One of the most insane aspects of American culture to me as a foreigner is how okay violence is culturally, and how taboo even nudity (not even sex) is.
One of them celebrates death and destruction, the other one is about life and creation. Seems to me like the priorities are the wrong way round.
That's insane to me as an American as well! I have 4 kids, and I've been absolutely appalled at how much violence there is in stuff that's directed at kids compared to how much people try to shield them from nudity. Everyone just takes it for granted that the average children's story is going to have someone fighting someone.
I've had that exact conversation with someone.
"I don't mind if they see nudity."
"Aren't you worried about how it will affect them?"
"I dunno, how many people died in the last Marvel movie? We're not worried about them becoming mass murderers. And besides, if the consequence of them seeing nudity is ... sex? That's a thing they'll be able to do when they're old enough, as opposed to murder, which will never be right in any circumstance..."
I agree with you, also as an american. I want to blame 'our' fear of nudity and sex on the Puritans and our puritanical (ha) national religious views. Love of violence or acceptance of violence feels like the reciprocal impact of fear of sex.
The idea I have is our fear of sex lead to US film makers searching for something that would get people's attention, and violence turned out to be it. One could also make a vague claim about guns being a more natural part of our independent fantastical claims of living on the frontier (needed to kill the previous inhabitants during our genocidal takeovers). But I think it was the infamous Hayes Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code) in the 1930s, where we moved from a time without as much cinematic censorship (that allowed both violence and sex & nudity at times) into a time that was much more anti-sex in the media. The anti-sex was already there, but the Hayes code gave anti-sex conservatives much more power to control mass media for a while.
I think both the American cultural fear/disgust of sex and acceptance/romanticizing of violence both come from the same Judeo-Christian roots. The Bible often describes violence as part of God's justice, and this idea of just violence is expressed everywhere from chivalric codes and ideals of masculine/gentlemanly behavior to the very concept of states as monopolies on violence and policing.
Even setting that aside, you have the influence on Western culture of Greek and Roman myths, where heroes were defined not by recognizably Christian moral virtues but by their superhuman capacity to commit violence. The ancients weren't particularly afraid of sex either (nor did they have the same ideas about sexuality that would develop into the heterosexual/homosexual dynamic in Christendom) but it's easy to see how the aspects synchronous to the Judeo-Christian ideal would persist in the culture while the other stuff went by the wayside.
US popular culture is pretty milquetoast when it comes to celebrating violence and death and destruction. I mean, yeah, American Sniper glorified a guy who shot 255 people to death from a distance where they couldn't even see him, many of them women and children. But they're afraid to even show death, and constantly seek to airbrush out the cruelty and filth of war, with the objective of making it palatable to the public. The military (which negotiates extensive veto powers over Hollywood films that use US military locations and equipment) has learned only too well from Vietnam that civilians do not approve of the reality of war, and in the US the civilians are still in charge to a significant degree, for now.
Even movies like Hannibal, Psycho, and Schindler's List usually turn the camera the other way before blood starts splashing around, the stinking, grossly distorted, dismembered things that just stopped being human never even appear in the background. In fact, I bet American culture abhors violence so much that I'll get downvoted for telling the truth about violent death in my previous sentence instead of euphemizing it.
— ⁂ —
Contrast Iliad 6.37–71, in Murray's meticulous but annoyingly archaized 01924 translation:
But Adrastus did Menelaus, good at the warcry, take alive; for his two horses, coursing in terror over the plain, became entangled in a tamarisk bough, and breaking the curved car at the end of the pole, themselves went on toward the city whither the rest were fleeing in rout; but their master rolled from out the car beside the wheel headlong in the dust upon his face. And to his side came Menelaus, son of Atreus, bearing his far-shadowing spear.
Then Adrastus clasped him by the knees and besought him: “Take me alive, thou son of Atreus, and accept a worthy ransom; treasures full many lie stored in the palace of my wealthy father, bronze and gold and iron wrought with toil; thereof would my father grant thee ransom past counting, should he hear that I am alive at the ships of the Achaeans.”
So spake he, and sought to persuade the other's heart in his breast, and lo, Menelaus was about to give him to his squire to lead to the swift ships of the Achaeans, but Agamemnon came running to meet him, and spake a word of reproof, saying: “Soft-hearted Menelaus, why carest thou thus for the men? Hath then so great kindness been done thee in thy house by Trojans? Of them let not one escape sheer destruction and the might of our hands, nay, not the man-child whom his mother bears in her womb; let not even him escape, but let all perish together out of Ilios, unmourned and unmarked.”
So spake the warrior, and turned his brother's mind, for he counselled aright; so Menelaus with his hand thrust from him the warrior Adrastus, and lord Agamemnon smote him on the flank, and he fell backward; and the son of Atreus planted his heel on his chest, and drew forth the ashen spear. Then Nestor shouted aloud, and called to the Argives: “My friends, Danaan warriors, squires of Ares, let no man now abide behind in eager desire for spoil, that he may come to the ships bearing the greatest store; nay, let us slay the men; thereafter in peace shall ye strip the armour from the corpses that lie dead over the plain.”
In Pope's more poetic but considerably less literal rendering:
Unbless’d Adrastus next at mercy lies
Beneath the Spartan spear, a living prize.
Scared with the din and tumult of the fight,
His headlong steeds, precipitate in flight,
Rush’d on a tamarisk’s strong trunk, and broke
The shatter’d chariot from the crooked yoke;
Wide o’er the field, resistless as the wind,
For Troy they fly, and leave their lord behind.
Prone on his face he sinks beside the wheel:
Atrides o’er him shakes his vengeful steel;
The fallen chief in suppliant posture press’d
The victor’s knees, and thus his prayer address’d:
“O spare my youth, and for the life I owe
Large gifts of price my father shall bestow.
When fame shall tell, that, not in battle slain,
Thy hollow ships his captive son detain:
Rich heaps of brass shall in thy tent be told,
And steel well-temper’d, and persuasive gold.”
He said: compassion touch’d the hero’s heart
He stood, suspended with the lifted dart:
As pity pleaded for his vanquish’d prize,
Stern Agamemnon swift to vengeance flies,
And, furious, thus: “Oh impotent of mind!
Shall these, shall these Atrides’ mercy find?
Well hast thou known proud Troy’s perfidious land,
And well her natives merit at thy hand!
Not one of all the race, nor sex, nor age,
Shall save a Trojan from our boundless rage:
Ilion shall perish whole, and bury all;
Her babes, her infants at the breast, shall fall;
A dreadful lesson of exampled fate,
To warn the nations, and to curb the great!”
The monarch spoke; the words, with warmth address’d,
To rigid justice steel’d his brother’s breast.
Fierce from his knees the hapless chief he thrust;
The monarch’s javelin stretch’d him in the dust,
Then pressing with his foot his panting heart,
Forth from the slain he tugg’d the reeking dart.
Old Nestor saw, and roused the warrior’s rage;
“Thus, heroes! thus the vigorous combat wage;
No son of Mars descend, for servile gains,
To touch the booty, while a foe remains.
Behold yon glittering host, your future spoil!
First gain the conquest, then reward the toil.”
Even Pope in 01899, anxious to flatter Victorian prejudices, is euphemizing and softpedaling this shit pretty hard here. "γαστέρι μήτηρ κοῦρον" means "boy in mother's belly" ("γαστέρι", like "gastroenterologist"), not "Her babes, her infants at the breast." "ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρας κτείνωμεν" means "kill the other men", not "Behold yon glittering host". "ἕκηλοι νεκροὺς ἂμ πεδίον συλήσετε τεθνηῶτας" means "at ease among the corpses strip the dying", not "first gain the conquest, then reward the toil". Like, literally Nestor doesn't mention conquests, toil, or rewards here at all. (And obviously he doesn't mention Mars, who Pope has substituted for Ares.) "Ἀγαμέμνων οὖτα κατὰ λαπάρην" means "Agamemnon struck soft flesh", not "The monarch’s javelin stretch’d him in the dust", though Pope adds "Forth from the slain he tugg’d the reeking dart," while the Greek original doesn't say Adrestos was slain or anything about the smell of the spear of Agamemnon Atreides, just "λὰξ ἐν στήθεσι βὰς ἐξέσπασε μείλινον ἔγχος," which means "stepping on chest pulled the [ash-wood?] spear back out".
One of them celebrates death and destruction, the other one is about life and creation. Seems to me like the priorities are the wrong way round.