Collective Guilt and Pride(And their inappropriate usage)

[Tekania]

It's little different that all the people who refer to the acts of their favorite sports team as a "we".

[Zersium]

Also note that this rarely happens with events perceived as negative/bad/immoral.

Have you ever seen an American citizen going "We commited mass murder on innocent Vietnamese citizens", "We bombed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory", "We tortured innocent citizens in Guantánamo Bay" or "We Germans feel guilty for we commited the holocaust" or "We British razed Dresden to the ground, killing tenthousands of innocent civilians"?

"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." --JFK, another great American.

How about...

"I will not say i'm American. I'm Allied." - Eisenhower. Awesomest quote by an American ever.

[Cosmopoles]

I'm also enraged by people using words correctly.

[Tosmaldevo]

Only if you helped contribute in inventing the automobile.

Just because you are part of a familly that of which 1 or more members won a a noble prize does not mean you are entitled to claim you won the noble prize.

Just because you are a part of a team of which some of its members were part of a team that invented the automobile does not mean you are entitled to claim you invented to automobile(you weren't there, you didn't contribute to it).

Which is absolutely hypocrite beyond words, see my previous post.

So lets say if the American president does something good or some group that is American then you experience colective pride.

But if not it is simply the work of individuals? Pathetic and pretty cowardly if you ask me.

It is the work of individuals whom you share a common identity (i.e. American nationality) whose actions you support; hence, you are proud of these individual actions and recognising the effect of these actions upon your nation, take pride in them for their positive effect.

Why do you claim to have won wars you never participated in yet alone were there to see them and claim you invented things when you don't even know what they are but do not have the courage to claim responsibility for genocides, human rights violations, acts of war rape ande etc.?

See the image.

Red herring. Do not come to me and claim to be part of all the "good" things of your country and what its citizens have accomplished in the past but then go claim that the bad things are merely the work of individuals.

If you claim Collective Pride but not Collective Guilt then that simply makes you a coward and a hypocrite.

You take personal responsibility for the good stuff, but when the fecal matter collides with the ventilator you blame others.

>implying I take pride in all the 'good' things the UK has done.
>Implying I blame others for bad things.
>implying
>implying
>etc.

[Vetalia]

How about...

"I will not say i'm American. I'm Allied." - Eisenhower. Awesomest quote by an American ever.

Pretty much our best President.

[Volnotova]

I think it is utterly asinine that you can't understand the use of the English language.

It is asinine that I find it hypocrite and cowardly to claim to be entitled to the good stuff while saying bad stuff is merely the work of individuals.

It is about the hypocrisy here, claming to have won war and invented great things but not taking responsibility for genocides and human rights violations.

Even more when you go around claiming that you won the war with other war veterans and kicked the asses of those German/Italians/Japense/Romanians/Etc. while you have never fired a gun let alone seen a battlefield(not even to speak of the fact you weren't even born back then).

Why would I say that? The United States didn't collectively invent the automobile. I could maybe say the Model T was an American invention in the sense that it was an American who developed it, but I don't use "we" when referring to it...let alone the automobile itself, which IIRC was first developed in Germany.

Yet you claim to be entitled to claim to have invented those things(And yes, I know that the Automobile in its modern form originated in Germany).

You claimed that being part of a group entitles you to the achievements of that group, regardless if you contributed to them or not; which I argue is absolutely ridiculous beyond words(and I hope you realise that too and realised that from the first place).

That's pedantic and pointless. "We" refers just as collectively to the Allied powers as it does to any individual nation.

And you weren't part of those Allied Powers because you weren't even born back then.

I don't see that very often, but I can *guarantee* you it happens everywhere...regardless, even so, claiming "we" invented something or other is in reference to the conditions that allowed that innovation to occur, namely the government and society that enabled innovative individuals to reach their full potential and contribute to society.

And you weren't part of that society, and even if you were you barely if not at all contributed to it. So it is asinine to argue you won the war.

You can argue the US won WWII, but you cannot claim to have been part of the war effort, neither that you won the war.

Well, no, because Americans don't condone those actions. That being said, the Germans DO feel guilty for committing the Holocaust, hence the extensive reparation payments, the Nuremberg trials, de-Nazification after the war and the ongoing bans on the Nazi swastika and other imagery.

Regardless, do you believe in collective guilt as much as you do in collective pride? Do you have the guts to take reponsibility for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just as you claim to have won WWII?

And again, "Because Americans don't condone those actions"? Another case of "Yes for Collective Pride, NO to Collective Guilt".

Take responsibility or take non(as would be logically appropriate).

I didn't commit the Holocaust, seeing as how I would have either been living in the United States or killed as one of its victims by virtue of being a subhuman Slav.

So if you were a German you would have won the Franco-Prussian war and you would have invented the automobile but you wouldn't be responsible for commiting The Holocuast? Pretty hypocrite if you ask me.

The bombing of Dresden, while a terrible crime by today's standards...it wasn't the same back then. It was precisely because of things like that that we moved to develop international institutions and international laws after the war. The Allies weren't completely innocent by a long shot, and nobody disputes that. And don't pretend for a second that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong given the facts and circumstances; as it stood in 1945 the alternative would have been a bloody, devastating invasion of Japan that would have consumed far more lives than those bombs did. Like it nor not, they along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria ended the war far more quickly than it would have ended without them.

Once again, Good Actions = Collective Responsibility, Bad Actions = Work of Individuals(Or you at least distance yourself from them and claim to not have participated in such acts).

Not only that, you go beyond just claiming those actions were merely the work of individuals; you go to the point of relativizing, rationalising and marginalizing those events.

Are these things moral or ethical? I'd say that if we knew what we do now we wouldn't have committed them...but times change. Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you've been fighting a bitter war against determined, and quite frankly barbaric enemies for 6 years it's a lot different.

So, you here take personal responsibility just as many other individuals for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagazaki?

Even when you weren't even born back then or part of the American society of back then?

[Demonatrix]

(Image)

Or in deed as per the post on the Common Knowledge thread, that set the OP off on this, "we" as in a particular family.

[Zersium]

How about...

"I will not say i'm American. I'm Allied." - Eisenhower. Awesomest quote by an American ever.

Pretty much our best President.

Didn't he also fight the Iron Giant?

[Lubyak]

Yes you are, if you say "We invented the automobile" that means you are part of a group/team that invented the automobile.

Not necessarily. Yes, we could be used in that sense of belonging to the individual team that invented the automobile.

However, it can also be used on a larger scale. I could say 'we' referring to all members of the design team, or I coudl say 'we' referring to all members of the nation the design team was a part of . Saying so is correct gramatically and correct historically.

You can disagree with the rules of the english language all you want, but it's not going to change them.

Also note that this rarely happens with events perceived as negative/bad/immoral.

Have you ever seen an American citizen going "We commited mass murder on innocent Vietnamese citizens", "We bombed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory", "We tortured innocent citizens in Guantánamo Bay" or "We Germans feel guilty for we commited the holocaust" or "We British razed Dresden to the ground, killing tenthousands of innocent civilians"?

Congratulations on realizing that people do not like taking responsibility for bad things, but do like taking responsibility for good things. Human beings are natural hypocrites in that sense. THey take collective pride in the good, but do not take collective shame in the bad.

It's just human nature.

[Volnotova]

This seems to originate with the OP posting on another thread objecting to somebody saying that their family annals indicated that "we" (ie the family whose members served in world war one) didn't know why their country was fighting on the side it did.

I posted a reply there, but I'll ask here too, does the OP never refer to their family as "we", as in "we" celebrate christmass with a turkey, or "we" went on holiday to spain, or "we" moved to a new house?

That is appropriate.

For example, if my familly were to move(together) to a new house saying "We moved to a new house" is logically appropriate.

If I were part of a research team and invented an HIV vaccine together with the rest of that team then saying "We invented an HIV vaccine" would be logically appropriate.

Claiming to be entitled to claim responsibity for events I did not contribute to, such as a Dutch/Jewish scientist inventing an HIV vacine and then claiming I helped inventing it when I wasn't even there in the first place is logically unappropriate.

Even more is claming to be entitled to the good stuff but claim you have 0 responsibility for the bad stuff and instead blame such negative events on the work of individuals.

[Skibereen]

Pedantic fail is Pedantic fail.

We don't like you.
Mr. Wittgenstein and I.

Pretending you don't grasp the use of simple language merely to make some absurd argument based on set piece logic points without having any actual valid substance is just childish.

[Icamera]

My general views on patriotism:

There's no point in being proud of being of a certain nationality. You can't choose where you're born. And obviously, there's no point in bragging about the achievements of, say, George Washington, as if his accomplishments somehow make you a better person.

If you decide to immigrate to another country and gain citizenship there, then you have slightly more wiggle room. However, the "if-you-didn't-do-it-it-don't-act-like-you-did" rule still applies.

That said, I do get patriotic at times, irrational though it is. It's easy to get swept up in the atmosphere during 9/11 and the 4th of July, and it's perfectly harmless since I know a few fireworks and waving a miniature flag won't turn me into a nationalist, xenophobe, or fascist.

[Zersium]

My general views on patriotism:

There's no point in being proud of being of a certain nationality. You can't choose where you're born. And obviously, there's no point in bragging about the achievements of, say, George Washington, as if his accomplishments somehow make you a better person.

If you decide to immigrate to another country and gain citizenship there, then you have slightly more wiggle room. However, the "if-you-didn't-do-it-it-don't-act-like-you-did" rule still applies.

That said, I do get patriotic at times, irrational though it is. It's easy to get swept up in the atmosphere during 9/11 and the 4th of July, and it's perfectly harmless since I know a few fireworks and waving a miniature flag won't turn me into a nationalist, xenophobe, or fascist.

Not yet anyway.

[Tosmaldevo]

Claiming to be entitled to claim responsibity for events I did not contribute to, such as a Dutch/Jewish scientist inventing an HIV vacine and then claiming I helped inventing it when I wasn't even there in the first place is logically inappropriate.

You are regarding this scientist as Dutch-Jewish, a group you may be a member of and hence you regard him as being in the same 'category' as you. This is an example of #2 in usage.

[Jackiastan]

Have you ever seen an American citizen going "We commited mass murder on innocent Vietnamese citizens", "We bombed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory", "We tortured innocent citizens in Guantánamo Bay", "We Germans feel guilty for we commited the holocaust" or "We British razed Dresden to the ground, destroying killing tenthousands of innocent civilians"?

No, but I've seen Americans say "we were wrong for committing mass murder on innocent Vietnamese civilians." Did I, personally, drive Native Americans from their homes and murder the ones that wouldn't comply? No, I did not. But I say that "We, as a nation, drove Native Americans from their homes and murdered the ones that wouldn't comply, and we were wrong. We apologize."

[Great Nepal]

That is appropriate.

For example, if my familly were to move(together) to a new house saying "We moved to a new house" is logically appropriate.

If I were part of a research team and invented an HIV vaccine together with the rest of that team then saying "We invented an HIV vaccine" would be logically appropriate.

Claiming to be entitled to claim responsibity for events I did not contribute to, such as a Dutch/Jewish scientist inventing an HIV vacine and then claiming I helped inventing it when I wasn't even there in the first place is logically unappropriate.

As someone already pointed out, in English language we can be used to "refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category" and being member of same nation is being in same category.

Even more is claming to be entitled to the good stuff but claim you have 0 responsibility for the bad stuff and instead blame such negative events on the work of individuals.

Aright, question:
If you break a random guy's window while playing cricket, will you publish a news report saying that you did it?
If you discovered a new medicine which cures HIV, will you publish news report saying you discovered it?

[Demonatrix]

This seems to originate with the OP posting on another thread objecting to somebody saying that their family annals indicated that "we" (ie the family whose members served in world war one) didn't know why their country was fighting on the side it did.

I posted a reply there, but I'll ask here too, does the OP never refer to their family as "we", as in "we" celebrate christmass with a turkey, or "we" went on holiday to spain, or "we" moved to a new house?

That is appropriate.

For example, if my familly were to move(together) to a new house saying "We moved to a new house" is logically appropriate.

If I were part of a research team and invented an HIV vaccine together with the rest of that team then saying "We invented an HIV vaccine" would be logically appropriate.

Claiming to be entitled to claim responsibity for events I did not contribute to, such as a Dutch/Jewish scientist inventing an HIV vacine and then claiming I helped inventing it when I wasn't even there in the first place is logically unappropriate.

Even more is claming to be entitled to the good stuff but claim you have 0 responsibility for the bad stuff and instead blame such negative events on the work of individuals.

You seem o have changed your tune in the last few minutes. Allow me to refresh your memory on your earlier opinion, that such usage was not appropriate.

Nobody in my family (according to the family annals) had any real idea why we were fighting AGAINST the Kaiser, and WITH the French in that war...

Sometimes I feel so young, lonely and unsignificant here on NSG.

I mean, who am I here, standing between all those WWI, Korea, Vietnam and WWII veterans and those that have transcended to higher planes of consciousness and are aware of their own reincarnations?

The bold emphasis is your quote editing, not that of the poster you were mocking, who from other posts, seems to be ex-military from a military family, a fact that you disguised by editing their post, here is the missing part of it.

They still went though, it's what the family did...

Great grandfather, grandfather, and two great uncles..., And thats just from the main family line, more from the cadet branches...

[Vetalia]

Yet you claim to be entitled to claim to have invented those things(And yes, I know that the Automobile in its modern form originated in Germany).

You claimed that being part of a group entitles you to the achievements of that group, regardless if you contributed to them or not; which I argue is absolutely ridiculous beyond words(and I hope you realise that too and realised that from the first place).

That's because American society had the values necessary to drive that innovation. The automobile wasn't invented in Africa or Asia not due to an inherent lack in its people's intelligence or ingenuity but because of the cultural and political factors that prevented them from developing the kind of economic and political systems that fostered the innovation we have seen in the United States. Transplant a Henry Ford to China or Uganda and he wouldn't have invented mass production.

And you weren't part of those Allied Powers because you weren't even born back then.

No more than I was there when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution or when Marshall v. Madison laid down the precedent of judicial review but I can still claim them to be a core component of our political system.

And you weren't part of that society, and even if you were you barely if not at all contributed to it. So it is asinine to argue you won the war.

You can argue the US won WWII, but you cannot claim to have been part of the war effort, neither that you won the war.

Face it, when someone says "we won WWII", nobody seriously thinks you played a role in that victory. They know what you mean.

Regardless, do you believe in collective guilt as much as you do in collective pride? Do you have the guts to take reponsibility for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just as you claim to have won WWII?

Want to know the truth? Yeah, I'd have no problem with the United States paying reparations to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the Japanese pay similar reparations to the Chinese, Koreans and others who were slaughtered in the cruelest and most barbaric fashion by the Kwantung Army and to the American prisoners of war who suffered unimaginable horrors in captivity.

So if you were a German you would have won the Franco-Prussian war and you would have invented the automobile but you wouldn't be responsible for commiting The Holocuast? Pretty hypocrite if you ask me.

I'm not a German. But like I clearly pointed out, the same Germans who might take pride in the Franco-Prussian war are also deeply guilty about the Holocaust and have made every effort to address it, moreso than many other perpetrators of genocide in recent history.

Once again, Good Actions = Collective Responsibility, Bad Actions = Work of Individuals(Or you at least distance yourself from them and claim to not have participated in such acts).

Not only that, you go beyond just claiming those actions were merely the work of individuals; you go to the point of relativizing, rationalising and marginalizing those events.

That's because in a lot of cases they *were* the actions of individuals. Now, if we were collectively guilty for the actions of the state then I would have no problem taking responsibility for them.

So, you here take personal responsibility just as many other individuals for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagazaki?

Even when you weren't even born back then or part of the American society of back then?

I do, and I feel it was the right course of action to prevent further slaughter. Like it or not, when it comes to inflicting several hundred thousand casualties or several million, the former is better.

[Cill Charthaigh]

Is it really so terrible that people feel connected with the history of their country? And those people never claimed that they personally won the war.

I am a Jew, am I entitled to claim that I(or better said, We the Jews) came up with the Theories of General and Special Relativity.

It is ridiculous, it is laughable.

Connected to the history of your country? You weren't even born, thus you cannot claim you won the war, or that you invented <insertsomethinginventedordiscoveredbyAmericans>.

Those people do claim they personally won the war, because they identify themselves with millions of war veterans by saying "We won the war".

Bollocks, they weren't even around to see the end of the war, let alone having been able to participate in it.

Not sure if troll....

I'm not seeing where you get the claim that they think they personally won the war. AMERICANS won the war, they are identifying with AMERICANS.

[Anthoniland]

I think that it is stupid but not as stupid as you make it out to be.

[Icamera]

It's perfectly harmless since I know a few fireworks and waving a miniature flag won't turn me into a nationalist, xenophobe, or fascist.

Not yet anyway.

[Volnotova]

(Image)

Doesn't disprove what I said.

Just because you are a teacher does not mean you can claim to have contributed to something you have not.

If a teacher developes a new teaching method and you happen to be a teacher that doesn't automatically mean you contributed to that new teaching method, that just means a certain teacher invented a new teaching method.

You can only say you contributed to it if... dun dun dun.... you contributed to it.

It is the work of individuals whom you share a common identity (i.e. American nationality) whose actions you support; hence, you are proud of these individual actions and recognising the effect of these actions upon your nation, take pride in them for their positive effect.

Take pride in them? I am going to puke here.

Do you claim personal responsibility for the torturing and killing innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians even if you never knew those people and/or weren't even there in the first place?

Taking pride in something you contributed to or something you did - Understandable.

But being proud at your self for something you never contributed to and what others you didn't even know or even heard of contributed to? Absolutely pathetic.

So if one American invents an HIV vaccine then you feel collective pride and go around waving flags while shouting "We invented the HIV vaccine!", yet when 1 pedo American rapes a dozen or so kids and mutilates and tortures many more then you go all "The insane work of an individual, I take no responsibility whatsoever".

Pff, pathetic.

See the image.

Red Herring, it does not answer the question.

>implying I take pride in all the 'good' things the UK has done.
>Implying I blame others for bad things.
>implying
>implying
>etc.

So you claim to be a war veteran and to have won WWII.

But the Bombing of Dresden? Work of Invdividuals.

Human Rights Violations? Work of Individuals.

Oppression in the Colonies? Work of individuals.

Very selective attitude "Pick the good things, ignore the bad ones".

Not necessarily. Yes, we could be used in that sense of belonging to the individual team that invented the automobile.

But that is not a case, thus you cannot claim you invented the Automobile.

At most you can say that the certain members of your team also participated in the invention of the automobile.

Is this how you work? So if you for a brief period are part of a team that invented an HIV vaccine and then you leave without ever having contributed to it you go tell your new employer that "Oh, and I helped invent an HIV vaccine!".

What if one of your team members was a pedo and raped children? Would you haev the guts to take responsibility for that too?

However, it can also be used on a larger scale. I could say 'we' referring to all members of the design team, or I coudl say 'we' referring to all members of the nation the design team was a part of . Saying so is correct gramatically and correct historically.

No it is not, gramatically it is incorrect, logically it is incorrect and from a semantics point of view it is incorrect.

You can only claim to be part of a group that invented the automobile if you contributed to the invention of the automobile.

Just because you are a German(for example) does not mean you helped invent the automobile.

You can disagree with the rules of the english language all you want, but it's not going to change them.

I am not disagreeing, this is not about redefining "we", it is that "we" in this cased is used in the wrong manner.

You are claiming responsibility/entitlement there where it is not appropriate.

Congratulations on realizing that people do not like taking responsibility for bad things, but do like taking responsibility for good things. Human beings are natural hypocrites in that sense. THey take collective pride in the good, but do not take collective shame in the bad.

It's just human nature.

Your nature is not my nature, I do not tend to be a hypocrite and go around shouting I achieved great things and am entitled to many more good things just because I am a Jew/Dutch yet I do not have the freaking guts to claim responsibility for the negative parts of the story.

Because, populace of US did win the war against populace of axis (along with other allied nations). And, an American person is a member of populace of USA.

Huge fallacy here. There is the time part.

Just because you are French does not mean you were part of the French Society of 100 years ago.

Yes the US did win the war against the Axis, but you weren't part of that so you cannot claim you won the war.

Because...
When you do something good you go and scream about it.
When you do something bad, you dont go out and scream about it.

Haha, yea right, except this is neither about doing some good or bad your self, it is about claiming responsiblity for the goods things others contributed to while not having the guts to claim responsibility for the bad side of the story.

Also, I am not a person that is really proud and goes around shouting how great I am. I am not at all into this collective idiocy.

Example:-
If my friend, who I met few times decades ago, wins a noble prize, I will go and say that my close friend won a noble prize however, if my cousin gets nicked for drug smuggling, I will pretend I never known him.

This goes beyond that. This goes to a point were you claim a Nobel Prize because you were friends with someone who did.

This might seem ridiculous, but this is the kind of collective nonsense I see daily.

If you did not contribute to it then do not take responsibility.

You may have joined this team at a later date, hence you can say "We invented the automobile" with the unsaid clause you were not a part of the team at this time; however, the team still invented and you are a member of this team, and as "we" refers to the team and yourself, you are justified in saying so.

Utterly idiotic and I fail to understand why you are unable to understand that.

Why not just say "I was part of a team of which certain members also invented to automobile" instead of "We invented the automobile", the latter of which is logically incorrect, as you didn't invent the automobile, you only were part of a team of which some members did.

I only take responsiblity for the things I did and use "we" when it is logically appropriate to do so. If not eveyr member of the team, including my self invented the automobile I will be specific and say "I am part of the team and <insert names? invented the automobile" or "I am part of the team of which certain members contributed to the invention of the automobile" what you are doing is just a sneaky way of trying to take credit for things you never even contributed to.

Presumably few people will take pride in participation in events they perceive as immoral.

Have the balls and take credit for the bad stuff too. Going around claimin you personally won WWII but refuse to take responsibility for the Bombings of Dresden or the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just makes you a hypocrite.

[Demonatrix]

I've met a number of germans who said that "we did terrible things during the war" or "we were wrong to elect hitler", and I've met many brits who said "we bombed dresden and it was wrong", you seem to be projecting the attitudes of your own country and or friends onto the whole world.

And insulting people who make correct use of the English language into the bargain.

[Great Nepal]

Just because you are a teacher does not mean you can claim to have contributed to something you have not.
If a teacher developes a new teaching method and you happen to be a teacher that doesn't automatically mean you contributed to that new teaching method, that just means a certain teacher invented a new teaching method.
You can only say you contributed to it if... dun dun dun.... you contributed to it.

If teachers have gone on strike and you aren't on strike; a teacher can claim that "we teachers went on a strike".

Huge fallacy here. There is the time part.
Just because you are French does not mean you were part of the French Society of 100 years ago.
Yes the US did win the war against the Axis, but you weren't part of that so you cannot claim you won the war.

No, time doesn't change nationality. You would have been American if you were born in 1945 provided you had American citizenship; you are American if you are born in 2011 provided you have American Citizenship and you will be american if you are born in 10003 provided you have American Citizenship.

Haha, yea right, except this is neither about doing some good or bad your self, it is about claiming responsiblity for the goods things others contributed to while not having the guts to claim responsibility for the bad side of the story.

No, it is about claiming credit or blame for something people of your category did. You do take credit for something good; you dont do same thing for bad things.

This goes beyond that. This goes to a point were you claim a Nobel Prize because you were friends with someone who did.
If you did not contribute to it then do not take responsibility.

No, cos there isn't a common category.

Have the balls and take credit for the bad stuff too. Going around claimin you personally won WWII but refuse to take responsibility for the Bombings of Dresden or the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just makes you a hypocrite.

Who said humans were not hypocrite?

[Apostledom of chaos]

I agree with you to a point.