What Makes A Country 'Great'?

Robert said:There , for me, is a dichotomy twixt these lines
Protect democracy
Make the country great again
The latter line has been usurped by a faction that seems dedicated to destroy the former.  

Your thoughts?

I think it's one of the regular strategies psycho-authoritarians use to gain power. They use the 'democratic ladder' to climb up into positions of power, and then burn the lower rungs of the ladder behind them.

I mean this as no disrespect to anyone because I too believe we are all human on the inside; thus, as a whole we create the human race regardless of our exterior. However, I am curious, I see white people make the statement and I've heard white people refer to the acknowledgement of races as racism. Yet, those of color are proud of their heritage, which is what it comes down to: heritage, not color. Does anyone know of a Black person, Native American, Asian, and so forth that have ever claimed to be "cosmopolitan"? I like the term but am curious if the mentality exists outside of a white person's perspective and equation to equality. Of all the diversity that I am involved in ( I have a diverse advisory council ), I've never heard any of them refer to themselves as anything outside of their heritage.

Edit: In thinking more about this, I wonder if white people seek a term that all people can agree on to avoid the disease of potential racism if something inadvertent is said to offend those of a different color. It seems to be that acknowledging race makes white people uncomfortable to discuss, while those of color are comfortable in their heritage and being acknowledged as such as long as there's an absence of obvious biases ( discrimination, etc. ).

Just thoughts. I mean what if we approached a Black person who just said they were from Jamaica or Nigeria and said, "AWESOME! I LOVE that culture!" Instead of experiencing fear that it might appear racist, so we avoid it.

Ahavati said:I mean this as no disrespect to anyone because I too believe we are all human on the inside; thus, as a whole we create the human race regardless of our exterior. However, I am curious, I see white people make the statement and I've heard white people refer to the acknowledgement of races as racism. Yet, those of color are proud of their heritage, which is what it comes down to: heritage, not color. Does anyone know of a Black person, Native American, Asian, and so forth that have ever claimed to be "cosmopolitan"? I like the term but am curious if the mentality exists outside of a white person's perspective and equation to equality. Of all the diversity that I am involved in ( I have a diverse advisory council ), I've never heard any of them refer to themselves as anything outside of their heritage.

Edit: In thinking more about this, I wonder if white people seek a term that all people can agree on to avoid the disease of potential racism if something inadvertent is said to offend those of a different color. It seems to be that acknowledging race makes white people uncomfortable to discuss, while those of color are comfortable in their heritage and being acknowledged as such as long as there's an absence of obvious biases ( discrimination, etc. ).

Just thoughts. I mean what if we approached a Black person who just said they were from Jamaica or Nigeria and said, "AWESOME! I LOVE that culture!" Instead of experiencing fear that it might appear racist, so we avoid it.

Perhaps there is a case of level confusion.
I can acknowledge my ethnic background (Lancastrian/Scottish),
my upbringing background (Middle-class Mancunian),
my membership background (1 of 8Billion+ humans --- can call it 'cosmopolitan', or other)
my 15 years in Portugal 'acculturisation'. (I'm more comfortable living in Portugal, than in England where I lived for the first 50+ years of my life)
... and so on.

I can be all of these aspects without 'competition' between them. :"Somos todos humanos" as they say here.
I agree that the cosmopolitan label could be a white person's attempt to circumvent dealing with ethnic diversity. In my family I have Japanese, Mongolian, Swiss, Austrian, Peruvian, American, Dutch, German, French, Thai, Columbian and Ghanaian relations. When we have a clan-gathering I think we see ourselves as world citizens from a home-country perspective and we are interested in each other's cultural stories and ways-of-being.

Josh said:

Perhaps there is a case of level confusion.
I can acknowledge my ethnic background (Lancastrian/Scottish),
my upbringing background (Middle-class Mancunian),
my membership background (1 of 8Billion+ humans --- can call it 'cosmopolitan', or other)
my 15 years in Portugal 'acculturisation'. (I'm more comfortable living in Portugal, than in England where I lived for the first 50+ years of my life)
... and so on.

I can be all of these aspects without 'competition' between them. :"Somos todos humanos" as they say here.

[quote]I agree that the cosmopolitan label could be a white person's attempt to circumvent dealing with ethnic diversity. In my family I have Japanese, Mongolian, Swiss, Austrian, Peruvian, American, Dutch, German, French, Thai, Columbian and Ghanaian relations. When we have a clan-gathering I think we see ourselves as world citizens from a home-country perspective and we are interested in each other's cultural stories and ways-of-being.


Exactly. If seek deep enough we will realize that we are all related in some way, but it goes deeper, or should I say shallower for me because I'm staying on the surface here.

While we are all the same inwardly, only the outer exterior defines the majority of our heritage. For example, I have indigenous blood yet a fair Scottish complexion with flaxen hair and green eyes. But, unlike others with fair complexion, say, red heads, perhaps, I tan very easily and rarely burn ( indigenous olive skin ). Therefore, with the exception of easily tanning and high cheek bones, you would never know my heritage. I am perceived as "white".

Perhaps exterior was intended to whet our curiosity and desire to seek the knowledge and wisdom of difference rather than fear or consider it a threat to our existence. Which brings me full circle to the possibility of certain white people leaning on a unified label to excuse their prejudice: "I voted for Obama!" "I have Black/Muslim/Asian friends!" "We are all the same inside!"

When obviously that's not the case for minorities, or how they've been treated, particularly by whites.

Anyway, this caused me to ponder the education system and what we lack to teach: the real history of our country. Could the truth have made a difference in how white people view outward appearance? Could the truth, which has mostly been swept under the carpet here in the U.S. by virtue of book banning/burnings and denial by whites, have instilled a deep compassion and acceptance for differences had it only been taught?

Could it still if implemented? Could it make a country great?

Ahavati said:

Exactly. If seek deep enough we will realize that we are all related in some way, but it goes deeper, or should I say shallower for me because I'm staying on the surface here.

While we are all the same inwardly, only the outer exterior defines the majority of our heritage. For example, I have indigenous blood yet a fair Scottish complexion with flaxen hair and green eyes. But, unlike others with fair complexion, say, red heads, perhaps, I tan very easily and rarely burn ( indigenous olive skin ). Therefore, with the exception of easily tanning and high cheek bones, you would never know my heritage. I am perceived as "white".

Perhaps exterior was intended to whet our curiosity and desire to seek the knowledge and wisdom of difference rather than fear or consider it a threat to our existence. Which brings me full circle to the possibility of certain white people leaning on a unified label to excuse their prejudice: "I voted for Obama!" "I have Black/Muslim/Asian friends!" "We are all the same inside!"

When obviously that's not the case for minorities, or how they've been treated, particularly by whites.

Anyway, this caused me to ponder the education system and what we lack to teach: the real history of our country. Could the truth have made a difference in how white people view outward appearance? Could the truth, which has mostly been swept under the carpet here in the U.S. by virtue of book banning/burnings and denial by whites, have instilled a deep compassion and acceptance for differences had it only been taught?

Could it still if implemented? Could it make a country great?


I think children are naturally accepting of other ethnicities ... until it is 'educated' out of them by peer pressure and so on. Education has a longer-term important role, which takes at least a generation to come through to the surface, -- but example by their elders is more powerful.
And yes, acceptance of 'the foreigner' is part of what makes a country great.

Josh, that is so cool on many levels. In a 1v1 conversation I literally would have dozens ribbons to trace to learn and unwind authenticity appreciating coy difference and learning about traits and facts that unify.

Josh said:

I think children are naturally accepting of other ethnicities ... until it is 'educated' out of them by peer pressure and so on. Education has a longer-term important role, which takes at least a generation to come through to the surface, -- but example by their elders is more powerful.
And yes, acceptance of 'the foreigner' is part of what makes a country great.

Then I would say number 6 should be honest, uncensored education ( or however you want to phrase it ). At least the child would know the truth according to history and may even be able to discern it despite their parent's behavior.

Josh said:Updating ...
Thank you all for your contributions ...
So far what I'm picking up about a nation earning the title 'Great' are:
1). Fairness and equality backed up by an unbiased justice system;
2). A culture that can accommodate 'the foreigner' (without prejudice);
3). A functioning infrastructure;
4). Opportunity to better oneself (ie: social mobility);
5). A secular country that is tolerant of a variety of religious practices;
6). ?? (please add)  ...
                  (and/or question any of the above 5 points )

I was in my 40's when I learned about the great Loray Mill strike, which altered the child labor laws. I lived in the county since I was 18 and had never even heard of it. We were too busy learning about British kings and queens and the US Presidents and "certain wars" but not all of them. And even those wars ( re WWII ) were censored without mention of the holocaust. Oh, and the Native Americans - sheesh. They were ALWAYS the bad guys in movies and deserved to be killed.

But the white man always seemed to be the innocent victim.

Speaking of holocausts. How come we never hear of the holodomor or the great leap forward?  Its only  mustache man's that gets a reference.

Josh said:

I agree, I'm one of 8Billion+. I like the description 'cosmopolitan'.
And like you say: Flags - nothing but strange old rags - but still ain't they powerful to rouse the troops and play dirty.

Haha...yes Josh the old 'flag' inspires much cannon fodder.

Carpe_Noctem said:Speaking of holocausts. How come we never hear of the holodomor or the great leap forward?  Its only  mustache man's that gets a reference.

Fair point: Estimated 3.5 - 5 million starved unnecessarily in 'Soviet Ukraine' 1932-3 ish -- and estimated 15-45 million (are lives so cheap historians can't get a more accurate figure?) starved under Mao's disastrous policy to change China from an agrarian society to an industrialised one. And there are about 50 more 'officially recognised' holocausts totalling 200+ million dead.

I suppose the mustachioed Stalin gets more mentions because it was taught in school to show how much Russia was the bad guy.

You didn't add number 6 in regard to education.

Updating ...
Thank you all for your contributions ...

So far what I'm picking up about a nation earning the title 'Great' are:

1). Fairness and equality backed up by an unbiased justice system;
2). A culture that can accommodate 'the foreigner', without prejudice
3). A functioning infrastructure;
4). Opportunity to better oneself (ie: social mobility);
5). A secular country that is tolerant of a variety of religious practices;
6). Honest education, especially regarding the nation's history;

Ahavati said:You didn't add number 6 in regard to education.

Updated above

Thank you. What I find most interesting is that those who bark the loudest about what others are doing have very little to whine about when asked directly to define their statements or provide a potential solution to the issue.