A NEW AMERICAN PARADIGM IS UPON US, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. (I, FOR ONE, LIKE THE IDEA....)
In today's (September 12, 2008) edition of the Times (of London), Justin Webb, who happens to be the BBC's North America Editor, argues that American social conservatism is on the wane, and both naturally and irreversibly so. This, he argues, is because the idea of overarching social conservatism--and its various accompanying social meta-agendas--has clashed one too many times with governmental conservatism, which suggests that any massive expansion of the powers of government is anathema to a properly-functioning society. He ultimately suggests that these two very different conservative forces, who had combined for so long to win Republicans congressional and presidential elections (and may yet do so again this time around), have finally decided that their differences are irreconcilable. The only question is when exactly the divorce will be recognized at the national level.
Mr. Webb is an interesting journalist. He has, for instance, clashed with his bosses at the BBC on a number of occasions for what he has perceived to be ingrained anti-Americanism at that powerful news agency. Though Mr. Webb certainly hasn't endorsed everything the American government has endorsed, he nonetheless has pointed out on a number of occasions that too many European news agencies view the United States through a cliche'-filled kaleidoscope. Though some of those cliches are indeed grounded in a certain amount of truth, the United States, which is filled with over three-hundred million people spread-out over an entire continent, cannot be socially and/or politically encapsulated in a few trademarked, culturally-motivated offhanded remarks.
Now, before we all start waving the stars-and-stripes and singing "America The Beautiful," let's please remember what I am reminded of often when someone here in the U.S. meets Mrs. Hasslington for the first time, hears her accent, and proceeds to rather lamely articulate another in a long line of British cliches.' What comes to mind during those instances is that one of the biggest problems in this world, both at home and abroad, is the often dangerous power of culturally-motivated, intellectually lazy stereotypes. Given our relative cultural ubiquity (in some though certainly not all ways), we struggle mightily with this situation here in the U.S., to be sure. But so too do many other folks elsewhere in the world, and we ought to keep that in mind in order to retain a sense of perspective on the issue. This is not to suggest that it's "okay" to be culturally lazy--far from it, in fact. Instead, I mean to suggest that we all have a lot to consider, no matter where we're from, or where we've been. It's a struggle, but in one important sense it's one we're all in together.
Here are three snippets from Mr. Webb's article, with the link to full article appearing below these snippets:
Snippet One:
"It doesn't matter who wins! Seriously, guys, America is about to become, once again, the coolest place on earth.
"An era is ending. If you still think the US is home to all that is fatty and unwholesome and militaristic and cloth-eared and generally low-grade, and not much else, it may be time to give the Yanks another chance.
"Politically, socially, culturally, America is--as we watch transfixed and, in spite of ourselves, impressed--being born again...."
Snippet Two:
"...Nothing the voters decide this November will change this dynamic. Not even the fantastic Mrs. Palin--the Iron Lady of Alaska--who is on the Republican ticket to serve a purpose but not, frankly, to serve in office. Mrs. Palin's views are certainly of the hard-line Religious Right but the party is not intending that they become policy and the party would be destroyed if they did.
"The idea (which Mrs. Palin backs) that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest was tried out on the people of South Dakota recently. South Dakota is no friend of abortion but even these conservative voters nixed the plan.
"No, America is changing and a new era is beginning: a post-Reagan era in which social conservatism (galvanizing Republicans and terrifying Democrats) is replaced as the driving force in U.S. politics by...well, we don't know [yet]...."
Snippet Three:
"Americans hunger for mobile phone networks that work. For rapid transport that whizzes. For bridges that don't fall down. They do not hunger for government but they do hunger for efficiency, for a governing infrastructure that serves a modern economy; for a health system that delivers medicine without bankrupting companies and individuals. Both John McCain and Barack Obama know this. Each is under pressure to deliver.
"America is imperfect. It has no divine right to be the world's leading nation. And yet--in this glorious political year--something about it sings.
"And as the American Olympic team reminded us when we looked at it and wondered at is multicolour, multi-ethnic vibrancy (more than thirty members were born abroad), this nation is ours. There is nothing wrong in wishing it well."
The text of the full article can be found at the following address:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4735147.ece
"TAKE ME OUT TO THE (BRITISH) BALL GAME, TAKE ME OUT WITH THE (ENGLISH) CROWD...."
English lawyer William Bray, who lived during the 1700s and early 1800s, kept a diary. It's lucky for baseball fans and (especially) people who, like me, love baseball history that he did so. Though still in the final stages of authentication, it seems increasingly the case that he referred to the American pastime of "Base Ball" (as he put it) way back in...1755, a full twenty-one years prior to the U.S. becoming a country. And the "Base Ball" game to which he referred, and in which he played, took place in his native England. (The first competitive American baseball game took place in the 1840s, with the first American professional team playing in 1869.)
The famous English author Jane Austen also referred to the sport around the year 1800, and, as more information is being unearthed (sometimes literally) as each year passes, more and more evidence points to the theory that baseball, which in many respects derived from cricket (and perhaps rounders), was conceived and developed in England, and it was developed in no small part as its own, stand-alone sport.
Now, it's of course the case that baseball was "perfected" (as it were) in the United States, and it is here in the U.S. where its history is so rich and storied. As such, it will always be a very American sport first and foremost. (It will also always be my favorite sport, with ice hockey coming in at second place. Baseball and ice hockey--it seems that no matter where I travel and/or live, I cannot shake my Minnesotan roots. But, I don't want to, either.)
I'm reminded of what a superb English professor once told me about Shakespeare's plays. "The brilliance of Shakespeare," he said, "was in interpretation, re-invention, and perfection. It was not in conception, as his best plays were often based on existing stories by other writers. He simply made those stories his own by making them much, much better than they were before. He's the greatest writer of all time, but the irony is that he became the greatest writer because other people wrote the mediocre rough drafts of many of his greatest plays before he perfected them."
It has long since been my opinion, backed increasingly by historical evidence, that the United States did not conceive of baseball. But we interpreted, re-invented, and perfected it. As far as I'm concerned, as baseball continues to spread throughout the world, it will always be an American sport. And, lest my many British friends get snooty about it (I doubt they will, but just in case they're tempted to do so), I'd like to point out that the Chinese are finding historical evidence of their own that golf is not British in origin, but rather Chinese. Then again, the British (and, it seems, specifically the Scottish) certainly interpreted, re-invented, and perfected golf. So....
An article describing this baseball scenario can be found at Sports Illustrated's web-site, and specifically at the following address:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/09/11/baseball.england.ap/index.html
PRIMARY DAY YIELDS A CORNUCOPIA OF FUN NAMES
This past Tuesday was primary day in many states throughout the country, during which some final selections were made regarding who would officially represent their party in some of the forthcoming elections to be held the first week in November. Reading the full list of candidates in one of the local (Twin Cities) papers, and seeing a few of them on my ballot on Tuesday, I was struck with the thought that my name is fine but hardly exciting, and so are most other people's names.
There were, however, several names on my ballot--and several more names in the paper, which means they were on ballots elsewhere in the metro area--that did not fit this middle-of-the-road pattern. I hope my readers take this in the spirit in which it is intended--which is to say one of fun, not of mockery--as I now present to you some of the more interesting names of Twin Cities candidates from primary day. (Perhaps these names serve to show the variety of thought that Justin Webb suggests does indeed exist in the United States?...)
Here they are, in no particular order:
--Richard Rich Bloodgood. (Apparently, he enjoys stressing wealth and pedigree.)
--John Santa Hollander. (He lost his primary; no gifts for you today, Mr. Hollander.)
--Ole Savior. (Norwegian messiah?)
--Priscilla Lord Faris. (Evidently not "Priscilla, Lord Faris" as in "Alfred, Lord Tennyson.")
--Randy Johnson. (I take it this is not the famous baseball pitcher. The other interpretation of this name is rude, but funny.)
--Tony Bennett. (He's still got it, folks--he left his heart in San Fran, but he won his Twin Cities primary!)
--Brian Beany Drews. (I don't know what to say about this name, exactly, except that it seemed to belong on this list.)
--John Booth. (Not surprisingly, he didn't feel as though he needed to provide his middle name....)
--Heidi L. Huckleberry. (Ol' Sam Clemens is smiling contentedly....)
--Bobby Joe Champion. (Didn't he lose to Stallone in one of those Rocky films?)
--Gail Chang Bohr. (Lots of right and left turns in that name.)
--Augustine Willie Dominguez. (Somehow, that's a really cool name.)
--Lucky "Tiger Jack" Rosenbloom. (If you think his name is interesting, you should see him interviewed....)
--Tim Lies. (Oddly, his opponent won rather handily on primary day.)
And here's my personal favorite:
--Nicole M. Infinity. ("I hear she's the perfect politician--she promises everything to everyone....")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment