Welcome to Gaia! ::

In North America there seems to be a time limit to how long you can mourn. It's understandable to be upset for a few weeks. It's ok to be sad for a few months. By a year you should only get sad once in a while. Over a year you should quit whining. That's what I've noticed anyways. Other cultures are more brave about mourning and understand that people mourn in different ways and that people mourn for longer or shorter lengths of time.

Well yes, America is like that, but I thought you were talking about us being all "Don't mourn at all! Grr!"

But don't you think after a year it's time to get over it?

Well, I don't cry everyday like I did right after he died, but there are still things that really get to me. Like when I realized he wasn't going to be at my wedding. Everytime I re-realize that he's never going to see my kids, or help me string me guitar, or see any of the stuff I do.

This is not really a disagreement, but I'm pointing out some other things that you may not want to ignore.

If you want to wipe out the national border mentality, you'll have to swipe away with that the 500 years that tie this so deeply into our consciences. Considering that this movement toward nationalism is what helped to inspire the ideas behind the body politic that led to the revolutions against the monarchy and the founding of democracy, you'd be hard-pressed to wipe this concept out without taking a lot of good things with it.

It is phasing out, to be sure. Nationalism is making a strong revival thanks to the arrival of the neo-conservatives, but this is at best a waning effort. It will last far less than Reagan's revival of the same, and so on with the next time it comes up. You'll see it a lot more in the underdeveloped world, where it will survive far longer, but eventually the rest of the world will come around. Nationalism is bound to go the way of the monarchy, in the end.

As for America being self-important, Canada would be, too, if it were at all important. In terms of capacity, it is one of the weakest of the developed countries. This said, it will tend to align with the mentality of the Third World in most circumstances. This is the sort of complacent American-ally-when-it's-convenient-but-opposer-when-we-want-other-countries-to-like-us mindset that makes it so damn difficult to respect as an international actor. Sure, America has been an a** to the world since Bush has been in office, but most of the rest of the world needs some smacking around of its own. Beginning with France (a country that I very much love, especially since I learned my family is partly from there).

It's a shame that America is so easily criticized for all of this. While the U.S. may not be making the best decisions, it is among the only countries in the world that are actually doing something to combat this situation. Its plan is not the best, but it's better than the do-nothing-and-let-it-cool-off way other countries have chosen to deal with the problem of terrorism. America's comments cannot be taken out of context. The UK is one of the U.S.'s staunchest allies in the war on terror. The American who spoke is a diplomat speaking to the American people, just like the Canadian diplomat was speaking to the Canadian people. We're all sad that British citizens are dead, but we're more concerned about our own families.

If you think this is a poor way to think, consider this: If my mother died, would this affect you the same way that your own parents' deaths would? Certainly my life would be permanently affected, and I'd be in mourning for some time. Should you feel the same way that I do? Should I expect you to?

We care more about those closer to us. This is not merely a fact; it is a necessity.

To be fair, you didn't. I condensed everyone's views and responded collectively.


Well, that's not to say that it isn't wrong. I'm only saying it's important, but it is certainly also about as harmful (national socialism) as it is good (social reform). It could be wrong--some of my favorite authors have certain argued as much--but the value judgment is another issue entirely.


As a cosmopolitan, I find it troubling that it is so, but I definitely concern myself more with American lives than I do with those of other citizens. As a body of citizens of a democratic country, the decisions we make affect our citizens most intimately. We take care of our own poor because we believe we should. Rauls argues that this has to do with a curtain of ignorance that allows us to imagine what condition we might be in if we were in another citizen's shoes, so we enact social programs to protect ourselves, in a way. In general, we hold that countries should take care of their own people; that is supposed to be the role of the national government. That is why Canada concerns itself with Canadians, America with Americans, and, hopefully, the British will be caring for its bereaved.

This is difficult because, if we take pains to care for our own, and we fail (e.g. we still have ghettos and starving poor in the U.S.), why should we pool our resources to care for the poor in countries that do not use their resources as they should (or as we believe they should)? If you can resolve this major question, then you will have done something that not even Kant managed effectively to do.

Sucks, but the problems are many and the solutions scarce. sad

Not at all cold. You're a better cosmopolitan than I am. I do love the U.S., a lot. Visiting other countries in four continents has made me a huge fan of this one.

Quoted for emphasis.

As much as we hate talking about ourselves most of the time, Nios, it's necessary sometimes. I think we talked about this before, I tend to exaggerate things too. But when you really examine what you've said, there's usually no denying whether or not it is an actual exaggeration. It seems like it's more a matter of you needing to make a decision on what your own feelings are, and make them clear to Will.

Good luck.

It's 37 now. sad

I see what you mean about feeling sympathetic to complete strangers, Canadian or not. Maybe it's a typical Canadian view, that we need to keep up that national identity as being "friendly," "environmental," "socially-progressive," and the "peacekeepers." We've taken them so literally, that it seems that there is a neverending line of causes for us to take up. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we tend to bite off more than we can chew.

I don't really know where I should be saying this, but my name's getting tossed around a lot in your crew type discussions and it's starting to freak me out a little. Yeah, I know I'm not in trouble, but it still makes me nervous as hell for some reason. Is there anyone else you guys could use as an example?