hey would hate whoever was in power unless it was they themselves.
I have to agree with this. Generally, power will be resisted, unless it is totally benevolent. Like you stated:
I could name several that would make Hitler look reasonable (The Trail of Tears comes to mind as well as the official government policy of handing out small pox infected ((that is deliberately infected)) blankets to the native tribes under the Indian reservation act.
This simply reflects that any nation can commit atrocities, despite the ideals it is built upon.
We did not so much “take it” as we were the only ones still standing and it was entrusted to us.
This is partially true. The United States served an (if not the) instrumental role in rebuilding much of the world after WWII. However, like I stated earlier, these debts now cause the policies of many nations to adhere to standards put forth by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank to attract investment and build 'economic growth.' Unfortunately, this growth rarely benefits the people of such nations.
I disagree with you on this point; it is a result of people deciding we deserve it, for as soon as the world decides otherwise America will be in a permanent decline.
A gradual decline is all that could happen, but as it stands, powerful people within the United States would ensure their ability to remain economically dominant. It would be a long, slow, hard battle, and the US military is willing to fight for this dominance. We've all heard that the Iraqi war is really about oil, and really, that is a major factor in the invasion. Refer to the economic 'changes' made in Iraq after the invasion:
1. Suspending all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, or licensing fees on goods and services entering or leaving Iraq.
2. Granting full immunity from Iraqi law to all security firms brought to work in Iraq.
3. Privatizing some 200 state-owned enterprises, permitting 100 percent foreign-ownership of Iraqi businesses.
4. Allowing investors to take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country with no requirement that the profits be reinvested.
5. Prohibiting any requirement that foreign companies hire local workers, recognize unions, or reinvest any profits back into the country.
6. Allowing foreign banks to open in Iraq and take a 50 percent interest in Iraqi banks.
7. Lowering the corporate tax rate from 40 percent to a flat 15 percent.
(Robbins 2008, 132).
This information is quoted from Richard H. Robbins' text,
Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism published by Pearson Education in 2008.
These changes are a blatant sign of the intentions behind the Iraqi war.
People do not care, you are correct, that is why there are so many goods sold in America that are made by slave labor. The goods are often labeled correctly with the information easily seen and yet still, they buy the goods, I am referring to my prior statement that communism is the equivalent of slavery, so anything made in a communist country is therefore, by definition, made by slave labor.
Communist nations (other than China, which is a different sort of Communism than the Soviet Union was) do not really have the same materialistic focus that capitalist nations do. There are much fewer 'products' offered, and most exported materials are raw materials, etc.
I beg to differ with you on the title of “American-owned” but do not have the information to contradict this so I will concede this point as I do know it is at least in part correct.
This is a tricky one. Many things that are manufactured do not appear to be 'American made' but really the profits end up in American pockets. What I mean is this: "The economic resources available to corporations rival those available to most countries. Thus, of the top one hundred financial entities in the world, over half are corporations..." (Robbins 2008, 133). The number one spot on this list belongs to the United States, second to Japan, etc. General Motors is the first corporation on the list, at number 25. It has more revenue available than Hong Kong, Poland, Norway, Saudi Arabia, etc. Wal-Mart is number 27, and as well has greater revenue than Iran, Finland, Greece, etc. There are a large number of corporations on this list (like the quote said), and the vast majority are American-owned. IBM is a measly number 55, and it has greater revenue than Egypt, New Zealand and Ireland.
With such an incredible amount of wealth comes incredible power, greater than that of any army. This dominance will not be easily overthrown, because people simply aren't aware of the incredible power that these institutions have.
When I speak of Ethnocentrisim, I am referring to your cultural identity - IE: American, Western, whichever. Your original post seemed to have an air of this, though perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant by 'bestowed.' However, I think that the issues that we are talking about are FAR more complex than many people believe. I am simply fortunate enough to have studied these exact issues for a number of years.
within this country most people do not have any sense of entitlement
I think you are right, that most people don't really have a sense of entitlement, or at least would like to think they don't. However, the capitalist mode of though (the strongest, smartest, and hardest working succeed) runs rampant, and it is only partially true. What I am referring to is the general ignorance that so many Americans tend to have about the rest of the world. Like I have said many times, this does not apply to ALL Americans. However, there is certainly a significant percentage that truly believe (even if not consciously so) that America is the most important nation in the world and that civilization would collapse without it. Anyone who does a little research into the history of mankind will recognize that this isn't true. Of course, our world as we know it would certainly not function like it does if the US were to drop off the face of the earth, but civilization would survive. There would be both great people to replace the great people of America, and terrible people to commit the same atrocities committed by Americans, though under a different name.
I refer back to your statement concerning ethnocentrism. My comments concerning your credentials were directed toward your statement concerning ethnocentrism.
To clarify - I don't believe it's about who you know, or have encountered, but what you have learned from them.
I am grateful that people such as yourself are out there doing what you do
Thank you - I am glad to end this on a positive note.
I believe that perhaps I misinterpreted your tone in your original post, but I certainly am aprehensive when reading an American's response about the future of America and it's position in the world. Too many conversations with haughty Americans have left a bad taste in my mouth, but like I said, these issues (and the factors infuencing the future of America) are extremely complex, and impossible to truly predict. I think the only thing we can rely on is what we have learned from the past, and that is that those with the money hold the power - and often for a long time. As long as corporations are predominantly American owned, and they continue to hold the immense power that they do, we will not see America decline as a world power too soon - though it may look different in the future. Hopefully more corporations can take a socially responsible role.
