4 ms·

How many countries would push $10 million worth of aircraft (1970s money) to save civilians? I know anti-American sentiment is very trendy on HN, but I found t

How many countries would push $10 million worth of aircraft (1970s money) to save civilians? I know anti-American sentiment is very trendy on HN, but I found this interesting: Sirius Satellite Radio runs 1970's episodes of American Top 40 with Casey Casem on Sundays. A few weeks ago I was surprised to hear a spoken-word piece called "Americans" by a Canadian named Byron MacGregor was a top-40 hit. Here's a sample of the lyrics: When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age It was the Americans who rebuilt them When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke Nobody loaned them an old caboose Both are still broke I can name you five thousand times When the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble Can you name me even one time When someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help Even during the San Francisco earthquake You can read the full lyrics here: https://genius.com/Byron-macgregor-americans-lyrics https://genius.com/Byron-macgregor-americans-lyrics

bradrn 2y ago
Apparently it was by Gordon Sinclair originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(commentary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(commentary)
keybored 2y ago
“Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war mongering Americans I'd like to just see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplanes Come on, let's hear it Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet The Lockheed Tri-star or the Douglas-10? If so, why don't they fly them?” I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus. Or, these days, Embraer. If other countries didn't have competitive aircraft the US wouldn't feel the need for tariffs.
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus This was written and published before Airbus' first plane was in the air, and decades before Embraer had a large passenger jet. It also specifically states "jumbo jet." Does Embraer even have a jumbo today? The largest one listed on Wikipedia is 124 passengers, and that only came out in 2004.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Date check: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2014/07/04/stirring-1973-americans-radio-commentary-i-am-one-canadian-who https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2014/07/04/... So that was 1973, in between the first test flight and entry into service of the A300. I might argue that one reason Americans get a lot of stick from the rest of the world is exactly this kind of "America number one" stuff.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities. This was not about the Vietnam war. Nor was it written by an American.
  - keybored 2y ago
    When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?). Do you understand the concept of associations? > Nor was it written by an American. And who said it was?
    - reaperducer 2y ago
      When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?). The author, himself, said it was not about the Vietnam War. You can wish as hard as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You just insist on making that association, even though the lyrics explicitly talk about other crises.
      - keybored 2y ago
        Authorial intent only goes so far. You release a song during the tail-end of the Vietnam War and decry the fact that people are decrying the “war mongering” Americans? Well that’s the obvious association. But authorial intent can definitely be pinned on juxtaposing whatever “war mongering” with apparently making great planes. I don’t know what kind of harebrained idea that was. > I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You hate to break it to me? That’s a bizarre statement. I’m not jilted by anyone over that war. And the Vietnam War, again, was happening when the commentary was released and when the spoken-word song was released. Obvious associations. Did Springsteen mean rah-rah America with his Born in the USA? No but it was still used for that purpose by some people.
relix 2y ago
I read worryingly little (no?) counter to the sentiment expressed by the lyrics as part of your message and the comments here. And the implication that people in other countries wouldn't spend $10MM of government funds to save a family instead of watching them ditch in the water is ridiculous. - "The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly. - An example of where the world has helped significantly: Post 9/11 wars - A recent example of when the world has helped: Californian wild fires - And separately from that, of those "five thousand times" where the USA has helped other people in trouble, I guarantee a lot of those actually had considerable benefits for USA, meaning it wasn't a charity thing but the USA got something they wanted out of it, as well. Which is fine but let's not kid ourselves about those motives. Just opening Wikipedia on the San Francisco earthquake, under the heading "Relief" it gives some indication of the international support given: > During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000, equivalent to $169,560,000 in 2023. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the Bank of Canada in Ottawa gave $25,000. And if we're allowed to go back as far as the San Francisco earthquake to "judge" the world, maybe we can extend that just a little further towards independence, where France provided significant support to the fledgling nation. "The Americans", is frankly, ridiculous, and anyone subscribing to the sentiments within betrays the same (and wrong) isolationist understanding of the world as they ironically indeed blame others to have.
- StefanBatory 2y ago
  > The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly. The only time Article 5 was called, was by America... And most of the Europe obliged. Danes too. Who are now being threatened by the new administration.
Toutouxc 2y ago
That's... surprisingly bad.
dredmorbius 2y ago
The US was joined in Vietnam, context of this article, by France (whose problem it was to begin with), Canada, Australia, the UK, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and other states. The US was at the time in military alliances with much of Western Europe (NATO, 1949), South Pacific (SEATO, 1955), and an intelligence alliance (Five Eyes, 1941), amongst numerous other alliances and strategic partnerships. The US was born in battle with the assistance of France. Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty attest to this. At the time Americans was written (1974), the US was the world's leading superpower. It's not terribly surprising that in general aid flowed from the US to other states. But the flow and alliances were far from one-way even then. Your song, as with your broader point and follow-ups, is an extraordinary misreading and misrepresentation of history.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  Canada didn't fight in Vietnam. Canada was part of the International Control Commision (along with Poland & India). Canada sold the US a couple $ Billion in weapons and allowed the US to test defoliating agents on a base in New Brunswick, and Canadians joined the US Military to fight in Vietnam.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    My error, apologies.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Also, all of NATO triggered Article 5 (mutual defense) for the only time ever, after 9-11, and they went to Afghanistan. The UK and other countries, though not as many, went to Iraq. The competition with China depends heavily on alliances with Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and others. In fact, no country depends on and utilizes its allies more than the US.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    I'd focused on alliances and support received prior to 1974, the year the song (and the diatribe on which it was based) emerged. In the subsequent 51 years, there've been additional instances, including much mutual aid during natural disasters in which the US has received (or occasionally turned down) assistance from other states, near and far.

bradrn 2y ago

Apparently it was by Gordon Sinclair originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(commentary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(commentary)

keybored 2y ago

“Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war mongering Americans I'd like to just see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplanes Come on, let's hear it Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet The Lockheed Tri-star or the Douglas-10? If so, why don't they fly them?” I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.

pjc50 2y ago
> Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus. Or, these days, Embraer. If other countries didn't have competitive aircraft the US wouldn't feel the need for tariffs.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus This was written and published before Airbus' first plane was in the air, and decades before Embraer had a large passenger jet. It also specifically states "jumbo jet." Does Embraer even have a jumbo today? The largest one listed on Wikipedia is 124 passengers, and that only came out in 2004.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Date check: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2014/07/04/stirring-1973-americans-radio-commentary-i-am-one-canadian-who https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2014/07/04/... So that was 1973, in between the first test flight and entry into service of the A300. I might argue that one reason Americans get a lot of stick from the rest of the world is exactly this kind of "America number one" stuff.
reaperducer 2y ago
I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities. This was not about the Vietnam war. Nor was it written by an American.
- keybored 2y ago
  When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?). Do you understand the concept of associations? > Nor was it written by an American. And who said it was?
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    When it was released, the part about “war-mongering Americans”, and the apparent association with the war (was Ride of the Valkyries about the Vietnam War?). The author, himself, said it was not about the Vietnam War. You can wish as hard as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You just insist on making that association, even though the lyrics explicitly talk about other crises.
    - keybored 2y ago
      Authorial intent only goes so far. You release a song during the tail-end of the Vietnam War and decry the fact that people are decrying the “war mongering” Americans? Well that’s the obvious association. But authorial intent can definitely be pinned on juxtaposing whatever “war mongering” with apparently making great planes. I don’t know what kind of harebrained idea that was. > I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You hate to break it to me? That’s a bizarre statement. I’m not jilted by anyone over that war. And the Vietnam War, again, was happening when the commentary was released and when the spoken-word song was released. Obvious associations. Did Springsteen mean rah-rah America with his Born in the USA? No but it was still used for that purpose by some people.

relix 2y ago

I read worryingly little (no?) counter to the sentiment expressed by the lyrics as part of your message and the comments here. And the implication that people in other countries wouldn't spend $10MM of government funds to save a family instead of watching them ditch in the water is ridiculous. - "The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly. - An example of where the world has helped significantly: Post 9/11 wars - A recent example of when the world has helped: Californian wild fires - And separately from that, of those "five thousand times" where the USA has helped other people in trouble, I guarantee a lot of those actually had considerable benefits for USA, meaning it wasn't a charity thing but the USA got something they wanted out of it, as well. Which is fine but let's not kid ourselves about those motives. Just opening Wikipedia on the San Francisco earthquake, under the heading "Relief" it gives some indication of the international support given: > During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000, equivalent to $169,560,000 in 2023. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the Bank of Canada in Ottawa gave $25,000. And if we're allowed to go back as far as the San Francisco earthquake to "judge" the world, maybe we can extend that just a little further towards independence, where France provided significant support to the fledgling nation. "The Americans", is frankly, ridiculous, and anyone subscribing to the sentiments within betrays the same (and wrong) isolationist understanding of the world as they ironically indeed blame others to have.

StefanBatory 2y ago
> The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly. The only time Article 5 was called, was by America... And most of the Europe obliged. Danes too. Who are now being threatened by the new administration.

Toutouxc 2y ago

That's... surprisingly bad.

dredmorbius 2y ago

The US was joined in Vietnam, context of this article, by France (whose problem it was to begin with), Canada, Australia, the UK, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and other states. The US was at the time in military alliances with much of Western Europe (NATO, 1949), South Pacific (SEATO, 1955), and an intelligence alliance (Five Eyes, 1941), amongst numerous other alliances and strategic partnerships. The US was born in battle with the assistance of France. Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty attest to this. At the time Americans was written (1974), the US was the world's leading superpower. It's not terribly surprising that in general aid flowed from the US to other states. But the flow and alliances were far from one-way even then. Your song, as with your broader point and follow-ups, is an extraordinary misreading and misrepresentation of history.

sillywalk 2y ago
Canada didn't fight in Vietnam. Canada was part of the International Control Commision (along with Poland & India). Canada sold the US a couple $ Billion in weapons and allowed the US to test defoliating agents on a base in New Brunswick, and Canadians joined the US Military to fight in Vietnam.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  My error, apologies.
mmooss 2y ago
Also, all of NATO triggered Article 5 (mutual defense) for the only time ever, after 9-11, and they went to Afghanistan. The UK and other countries, though not as many, went to Iraq. The competition with China depends heavily on alliances with Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and others. In fact, no country depends on and utilizes its allies more than the US.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I'd focused on alliances and support received prior to 1974, the year the song (and the diatribe on which it was based) emerged. In the subsequent 51 years, there've been additional instances, including much mutual aid during natural disasters in which the US has received (or occasionally turned down) assistance from other states, near and far.