earlier Pilgrims had a xenophobic reaction to living in Holland.
Most Dutch emigrants (55% before 1855) originated from those parts where rich marine clay-soil had led them to specialise in crop growing, namely the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen and later on also Friesland. Emigrants were for the most part day labourers working on the farms. Another important group (accounting for 31% of emigrants) consisted mainly of small farmers from the light sandy soil areas in the east and the south of the country.
Nearly half of the Dutch departing between 1845 and 1849 belonged to a dissenting Protestant denomination called the ?Afgescheidenen?, or 'Seceded'.
The Dutch have had a pretty good reputation for religious tolerence. 'Tolerence' and 'pragmatism' are the two chief strengths of Dutch culture. Usually people ran TO the Netherlands. I can't find any record of anything beyond religious quarrels between the main Dutch church and the Afgescheidenen, so religious oppression was not a major factor in movement of Dutch people to the USA - or Jewish people resident in the Netherlands.
I've lived here for a while now, and although the Dutch can be annoyingly po-faced and up-tight at times, I feel some loyalty towards the place!
"Emotions taking away from personal responsibility" is a bit different to suggesting that American society has a very "don't tred on me" approach to life. I agree with the latter. I'm happy to agree that over riding cultural values we both seem to roughly agree on can influence one's enculturation. But the unchanging nature of the , if you want, Jungian archetypes, despite the fact we are two centuries away from when that was arguably formed is... curious.
Maybe it is John Wayne's fault...
I assume you aren't counting such "anomalies" as the Balkan conflicts, Hitler, the Spanish Civil War... etc.. etc... etc...
Oh, to be sure people kill each other everywhere and often for no particulary good reason. It's just the chronic, s p r e a d o u t, continual way you guys do it. And since WWII, the Western European countries have been comparatively free of either anolomic or chronic afflictions of murder.
I mean, maybe we don't nationalize and industrialize our murders - maybe if we did we wouldn't have such a high "incidental" murder rate between civilians? Maybe because we have to go so far away to find a socially acceptable outlet for our homicidal instincts? Whereas all a Bosnian had to do was go next door and pop his neighbor and it still fell under "war"???
Either or argument. It holds that either you have a murderous government or a murderous populace. There is plenty of evidence that are other possibilities, including one where no-one is especially murderous.
I think it's down to the age of a society. Look at Japan. Feudal to the middle of the 19thC. Attitudes toward women, violence, individual freedom, environmental responsibiliy and animal ethics are less advanced from a Western European viewpoint. Spain. Only part of Europe occupied by Muslims. Lower levels of animal ethics than the rest of Europe. The Islamic world, which was basically for a large part stuck at 1875 up until the last 50 years. Attitudes toward women, violence, individual freedom, environmental responsibiliy and animal ethics are less advanced from a Western European viewpoint. The United States. Still has judicial execution; state-sanctioned killing. This is less advanced from a Western European viewpoint. One can argue that the Western European viewpoint isn't the best, obviously.
Western Europe is not a perfect society. But we have been through what other societies have been through; industrialisation, capitalism, mass education, racial and sexual equality, religious tolerence and secularisation of society, killing as a judicial sanction.
We've kept the good bits; the fact that this results in a measurably fairer and safer society is proof they are the good bits; the ideas that work.
Maybe a first step to making America a more peaceful land is to end judicial execution and replace it with 'real' life sentences.
Good discussion BTW