the American Dream as is my wife and millions of Americans.  While some are not living the American Dream all Americans have the opportunity.  As for the American way of Life, liberty and the pursit of happiness it is part of the American Dream.



Get your information straight sir because the news media here - CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC all reported the Bali terrorist attack and while the dead Americans were focused on the reports of the total dead were covered and sir I learned that the day of the attack not a year later as you implied.  I wonder if you were still in your native land or were visiting in the US at the time because your information on that point was so incorrect.



I will admit we sometimes interfer where we should just stay out but how many countries look to the United States for assistance in times of need or disaster?  We are not perfect but neither is the world and terrorist attacks left unchecked will create choas even worse than we have in Iraq right now.




Depends on the writer and editor after all Superman is a fictional character.

By the way you still speak English down under and not Japanese I do believe down there don't you?

Gee falling for the ole Liberal view of the United States I see - the richest people always have more money that is a simple fact and I would like you to see it this way.  The rich own businesses which employ people and provide them a way of making their lives better.  Some of the very poeple that are employed will become part of that top 5 percent you mention - say like Bill Gates did over the past 30 years or how so many others have gotten rich.  

As for censorship - get over it the fact we talk about it means that where we both live there is freedom  and we have the right to discuss this and other items.  As for your ideas on communism - I don't think so - I like the fact that people are not all equal in life but can be elevated in status by hard work.



Okay what is the source of your article because the U.S. has gone out of its way the past to create coalitions in the Korean War, Gulf War and the Iraqi war among others and to create a military that powerful goes against everything this nation believes.  Let me ask you this after the Second World War the United States had the strongest military in the world, the atom bomb and the experience to actually use that military to conquer the world but we did not.  No one can take over the world with their military unless they are willing to destory the world and rule the devastated nuclear wasteland.  Economic control is possible but that isn't a thing the U.S. can do as long as the overwhelming majority of oil is in the hands of the OPEC nations.

If Superman were a living being he would make his own mind up based upon facts and situations that he encounters.  I think that is what we all actually do

Wellsy, I'm not in the habit of defending politicians, but I have to say I do not share your rather extreme opinion of John Howard. In fact, I quite admire your Prime Minister in a lot of ways. I think far more highly of your Prime Minister than New Zealand's. I'm afraid our present left-leaning government is quick to criticise the United States, Britain and Australia, while news clips here show our Prime Minister literally cuddling up to Jacques Chirac with inane grins all around. Our Prime Minister believes the United Nations should be in charge of world affairs, and that's a scary thought. She has her eye on a highly-ranked U.N. executive position for when she retires (or is voted out) from office here -- and she will get it. What did the U.N. ever do for New Zealand? Our politicians who currently hold power have very short memories. Who are our friends and allies in the world?... Australia, Britain and America, and Russia, to name the biggest.

John Howard is to be admired because, like Tony Blair, he was prepared to make some very hard decisions, not wholly popular with the voting public. John Howard refused to just accept the Tampa refugees, yet New Zealand's government jumped up and down and said, "We'll take them!" because that was the easy thing to do. Our government (like the French) has learned you can maintain a certain high level of popularity just by opposing something, by protesting something. The chattering multitudes will love you for it, and you don't actually have to do anything. You just have to issue statements saying you don't agree with what America, Britain and Australia are doing, yet still enjoy the protection and benefits of friendship with the big guns. Our government has the best of both worlds. The only thing is, did we forget how we came by that freedom of speech?

The courage of the Anzacs is second to none in the world, but the simple fact is Australasia is small, and sometimes guts isn't enough. I'm not saying you can't criticise a friend (after all, that's freedom of speech), but when you take that too far (like our government has and does) and our people put up anti-American posters around the cities -- well, I find that gutless and unnecessary. The younger people of my country have all but forgotten how much blood was spilled to give them what they have, so they can walk around with nose-rings and green hair and print notices saying they hate America, all the while talking on mobile phones and drawing welfare payments.

I would say to these protesters, go back a few years, move to Iraq, and put up an anti-Saddam notice and see what happens to you.

Liberal view? Bah. I consider myself to be left-leaning and I don't like communism at all. It's a failed form of goverment.

Communism may have looked good on paper (everyone's equal and no one starves! Hooray!) but in practice it was doomed from Day One.  Anyone with even a rudimentary sense of human nature could have seen the end result of a system where no advancement is ever possible for the individual...exactly what the USSR ended up with: "workers" who saw no need to put much effort into work, farmers who didn't produce many crops and a way of life without dreams.  And for all their high-handed notions of equality and the power of the proletariat, they still managed to have their own "aristocracy"...a handful of commissars who lived in mansions and drove limos while the majority of their countrymen waited in line for bread.

The "American Way" takes into account a basic human truth...and that is that people need hope if they're to keep going.  Hope that tomorrow will be better for themselves and their children.  Communism never offered that hope, that through perseverance, hard work and talent a man or woman might make something new and better out of his/her life.

It's easy for people around the world to take pot-shots at America, but as someone once said, the acid test is a simple one.  First ask yourself how many people all over the world...including your own country...have left (or fled) their homelands to begin again in the US.  Then ask how often that's worked the other way around.

ok, i began writing to all of these counter-arguments, but then i decided it was getting too long. so i'll b briefer than i was :wink:  - Aldous - howard has essentially sold australia to the US - we are described as their 'deputy', and to me this isn't a good light. this has squandered our international goodwill, as have other things (such as the children overboard scandal, the prisoner abuses in iraq, just very prevalent ones), and even his policy of mandatory detention - these ppl FLEE TERRORISM, yet we treat them like dogs. if we r to have mandatory detention, we should at least process them as quickly as possible (a hard thing to do as they don't have their id), and provide them with adequate facilities to ensure that they are not having a go at us.

in regards to the American Dream... i think its not unique to America, i think it should be the Terran Dream (cuz every1 wants a better life and more opportunities for their kids, right?). And my info on the bali bombings should be more refined - SOME people never heard about the non-americans who died - they were just too apathetic to care.

and umm... liberal is on the right of ozzie politics, labor leans towards the left.

censorship can in some cases be ok to a degree - moral issues are certainly a good reason for limited censorship. however, the scale of Fahrenheit 451, which was written in 1953 about censorship in america is what i fear.

if america is asked into the affairs of another country by that country or by another country on their behalf, then ok, america can go. an official invitation has to be considered. however, america should not be determined to go it alone. they squandered international goodwill over iraq, something only a fool would give away.

in regards to the bali bombings, i will rectify the statment: SOME americans were too apathetic to care. however, there r some things which u guys don't hear about unless u look to other national sources, which is something few working people have time to do.

and america, being the worlds last real superpower (outside of china), has an obligation to be moral and civil about all their international affairs. however, in iraq, the americans have gone in all guns blazing, without even waiting for any sort of response to diplomacy. the neo-cons wanted a war in iraq (they wanted to go to iraq in 001, but they had to go to afghanistan first). this lack of diplomacy is what worries me about america. they are the center of trade, but they are using this to hegemonously rule the world. american culture can hardly be defined as american - it has been advertised on such a large scale and sold off to other nations that it is now an international culture.

its up to the americans to determine the course of the world. to discard diplomacy is to discard the idea that we are civilised. i think we may be slipping into another modddle ages, but not of technological backwardness, but rather, moral, ethical and social decay. as the greatest influence on the world america has to take a leading role in restoring moral and ethical values, rather than desensitising us to what happens in the world.

in a way america leads, and in a way, america follows, but america CANNOT deny its resopinsibility to the world.

two things in conclusion:
1) i've taken a less agressive approach here, but my last post was written in a hurry, and i'm really too tired to be too woried about keeping a hard line.

2) i've generated debate - a good thing. hopefully, i won't need to be so aggressive to see such debate spring up (just a dash of ambiguity, and presto! ur own debate!) :D

Well, now we're back to the original topic, and we seem to be in agreement.  Superman defends and fights for the priniciples and ideals most humans cherish.  It just so happens that they were best articulated in the US Constitution and other documents.  (Whether we've always lived up to them is a fair subject for debate)





If some Americans are apathetic to events in other countries, it's not the government that's to blame, but the media.  Our news outlets today are owned by corporations who have one goal in mind...making a profit.  And the bottom line is, foreign affairs news does not bring in viewers like stories that hit closer to home.

I've seen the assassinations of foreign presidents and prime ministers get 30 seconds on the air, while stories about shark attacks in Florida or tainted meat at one McDonald's get closer to 15 or 20.  Our "news magazine" shows, 9 times out of 10, do not focus on investigative reporting or analysis of world events, but on hour-long recaps of trials (murder is a must, but rape will do in a pinch), sob stories about medical procedures gone bad or soft-news interviews with dim-witted movie stars.  The week the Abu Ghraib story broke, NBC's Dateline devoted two hour-long episodes to promoting the series finales of "Friends" and "Frasier".

Of course those things wouldn't "sell" if people weren't basically apathetic by nature, but that's true in any country.  People tend to be interested in their own family, town and country first, and everything else second.  But the job of the media should be to give us ALL the news anyway, not just pander to the lowest common denominator and prey on our basest fears.  Here's just a handful of things the media says I should have been worried about last year alone:  West Nile virus, snipers on the highway, shark attacks, lightning strikes, hurricanes, child abductions, gastric bypass surgery, the list goes on...

I might also mention that this media-fed apathy, or rather this media-encouraged focus on the self above all else, resulted in disinterest even in 9/11.  I knew quite a few high school kids who didn't even care about THAT ("oh, that was in New York...")




We and the rest of the world tried to go the route of diplomacy for TWELVE YEARS.  And got nowhere.  Diplomacy only works between civilized nations and men of their word.

If you really feel comfortable taking pretty words to your rendezvous with a mad dog, then good luck to you.  I'm taking a shotgun.

"We and the rest of the world tried to go the route of diplomacy for TWELVE YEARS. And got nowhere. Diplomacy only works between civilized nations and men of their word"

this is granted, but renweed attempts at negotiations proved to be taking too long. from what i know, bush told rumsfeld to get an iraqi war all planned out in 2001. in fact, the neo-cons wanted to go to iraq after the september 11 attacks. renewed attempts at negotiations failed, and fialing to get the desired UN resolution, the coalition of the willing decided to 'go it alone', diverting major resources from the war on terrorism into this economically fueled war (as u said nightwing, they r very concerned about making money). now the sanctions imposed after the gulf war made the iraqis dependant on saddam. having upset this balance, it is very difficult for the americans to maintain order, as basic services have taken a very long time to restore, and scandals and terrorist acts and street wars have created a growing resentment amongst iraqis. its unfortunate that lives are lost, but this is really ridiculous! more people have died after the end of the war (3 times as many, i believe) than died during the war.

i have also read about how the howard government is silencing most non-government organistaions that speak out against them by threatening to cut their funding. if this, along with howard's ignorance of other scandals, such as children overboard, the prisoner abuse scandal (having info on it before december last year), mandatory detention for kids (just how degrading it is for their mental health) and all sorts of other things have made me morally appaled to call myself an ozzie.

however, this is only my opinion, based upon what i know (if u want more information on the article, it is entitled "A hush everywhere but the letter pages" from the Sydney Morning Herald Comment section from the 5-6 June).

Well, your average American has the reputation of being the most poorly informed person (in respect of current affairs and foreign cultural matters) in the developed world, and it's probably deserved. I don't know if it can be blamed wholly on the media. People will seek out what they are interested in.

There is little doubt, I think, that far less consequential countries (like ours) have a more developed sense of how interdependent and interconnected the events of the world are, whereas Americans are narcissistic and really get off on themselves.  :wink:

Wellsy, if you are going to harp on about sinister government censorship, you better stop talking about all the things we are not supposed to know. Put another way, if you know about something, and are telling us about it, whoever is responsible for suppressing the information should be horsewhipped.

You also have a fundamental lack of understanding about the refugee problem in your own country. They are not prisoners. They have attempted to enter Australia illegally and have been stopped at the borders. They claim they are refugees. Whether or not they really are refugees (most of them are not) is a matter for the Australian government to decide. While the government is deciding, the people who have breached Australia's borders are detained, ie. they are being prevented from actually entering the country. Do not call them prisoners. They can actually turn around and leave, back to where they came from, any time they like.



I can tell.

Aldous writes:



You'll get no argument from me, there.  People in America are, on the whole, ignorant about what goes on abroad and they're happy that way.  I just sensed an insinuation in wellsy's remarks (and I may have misinterpreted them) that it's a case of our government keeping us in the dark.  On the contrary, I think it's a combination of voluntary ignorance nurtured by a media that's interested in turning a buck rather than upholding journalistic ideals.

Put it this way: if the American people can be conditioned to want multiple cars in their driveways or the most expensive shampoo on the shelf, then they could also be conditioned to give a hoot about world events.  The problem is that the media follows rather than leads.  It checks to see what we want to hear and then gives it to us.  Bored by news of foreign lands?  Confused about the legislative process?  Not to worry, here's a nice juicy story about a rich doctor who killed his young mistress.

This has backfired on them, of course.  Liberal-minded as they are, the press has tried to impugn Bush by doing stories about how much foreigners hate him.  But since they've nurtured an apathy about world events, their viewers merely respond, "Who cares what those people think, they live in some other country!"



Well, "less consequential" seems harsh, but I see where you're going.  And I'll agree in the sense that countries like yours understand that if you're going to survive and get ahead in the world, they're going to have to get along with other nations.  America is powerful enough that it doesn't have to understand or sympathize with the needs of other lands, so it doesn't bother, by and large.  Power may or may not always corrupt, but it does tend to make for a sense of self-satisfaction and complacency.  Americans don't care about world events because they don't see how it all relates to them.  9/11 changed that for a while, but already people have largely fallen back into their attitudes of indifference.

Oh, and back to the media.  It should be noted that with incidents like the Bali bombing, the press is always sure to mention how many Americans were killed (even if it's just a comparative handful).  Every time I hear that, I get the impression they're saying, "We're really sorry to have bothered you with news of foreign events, but Americans were involved, so it's not totally off-topic.  Now about that sex scandal..."

The big mistake of Bush was verbally beating up on countries that didn't support his war with Iraq--especially his traditional allies like France and Germany (and Canada--although in that case Bush simply ignored Canada, and sent his ambassador, Paul Celluci, in most un-diplomatic speech to yell at Canada within our borders, as if he were Tony Soprano addressing another wiseguy in the mob, instead of a diplomat who enjoys special status in a foreign and sovereign nation).

Even when non-traditional allies like Russia do wrong things (from the American perspective), the usual approach is to use strong, diplomatic speech (such as, "The actions of Russia are not in the best interests of the United States and its allies").  Every president knows that no matter what the current crisis he will at sometime have to talk with those traditional allies in the future.  It does him no good to stir up the American people against a country which has done so much for the United States in the past and will likely do more in the future--the concept of "Freedom Fries" is insulting!

And this week, Bush is talking with France and Germany--and their co-operation is needed in the handover of power in the Iraqi occupation.

France and Germany could just say go to hell--and who would Bush have to turn to?  Only Britain--where Tony Blair has his own problems thanks to Bush's war--and as Britain is part of the alliance its continued presence in Iraq would be seen as part of the occupation, not part of the pull-out.

Yes you need allies to go to war with (Bush should have tried harder to get some Arab states onside in the war), but you also need nations which are perceived to be neutral to broker and oversee the peace.

Bush had to know that having some countries declaring qualified neutrality in the war would allow him some wiggle room later on.  As Canada is known for its peace-keeping and diplomacy in such matters, it's probably a good thing that Canada didn't commit troops to the war (although not part of the alliance, our ships did patrol the Persian Gulf for Nato, and our boys were in Afghanistan risking their lives to hunt down terrorists--but Americans never appreciated or acknowledged such efforts).  I expect that Canada will be sending peace keeping troops to that unstable region within the next year or two--and when Canadian lives are lost, as most probably they will be, I doubt any Americans will pay any attention or care.

Bush simply beat up on those neutral countries because he knew it made him look like a big man to the American people--and diplomacy be damned.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinons whether I or anyone else agrees with them.  

The problem with the media in this nation and many other things really comes down to the fact that we are not a patient people as we once were.  The Greatest Generation of the Second World War devoted years to developing the military machine which destroyed the Japanese empire and assisted in the destruction of Hitler's Germany (I honestly believe that the Soviet Union played a larger role in the destruction of Germany than the U.S. on the battlefield).  They experienced the Great Depression and then the second world war - they scarified and worked long hard hours and believed in what they were doing  - saving the world from the evil of Hitler and the Axis Powers.  

The following generations haven't had to live through the hardships of the greatest generation and we have developed a "we want it now attitude about things (what I call the McAttitude - McDonald's fast food which is available cooked and prepared as we want it but without us doing anywork to make it).  This was best shown during the Iraqi war when the U.S. forces slowed down after days of advancing against the Iraqi forces - the media reports were that the U.S. battleplans were incorrect, that we did not have enough forces and so many other wrong things.  The fact was the U.S. was resupplying, regrouping and preparing for the final push.  

The media doesn't want to report on the news of the day they want to make news themselves and focus the attention on the negative and not on the positive.  For example we hear all the time about possible terror groups in the U.S. usually moslem in faith but where are the reports of the individuals and groups of Arab Americans who serve in the military, are doctors, fireman, policeman, teachers and others who are making a positive impact on their community and on the lives of others?

.

well alduous , i have heard that more than 90% of ppl in detention centres are deemed to be actual refugees. ur thoughts that most of them are not are based upon a load of cr@p, and despite deominising them in the media, the government really buggered themselves on this issue. for some1 who only lives a few hundred kilometers away, i thought u would have known! and the problem is twofold:
1) it takes us an extended amount of time to find out who they are
2) the facilities are so poor its a wonder they can contribute to australian society when they do come out.
so think before u speak, make sure that u actually have some fact to back up ur statements, ur opinion is based on media opinion!

India Ink, i completely agree with u. russia played a much bigger role in wwii than we think - if russia had fallen, then germany and japan would have been linked up, and the german and japanese armies could have helped each other. hence, political windbaging of states that actually help u is not good in the long term. however, its difficult to decide who is more vain - the french or the americans...

lastkryptonitehere, ur comments on how the media always ignores the positives is only too true. in australia, there have been articles that demonised the refugees (if u want to look at some1 gullible enough to believe them, aldous is ur man), and we have been alienated from our multicultural heritage. almost every nation on the planet has some sort of ethnic minority, and when bad things happen, then majority will blame it on the minority (in the early christian church, a fire in rome lead to the declaration that it was caused by christians who were from then on persecuted). it is sad that we cannot in the modern day acknowledge other cultures, its the ideas of a certain thing being good, and everything else being bad (such as being fat is bad, being big, broad and lean is good), and that is where i believe the problem lies.

No contest the French are more vain.  Period.  

As for the refugee problem in your nation I checked with a friend I work with from Australia (one year work programing ending at the end of June).  She told me about the situation and it sounds like the same problem the U.S. had in the late 1970's with the Cubans coming to America - we put them in dentention centers, some which were actually prisons and reviewed ech of their cases.  Many turned out to be criminals Castro had released and were sent here.  I don't know much about the situation down there other than what we talked about today at work and what I have read here in this forum but it doens't sound as simple as you make it to be.

The problem with refugees in the present day (especially the flotsam washing up against Australia and New Zealand) is the term itself. Its meaning has been lost. Are most of them taking refuge from political persecution or imminent political danger? No, they're not. They know they can have a better life economically by getting into Australia or New Zealand (or wherever), but they choose to circumvent the normal immigration procedures the law-abiding have to go through. They keep burning down the accomodation at the detention centres and going on hunger strikes because they know the left-wing media will pump up the pressure to have them admitted, no questions asked. They have no legitimate reason for calling themselves refugees. They want a better life for themselves and their families (and who doesn't), but this doesn't make them refugees.

Let's look at what they get and then what they do. These rabble arrive on our shores by the thousands, they are detained so their stories can be checked, and, while in detention, they repeatedly burn down everything that can catch fire, they go on hunger strikes, they smuggle children out who can then be exploited by the media, etc. Now, if the place they left behind is so terrifyingly bad, how come they aren't glad to have a roof, somewhere clean and warm to sleep, and three square meals a day? The answer is, because they are not refugees. They are immigrants, and illegal ones at that.

aldous, these people are fleeing the taliban and saddam hussein. they are looking for a better life where they CAN express their opinions and can state their voice without someone coming up to them and saying "Off with your head!" the fact that they are selling all of their possessions to get enough money to put their FAMILY (some men stay behind in refugee camps and send kids/wife/etc) into and overcrowded boat to come here for a life free of persecution. sure we have to be certain of their stories, but the least we can do is help them and give them uncrowded, fairly modern facilities. most of the detention centres are tin sheds! and being out in the desert, this makes things worse, as they can't get enough cool air into the indoor areas, resulting in heatstroke.

your thoughts on how these people are just coming for the better life is partly true. some people do come here for a better life. but did you ever consider that these people could be fleeing economic depravity, and persecution? that they might not be able to get an actual visa? do you think these people don't actually try to get in the legal way? some don't, but some do. the fact that they cram thmselves into boats that are quite likely to sink, just to come to australia or new zealand or america shows a measure of their desperation.

the economic and social security is a byproduct of being in a stable democracy. their desperation is what gives them the motivation to get out and make their way here. their desperation to get out of what they see as treatment as bad or worse than what they fled from leads them to all sorts of radical acts. the australian government is playing on the fears of the ordinary australian: that if these refugees came in, they would steal all of our jobs. they actually create jobs, as when they can't get their own job, they try to start a small business. they add to society as much as any citizen would, but we still demonise them. like i said in my last post, it is the "This good, That bad" ideology. the conservatives have painted a picture of these refugees (or asylum seekers) that demonises them. aldous, answer this: if you were locked up in Woomera, and knew would would be there for an indefinite period, what would you do? would you try to put pressure on the government to speed up the research, or sit with your hands in your pockets and wait for months, even years?

tell me your answer, and if you want to know what the circumstances are like, try 1000s of people crammed into a hot, stuffy god-forsaken hole of a detention centre with an average temperature of 30 degrees celsius, in which you are pushed around by guards, kept in poor conditions and being served by only a handful of immigration officers, having all professional and charitable advice to the government on your behalf ignored. these people, the professionals, are doing their job, but the government simply won't listen.

i really hope howard goes: at least latham will get the children out of there (and hopefully expand and upgrade the whole system while he's at it!)