The etiquette of the United States is founded on the idea that all people should be treated equally and decently.

Add a rider It is true only if they are WASPS, or at least other financially/numerically powerful groups like Jews, Negros, and Hispanics, or at the very least they are citizens of the USA.

No, that's the whole point. It is founded on the idea that all people should be treated equally. Historically, Blacks were considered non-people. This was a serious problem.

As our view of people is growing to include Blacks, Hispanics, etc. our etiquette applies equally to them. There are some growing pains as people don't like having to treat Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Gays, Transexuals, etc. as equal. But the basic premise has always been that equality is right.

We do not live up to our ideals, but that is what our etiquette is founded on. That is why it was criticized a long time ago by a visiting English woman, becuase she found it galling to be expected to treat her "clear social inferiors" as equal. The etiquette of England was not founded on the idea of equality. But in the US, it was.

We just need to get better at actually using it.

Rachel, beware of conflating equality with equity.  Many people do.  But one term is about equal outcomes, and the other is about fairness.  One is an end, while the other is a means.

It's a complex topic, but that's all I'll say for now, since I'm on my way out the door.

You are supposed to treat people equally, because the assumption is that the value of a person, as far as etiquette is concerned, is the same regardless of who the person is.

At least, that would be my interpretation. The same etiquette rules apply to all people.

it's a myth that there is equality in the states. it was always a country that favoured christianity, and people who had money. think about slavery, and the slaughter of native americans.

I never claimed otherwise.

I don't know what the foundations of American etiquette are, aside from a melting pot of European systems. Also, "founded on" isn't the phrase I'd've chosen.

How do they do it in Canada?

I don't know about Canada. I'm reading about the history of American etiquette, and it doesn't much go into Canadian etiquette.

In my earlier comment, I somehow forgot that the discussion is limited to etiquette.  That's what I get for reading too quickly.

I use phrases like "Please" and "Thank you".
When I answer the phone, I say my name.
When I make a phone call, I introduce myself to whomever answers.
I eat with fork and knife, when I'm finished I lay them together on the plate.
I open the door for my wife.

...

What did you say about etiquette in the USA?

I said it is founded upon the notion that all people should be treated equally and decently. If you'd care to explain how anything you said relates to that, I'd be happy to explain further.

One of your examples actually highlights that remarkably well if you are using US etiquette, even though it is not required by US etiquette - when you answer the phone you say your name, giving whomever is on the other side equal treatment until you have reason to treat them differently.

I wouldn't use the word 'etiquette' to get at what I think you are trying to say - but substitute 'national character' or whatever else and I still wouldn't agree with it, especially if it's intended as a statement of American exeptionalism.

No, she definitely means 'etiquette'. Different cultures draw their idea of what is mannerly from different sources; this is where America's comes from.

What I find more interesting is that you seem to consider the motivation behind a statement as impinging on its truth value. That's just screw-up thinking as far as I'm concerned.

D'A

I do mean etiquette. Etiquette is a system of manners. It gives you guidelines so you know what to do. Not all of etiquette is based on such things, but etiquette is vital in a society. Etiquette includes simple things like when on an escalator, stand on the right side, walk on the left side. If everyone knows to do this, then everyone can use the escalator as suits them best with the fewest problems. There's nothing inherently better about that rule than stand on the left and walk on the right. That would work just as well. What is important is that everyone use the same system, or else you get a congested escalator, and some people are annoyed.

British etiquette, for a counterexample, is not based on equality. It is based on hierarchy. It was founded from an idea that there are different social strata and that it is vital that people of inferior rank show respect to those of higher rank. American etiquette has been criticized throughout history by various British people for allowing social inferiors to become "uppity" by being treated as equals.

Note, this is not a comment on current British etiquette, but on historic British etiquette.

As US etiquette did evolve from a mish-mash of other cultures, including England, some of the smaller effects of that linger, such as the idea that when making introductions you introduce the person of lower rank to the person of higher rank. But this is much decreased in the US.

The US made numerous changes and inventions founded on notions of equality, and this is fascinating because it was novel. The people themselves, being people, still held tons of prejudices, but the basis of the etiquette system is one of equality, and that general concept as part of an etiquette system is spreading.

There are other interesting differences between US etiquette and most other systems of etiquette, such as the idea that it is acceptable to talk about the earning of money, and a general openness to new people (likely created due to high mobility and a frontier environment that made people need to work together with strangers and created the idea that it was okay to talk to new people without formal introductions through mutual acquaintances and such. Americans have been criticized for being too outgoing with strangers, which is not surprising since it was a change in etiquette from most other places).

While we may have been founded on that claim, we no longer support it. Minorities and those who are considered 'morally wrong' by the 'religious right' are often neglected in this country. Equality is relative, and in this country, relativity is no longer consistent.

The country was founded with the idea of equality under the law, and it did a poor job of that since it allowed for slavery. The etiquette of the country is a very different issue though. And while we have had setbacks, I would argue that overall it is improving, slowly.