<p>One couldn’t have a bias against them because we don’t have proof that they exist. Therefore, it’s only right that we do not take them into considerations in our request because it’s wrong to make assumptions about anything that we don’t even know exist. It’s preposterous to conclude that they need to be blessed, for example. For all we know, they are GOD or angels of GOD who might feel insulted by our assumptions.</p>
<p>^^Not everyone in the earthly world cares to be blessed by a higher power either.</p>
<p>p.s. See how ludicrous this discussion can become? Perhaps THAT was the point your prof was trying to make?? 
</p>
<p>p.p.s.
Some people are CONVINCED that extraterrestrials exist–best to err on the side of inclusion. By the same token, others are not convinced that there is proof of the existence of G-d. This really CAN get very convoluted. ;)</p>
<p>In that case:</p>
<p>The next time this happens, I will add a footnote, so the message will read:
</p>
<p>Just kidding.</p>
<p>Anyway, I still stand by my view that saying “God bless America” is ethnocentric because of the technical definition of the word. Whether or not that’s a good or bad thing is up for individual interpretation. According to some anthropologists (Becker, among others), culture emerged to help people cope with death. Perhaps, to some extent, the variety of cultural practices has helped improve the reproductive success rate of humans overall. But this variety, in turn, made people bias towards their own culture. I think that from an anthropological standpoint, extreme ethnocentrism is dangerous.</p>
<p>biased* towards</p>
<p>Ya gotta love the satisfied self-centeredness of those who thank God for helping them to win the big game or the Oscar or whatever. Did God help the other team lose? And when the praying team lost, where was God? </p>
<p>It’s good to be humble and thank a Higher Power for the good things that come your way, but you should also be thankful for the bad things, no? ;)</p>
<p>Dude, everything about us was ultimately developed to help mankind deal with death, beginning with hunger pangs. Saying that culture was designed to help man cope with death adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. And it can hardly mean that someone’s motivations have a dubious origin because it serves that ultimate purpose.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that you’re asking people to draw conclusions about the “world-deleter” person’s motivations while you’re apparently drawing conclusions (ones that can be applied universally, no less) about the “America-deleter” person’s motivations.</p>
<p>It could be that the “world-deleter” person interpreted the “America-deleter” person’s defacing in a way that you hadn’t considered. Perhaps, if you were the “America-deleter” you are assuming that everyone should have known your purpose and, more amazingly, you are assuming that there’s one and only one purpose behind what drove your actions and what you intended.</p>
<p>In your example, the first person to alter the message vandalized a message that attempted to express good will. Maybe the second person to alter the original sign simply wanted to show solidarity against an act of vandalism. You can call that ethnocentric, too, but then every human response would fall under that umbrella, making your distinction analytically useless. Still, I now see that your goal is to resist all possible responses that are at odds with your unflappable view that ethnocentrism is working its dark magic here.</p>
<p>And I should have understood your rigidity from the git-go because you asked us three questions:</p>
<p>***How come people say “God Bless America” and not “God Bless the World”?</p>
<p>Why the ethnocentrism?</p>
<p>Why do people want God to bless only this country?***</p>
<p>You’ve received several answers here to the first question that don’t square with the premise you seem to believe drives those people: that they are ethnocentric and want God to bless only this country. You’ve received several answers explaining the ways that your presumptions about people’s motivations behind the actions of defacing the school bulletin board don’t need to fall within those presumptions. </p>
<p>You’re cleaving to your presumption that the second person is necessarily acting out of ethnocentrism, yet you object to people presuming what drove the first person to deface school property (an exercise that I’m personally just as disinclined to engage in as I’m not a mind reader). </p>
<p>I can see now, with those questions, that you really weren’t asking three questions, but making a statement that you refuse to have altered in any way. Your second and third questions are answers to the first, making it not so much a statement as it is an accusation, and a narrow-minded one at that. I thought this was a discussion, but you want this thread to beat down anyone who disagrees with you for not being as open-minded and progressive as you are…which just strikes me as being more than a tad ironic. And a waste of time to engage you any further.</p>
<p>So the OP is embarking on an ambitious plan to strip himself of all cultural bias–why am I guessing that likely only a bias against the traditions of this country will remain (such as the phrase God Bless America).</p>
<p>
This could be posted on EVERY SINGLE controversial CC thread with equal relevance. :)</p>
<p>
Becker argued that the knowledge of death, not love, is the basis for a human’s “primary repression.” The issue is more complicated than you think.</p>
<p>
That is incorrect.</p>
<p>How do you know that I was referring to the bulletin board incident when I asked those questions? As you can see, the two final questions were preceded by “How come people say ‘God Bless America’ and not 'God Bless the World”?’ Did it ever occur to you that those two questions directly referred to the first one (which would mean “ethnocentrism” is in the form of American people’s tendency to say “God bless America” rather than the motives of the person who crossed out “world”)? And I already explained why I considered that phrase ethnocentric.</p>
<p>
An act of vandalism is not ethnocentric, unless the message communicated by the act involves cultural bias. For example, egging a car is not ethnocentric unless your intentions are (i.e. you’re an American nativist egging Mexicans).</p>
<p>The phrase happened to be posted on a board where people were free to contribute/post/write whatever they want (it’s in a dorm). People write vulgar comments all the time, relating everything in the world to sex, poop, gayness, etc. <em>You</em> made the assumption that the person who wrote “world” (moi) committed an act of vandalism. It cannot be considered vandalism, because in writing it, I didn’t have the “willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property” (m-w.com).</p>
<p>
Your guess is incorrect.</p>
<p>I’m not really under the impression people put very much thought into it, it’s sort of a soundbite thing to me. No offense to anyone. I honestly don’t think they go over all the implications of the phrase or whatever. Personally I don’t say it because I’m not religious but that’s another story. To tell you the truth, people who cross stuff out are messing around in a lot of cases. If this happened at a high school or something, they probably just trying to be funny (some people have special senses of humor). Even if it was sincere, it was probably impulsive on both crosser-outters part, because if an adult stopped to have a philosophical debate with themselves about destroying property, after awhile they would probably step away from the pen. </p>
<p>However I appreciate that your point goes beyond this one example and is meant to be applied more broadly and in an ideological sense. And it’s an interesting point. But at the same time, I think it’s ascribing more ideology to the phrase than most people really have in regards to it. This sounds mean but I think of how else to say it - it’s sort of a “parrot” thing to me. People just say it. Which is fine with me, I mean it would be rude if they walked up to someone from another country and told them “God bless America” but at the same time as far as freedom of speech goes it isn’t the most offensive thing Americans have come up with. God Bless America is kind of one of those glittering patriotic things that just are - it sounds nice, and people don’t think about it. Because if you did, it doesn’t make all that much sense, like why WOULDN’T God bless America, are we begging or apologizing for something? But that’s not really how it’s meant. It’s an expression of patriotism to me, even though the actual words could go deeper.</p>
<p>Also “God bless” is usually invoked in a sense of appreciation, like when someone really likes something or feels grateful for it. This can be ethnocentric, and it can be not ethnocentric. Personally, I’m grateful I live in America. On the other hand, I don’t believe that problems in other countries are the result of their cultures being inferior to ours, but rather the result of exploitation. I think appreciation for your own situation crosses the line into ethnocentrism when you start assuming that if only everyone acted like you, they would have as good as a life as you do. This goes not necessarily just for global boundaries, but for demographic issues within our country, i.e. “they asked for it, they brought it on themselves.” I don’t really believe that someone with less advantages than me could just magically do the same things and then end up in the same place. This is unrealistic, but people like to think it, because the myth of the self-made man eases the guilt for those of us (I include myself here, not going to lie) who have more than they need.</p>