| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Americans will die for liberty |
| 2006-08-12 |
| by Andrew Gimson, London Telegraph . . . We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers. The sense of entering an older country, and one with a sterner sense of purpose than is found among the flippant and inconstant Europeans, can be enjoyed even before one gets off the plane. On the immigration forms that one has to fill in, one is asked: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude?" Who now would dare to pose such a question in Europe? The very word "turpitude" brings a smile, almost a sneer, to our lips. The quiet solicitude that Americans show for the comfort of their visitors, and the tact with which they make one feel at home, can only be described as gentlemanly. These graceful manners, so often overlooked by brash European tourists, whisper the last enchantments of an earlier and more dignified age, when liberty was not confused with licence. But lest these impressions of the United States seem unduly favourable, it should be added that the Americans have not remained in happy possession of their free constitution without cost. Thomas Jefferson warned that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature. We went to the fine new museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, devoted to the American Civil War. It was the bloodiest war in American history. Americans slaughtered Americans in terrible numbers before the North prevailed. You can look up the names of soldiers on a computer, and I found to my slight surprise that a man called Joseph Gimson served on the Union side as a private in the 37th Regiment of Coloured Infantry, and was "severely and dangerously wounded" in the battle of Northeast Station on February 22, 1865. We stood at Gettysburg, scene of the bloodiest battle of all, on a field covered with memorials to the fallen. Here Abraham Lincoln gave his great and sublimely brief address, ending with the hope "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Again some Europeans will give an unkind smile. All this sounds so Puritan, so naïve and so self-righteous. We cannot help feeling that the Americans ought to have been able to settle their quarrel without killing each other, and, while we cannot defend the institution of slavery, we wonder whether the North had the right to impose its will by force. These are vain quibbles. The North went to war and was victorious. The Americans are prepared to use force in pursuit of what they regard as noble aims. It is yet another respect in which they are rather old-fashioned. They are patriots who venerate their nation and their flag. . . . The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds. But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say. These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #14 God bless the USA. The worlds last hope. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-12 22:42 |
| #13 Better to die for liberty than to live in |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-08-12 20:40 |
| #12 I am so pleased to see that article from the Telegraph. He obviously gets it - good man Mr Gimson! |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-12 19:08 |
| #11 Americans shall die for liberty. Yep. :< |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-12 18:55 |
| #10 think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for By God Andrew you got it! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-12 15:17 |
| #9 Ok, I appreciate the article and the comments, but when I read the title, I became immensely sad, because I read it not as being descriptive of americans as a whole (Americans would die for Liberty), but instead predictive of the future: Americans shall die for liberty. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-08-12 12:11 |
| #8 It can be said that philosophically, most of America is optimistic and realistic; whereas Europe is pessimistic and realistic. Our common ground, realism, means that neither of us claim to be a sacred people whose founders were gods; we do not seek perfection on Earth, and we look with cynicism on those who do; and that we prefer the clarity of the here and now to a mythical future or past where all our dreams come true, or when everything was perfect. Even our idealists are grounded. Americans can look out over a patch of nasty, harsh desert and imagine there a New Jerusalem. Just needs some wallpaper and a few throw pillows and there you are. Call it the idealism of low expectations. Optimism and Pessimism are where we differ. Europeans have had 1500 years to burn almost every drop of optimism out of them. Endless times, some optimist would lead them forward only to be bitterly stomped out. Their philosophy in their daily lives has become: "Things will go on like this for years and years, and then get worse." For them, happy endings, even in a movie, are just painful reminders of all the times when there hasn't been a happy ending. Americans, for the most part, are all about happy endings. We insist on them. We refuse and reject losing, seeing it only as having missed an opportunity to turn a loss into a win. Better luck next time. Every cloud has a silver lining. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. And a hundred other such homilies. Add on to that the revolutionary spirit. Americans, again for the most part, truly believe in their revolution. They want to share the wealth, the idea that if people get real democracy, they will be better off no matter where they live. Plus, they strongly distrust anyone who isn't a democrat. Among our presidents, those who are remembered most favorably are first those that protect democracy and attack tyranny, and then those that spread democracy. We hold the idea that though we would prefer to live and let live with other peoples, we can no longer afford to be isolationistic. That non-democrats anywhere, left to their own devices, will make trouble in the world. And this is our biggest pride. That we are not content to profit from non-democrats just because we can, supporting their status quo; but that we always demand that they do something in pursuit of democracy and freedom, no matter how small. We do not profit directly from this, which befuddles other democracies less inclined to interfere, less willing to spread the revolution. But it is our crown jewel. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-08-12 11:30 |
| #7 Shoot back first. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-08-12 09:59 |
| #6 6: Yep, the difference between Sgt. York and Sen. McCain. I'm no McCain fan (although I would vote for him over any Democratic candidate, including Lieberman), but McCain flew over North Vietnam when LBJ was president, meaning that the rules of engagement against anti-aircraft batteries was no firing until fired upon. I don't think Alvin York had to worry about waiting for bullets to fly by him before he was allowed to shoot back. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-12 09:46 |
| #5 The idea of warfare is not for you to die for your country. It is to make the other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his." Yep, the difference between Sgt. York and Sen. McCain. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-12 06:46 |
| #4 As Patton said : "The idea of warfare is not for you to die for your country. It is to make the other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his." |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-08-12 04:36 |
| #3 I agree, however, even better would be making the enemy sumfabitch die for his country/creed (with ample distance--he may be a splodey). |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-08-12 03:28 |
| #2 By God, he gets it. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-08-12 02:14 |
| #1 "To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature." Well, let's hope so. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-08-12 00:28 |