Americas "Persona" and it's desire to maintain it

[-Demosthenes-]

I was thinking about how the US upholds it's "reputation" around the world, as the world police, or as a world power. The US seems to have a reluctance to change certain things for fear the they would apear different, or apear less moral.

The dollar is used all around the world, not just in America. Lots of countries have change their currency so it is less easy to counterfit. Like Aultralia, they have plastic bills, they pretty cool, they are dang hard to counterfit. But the American currency has had the same look for a very long time. They change a little bit to combat counterfitting, but not much. It seems they have relunctance to change it much becuase if they do they might put the image of the dollar in jepordy.

I thought about a few years back when someone took to court the idea that "under God" should be taken out of the pledge of allegence. Why would the government put it in the pledge in the first place if it wasn't for a reason? And why should we keep it. I was thinking that if it was kept it might create the idea the "God" is behind America.

What do you think? What are some other examples?

[Hellbender]

I was thinking that if it was kept it might create the idea the "God" is behind America.

What do you think? What are some other examples?

 

thats pretty much the central idea. I am going to state that and nothing else, as arguments on the seperationof church and state go sour very quick....

[Pangloss]

Actually I think your currency analogy may be flawed. The changes to American currency were quite dramatic, just not very obvious. And currency in other lands is often dramatic and bold specifically because those nations want it that way, not because it's harder to counterfeit.

 

Some good articles on the changes to US currency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit#Anti-counterfeiting_measures

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/moolah/anatomyprinting.html

[Phi for All]

The new security thread in US currency prevents most counterfeiting, and allows the government to track how much cash enters and leaves the country (banks also benefit by being able to count really fast now).

 

Unlike taking "under God" out of the pledge, no children are being taught a religious littany in a public school, so I have no problem with it being printed on our money. I think the Federal Reserve system is a much more grievous problem than what our currency looks like.

 

Don't forget, the power of the dollar is mostly electronic these days. I'll look it up, but I remember reading that there is less than $300 billion in Federal Reserve Notes (cash) floating around out there.

[Pangloss]

Phi makes an interesting point -- it's not so much displays of our national heritage that are at issue, as it is the indoctrination of the next generation of Americans. Honestly some of the arguments made by both sides are a little silly on that point, though there's a grain of truth in both of them as well.

[Phi for All]

I have no desire to hijack this thread, but I also have no desire to mix two volatile compounds like politics and religion again. I will therefore pose this question about a point in the OP: Does it affect the image of the dollar that it is printed by the US Treasury, then sold to the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, who loans it back to the government at interest?

 

Does any other country's money get funneled through private channels this way?

[-Demosthenes-]

Actually I think your currency analogy may be flawed. The changes to American currency were quite dramatic' date=' just not very obvious. And currency in other lands is often dramatic and bold specifically because those nations want it that way, not because it's harder to counterfeit.

 

Some good articles on the changes to US currency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit#Anti-counterfeiting_measures

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/moolah/anatomyprinting.html

I think it has been mostly the same, black ink on front, green on back, mostly the same style, in recent history where is would be important to maintain the image. ???

 

 

edit---

I got the about the money from a show on the history channel: javascript:openDetails('episode_detail.jsp?EAirId=14216926&page=listings')

 

 

edit 2----

the link doesn't work it was a show called "Making a Buck" about counterfitting.

[Pangloss]

Demosthenes, no offense, but you're kinda all over the map here, and I don't think I'm the only one having a hard time following you. Maybe you should pick one subject and focus on it a little more. Do you want to talk about anti-counterfeiting measures, the value of the dollar in overseas markets, separation of church and state, or the image of Americans overseas?

[-Demosthenes-]

Sorry, I think I was taking about the image of the US over seas, in my last post I was saying that the dollor has looked mostly the same in recient history, and I meant to hypothosis why that is.

[TimeTraveler]

Okay America's image overseas. Good topic, I will go with that.

 

In this world it is impossible for people to not be stereotypical, we might try not to be but we are (generally speaking).

 

I think America's actions as of late are giving the world a negative stereotypical veiw of who and what we are. If you think about it after Sept. 11th the world was with America, mass candlelight vigils around the world took place to mourn the loss of those that died that day, not just because there were people of all nationalities that died in America that day but because they felt for our loss.

 

Now only a few years later protests take place all over the world against the US's actions.

 

Why the change of heart? Well I think its because of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The WOT has nothing to do with Iraq. And the Bush administration has been spitting out threats to nations, relishing the idea that you are either with us or against us.

 

And I think the a majority of the problem is just that, the Bush administrations constant reminder you are with us or against us. But hey, all Americans don't feel that way. If your not with us thats fine, half of America isn't with this war in Iraq either.

 

Alot of us are for fighting terrorism, not for invading nations and toppling regimes. Especially on speculated evidence or basically "guesses" instead of actual factual intelligence.

[Sayonara]

I was thinking about how the US upholds it's "reputation" around the world, as the world police, or as a world power.

You mean the "Team America: World Police" thing is intentional?

 

Why the change of heart? Well I think its because of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The WOT has nothing to do with Iraq. And the Bush administration has been spitting out threats to nations, relishing the idea that you are either with us or against us.

While the latter half of that is more or less true, let's not pretend that the the protests against America started with Iraq. The organised world protests and general shouting started during the war in Afghanistan, a year beforehand.

[Phi for All]

Sorry, I think I was taking about the image of the US over seas, in my last post I was saying that the dollor has looked mostly the same in recient history, and I meant to hypothosis why that is.

There were redesigns of US currency in 1996 and again in 2003, and they are costly, to say the least. Besides, I'm not sure there is anything that interesting or provacative about having the look stay basically the same. If you choose to view this as an image issue, there are two main schools of thought in advertising: 1. Keep your image (logo) fresh and current to keep the interest of a changing clientele, or 2. Stay with the classic look (with only minor alterations) for brand recognition.

 

There are plenty of successful examples of both in the world today. I think the Fed is simply interested in having money that is widely recognized and easily distinguishable from that of other countries.

[Pangloss]

Regarding the "world police" image, there is a point of view in this country that it is the correct image, and in fact the correct position for this country to take. I.E. that we should be going around the world being the cops and setting things straight, because in the long run it makes things more peaceful and easier for us to deal with.

 

That position is one of the hallmarks of neo-conservativism. Note that that's by their own definition -- it says as much on the PNAC home page, for example (links available upon request, but this is old news for most folks here).

 

But most Americans are not aware that (a) it's the current administration's closest allegiance of policy-makers, or (b) that it's a strong motivating force behind this administration's foreign policy. Furthermore, most Americans would not likely support that position, were it to become part of the public debate. They don't know about it, and wouldn't support it if they did.

[atinymonkey]

I always thought that position was the hallmark of too much T J Hooker or Starsky & Hutch

 

Seriously, Hollywood portrays the Army/Navy/Police/Air Force as a super slick group of all out action heroes. The producers have become so adept at the portrayal of servicemen that the reality now looks amateurish in comparison. They show the John Wayne film 'Green Berets' to the marines as a training film, further blurring the line between fiction and reality.

 

If I was faced with so many positive affirmations of my countries servicemen, no doubt I too would feel my country has an obligation to become the wold police. Unfortunately in reality, as Tom Cruse isn't piloting Jets and Bruce Willis doesn't command battalions, the American Military ranks no better than it's counterparts.