Collective Guilt and Pride(And their inappropriate usage)

[Tim-Opolis]

It annoys me so much.

"We won WWII"

"We suffered greatly!"

What a load of bollocks, most of the people on NS weren't even born back then(more then 99%).

So why is it that so many people keep referring to themselves as "we" as if they were somehow part of the war effort.

Not just that, the same can be said about inventions, discoveries, etc.

"I am an American therefore I am entitled to claim I participated in and won WWII" what a load of bollocks and what a filthy and utterly disgusting insult to all the war vetarans that actually fought during those wars.

Sometimes I wonder whether such people actually realise how incredibly stupid they sound when they say such things, same goes for the people that go, "WE INVENTED <insertinventiontheydidn'tcontributeto>!" or "THIS MAKES ME SO PROUD TO BE BRITISH/ROMANIAN/AMERICAN/RUSSIAN/Insertothernationality".

So what do you think NSG, do you too believe it is utterly ridiculous to say such things, to claim to be entitled to victories, discoveries, wars, battles and other defeats and triumphs that you never even contributed to, let alone were born when they occured?

Well, speak your mind NSG.

Argh! But then us 'Mericans would have nothin' to brag about.


No... you're absolutely correct. With Americans, I can explain this with the fact that since America sucks right now, they look to the epic win of the past.... Other countries..... Bandwagon?

[Swkoll]

We may not have fought the war, but we certainly paid for it.

[Volnotova]

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.

They do, they are claiming they won the war.

The yare not saying "The US won WWII" or "My grandparrents won WWII" or "The Americans during at the end of WWII won WWII". No, they are specifically stating that it was them that won WWII.

The Americans of then are different from the Americans nowadays, they are not the same entities.

The United States back then is not the same as the United States today.

The only way you could assume you somehow won WWII is if you deny the 2 sentences above and claim the US of today is the same as the US of 60+ years ago and the same as over 100 years ago.

Same goes for American society.

If that were true then you would be 100% right, but it is not and therefore claiming you won WWII when you did not contribute to it is wrong.

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.

So, how does that mean you can go around claiming you invented Mass Production/Fordism/The Assembly Line(Which was actually something that existed much earlier)

By that definition American society is also pedophilic, racist, homophobic, inherently authoritarian, sexist, dumb, and etc.(Yet also the traits perceived as more positive).

And what about non-innovative people, are they not American?

Also, just because certain people are innovative does not mean all of them are.

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.

Thus you cannot claim you won the American War of Independence anymore then you can claim you won WWII.

At most you can argue that The US won WWII and that the American Rebels of the time in the end won the American Revolutionairy War.

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

Call it pendantic semantics, but saying "We won WWII" is simply not logically correct.

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.

Stop dropping a red herring, unless the "Yeah" refered to the fact that you claim to be a genocidal massmurder and a war criminal.

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.

So an innocent German Child is responsible for the Franco-Prussian War(in particularly the Prussian/German victory) just as much as he/she is reponsible for The Holocaust, including accusing that child of being a pepretrator of the genocide just like Hitler in his cronies?

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.

Haha, but if the good stuff happens you contributed to it.

That makes you a coward and a hypocrite, refusing to take reponsible for the bad side of the story yet more then willing to claim responsibility for and entitlement to the good stuff.

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.

Good to know you admit being a genocidal massmurderer and war criminal.

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.

No I didn't, being specific like "The US won WWII" or "I am part of a team of which certain members have invented an HIV vaccine" is logically appropriate.

Saying "I won WWII" and/or "I invented an HIV vacccine" when you didn't is not.

<snip>

He was speaking of "we" while reffering to the war against Germany in WWI.

Very inappropriate.

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.

Which is not the problem, the problem is that it happens in circumstances were it is not appopriate. The US and American Society of today are not the same as The US and American Society during WWII.

Thus you cannot say you contributed to the war effort unless you contributed to it.

Jeabus, are there seriously people arguing agains the idea that if you did not contribute to something it is logically inappropriate to argue you did contribute to it simply because you share ethnicity/nationality/skin colour/religion with those who did?

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

No, but I have my honour and if asked or if important I will take my responsibility(and have done so in the again and again).

If you discovered a new medicine which cures HIV, will you publish news report saying you discovered it?

If that was my goal(I am a bit of an achievement hoarder and seek to "improve" the world) then yes.

Anyway, what does this have to do with Collective Pride and Guilt?

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.

Again, that is not my problem.

The problem is not even identifying my/your self with a group consiting of Dutch-Jewish scientists.

The problem is taking credit for thing you did not contribute to simply because you share a religion/ideology/ethnicity/nationality/skin colour with those who did.

Are you seriously argueing that if a black guy commits a murder and rapes a young women that all blacks should feel collective guilt and that if 1 white American invents an HIV vaccine every (White) American is entitled to claim they invented an HIV vaccine?

I am not saying it is logically incorrect to claim you are American when you are... dun dun dun... American.

I am saying it is logically incorrect to take credit for things you did not contribute to simply because you share ethnicity/religion/ideology/nationality/skin colour with those who did(For better or worse).

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.

It is not fail, you might fight it annoying, but it is not fail.

I do grasp the language, and yes I am being pedantic.

But my criticism is not invalid neither do my posts lack substance.

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."

Which is still a case of unappropriate collective guilt, just because you are American doesn't mean you are a pedophile and a rapist because some other American is.

You cannot take responbility if you are not responsible, you are not thus what you do is unnecessary and logically incorrect.

You can condemn those actions, you can despise them, but you will never ever be responsible for them.

[Volnotova]

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.

But that is the thing! It is not correct.

They are taking responbility simply because they share ethnicity/profession/religion/ideology/nationality/skin colour with those that do.

I am reffering to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

I am not being wrong, I may be acting in an utterly pedantic(and to some annoying) manner, I am not wrong.

We may not have fought the war, but we certainly paid for it.

Iraq/Afghan war I guess in your case? (Or Vietnam if you are older, and Korea/WWII if you are really old).

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

No you can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

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.

Again, you seem to fail to get the point.

It is not about not being American, it is about not being part of the American nation and society during those times.

If you are an American now that does not mean you are responsible for thoes things certain Americans did over 60 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

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.

I am an honourable person and I know honourable people who do take responbility: even when the shit hits the fan.

No, cos there isn't a common category.

And you aren't in the same category as those that won WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Who said humans were not hypocrite?

Red Herring, that was not what I was arguing.



That said, does everyone simply agree that you cannot take responsiblity for things you did not contribute to and that you cannot take responsibility for certain things simply because you share ethnicity/ideology/religion/class/profession/nationality/skin colour and that the only way you can take credit and/or responsiblity for things is if you are actually responsible for the said things?

[Cill Charthaigh]

The United States of America is the United States of America. Sure, it's changed over time but it's never been "The Most Royal and Lovable Country of the Cheese Men".

Do you think whenever someone says "We won WW2", "HOLY DAMN HE MUST HAVE FOUGHT IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND PERSONALLY WON IT GIVE THIS GUY A MEDAL OR SOMETHING"

we/wē/
Pronoun:
1. Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together: "shall we have a drink?".
2. Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category: "we teachers".

In this case, they're referring to AMERICANS in general. Face it, your arguments have lost.

You act as if there was another country called The United States of America from 1941-1945 (yes, I know it actually lasted from 1939 to 1945, but the American involvement started in 1941) but it vanished and there's a brand spanking new country RIGHT where the LAST United States of America but it's not the same. Hell, it's got basically the same Constitution, they were both founded with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It may not be logically/grammatically correct. But it still means the same thing even though some NSer seems to lack a knowledge of the English language.

[Volnotova]

The United States of America is the United States of America. Sure, it's changed over time but it's never been "The Most Royal and Lovable Country of the Cheese Men".

Do you think whenever someone says "We won WW2", "HOLY DAMN HE MUST HAVE FOUGHT IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND PERSONALLY WON IT GIVE THIS GUY A MEDAL OR SOMETHING"

As pedantic it might be, yes, that is what they are saying. "We" in this case refers to those who fought during WWII, in particularly its victors.

Logically Appropriate version: "The US and its allies won WWII"

we/wē/
Pronoun:
1. Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together: "shall we have a drink?".
2. Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category: "we teachers".

In this case, they're referring to AMERICANS in general. Face it, your arguments have lost.

Again, not what I was arguing against. I am arguing against those people for they are using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy .

Just because a group of people did something does not mean you can take responsiblity/credit(for the better or the worse) simply because you share ethnicity/ideology/religion/profession/class/nationality or skin colour.

You act as if there was another country called The United States of America from 1941-1945 (yes, I know it actually lasted from 1939 to 1945, but the American involvement started in 1941) but it vanished and there's a brand spanking new country RIGHT where the LAST United States of America but it's not the same. Hell, it's got basically the same Constitution, they were both founded with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Entities change over time. The Sun is not the same Sun as the Sun people reffered to as the Sun 20 years ago.

Pedantic? Possibly. But it is logically correct. You are not the same person as the person who went by your name 10 years ago. Same goes for me.

People, countries, institutions, nations, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are dynamic entities, they change with time. What we are is what we are now, we are not that which our current form will produce in a second or that of which we were a result of.

It may not be logically/grammatically correct. But it still means the same thing even though some NSer seems to lack a knowledge of the English language.

No, it does not mean the same thing. We might mean the same thing but say it differently.

Nevertheless, this was not about saying things differently; this was about saying different things.

[Cill Charthaigh]

The United States of America is the United States of America. Sure, it's changed over time but it's never been "The Most Royal and Lovable Country of the Cheese Men".

Do you think whenever someone says "We won WW2", "HOLY DAMN HE MUST HAVE FOUGHT IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND PERSONALLY WON IT GIVE THIS GUY A MEDAL OR SOMETHING"

As pedantic it might be, yes, that is what they are saying. "We" in this case refers to those who fought during WWII, in particularly its victors.

Logically Appropriate version: "The US and its allies won WWII"

we/wē/
Pronoun:
1. Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together: "shall we have a drink?".
2. Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category: "we teachers".

In this case, they're referring to AMERICANS in general. Face it, your arguments have lost.

Again, not what I was arguing against. I am arguing against those people for they are using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy .

Just because a group of people did something does not mean you can take responsiblity/credit(for the better or the worse) simply because you share ethnicity/ideology/religion/profession/class/nationality or skin colour.

You act as if there was another country called The United States of America from 1941-1945 (yes, I know it actually lasted from 1939 to 1945, but the American involvement started in 1941) but it vanished and there's a brand spanking new country RIGHT where the LAST United States of America but it's not the same. Hell, it's got basically the same Constitution, they were both founded with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Entities change over time. The Sun is not the same Sun as the Sun people reffered to as the Sun 20 years ago.

Pedantic? Possibly. But it is logically correct. You are not the same person as the person who went by your name 10 years ago. Same goes for me.

People, countries, institutions, nations, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are dynamic entities, they change with time. What we are is what we are now, we are not that which our current form will produce in a second or that of which we were a result of.

It may not be logically/grammatically correct. But it still means the same thing even though some NSer seems to lack a knowledge of the English language.

No, it does not mean the same thing. We might mean the same thing but say it differently.

Nevertheless, this was not about saying things differently; this was about saying different things.

Let me ask you again: Do you REALLY think that when people say "We won WW2" they REALLY mean/think they:

A: Actually fought
B: Won the won personally
C: Personally identify with WW2 vets

Yes, I see how pedantic you are. It's really hard to argue with your lot. Are you American or of another nationality? (oh god I can tell you're going to whine about my use of American)

[Volnotova]

Let me ask you again: Do you REALLY think that when people say "We won WW2" they REALLY mean/think they:

A: Actually fought
B: Won the won personally
C: Personally identify with WW2 vets

Certain people do, while many others are simply to lazy to be more specific.

That said, saying "We won WWII" means exactly that.

It is guilt by association:

1. Some Americans have fought in/won WWII
2. You are an American
3. Therefore you fought in/won WWII.

Yes, I see how pedantic you are. It's really hard to argue with your lot. Are you American or of another nationality? (oh god I can tell you're going to whine about my use of American)

Dutch-Jewish.

[Polruan]

If the fact that entities change over time renders "We did X" statements invalid, does that mean I can't claim to have once been ten years old?

You seem to have confused jingoism with national solidarity, can't say I'm surprised.

[Cill Charthaigh]

1. Some Americans have fought in/won WWII
2. You are an American
3. Therefore you fought in/won WWII.

Some Americans have fought in/won WWII. You're right here. And yes, I am an American (might say Irish-American if you count not being born there but a little over 1/2 of your family's from there) and you're still right. But wait, here's your problem. Some does not mean all. You're only furthering the thought here that you do not understand how the English language rolls.

[Volnotova]

If the fact that entities change over time renders "We did X" statements invalid, does that mean I can't claim to have once been ten years old?

As pedantic as it may sound:

Yes, you cannot claim that unless you assume that we are not just what we are in the present but that we are also that which we have been in the past.

You are what you are and not that which went by your name 10 years ago.

Technically, you never were 10 years old as you did not exist back then.

brainimplosion.avi

You seem to have confused jingoism with national solidarity, can't say I'm surprised.

You are mistaken then.

[Polruan]

If you have to mangle linguistics to the point of inutility to make your point, it's probably not worth making. It's like Humphrey Applebee wrote a chapter of the Talmud in here.

[Alaje]

Think of it this way, Is it wrong for let's say, a general, to be proud of a battle he'd won over 30 years ago? It was so long ago and he certainly isn't the same person he once was, he'd've changed, both physically and mentally.

Individuals tend to associate of themselves as part of a larger whole, in the case of this thread, a nation or ethnicity. That Nation, much like the General in my example, will have undergone many changes in its economy and infrastructure (physical change) and in cultural norms (mental change). Just like an individual person would or wouldn't be fond of his or her own past selve's accomplishments, so would the modern generation of a nation's culture be connected to the accomplishments of a past generation's actions.

[Volnotova]

Some Americans have fought in/won WWII. You're right here. And yes, I am an American (might say Irish-American if you count not being born there but a little over 1/2 of your family's from there) and you're still right. But wait, here's your problem. Some does not mean all. You're only furthering the thought here that you do not understand how the English language rolls.

Again, you are guilty of an association fallacy for you claim to have won WWII in the form of "We won WWII" when there is no We.

You did not contribute to the war effort so you cannot have won WWII, yet you assume you did simply for being American.

See the picture on the wiki page(can't bother to make my own at 2:35 AM).

[Polruan]

What if he's a result of the war effort? (Which he is, as the existence in its present form of America after the war depends on the war going the exact way it did) Then an association is real (as it always is in the case of actual entities like nations).

[Volnotova]

Think of it this way, Is it wrong for let's say, a general, to be proud of a battle he'd won over 30 years ago? It was so long ago and he certainly isn't the same person he once was, he'd've changed, both physically and mentally.

As much as it might seem as a mind screw.

If what you are is what you are right now in the present then that person that won that battle doesn't exist and it is an entirely different person.

However, as pointed above, it is not very useful(yet it is logically correct).

Therefore, you can define people as dynamic entities that do not only have triats and positions but also move across the axis of time(Call it the 4 dimension if you wish).

Which allows you to say things as "I once was ten years old" while arguiably the person you are now is not the person that went by your name back then.

Individuals tend to associate of themselves as part of a larger whole, in the case of this thread, a nation or ethnicity. That Nation, much like the General in my example, will have undergone many changes in its economy and infrastructure (physical change) and in cultural norms (mental change). Just like an individual person would or wouldn't be fond of his or her own past selve's accomplishments, so would the modern generation of a nation's culture be connected to the accomplishments of a past generation's actions.

It would be connected, but you cannot hold a child responsible for atrocities commited or victories achieved in WWII.

Yes, you are part of a nation, of a society, but just because someone is a war veteran or a pedo does not mean you are both due to being associated with that society.

What if he's a result of the war effort? (Which he is, as the existence in its present form of America after the war depends on the war going the exact way it did) Then an association is real (as it always is in the case of actual entities like nations).

There is an association, but that is not the same as saying the US now is the US then.

[Polruan]

Neither is anything, and so no one seeks to imply that. Identification of a present entity with the past version of itself does not imply that they are the same because that is never the case and this is obvoius to everyone.

[Volnotova]

Neither is anything, and so no one seeks to imply that. Identification of a present entity with the past version of itself does not imply that they are the same because that is never the case and this is obvoius to everyone.

Except those that do imply that they contributed to the war effort and won WWII even when they couldn't even have been around during that time as they were born way after WWII.

[Minsies]

Neither is anything, and so no one seeks to imply that. Identification of a present entity with the past version of itself does not imply that they are the same because that is never the case and this is obvoius to everyone.

Except those that do imply that they contributed to the war effort and won WWII even when they couldn't even have been around during that time as they were born way after WWII.

Methinks maybe you falsely percieved this implication? Either way, your arguement is a strawman. Shattered both by the basic rules of the english language, and what would be considered a normal line of reasoning.

[Volnotova]

Except those that do imply that they contributed to the war effort and won WWII even when they couldn't even have been around during that time as they were born way after WWII.

Methinks maybe you falsely percieved this implication? Either way, your arguement is a strawman. Shattered both by the basic rules of the english language, and what would be considered a normal line of reasoning.

Again, only assumptions and no proof. It is not a strawman. Arguing against those that claim that they won WWII on the grounds that they neither participated in the war effort nor even existed back then is not a straw man.

If they mean something different then they can say so, but until then I go by the Exact Words. I am not opposing the English language here, I am opposing its logically incorrect use.

[Galla-]

We= the United States of America (or whoever), i.e. a collective reference to the nation itself. They're not taking personal credit for it...this should be obvious. If I say "we suffered greatly during the Depression", it's not because I took part in that period but because it's a true statement about the experience of the American people of the time.

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

If you want to be correct then say "The United States won WWII together with its allies".

"We won the war" only applies if you participated in it(Be it that you signed the peace treaty, were in the army or participated in any way in the war effort).

I have seen so many times the constant bullshit about people going "WE BEAT YOU IN WWII!!!" "WE INVENTED <insertinvention> AND YOU DIDN'T THUS THAT MAKES US BETTER!"

The amount of collective idiocy makes me want to sew the palm of my hand to my face.

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"?

No, bullshit.

The entire collective We-Speak nonsense really pisses me off. Be a hero, if you claim to be entitled to all the good things of your country then have the balls to claim to have been part of the bad things to.

Be a hero and say to my face that you commited the holocaust.
Say it to my face you bombed and razed an import German cultural city to the ground.
Say it to my face that you dropped 2 nuclear bombs and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

What an utter load of bollocks, such hypocrites do not have my respect.

This is why we invented the Internet, gents.

So people who are unable to grasp the all important thing we, who speak English, call "context", of certain words when used in a sentence can spout their ignorance.

"We kicked Japan's ass." totally equals "I, by myself and all alone, kicked Japan's ass." rather than the correct interpretation of "We, the American people, as a collective state and nation, kicked Japan's ass."

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

It annoys me so much.

"We won WWII"

"We suffered greatly!"

What a load of bollocks, most of the people on NS weren't even born back then(more then 99%).

So why is it that so many people keep referring to themselves as "we" as if they were somehow part of the war effort.

Not just that, the same can be said about inventions, discoveries, etc.

"I am an American therefore I am entitled to claim I participated in and won WWII" what a load of bollocks and what a filthy and utterly disgusting insult to all the war vetarans that actually fought during those wars.

Sometimes I wonder whether such people actually realise how incredibly stupid they sound when they say such things, same goes for the people that go, "WE INVENTED <insertinventiontheydidn'tcontributeto>!" or "THIS MAKES ME SO PROUD TO BE BRITISH/ROMANIAN/AMERICAN/RUSSIAN/Insertothernationality".

So what do you think NSG, do you too believe it is utterly ridiculous to say such things, to claim to be entitled to victories, discoveries, wars, battles and other defeats and triumphs that you never even contributed to, let alone were born when they occured?

Well, speak your mind NSG.

EDIT(From page 3): ...does everyone simply agree that you cannot take responsiblity for things you did not contribute to and that you cannot take responsibility for certain things simply because you share ethnicity/ideology/religion/class/profession/nationality/skin colour and that the only way you can take credit and/or responsiblity for things is if you are actually responsible for the said things?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Interesting complaint you have here. 1st I have to say that I agree that one can take pride in one's race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, etc.. too far. I guess that I can be accused of this when it comes to defending native american culture, but I think that collective pride (or guilt) has a lot to do with the type of culture that you live in. In america, the very idea of our existance starts with "We the People". If you are part of a democracy, you are part of a shared responsiblity for the people that is put in place to govern. It is the responsibility of the public to hold the actions of our elected government to favor the will of the public. Of course, now that we (american) are a nation of 300 million people from every walk of life on the earth, that connection feels more lost than ever, but it is still part of the culture we live in.

I think right or wrong depends on the context of the statement. For example, in the hayday of american manufacturing, american automobiles were the finest vehicles the world had ever seen. As a nation, we can be proud of that. Why not? If you have an ancestor that took part in that trade, it even gives such a statement more validation. The reason I say this is because, like it or not, the stuggles of your ancestors before you help shape the person you will become. The exception would be, of course, if you have become completely disconnected from your family & it's roots.

[The Congregationists]

Nothing is as simple as out and out racial and national pride OR shame. Nations, like individuals, are mixed bags. Good and bad. You can't define them by one instance. For example, I'm in profound admiration of Britain's "finest hour" when they stood alone against Nazi Germany in the early 40s. The British Empire, on the other hand, not so much. The same could be said for Russia: the great patriotic war and the rending sacrifices they made were awesome. The gulags, party purges and engineered famines not so much. Nazism wasn't Germany's finest hour, but it seems to me as though there's good things about them too - the social market, for example, seems like one of the best ways of organizing an economy out there. Shaming any race or nation for its historical blotches is a bad idea. That's a big part of how Hitler came to power in the first place. But excessive patriotism isn't good either. Looking at history with rose tinted glasses OR a black armband view both lend to innacuracies and tend to be agenda driven besides.

[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.

But that is the thing! It is not correct.

They are taking responbility simply because they share ethnicity/profession/religion/ideology/nationality/skin colour with those that do.

I am reffering to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

I am not being wrong, I may be acting in an utterly pedantic(and to some annoying) manner, I am not wrong.

You are obviously wrong, in as much as you have ignored the fact that you pedantically insulted a poster on an other thread for using the term "we" collectively to describe their family, then pedantically started this thread ranting about use of the term "we" collectively, then pedantically claimed that you had not insulted the person and that their use of "we" was correct, then pedantically ignored my reminding you of your sudden u-turn, then pedantically changed the name of the thread to disassociate your self from said insult, then pedantically ignored the fact that many groups of people DO take responsibility for the bad as well as the good, contrary to your original assertion, and now pedantically assert that you're right.

I am not being wrong, I may be am acting in an utterly pedantic (and to some annoying) manner, I am not wrong.

Fixed.

[Volnotova]

This is why we invented the Internet, gents.

So people who are unable to grasp the all important thing we, who speak English, call "context", of certain words when used in a sentence can spout their ignorance.

"We kicked Japan's ass." totally equals "I, by myself and all alone, kicked Japan's ass." rather than the correct interpretation of "We, the American people, as a collective state and nation, kicked Japan's ass."

The latter of which is still not correct as it assumes you were part of a group of people that kicked Japan's ass during WWII, which assumes you kicked Japan's ass for you else you could not have been member of that group.

Correct nation: "Some Americans won WWII, I am an American, yet not all Americans have won WWII"

And what about the things that are less nice? For example, the lynching of Black citizens.

Do you go all "We Americans have lynched Black citizens, raped Children and commited War Crimes"? Even then, your credit is undue for you are not part of the group of Americans that did such things.

If anything people that say "We kicked Japan's ass in WWII" when they didn't even exist back then are the ones that are incapable of using "We" in context.

You are obviously wrong, in as much as you have ignored the fact that you pedantically insulted a poster on an other thread for using the term "we" collectively to describe their family, then pedantically started this thread ranting about use of the term "we" collectively, then pedantically claimed that you had not insulted the person and that their use of "we" was correct, then pedantically ignored my reminding you of your sudden u-turn, then pedantically changed the name of the thread to disassociate your self from said insult, then pedantically ignored the fact that many groups of people DO take responsibility for the bad as well as the good, contrary to your original assertion, and now pedantically assert that you're right.

"You are wrong, <puts fingers in ears> LALALA!"

No, I am not obviously wrong. Also, I never said he used the term correctly in that post. I didn't change the thread either in order to dissasociate my self from that post and my reply to that post. I changed the title of the thread because it was no longer about that post it is now about the misuse of the term "We" and the often insane nature and misuse of collective pride and guilt.

Also, I said barely ever do they have the guts to take responsibility, I did not say no one did.

I am not being wrong, I may be am acting in an utterly pedantic (and to some annoying) manner, I am not wrong.

Fixed.

"You are wrong, <puts fingers in ears> LALALA!"

Impressive.

Nothing is as simple as out and out racial and national pride OR shame. Nations, like individuals, are mixed bags. Good and bad. You can't define them by one instance. For example, I'm in profound admiration of Britain's "finest hour" when they stood alone against Nazi Germany in the early 40s. The British Empire, on the other hand, not so much. The same could be said for Russia: the great patriotic war and the rending sacrifices they made were awesome. The gulags, party purges and engineered famines not so much. Nazism wasn't Germany's finest hour, but it seems to me as though there's good things about them too - the social market, for example, seems like one of the best ways of organizing an economy out there. Shaming any race or nation for its historical blotches is a bad idea. That's a big part of how Hitler came to power in the first place. But excessive patriotism isn't good either. Looking at history with rose tinted glasses OR a black armband view both lend to innacuracies and tend to be agenda driven besides.

I oppose guilt and pride by mere association, it makes people feel guilty or take credit for things they did not contribute to, that is my issue.

Some people here are arguing it is ok to argue you personally won WWII by mere association with the American Nation, which is utterly ridiculous.

The Americans of back then are not the same as the Americans now, they are two seperate entities in two seperate time periods.

"We" in "We Americans won WWII" assumes membership of a group of people that won WWII. But you cannot say that for you did not participate in WWII let alone won it or where around to see it.

Interesting complaint you have here. 1st I have to say that I agree that one can take pride in one's race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, etc.. too far. I guess that I can be accused of this when it comes to defending native american culture, but I think that collective pride (or guilt) has a lot to do with the type of culture that you live in. In america, the very idea of our existance starts with "We the People". If you are part of a democracy, you are part of a shared responsiblity for the people that is put in place to govern. It is the responsibility of the public to hold the actions of our elected government to favor the will of the public. Of course, now that we (american) are a nation of 300 million people from every walk of life on the earth, that connection feels more lost than ever, but it is still part of the culture we live in.

Yet you cannot be hold responsible for things you did not contribute to, you cannot take credit for winning WWII or take responsibility for the screw up of President Obama anymore then a 18 year old Chinese or German guy can do.

It is pride and guilt by mere association. It is the same kind of attitude that gets people to say things as "Negros are degenerate rapists" or "All Germans are nazis".

If the those sentences are incorrect, then why would saying "We Americans won WWII" be more correct when that is simply not the case(Some Americans/The American Nation back then won WWII)?

I think right or wrong depends on the context of the statement. For example, in the hayday of american manufacturing, american automobiles were the finest vehicles the world had ever seen. As a nation, we can be proud of that.

Why? You did not contribute to that, you weren't even around back then, you are merely taking credit for it and being proud by mere association with the American people.

Why not? If you have an ancestor that took part in that trade, it even gives such a statement more validation.

No it doesn't, what the heck? Again, you are taking credit merely by mere association. What entitles you to say that when you neve participated in the trades or the manufacturing of those cars, let alone were around to see them?

The reason I say this is because, like it or not, the stuggles of your ancestors before you help shape the person you will become.

So what? So because someone in my familly did X I should take credit for it too? And if some of them were pedos, rapists, murderers, war criminals, etc. I should feel guilty for what they did even if I did not know them and/or don't even like them?

The latter sounds more like Nazi propaganda then anything else, see what happened in Nazi Germany and still happens till this day.

And not just with Jews but also Gypsies, Homosexuals, Black People, etc. It is fallacious and it is guilt and pride by mere association regardless of whether or not you contributed to it.

Some people are hating me in this thread because I object the idea that they are someone entitled to claim they won WWII when they weren't even around back then, instead their only justification is that they are American and thus can claim credit for things other Americans have done.

And they are pissed at me for that.

The exception would be, of course, if you have become completely disconnected from your family & it's roots.

Again, are all Germans guilty of the Holocaust by mere association?