That's pretty disrespectful and ignorant to other cultures and customs.
It made me realise that this whole article is really spiteful and negative. It doesn't contribute anything to making things better.
I'm surprised point 6 didn't defend into playground name calling.
Grow up.
May be that is a minor case to a US citizen. But might not be to a wider world of audience. He might not like it, but if he had any respect to his wider reader, may be he should not have wrote it. But then again, I know US tends to be more relax or loose in these sort of things. I guess it is a culture crash.
Maybe we should have just referred to plain "Barack Obama" over here because fuck this President shit, we don't have an elected head of state in the United Kingdom?
and the story was broken in the Financial Times,
a British newspaper.
Best I can tell, Sir is a title bestowed by the monarchy on people they like.
> all living former U.S. Presidents continue to be addressed as "Mr. President"
President isn't Obama's job any more. Sadly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honours_Committee
(Do you think the Queen was enthusiastic about knighting Elton John or Mick Jagger? https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-real-reason-que...)
Also, not all jobs come with an associated title. I'm a software engineer, but people don't refer to me as Software Engineer Joe Bloggs. "President" absolutely is used as a title. This is especially clear with former presidents, who retain the title. (E.g. George Bush, who isn't president, is still President Bush.)
The purpose is hierarchy. Sir Tim Berners Lee deserves that title. He is afforded recognition. Sir Bob Geldof has got there too. Although not everything to do with Band Aid was awesome, we give Sir Bob the dues. Then there are the rogues such as the arms salesmen. Athletes get the honours too. Get a few gold medals at the Olympics and you are there.
Unfortunately there are inherited titles, but, as mentioned the system is not universally liked and far from perfect. It is a hierarchy with the German lady married to some Greek bloke calling herself Queen at the top.
But what happens in a society where you don't have these things?
You have to have wealth and toys to confer status. You have only made it when you have the McMansion and the European super/hyper car, maybe with the private jet.
The British system is far cheaper. You can be respected with the 'sir' title and live in a Victorian terraced house with Blue Plaque outside. No private jet needed. With 'sir' the reputation goes before the person who has the title, it is what they say that matters, not however much bling stuff they own that matters.
It is understandable that in other parts of the formerly colonised world that this hierarchy is not desired, but there is an advantage to a society where people know their place and are content with their lot. Otherwise it is like America where you have to get rich or die trying with no happy in-between.
Not all customs deserve respect. I guess I don't have to produce a list of all the things that were once "customs", and that now horrify us. "Sir" is a honorific that implies class distinction, to indicate that someone is socially above you, by virtue of birth or by the decision of a monarch.
I know that the British crown now give knighthoods to honor notable artists, scientists, politicians, etc. It also still uses it in the traditional sense. In the UK, you can have a seat at the House of Lords (the upper house of parliament) because of your social status, either by birth or by position in the clergy. I certainly do not respect any of that.
Knighthoods (“Sir”) are in reality awarded by decisions of the elected government, though nominally by the Queen.
It particularly astonishes me when Americans defend these costumes, given that their country was essentially created in opposition to such a class system.