Majivo wrote:
If we changed languages, yes. Do you really believe that the fact we call ourselves "Americans" is somehow indicative of a lack of national identity, and not the inconvenience of our country's name?
Changed languages? What are you talking about? The U.S could have just as easily made a term just like every other language has.
Given the fact that every other country has names for themselves, yes I believe it shows a lack of a national identity. If America was just Mexico and the U.S. (being labeled North and South America, like Korea), then you could have a point, but the Americas consist of two whole continents which includes multiple countries.
I mean, did you overlook the fact that we don't have an official language? I could potentially buy the "American" short term if it weren't for everything else.
Majivo wrote:
So acknowledging that other cultures may have valid concerns is preventing us from having a major underlying social dynamic? We're far from the only country to give a nod to these things, but I doubt you'd claim they're lacking in a national culture.
Really? Ok. So you're claiming that a U.S woman wearing a short skirt and an V-top would be equally welcomed in the middle east? That's bull. There's the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", but it doesn't apply to being in the U.S. When you travel to other countries, you adapt to their way of doing things, but when they travel to the U.S., then we decide to change our ways. It's simple, if it isn't a valid claim and you don't like it, then politely GTFO.
Majivo wrote:
"Under attack". Good, inflammatory language which is conducive to a rational, level-headed discussion. Regardless, if countries like Korea had phrases in their constitutions specifically stating that religion should not be forced into the public - and if they had the freedoms to actually act based on such language - then we'd see more of this behavior.
How ever you want to label being "Under attack" is on you. I'm not going to argue those semantics because that's not the issue. Our constitution didn't say that we couldn't speak openly about religion, it speaks against forcing people to believe and/or follow a certain belief. You know, the whole "separation of Church and State".
The bigger picture is that from my understanding there is a natural separation of church of state here in Korea. That's the point. They didn't need to FORCE change. There's different people here, with different beliefs and no one is changing "Christmas terminology" to be more inclusive because a small minority of people may celebrate something else.
Majivo wrote:
And even ignoring that, one could easily argue that such things become a part of our national identity, rather than standing opposed to it. Why is it that just because our culture is significantly different from others, it's suddenly an indicator that we don't possess a cohesive culture?
That isn't part of our "identity". You're not grasping the concept being presented to you. Let there exist a country who has a set of laws. This country can be diverse with every nationality, religion,etc and the laws do NOT have to change. Of course, people with different backgrounds will have different views aspects to things, which can possibly slightly alter existing rules and regulations, but not to the point where people are force fed how to interact with people.
Majivo wrote:
And what, prithee, is that? Do we stand for a xenophobic refusal to acknowledge that other cultures have some things that they do better, and a subsequent denial of the possibility that we should be mimicking them? Are we defined by a national stubbornness that doesn't allow any possibility except that we are superior at all things, and that any shift in our culture signifies decline? You say that some things like civil rights were necessary, but don't allow any definition for what other things might be necessary. Is it a moral basis? If so, do you believe that we're morally sound, with no room to improve? Are you willing to admit that other countries are, on a case-by-case basis, more open and accepting than we are?
If you really do believe all that, then Ugly was right, we should just call ourselves ******** and be done with it.
I don't know what dimension you live in, but I travel to different countries, I'm posting from a foreign country now in route to another foreign country shortly later and each country has their way of doing business. I've never ever heard of any other country behaving in the manner which you are speaking outside the U.S.
I'm not arguing against change or using other people ways of doing things, but stuff has to be rationalized. If you want to behave like other countries, then why not fully adopt the metric system like the rest of the freakin world? How about using 220 power outlets, E1 internet, etc instead of this hybrid crap that we have in the U.S. Those are the things that we should change.
If someone is "offended" because our motto is "In God We Trust", then they should STFU. That's part of having tradition. If you change stuff every so many years because some people didn't like it, then sooner or later, there will be nothing left remaining from the original.
You're overlooking the main concern, you CAN'T please everyone, so the belief of changing till a melting pot of people will be satisfied is just foolish. No matter what change you make to any policy, someone will complain. So, how do you determine who has more weight? The trend is "who ever makes the complaint has more weight", but that doesn't make sense because once you make the change, it could just end back up where it started. That is why it's important to just create an identity to say "The U.S. believes in x,y and z".If you don't like it, cool, we'll hear your concerns but not make any promises.
tl:dr: Simply being offended doesn't justify a change.
