View Full Version : Anti-Americanism
What do you (the collective) take as the roots/reason for anti-Americanism?
Tribesman
05-09-2007, 01:12
What is anti Americanism ?
ajaxfetish
05-09-2007, 01:17
I think there are a number of factors.
One would be disapproval of American policies, which can be fairly heavy-handed, as well as ubiquitous considering the global reach of the country.
Another would probably be lack of contact with the average American and general American culture, meaning that for many their main ideas about America would be based on Hollywood and American tourists, who can sometimes be very annoying and insensitive.
I think another, and probably the most important, is envy. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and even the poorest Americans live in conditions many people would consider luxurious. We have an incredibly high rate of consumption, and can throw our weight around worldwide both economically and politically, making us a natural target for those who wish they could live in similar conditions or take pride in their own nation's power.
There are probably more as well, that either aren't coming to mind at the moment or that it would take an outside perspective to recognize.
Ajax
Grey_Fox
05-09-2007, 01:21
Perceived ignorance of the world of the average American.
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 01:22
hm. the continunal imperialistic expansion of the world's only super-power without regard to the other nations of the world, its own masses of poor, or morality? the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy whilst undermining democratically elected governments it doesnt agree with?
probably a close second is the corporate congomerates who run the government and military-industrial complex.
CrossLOPER
05-09-2007, 02:16
hm. the continunal imperialistic expansion of the world's only super-power without regard to the other nations of the world, its own masses of poor, or morality? the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy whilst undermining democratically elected governments it doesnt agree with?
probably a close second is the corporate congomerates who run the government and military-industrial complex.
Founded arrogance?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-09-2007, 03:54
hm. the continunal imperialistic expansion of the world's only super-power without regard to the other nations of the world, its own masses of poor, or morality? the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy whilst undermining democratically elected governments it doesnt agree with?
probably a close second is the corporate congomerates who run the government and military-industrial complex.
Imperialism?
Hardly, we actually are dumb enough to conquer them and then let them loose. Even with the Amerinds we did things in fits and starts with no cohesive plan of conquest. We're pretty lousy as imperialists.
Some truth on the other points of course, though the corporate "rulership" is hardly a direct connection process. The corps do like to use their influence when they can though.
Strike For The South
05-09-2007, 03:57
becuase we're really really really rediculosly good looking
becuase we're really really really good looking
QFT.
Perceived ignorance of the world of the average American.
Also a BIG QFT. I've travelled a good number of places, and was both surprised at the level of ignorance about (what I think) the average American is like, and thankfully did some surprising in a good way (I like to think I am polite and well behaved, at least not when posting in the org :grin: ).
hm. the continunal imperialistic expansion of the world's only super-power without regard to the other nations of the world, its own masses of poor, or morality? the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy whilst undermining democratically elected governments it doesnt agree with?
probably a close second is the corporate congomerates who run the government and military-industrial complex.
While extremely poorly worded and phrased, there is some truth in here. America is far from Imperialistic, but our current government does seem to have a really hard time with keeping out of other soverign nation's business. No matter what anyone says, I promise you all that what's been going on in Iraq is due to one thing, oil. Period. End of story. It still annoys me that instead of seeing real, honest to god, determined efforts toward aggressively developing an alternative form of energy (esp. for transportation) and bringing it to market, the relevant groups hide behind supposed "studies" that indicate "there's no market demand for this".
The same goes for corporate America, which IMO has got way out of control over the past decade or so. To be sure though, some of the more moronic America-bashing I've seen and really paid attention to as of late I honestly believe is rooted in a form of jealousy. We have it pretty decent over here, and much of this I attribute to us working our asses off to make it so.
KafirChobee
05-09-2007, 05:44
Anti-Americanism: 1) Not being a loyal Bushy 2) Not agreeing with the conservatist agenda 3) not believing in the war in Iraq 4) Not agreeing with the subversion of legal rights - i.e. anyone trying to get rights for those illegal combatants in Gitmo. 5) Not being a born again christian 6)Anyone disagreeing with anything Rushlimballs says.
What could be easier? Oh, and of course anything French.
:balloon2:
Papewaio
05-09-2007, 06:25
Tall poppy syndrome. Put your head above the pack and it will be lopped off to make into soporific's for the masses. Some countries and demagogues require enemies of the nation, this way they can pass off their poor policies and economics on an external factor.
America is the biggest economically and militarily. An elephants footsteps become a moonscape for the ants that cross its path. Also it is not exactly a master of subtlety from time to time when it comes to throwing its weight around. A fat man playing on the monkey bars will get teased no matter how much he is trying to lose weight. It not only a large target, but it paints a bullseye on itself as someone to blame for ills perceived and real. Things like Guantanamo and retroactive laws gives leverage and ammunition to some who will take every opportunity to attack Americas policy, it also gives pause and thought to those who are her allies yet want to remain educated men.
ShadeHonestus
05-09-2007, 06:39
Subjective morality structures easily corrupted by some quasi-esoteric social value placed upon any morality in direct contrast to any American position....almost ironic in term.
What could be easier? Oh, and of course anything French.
In the spirit of Major League..."juuuuuuust a bit outside"
Subjective morality structures easily corrupted by some quasi-esoteric social value placed upon any morality in direct contrast to any American position....almost ironic in term.
This is a really cool sentence. It looks like English. If you read it out loud, it sounds like English. But like some Zen koan, the more you stare at it, the less apparent its meaning becomes. It's kind of beautiful. How can something be "quasi-esoteric"? What does "ironic in term" mean? Take any segment you like, and you'll be puzzled and amazed.
ShadeHonestus
05-09-2007, 07:08
This is a really cool sentence. It looks like English. If you read it out loud, it sounds like English. But like some Zen koan, the more you stare at it, the less apparent its meaning becomes. It's kind of beautiful. How can something be "quasi-esoteric"? What does "ironic in term" mean? Take any segment you like, and you'll be puzzled and amazed.
Its really quite simple...
quasi-esoteric would mean the lack of truth in the known to a select group of knowers based upon qualified (usually exclusionary of all facts rendered for disscusion) entry as opposed to the existence of truth in the known in a group of knowers based upon qualified (inclusive of all facts rendered for discussion) entry.
Ironic in term....going to have to ask to see your green card.
Major Robert Dump
05-09-2007, 07:21
I think one thing that irritates other countries is our tendency to forget, sweep under the rug, ignore, or fail to teach our children bad things that our country has done in the past. And I'm not talking about slavery and the injuns. We have this nifty way of starting over everytime we get a new president, or have a congressional agenda shift, or hit a major milestone, like a cheating husband who buys his wife a new car everytime he sticks his :daisy: in the babysitter.
So then the naivette kicks in, and us good ole Americans just can't understand why people X,Y, or Z would hate us for something that was done in the past. We've gotten over it, why can't they? (not that it ever bothered us to begin with). And people who do point this out are called The-Blame-America-First-Movement, or anti-american.
There are other reasons, but thats the one that bothers me the most because, to be honest, some people have a right to hate us.
ShadeHonestus
05-09-2007, 07:26
I think one thing that irritates other countries is our tendency to forget, sweep under the rug, ignore, or fail to teach our children bad things that our country has done in the past. And I'm not talking about slavery and the injuns. We have this nifty way of starting over everytime we get a new president, or have a congressional agenda shift, or hit a major milestone, like a cheating husband who buys his wife a new car everytime he sticks his wanker in the babysitter.
I think thats a very good point, Dump. Even domestically I'm surprised how greatly our textbooks shift from administration to administration. You'll find entire presidencies missing in our own U.S. history books depending on who's in power federally and within the eduction bureaucracy/unions, both sides equally guilty.
A number of things really:
The foreign policies of the administration, the way America acts as the global policeman sticking their noses in other countries business.
The ignorance of the average American about the world outside of America.
The sheer arrogance.
I think another, and probably the most important, is envy. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and even the poorest Americans live in conditions many people would consider luxurious. We have an incredibly high rate of consumption, and can throw our weight around worldwide both economically and politically, making us a natural target for those who wish they could live in similar conditions or take pride in their own nation's power.
That is laughable. You can keep your higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancy, high public debt (64.7% of GDP), $10.04 trillion in debt and your wars. :yes:
ajaxfetish
05-09-2007, 08:18
That is laughable. You can keep your higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancy, high public debt (64.7% of GDP), $10.04 trillion in debt and your wars. :yes:
Worse off than you perhaps, but Australia is not the world. Tell someone living in subsaharan Africa or Bangladesh to laugh our American standard of living to scorn. And that ignores America's greater ability to throw its weight around in world affairs compared to Australia.
Ajax
Just fashionable to hate America, if you want to be salonfähig you have to at least mock it every now and then between schnapps.
mightilyoats
05-09-2007, 09:35
Just fashionable to hate America, if you want to be salonfähig you have to at least mock it every now and then between schnapps.
Why yes. Indeed. That is 100% true. But this trend caused us to look at the US through a microscope just to find faults... And we found many.
USA interferes with foreign governments, bullies foreign governments (even 1st world governments). They dethrone kings and rulers "because they are a danger to humanity". How would Americans feel about a foreign army sweeping into their country, destroying lives and infrastructure? It would be fair. America turned out to be more dangerous than Iraq.
I am ranting. I will stop for schnapps...
Same roots as anti-semitism. People hate others success. So they look for the smallest flaw, the tiniest imperfection and find a reason to hate an entire group of people.
The ignorance of the average American about the world outside of America.
You'll find that with almost any average citizen of almost any country. Only difference in America is the fact of it's size and diversity makes for more information to digest and learn. This isnt the EU after all, countries are not 50-100 miles from each other, there are 50 states. I find the average Europeans knowledge of states to be dismal at best really.
Just fashionable to hate America, if you want to be salonfähig you have to at least mock it every now and then between schnapps.
That doesnt help either.
Rodion Romanovich
05-09-2007, 09:46
nvm, I'll to wait for Pindar's answer to Tribesman's question before commenting
Same roots as anti-semitism. People hate others success.
That's the american *we rox your sox* version, doesn't help either.
BECAUSE THEY EXIST
and everyones goto hate someone
may as well be them
besides they love it really
If they weren't the centre of the universe then theyd have to go out and invade some more countries till people started hating/talking about them again, like Australia... then we'd all be eating burgers and drinking weak beer...
OMG its happened already !!!!!
to quote US President Caligula "let them hate us, as long as they fear us"
:laugh4:
Banquo's Ghost
05-09-2007, 09:55
Tribesman asked a good question - what do you mean by the term?
"Anti-Americanism" seems to range from a dismissal aimed at anyone who criticises administration policy (ie on other forums I've seen the accusation levelled at someone who felt Wolfowitz might be a tad corrupt - the tired "why do you hate freedom" gambit) to nut-jobs measuring themselves for suicide vests.
I suspect Pindar may be setting his sights at the European contributors. Still a broad church, but I would advance one explanation not so far offered:
Disappointment.
The USA has a system of government, a record of acceptance and a history of generosity unparalleled in human history. It is a country that aspires to greatness of spirit, and has many times achieved examples of that aspiration. It is a country, and a people, that many of us look up to and dream of as an inspiration.
Inevitably, paragons fail. Those failures can sometimes be looked on with sympathy, even understanding and friendship. That such a powerful country has not become a deliberately imperial state is a source of wonderment, but toes inevitably get trodden on.
Unfortunately, the current administration has adopted an entirely un-American policy of bullying, intimidation and corrupted the normally gentle, patriotic belief in American superiority into an exclusive, rather than inclusive, credo. The country that pioneered human rights as a universal concept now promulgates the idea that only its citizens deserve such rights.
I have no doubt that this will pass, once the American people free themselves from the fear imposed on them by this administration and realise once again that liberty is their greatest defence, and that liberty for all from political and economic subjugation is the best guarantor for their liberty at home.
In short, apart from the aforementioned nut-jobs I saw little anti-Americanism of the kind now prevalent before the current administration - even during the Reagan years. There's a reason why the world laps up American "culture". Fragony is however, right - there has always been a fashion to sneer at the US, which is deeply regrettable.
Nonetheless, once President Bush and his coterie goes away, I would hope and trust much of the antagonism may as well. Remember, we loved you when you had Clinton... :wink3:
English assassin
05-09-2007, 09:55
What do you (the collective) take as the roots/reason for anti-Americanism
On the part of governments, political movements, and other organised bodies: the fact that it is believed to be a useful tool to keep/obtain power. This is equally the reason for being nice to America. Which route you choose depends on history. Or, in a bid to sound more cleverer than wot I am "Cui bono?"
On the part of Abdul, the man in the cairo omnibus: because he's been told to think that way.
(There are aspects of US foreign policy which IMHO it's entirely right to dislike. Quite a lot, in fact. But outside the readers of the Guardian and its equivalents I doubt they are the reasons for any global prejudice against America that may exist.)
Franconicus
05-09-2007, 09:59
What is anti Americanism ?
That is the question. And if there is anti Americanism, is there also Americanism? I think there is1
Reasons for anti Americanism:
- America is dominating the world at least since WW2. The world order, esp. the economic and more specific the trade system is made and controlled by the US. Plus it is controlled by the US. A great majority of countries benefited from this system, despite the fact that it is not fair and supports the US interests mainly. Therefore, there are some that blame the US for the negative and unfair aspects of this system.
- American economy model and civilisation is very dominant and in some way very agressive. Although this is seen by many as good, there are also many people who do not like that local culture, economic structures and values disappear.
- The 'America First' policy is desastreous. I can understand every American who says: We have all the burden of being number one, so why shouldn't we benefit, too. However, being the lawmaker, the policeman, the judge is not right if you are partisan.
- There is a kind of ingnorance amoung the Americans. They are the dominant nation regarding military, economy and - let's say - entertainmant. However, that makes them ignore the fact that other countries have different values and culture - and that there is no natural law that says that the US ideals are superior. For example the Social Maret in Germany is something we think is better than the American model!
- Military: The US - any government - has a much too strong focus on military and potential of military to solve problems. `This is soemthng Europeans do not understand and do not accept.
Reasons for Americansm
- America is the strongest nation. Most people identify themselves with the strongest. Like my little nephew: strongest = winner = right side; Holywood supports this view.
- American civilisation is very tempting. American culture is. Many youngsters want to be 'American'. There is a reason why American culture is spreading so fast.
- Of course the AMerican model is also very temting for the 'strong' ones. A system without income tax and social responsibility (maybe I overdo a bit) can be very attractive.
Remember, we loved you when you had Clinton... :wink3:
*sighs* aahhh Clinton - those were the days *wipes a tear from his eye, and something from his sleave*
That's the american *we rox your sox* version, doesn't help either.
It's a very simplified version of BG's post, people hate the success we've had. We are the biggest fish in the sea and the easiest target for any problem.
You also have the propaganda people are fed in Iran, parts of south america and mid-east doesnt help.
Other countries using America as an excuse for their failings has also led to more anti-americanism.
But it all leads back to the USA currently being the biggest fish, and the easiest scapegoat for peoples problems.
It's a very simplified version of BG's post, people hate the success we've had.
That assumption can get a bit annoying, you aren't our golden standard, far from it. Anti-americanism is mostly yeahrightism.
AntiochusIII
05-09-2007, 10:22
*sighs* aahhh Clinton - those were the days *wipes a tear from his eye, and something from his sleave*Foreign people thinks having promiscuous Presidents are cool.
And it is cool. I mean, if he had better taste in women... :dizzy2:
That and I'm wondering what in the world is Anti-Americanism. Is it what Louis said in the French Presidential Contest thread ("I hate zee Americains") or is it a blanket statement conveniently interchangeable with liberals, commies, terrorists, Europeans, and the Rest of the World tm ?
You helped the russians in WW2, of course we hate you for that. ~;)
Apart from that, Anti USAism would be more appropriate as a term, except if you want to imply that the USA ARE America(which consists of Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Panama etc.), yeah, there you have a reason for hate, you just think you're the most important center of the earth, and that is simply not true for many people outside the US. For me, Germany is the center of the world and someone who wants to feed me another view can only hope that I'll forgive him.~;)
Ok, seriously, everyone is his own center of the world and if someone else starts glorifying himself as the center of the world, many don't like that, the same applies to nations, few nations like to show a waving flag behind their news and broadcast that worldwide etc.
Also America is one of few democracies left which call themselves a warrior society, that sounds pretty aggressive in other "peace above everything else"-democracies.
I think you're just exporting your nationalism a bit too much, you can love your nation as much as you want, but don't tell me all the time.:sweatdrop:
And no, I don't hate the US, I just hate a few aspects of it, just like I hate a few aspects of other nations, including my own.
Lorenzo_H
05-09-2007, 11:39
I recently thought through why the English dislike the Americans:
a) Firstly, the obvious fact that we lost the War of Independance. We still are not forgetting of the fact that, in truth, we could have owned you all if the East India Trading company hadn't taxed you.
b) The fact that you speak our language means that we feel superior to you yet
c) i) you mess up the accent (many brits find the US accent annoying) and ii) we don't get the credit for inventing such a lovely language.
d) we are smaller, yet still think we are better.
e) Many of us Brits dislike the "world police" policy that the US government often employs.
f) some americans come to England and are loud and obnoxious.
CountArach
05-09-2007, 11:44
I personally think that Bush's wars are one of the causes, either that or a very easy target for everyone. In addition, there seems to be some anti-Americanism in Australia simply because our Government blindly followed your Government into two wars, and have very little to show for it these years down the track.
It was a case of blind leading the blind I guess.
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 11:53
well for those who are saying America is not imperialistic, I should think there are alot of dead central americans, phillipinos, native americans, south asians, southwestern asians, and middle easterners who would disagree with you.
The phillipine-american war for example is one of the most blatant periods of imperial conquest in history. talk about war crimes.. sheesh.
well for those who are saying America is not imperialistic, I should think there are alot of dead central americans, phillipinos, native americans, south asians, southwestern asians, and middle easterners who would disagree with you.
The phillipine-american war for example is one of the most blatant periods of imperial conquest in history. talk about war crimes.. sheesh.
And I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what Imperialism means, or are just using it very improperly. To be sure the US has had more than a few problems in keeping itself out of other nation's problems, but Imperialism is not remotely the right term to use here.
@ Lorenzo_H - :laugh4: Great list, and you DO realize that more than a few of your points work in reverse, right?? :grin:
@ Husar - Oh bah. This whole recently-invented "calling yourselves Americans is arrogant there's more to the americas!" nonsense is just that, nonsense. I live in the USA, and I am an American, not a USian or a USAian. "America" is generally interchangeable with "US" or "USA", and people who get bent out of shape over it I lump in the same category as folks who like bashing the US just because it's "fashionable".
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 12:47
Hm, Id say the conquest, subjugation, and extermination of other native peoples is pretty imperialistic, if you ask me.
Incongruous
05-09-2007, 12:52
Tribesman asked a good question - what do you mean by the term?
"Anti-Americanism" seems to range from a dismissal aimed at anyone who criticises administration policy (ie on other forums I've seen the accusation levelled at someone who felt Wolfowitz might be a tad corrupt - the tired "why do you hate freedom" gambit) to nut-jobs measuring themselves for suicide vests.
I suspect Pindar may be setting his sights at the European contributors. Still a broad church, but I would advance one explanation not so far offered:
Disappointment.
The USA has a system of government, a record of acceptance and a history of generosity unparalleled in human history. It is a country that aspires to greatness of spirit, and has many times achieved examples of that aspiration. It is a country, and a people, that many of us look up to and dream of as an inspiration.
Inevitably, paragons fail. Those failures can sometimes be looked on with sympathy, even understanding and friendship. That such a powerful country has not become a deliberately imperial state is a source of wonderment, but toes inevitably get trodden on.
Unfortunately, the current administration has adopted an entirely un-American policy of bullying, intimidation and corrupted the normally gentle, patriotic belief in American superiority into an exclusive, rather than inclusive, credo. The country that pioneered human rights as a universal concept now promulgates the idea that only its citizens deserve such rights.
I have no doubt that this will pass, once the American people free themselves from the fear imposed on them by this administration and realise once again that liberty is their greatest defence, and that liberty for all from political and economic subjugation is the best guarantor for their liberty at home.
In short, apart from the aforementioned nut-jobs I saw little anti-Americanism of the kind now prevalent before the current administration - even during the Reagan years. There's a reason why the world laps up American "culture". Fragony is however, right - there has always been a fashion to sneer at the US, which is deeply regrettable.
Nonetheless, once President Bush and his coterie goes away, I would hope and trust much of the antagonism may as well. Remember, we loved you when you had Clinton... :wink3:
Uhuh...
Hmm, I believe it's this belief in Americas special place among lesser being which annoys some. Also the adherence to such by others.
America has just like all other great powers been increadibly immoral, unsavoury, un-trustworthy, warmongering, heavy handed, ignorent, self-obsessed and self-righteous. It's like the phsycopath of the international stadium.
Note also, that I pointed out that it was just like every other great power in history. No difference, at all. Same old story, it's only after it's alll over that they'll achieve the post-greatness sense of humour which Britain enjoys.:beam:
Jealousy, masked under a fascade of a higer moral calling and inability to achieve the same end due to past choices of forebarers that have dramatically changed the culture of those who are "anti american".
That, and the percpetion that the cache of historical precedent is applicable to all that follow, no matter the culture.
Oh and someone said something like the largest weed usually gets chopped off first? Yeah that too.
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 12:56
Indeed. the belief that America is somehow "good" or "special" is propagated by the school system here and entirely false. Just like any other imperialistic modern power, America has comitted numerous murders, thefts, and other atrocities on behalf of its national intrest. Do I blame her? No. But no one should be naive about their nation's greatness or lack thereof.
it has something to do with a loss of history, has something to do with, well, whats called “national amnesia,” either the forgetting of history or the learning of bad history, the learning of the kind of history that you do get, of Columbus was a hero, and Teddy Roosevelt is a hero, and Andrew Jackson is a hero, and all these guys who were presidents and generals and industrialists, and so on. They are the great -- they are the people who made America great, and America has always done good things in the world. And we have had our little problems, of course -- like slavery, for instance, you know -- but we overcome them, you know, and, you know. No, not that kind of history.
If the American people really knew history, if they learned history, if the educational institutions did their job, if the press did its job in giving people historical perspective, then a people would understand. When the President gets up before the microphone, says we must go to war for this or for that, for liberty or for democracy, or because we’re in danger, and so on, if people had some history behind them, they would know how many times presidents have announced to the nation, we must go to war for this reason or that reason. They would know that President Polk said, “Oh, we must go to war against Mexico, because, well, there was an incident that took place on the border there, and our honor demands that we go to war.”
They would know, if they knew some history, how President McKinley took the nation into war against Spain and Cuba, saying, “Oh, we’re going in to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control.” And in fact, there was a little bit of truth to that: we did go in, we fought against Spain, we got Spain out of Cuba, we liberated them from Spain, but not from ourselves. And so, Spain was out, and United Fruit was in, and then the American banks and the American corporations were in.
And if people knew their history, they would know, you know, that President McKinley said, when -- as the American army was already in the Philippines and the American navy was already in the Philippines, and Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great presidential heroes, was lusting for war, then people would know that McKinley, who did not know where the Philippines were, but very often now presidents need to be briefed and told where something is. You know, George Bush, “This is Iraq is,” you know. Lyndon Johnson, “This is where the Gulf of Tonkin is.” You know, they need it.
And president -- they would know, if they knew history, that President McKinley said, “We’re going into the Philippines to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos.” And if they knew their history, if the history books spent some time on the war in the Philippines in the early part of the 20th century, instead of, as history books do -- they spend a lot of time on the Spanish-American War, which just lasted three months -- they spend virtually no time on the war on the Philippines, a bloody war which lasted, oh, seven years, and which involved massacres and the extermination of populations. That history doesn’t appear. You know, we had civilized and Christianized the Filipinos and established our control.
They would know, if they heard the President say, “We are going to bring democracy to the Middle East,” they would know how many times we brought democracy to other countries that we invaded. They would know if we brought democracy to Chile, when we overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973. They would know how we brought democracy to Guatemala when we overthrew, again, a democratically elected -- oh, we love democratic elections, we love free elections, except when they go the wrong way. And then we send either our army in or the CIA in or secret agents in to overthrow the government.
Incongruous
05-09-2007, 13:07
Jealousy, masked under a fascade of a higer moral calling and inability to achieve the same end due to past choices of forebarers that have dramatically changed the culture of those who are "anti american".
That, and the percpetion that the cache of historical precedent is applicable to all that follow, no matter the culture.
Oh and someone said something like the largest weed usually gets chopped off first? Yeah that too.
Ok.
So, they are jelous which is masked by an act of higher moral calling and an inability to achieve the same end (of what? What? I'm confused) due to what some toffs did in the past which may have buggered the nation which is the reason they are anti american?
Is that right?
Dude I am so confused.
macsen rufus
05-09-2007, 13:11
IMHO it's the whole "global policeman" attitude that is behind most of the justified opposition to the USA. But as a term "anti-Americanism" is too broad-brush and lumps together very different strands of thought that don't belong in the same category. I'd suggest that European "anti-Americanism" is worlds away from say Middle Eastern "anti-Americanism" which has a lot to do with siding with Israel. Actually, "policeman" is bit of a misnomer, it's more like "global vigilante", with a disdain for international law.
BG was right to highlight disappointment. When it somes to terms like freedom, democracy etc, the USA really talks the talk - but turns the walk into a mincing limp, quite frankly. After all, if exporting freedom and democracy is so crucial that it justifies countries being "bombed into the stone age" as in Iraq, why has none been exported to say, Saudi Arabia? Double standards like this do not reflect well on US (govt) integrity and honesty. It looks like a lie, and when tens of thousands of people lose life, home and livelihood for a lie, a little bit of resentment is only to be expected, no?
And BigTex, I hate to say it, but the tone you exhibit here of uncritical self-congratulation does not counter anti-Americanism, but fuels it. Anyone who doesn't like us is envious, everyone who disagrees with us has been indoctrinated, everyone we stamp on shouldn't have been standing in our way in the first place, that's the message you seem to be giving out. You can hardly be surprised that the response is (how do you make those nice little flowers, BG?) you, too!
Whilst it may be true that many Europeans don't know their Idaho from their Iowa, the fact remains that all fifty states have the one foreign policy which is determined in Washington DC (I do know my Washington State from my Washington DC ~D). On the international stage it's no more relevant than the differences between Leicestershire and Lancashire, or Baden-Wuertenburg and Bavaria, or Provence and Pas de Calais.
Like any other nation some of the best and worst people I've known have been Americans, and generally speaking most of us are capable of distinguishing between individuals and governments, and by and large it is the govt, and not the people who come in for criticism. Also Europeans still feel very uncomfortable with flag-waving and loud patriotism due to a long history of warfare, which unlike most of America's wars, have had a "home front". It's probably why Europe tends to have a more diplomatic approach to international problems (aka "cheese-munching surrender monkeyism"). It's very easy to get the impression that US attitudes put the role of diplomacy as merely clearing up the mess after the initial military 'solution' fails.
Ok.
So, they are jelous which is masked by an act of higher moral calling and an inability to achieve the same end (of what? What? I'm confused) due to what some toffs did in the past which may have buggered the nation which is the reason they are anti american?
Is that right?
Dude I am so confused.
Your confusion is quaint.
Its been my expirence in life that when others are critical of someone, something or some nation its usually from a point of envy, greed, or some other negative human trait.
Obviously, one dosent come out and state that, it would be unflattering to themselves, so of course we get the moral high ground of hindsight and the arm chair to allow us to proclaim what others have done wrong, or are doing wrong.
Or it could be arrogance, do you have a prefrence?
HoreTore
05-09-2007, 13:19
The USA: Capitalist, conservative and christian.
Me: Socialist and anti-christian.
Not exactly a recipe for friendship. I'm anti-american because of the same reason I'm anti-iran, anti-israel, anti-saudi, anti-pope, etc etc....
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 13:23
Like any other nation some of the best and worst people I've known have been Americans, and generally speaking most of us are capable of distinguishing between individuals and governments, and by and large it is the govt, and not the people who come in for criticism. Also Europeans still feel very uncomfortable with flag-waving and loud patriotism due to a long history of warfare, which unlike most of America's wars, have had a "home front". It's probably why Europe tends to have a more diplomatic approach to international problems (aka "cheese-munching surrender monkeyism"). It's very easy to get the impression that US attitudes put the role of diplomacy as merely clearing up the mess after the initial military 'solution' fails.
It’s very important to know this, because the culture tries very hard to persuade us that we all have a common interest. If they use the language “national interest” -- there’s no national interest. There’s their interest and our interest. National security -- now, whose security? National defense, whose defense? All these words and phrases are used to try to encircle us all into a nice big bond, so that we will assume that the people who are the leaders of our country have our interests at heart. Very important to understand: no, they do not have our interests at heart.
Take a guy who is going off to Iraq. And a reporter goes up to the young fellow and says, “You know, young man, you’re going off, and what are your thoughts and why are you doing this?” And the young man says, “I’m doing this for my country.” No, he’s not doing it for his country. And now, she’s not doing it for her country. The people who go off to war are not doing fighting for their country. No, they’re not doing their country any good. They’re not doing their families any good. They’re certainly not doing the people over there any good. But they’re not doing it for their country. They’re doing it for their government. They’re doing it for Bush. That would be a more accurate thing to say: “I’m going off to fight for George Bush. I’m going off to fight for Cheney. I’m going off to fight for Rumsfeld. I’m going off to fight for Halliburton.” Yeah, that would be telling the truth.
And, in fact, you know, to know the history of this country is to know that we have had conflict of interest in this country from the very beginning between the people in authority and the ordinary people. We were not one big happy family that fought the American Revolution against England. I remember, you know, in school, that’s how it seemed, you know: they’re the patriots, and there’s all of us, working, fighting together at Valley Forge and Bunker Hill, and so on, against the Redcoats and the British, and so on. It wasn’t that way at all. It wasn’t a united country.
Washington had to send generals down south to use violence against young people to force them into military service. Soldiers in the revolutionary army mutinied against Washington, against officers, because there was class conflict in the army, just as there had been class conflict all through the colonies before the Revolutionary War. Well, anybody who knows the military, anybody who’s been in the military, knows that the military is a class society. There are the privates, and there are the officers. And in the Revolutionary War, the privates were not getting shoes, and they were not getting clothes and not getting food, and they were not getting paid. And the officers were living high in resplendence. And so, they mutinied, thousands of them.
I don’t remember ever learning about that when I studied history in school, because the myth comes down: oh, we’re all one big happy family. You mean, including the black slaves? You mean, including the Native Americans, whose land we were taking from them, mile by mile by mile by mile? We’re all one big happy family? The women, who were left out of all of this, were -- no, very important to understand that fundamental fact: those people who run the country and we, our interests are not the same.
Incongruous
05-09-2007, 13:25
Your confusion is quaint.
Its been my expirence in life that when others are critical of someone, something or some nation its usually from a point of envy, greed, or some other negative human trait.
Obviously, one dosent come out and state that, it would be unflattering to themselves, so of course we get the moral high ground of hindsight and the arm chair to allow us to proclaim what others have done wrong, or are doing wrong.
Or it could be arrogance, do you have a prefrence?
Yep I do, simple common sense.
I mean America could fall tommorow, China the new big guy in town, and starts screwing little countries over without any short term consequence. Again same old story, I guess I'm speaking from the little people point of view, as in "Why in god's name to ploticians feel it is their duty to screw people over?".
Again my descendants will also be asking this question, again, its not anti-american it's really anti-power. Evryone has done it sometime in the past, perhaps Americans could break the mold and realise that, then we might see something posotive, a real change. Or we might have to wait two hundred years or so.
Take a guy who is going off to Iraq. And a reporter goes up to the young fellow and says, “You know, young man, you’re going off, and what are your thoughts and why are you doing this?” And the young man says, “I’m doing this for my country.” No, he’s not doing it for his country. And now, she’s not doing it for her country. The people who go off to war are not doing fighting for their country. No, they’re not doing their country any good. They’re not doing their families any good. They’re certainly not doing the people over there any good. But they’re not doing it for their country. They’re doing it for their government. They’re doing it for Bush. That would be a more accurate thing to say: “I’m going off to fight for George Bush. I’m going off to fight for Cheney. I’m going off to fight for Rumsfeld. I’m going off to fight for Halliburton.” Yeah, that would be telling the truth.
:laugh4:
Was this right from the hip or did you have this thought out at all? The truth is people join the armed forces for many reasons, of which I dont feel your worth me explaining it too.
Enjoy your freedoms pal.
Yep I do, simple common sense.
I mean America could fall tommorow, China the new big guy in town, and starts screwing little countries over without any short term consequence. Again same old story, I guess I'm speaking from the little people point of view, as in "Why in god's name to ploticians feel it is their duty to screw people over?".
Again my descendants will also be asking this question, again, its not anti-american it's really anti-power. Evryone has done it sometime in the past, perhaps Americans could break the mold and realise that, then we might see something posotive, a real change. Or we might have to wait two hundred years or so.
But we arent talking about "anti power" here are we? Its "anti americanism" (thats the thread title). I respect, and believe it or not, cherish your right to have the freedom to say what you want and how you want to say it. I hope you can continue to have that, and your decendents when the next big thing happens.
I have no doubt you, and perhaps me will be right there to explain why thier failures are failures.
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 13:34
:laugh4:
Was this right from the hip or did you have this thought out at all? The truth is people join the armed forces for many reasons, of which I dont feel your worth me explaining it too.
Enjoy your freedoms pal.
well no problem, I'll enjoy "protecting them" :idea2: for you while im in Iraq again this summer. and yeah its pretty much from the hip :)
but the idea we are in iraq or afghanistan fighting "for america" is ridiculous in extremis.
@Zaknafien: Yes.
Anti-American is just that, American - an american invention and a piece of rhetoric put out into popular use by the US administration. Someone opposes America's invasion of country x, "they're anti-american" (or in the case of France "yes" they will be punished), someone else doubts the "american claims that country y has wmds "they're anti-american". Of course there are people that dislike america, just as there are people that dislike Iraq or the UK or China, but why do americans have to have their own label: "anti-american" it's almost as if disagreeing with US in any way is some kind of a crime. :inquisitive:
So the term "anti-americanism" is an american creation of the administration there, not a foreign term. A group didn't magically form up one morning and declare themselves the "anti-americans".
If you're looking for reasons as to why people may hate the US, there are numerous reasons which cannot be detailed here as different people hate different countries for totally different reasons. For example: Iraqis may hate the US for totally screwing up their country.
well no problem, I'll enjoy "protecting them" :idea2: for you while im in Iraq again this summer. and yeah its pretty much from the hip :)
but the idea we are in iraq or afghanistan fighting "for america" is ridiculous in extremis.
Whats "ridiculous in extremis" was your broad brush in painting the guy going to iraq and why he is going. Maybe you should speak for yourself, there are plenty of retired, former, and active military who dont feel the same way you do.
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 13:46
Whats "ridiculous in extremis" was your broad brush in painting the guy going to iraq and why he is going. Maybe you should speak for yourself, there are plenty of retired, former, and active military who dont feel the same way you do.
yeah, because they have to tell themselves that in order to be ok with killing hundreds of people in a country that posed no threat to us, or simply because alot of them are racist, which if you have served, you know to be fact.
I've killed my share of Iraqis, and its not something I'm proud of. When you're in a self-defense situation its acceptable to some extent though.
I love my country, but I am not naive to our reasons for doing things and our "goodness" in the world, especially with the current, christiano-fascist regime in power.
Soulforged
05-09-2007, 13:58
What do you (the collective) take as the roots/reason for anti-Americanism?
I think I can't give only one reason, but the main one is it's policies on many subjects. This forum has changed my mind actually, and I also got to know some americans on my job so I'm not anti-american any more (if there's such a thing). But there's one single policy that makes me at least skeptical of USA (and other countries of course) and it's its policy on nuclear weapons.
yeah, because they have to tell themselves that in order to be ok with killing hundreds of people in a country that posed no threat to us, or simply because alot of them are racist, which if you have served, you know to be fact.
I'll concede the racism, but again I would urge you to speak for yourself and not others who have come before you, because what I know to be fact is that many thousands of men have served for the most honorable of reasons.
You can believe what ever you want, I hope your deployment goes well. My conversation with you on this is terminated going forward, good luck.
Don Corleone
05-09-2007, 14:03
I think the thread thus far has done a good job discussing the level of anti-Americanism at the governmental 'national identity' level. The USA frequently treads heavily, sometimes out of need, sometimes not. Regardless of whether other countries agree that something needs to be done, they're resentful of USA the nation for always seeming to throw it's weight around, even if in some cases they agree weight needed to be thrown. I agree that there's nothing special about America, and this sort of disapproval of the 'national entity' happens for all people.
But there's another whole anti-Americanism that I'd like to touch on that hasn't been discussed very much. This is the stereotyping, animosity, and possibly even hatred that pervades much of the world towards Americans as individuals. When I travel, I am frequently told that 'I'm surprised you're American. You're actually not impolite at all". My experience has been that on averge, my countrymen are no more, no less polite than people from other nations. But Europe has fostered a derogatory stereotype of us that you indulge in, and even benignly allow yourselves to drop 'in this one instance' when faced with a living example of how misguided the stereotype might actually be. We're also not universally lazy, fat, stupid or religiously zealoted, though you will find examples of this among our population. Surprise, surprise, the vast majority of Americans that hold strong religious beliefs DO NOT go around imposing them on others all the time. In fact, in everyday workplace chatter, it's actually considered a little bit on the rude side. We tend to talk about sports, not because that's all we know about, but because it's one of the few things you can discuss and be certain that you're not going to offend somebody.
Yes, the average American is fairly ignorant of life in the rest of the world and what the people there are like. But don't kid yourselves, you don't know that much more about us, you just think you do. As for how polite you all are, I find that on average, you are no more, no less so than people I meet traveling around the USA. Sorry. :shrug:
And Husar, on a sidenote: this one is a can't win for us. If I say I'm from the United States, I'll get clever :daisy: asking "which one, there's more than one, you know". Yes, I'm well aware of the United Mexican States and the United States of Africa (which technically doesn't exist yet). If I say I'm American, I get 'North or South'? And, if I give in to your silly little game and say "I'm from the United States of America" and say the whole thing out I get "wow, you must think pretty highly of yourself. Most people just say American". If you're looking to find fault, you will in almost anything.
Lt Nevermind
05-09-2007, 14:24
I think I can't give only one reason, but the main one is it's policies on many subjects.
Amen to that. The few americans I know personaly (via uni) are in my opinion some of the best guys I know: open-minded, friendly, rational, optimistic etc. I cannot believe that the general 'anti-americanism' (whatever that stands for) we see today refered towards the people of the U.S rather than the government and it's actions on various subjects.
Lt Nevermind
05-09-2007, 14:31
I think I can't give only one reason, but the main one is it's policies on many subjects.
Amen to that. The few americans I know personaly (via uni) are in my opinion some of the best guys I know: open-minded, friendly, rational, optimistic etc. I cannot believe that the general 'anti-americanism' (whatever that stands for) we see today refered towards the people of the U.S rather than the government and it's actions on various subjects.
Imperialism?
Hardly, we actually are dumb enough to conquer them and then let them loose. Even with the Amerinds we did things in fits and starts with no cohesive plan of conquest. We're pretty lousy as imperialists.
Some truth on the other points of course, though the corporate "rulership" is hardly a direct connection process. The corps do like to use their influence when they can though.
Empires are frequently gained by accident and are not necessarily formed through conquest.
But there's another whole anti-Americanism that I'd like to touch on that hasn't been discussed very much. This is the stereotyping, animosity, and possibly even hatred that pervades much of the world towards Americans as individuals.
Well america as a culture and americans as a people are generally looked down upon in Europe, from an european perspective it does kinda bring it on itselve with the sort of logic BigTex uses. Boasting doesn't get you very far in most of Europe, it's seen as vulgar. American mindset and european mindset are very different. Also, we just don't get the best out of America, what we get is MTV macDonalds and lousy television, it doesn't take long before that becomes america for us. We only know the MTV version of your country.
Zaknafien
05-09-2007, 14:44
Hardly, we actually are dumb enough to conquer them and then let them loose. Even with the Amerinds we did things in fits and starts with no cohesive plan of conquest. We're pretty lousy as imperialists.
Statistics tell the story. In 1790 there were 3,900,000 Americans, and most of them lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1830, there were 13 million, and by 1840, 4,500,000 had crossed the appalachian mountains into the mississippi valley. In 1820, 120,000 indians lived east of the mississippi. by 1844, fewere than 30,000 were left. most were forced to migrate westward, but the word "forced" cannot convey what really happened.
after the revoluationary war, washington and his advisors reconigzed that even though most native americans had fought on the side of the british, that they possessed the right of prior occupancy and therefore owned their land. the new tide of persecution against the native americans can be mostly attritubted to andrew jackson, who was possibly one of the most nerfarious war criminals in history by today's standards.
America, O America. This term "anti-Americanism" is -- indeed -- too broad, and it's easy to use and throw around. If a person criticizes US foreign policy they are suddenly anti-American, or they are suspect of being it. Technically / Semantically / whatever fitting word, this is true, but it's irrelevant and misleading.
When somebody criticizes America, the fact is the person is criticizing America: simple. There's no need for using the term anti-Americanism. Just like when people are criticizing Israel, there's no need to use the term anti-Semitism like some might do. Or when you criticize WHOEVER the hell or whoever the hell's actions you criticize.
It's better to look at the simple facts and see them for what they are, not what you want them to be, or what you think they are. If you see a man lying dead on the street at night, and another man is standing next to him with a knife in his hand, then all you know is you're seeing somebody lying dead and another man standing there with a knife in his hand: simple.
Anti-Americanism, anti-Aschmaricanism. Ban the word: its use is unnecessary.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-09-2007, 17:59
Why yes. Indeed. That is 100% true. But this trend caused us to look at the US through a microscope just to find faults... And we found many.
USA interferes with foreign governments, bullies foreign governments (even 1st world governments). They dethrone kings and rulers "because they are a danger to humanity". How would Americans feel about a foreign army sweeping into their country, destroying lives and infrastructure? It would be fair. America turned out to be more dangerous than Iraq.
I am ranting. I will stop for schnapps...
:inquisitive:
Universal human rights come before sovereignty.
Indeed. the belief that America is somehow "good" or "special" is propagated by the school system here and entirely false. Just like any other imperialistic modern power, America has comitted numerous murders, thefts, and other atrocities on behalf of its national intrest. Do I blame her? No. But no one should be naive about their nation's greatness or lack thereof.
Where did you go to school? They don't teach the simplified version of history past gradeschool.
And I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what Imperialism means, or are just using it very improperly. To be sure the US has had more than a few problems in keeping itself out of other nation's problems, but Imperialism is not remotely the right term to use here.
We were imperialist during the imperialist era before WWI. We aren't anymore.
What is anti Americanism ?
nvm, I'll to wait for Pindar's answer to Tribesman's question before commenting
Tribesman asked a good question - what do you mean by the term?
Anti-Americanism refers to a hostility toward the U.S. as a nation, people or distinct culture set.
Banquo's Ghost
05-09-2007, 18:31
Anti-Americanism refers to a hostility toward the U.S. as a nation, people or distinct culture set.
Thank you, but what grade of hostility? And does it have to be towards all elements of your diverse nation, or any level of hostility to any one aspect makes one anti-American?
Thank you, but what grade of hostility? And does it have to be towards all elements of your diverse nation, or any level of hostility to any one aspect makes one anti-American?
See the other thread with the poll. The level is not a concern. It is sufficient to note it exists. Any aspect or all aspects can qualify.
Banquo's Ghost
05-09-2007, 21:14
See the other thread with the poll. The level is not a concern. It is sufficient to note it exists. Any aspect or all aspects can qualify.
So any trace of antagonism towards any aspect of American culture, people or state qualifies one to be anti-American? Does that apply dissenting Americans as well - ie, are they self-loathing Americans if they happen to dislike say, Californian culture in preference to that of New York?
That's quite a broad coverage, don't you think? May I ask the purpose of the question couched in such wide terms?
Don Corleone
05-09-2007, 21:25
As a Red Sox fan, I suppose I qualify, cause I hate Yankees. :devil:
Sorry, Pindar, couldn't resist.
Banquo, I think Pindar is trying to keep the question as broad as those choosing to answer wish to make it. If he attempts to pin down 'American government', 'the White House', "this White House', etcetera, he's going to be plagued with an infinite stream of shades of grey on the question. I don't think Pindar's intented 'anti-Americanism' is anybody that's ever once had a bad feeling about any American or any aspect of America (hell, every last American would be guilty of it on tax day!)
Sometimes the truth is achieved by definining things down and sharpening the focus. Sometimes, it is achieved by leaving things a little fuzzy.
Tribesman
05-09-2007, 21:28
Anti-Americanism refers to a hostility toward the U.S. as a nation, people or distinct culture set.
I don't like Coca cola or Pepsi , Root beer tastes like crap , budweiser , miller and shlitz are shlitz , Macdonalds are awful, Dolly Parton is mildly annoying Britney Spears is very annoying ...... as for Michael jackson:hmg:
So does that count as being really really anti-american or is it just that those things are rubbish in my opinion.
Now as for Goerge Bush , who on earth couldn't have a level of hostility to a muppet like that .
Hold on ....Paris Hilltons weblog appeal was just mentioned on the radio news , add that numbskull to the list .
Soulforged
05-09-2007, 21:35
I don't like Coca cola or Pepsi , Root beer tastes like crap , budweiser , miller and shlitz are shlitz , Macdonalds are awful, Dolly Parton is mildly annoying Britney Spears is very annoying ...... as for Michael jackson:hmg:
So does that count as being really really anti-american or is it just that those things are rubbish in my opinion.
Now as for Goerge Bush , who on earth couldn't have a level of hostility to a muppet like that .
Hold on ....Paris Hilltons weblog appeal was just mentioned on the radio news , add that numbskull to the list .
I think tha Pindar said "as a nation", wich of course puts your examples out of question.
So any trace of antagonism towards any aspect of American culture, people or state qualifies one to be anti-American? Does that apply dissenting Americans as well - ie, are they self-loathing Americans if they happen to dislike say, Californian culture in preference to that of New York?Again as a nation, bringing California or New York to the front is not talking about a nation, it's more it doesn't even has to be american territory as long as it's american culture and american people.
Tribesman
05-09-2007, 21:49
I think tha Pindar said "as a nation", wich of course puts your examples out of question.
No he didn't and no it doesn't
I think there are a number of factors.
One would be disapproval of American policies, which can be fairly heavy-handed, as well as ubiquitous considering the global reach of the country.
Another would probably be lack of contact with the average American and general American culture, meaning that for many their main ideas about America would be based on Hollywood and American tourists, who can sometimes be very annoying and insensitive.
I think another, and probably the most important, is envy. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and even the poorest Americans live in conditions many people would consider luxurious. We have an incredibly high rate of consumption, and can throw our weight around worldwide both economically and politically, making us a natural target for those who wish they could live in similar conditions or take pride in their own nation's power.
There are probably more as well, that either aren't coming to mind at the moment or that it would take an outside perspective to recognize.
Ajax
good start. :2thumbsup:
Its been my expirence in life that when others are critical of someone, something or some nation its usually from a point of envy, greed, or some other negative human trait.
Well, I have a tendency to say bad things about myself, so if I were jealous(I actually am quite a bit, but let me go on), I'd probably say it somewhere(look at the last brackets :2thumbsup: ).
BUT that's no reason to be anti-american in any way for me, I can ignore a little jealousy inside quite well in most cases, I just don't like nationalistic people and the US has quite a lot of them. I also oppose people from Britain who want to leave the EU because their "oh-so-great-country" would be better off without the EU etc., am I anti-british now?
The reason the US are top in certain areas today is often due to intelligent immigrants from other countries(including my country :2thumbsup: ), from that perspective, I don't even know why I should be jealous, you should be thankful that we annoy great people here who then go and improve your little colony. ~;)
On a sidenote, I'd really like to visit your country some day. It was the greatest and bestest countery I could imagine as a kid, just when I came in contact with so many nationalists on the net(and we germans learn, for obvious reasons, that nationalism is bad) that my opinion changed a bit, but I can still differentiate between the good and the bad.
People who cannot or just do not do that exist on both sides, some US citizens are quite anti-iraqi or anti-middle east for some reason, are they just jealous that the iraqi insurgents are so successful? I think Dubai is probably a great city, just like New York, I want to visit both, where exactly is the problem?
Ok, I don't know what I intended to say now so I'm gonna stop(yeah, humiliating myself again, but don't worry, a descendant of the nation of the great Bismarck won't lose any glory due to such actions :2thumbsup: :sweatdrop: ).
Have a nice day.:egypt:
AntiochusIII
05-10-2007, 00:51
The Don brings up a good point over at page 2. When I think of "real" anti-Americanism (a term I fail to define :P) I think of the stereotype of Americans as "Big Blond Loud Rude Texans" (no offense to big people, blondes, loud people, rude people, or Texans) which is actually quite prevalent pretty much everywhere from my experience. It is a curious attitude the rest of the world has at the perception of the average American...may be we can blame Bush on this one too? :laugh4:
Still, when one really thinks about it we Americans (if I can claim myself as such, not being citizen and all) do the same to other people too. The "hairy" French, the "Nazi" Germans, the "aristocratic" British, the "turban/terrorist" Arabs, the "talk funny" Indians, the list goes on and on...
The one key difference to that comparison would be that others think they know Americans while many Americans recognize that they don't really know what foreigners are like. This one I blame on TV in general and the success in exporting what is usually considered "American" culture through such a media; how many movies have you personally seen that comes out of Bollywood? How about Hollywood? Movies aren't real but they feel real.
The disagreement over US policy I wouldn't personally count as anti-American. If we do piss off the rest of the world by our actions then we sort of "deserve" it and it's not their fault they hate us.
Another point: I'm quite amused by the number of our American patrons who willingly prescribe this "anti-Americanism" very quickly to the "envy" category. That kind of attitude sort of piss people right off the bat as well ya know. :yes:
Hosakawa Tito
05-10-2007, 01:16
Another point: I'm quite amused by the number of our American patrons who willingly prescribe this "anti-Americanism" very quickly to the "envy" category. That kind of attitude sort of piss people right off the bat as well ya know.
Well, if you're going to hate us for what you think you know about us...we have to get some satisfaction out of it.~;) ~;) ~;)
Zaknafien
05-10-2007, 01:22
the problem is that as Americans, we're trained from a very early age to say the pledge, salute the flag, and think we're the greatest and most noble nation on earth, full of goodness and morality and throughout our history we've been a 'blessed' people, from Columbus to 9/11 and beyond.
Don, don't confuse stereotypes with hatred or even dislike. Certainly don't file them under the label "anti-American". Doing that you'll only feed the inner xenophobe!
So any trace of antagonism towards any aspect of American culture, people or state qualifies one to be anti-American? Does that apply dissenting Americans as well - ie, are they self-loathing Americans if they happen to dislike say, Californian culture in preference to that of New York?
Dissent and hostility are not the same. The one notes disagreement the other entails enmity. This does not mean Americans could not participate in anti-Americanism as in some form of self-loathing like you noted.
That's quite a broad coverage, don't you think? May I ask the purpose of the question couched in such wide terms?
Anti-Americanism is a broad topic. The purpose of the question is to see what most perceived anti-Americanism traces itself to and to allow responses ample room to explain themselves.
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 09:41
Hmm...
Anti-Americanism, a kind of warped form of self gratification thought up by Americans, so they can feel better about themselves?
That's what it really comes across as.
ShadeHonestus
05-10-2007, 09:46
Hmm...
Anti-Americanism, a kind of warped form of self gratification thought up by Americans, so they can feel better about themselves?
That's what it really comes across as.
No doubt hatched by a CIA think tank.
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 09:50
No doubt hatched by a CIA think tank.
Meh, I'm not into con theories.
CIA is so 50'S, 60'S and 70'S.
ShadeHonestus
05-10-2007, 09:52
Meh, I'm not into con theories.
CIA is so 50'S, 60'S and 70'S.
True, how about the NAACP? In an attempt to make themselves victims of a country who is itself a victim?
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 09:54
It's really OPUS CHILDKILLERSFORADAY.
ShadeHonestus
05-10-2007, 09:56
It's really OPUS CHILDKILLERSFORADAY.
has legs
the problem is that as Americans, we're trained from a very early age to say the pledge, salute the flag, and think we're the greatest and most noble nation on earth, full of goodness and morality and throughout our history we've been a 'blessed' people, from Columbus to 9/11 and beyond.
70 years ago we did that as well, but it turned out the US didn't like that and stopped it eventually, if we'd try that today, we'd probably be labeled with the N-word.
Once OBL has conquered the US, he will make you stop that as well.:dizzy2:
Or maybe the Chinese will.:sweatdrop:
If you'd ask me, I couldn't even give you the full version of our national hymn, I know parts of it, but that's about it.:laugh4:
Don't even start about the constitution, I might get the first paragraph, if at all.:sweatdrop:
Maybe Americans are too focused on their own nation and they show that to the whole world and that's what many people don't like.
And there have been reasons for many EU countries not to join the US in Iraq, for the average Iraqi citizen the situation has probably become a lot worse now than under Saddam, Americans may not care about them, but we europeans do, because we are less centered on our own nations. That's of course generalizing, but it's just an attempt to explain the different attitudes in general.
Well, I have a tendency to say bad things about myself, so if I were jealous(I actually am quite a bit, but let me go on), I'd probably say it somewhere(look at the last brackets :2thumbsup: ).
BUT that's no reason to be anti-american in any way for me, I can ignore a little jealousy inside quite well in most cases, I just don't like nationalistic people and the US has quite a lot of them. I also oppose people from Britain who want to leave the EU because their "oh-so-great-country" would be better off without the EU etc.,
The comment you quoted from me isnt universally applied, I havent met everybody.
am I anti-british now?
why dont you start a thread Husar, I'd be curious to see the level of response in comparisson to this one.
The reason the US are top in certain areas today is often due to intelligent immigrants from other countries(including my country :2thumbsup: ), from that perspective, I don't even know why I should be jealous, you should be thankful that we annoy great people here who then go and improve your little colony. ~;)
Yes, americans come from all over the world. "My little colony" is antagonism and sadly indicitive of your ability to make an argument or have a discussion, however I am not surprised, name calling, put downs and general antagonism is normal reaction of envy :beam:
On a sidenote, I'd really like to visit your country some day.
I prefer you didnt honestly, I for one wouldnt be welcoming. Sadly there are millions of americans who would probably make your visit enjoyable.
People who cannot or just do not do that exist on both sides, some US citizens are quite anti-iraqi or anti-middle east for some reason, are they just jealous that the iraqi insurgents are so successful?
Maybe they are, you would have to ask them based on thier expirences.
Ok, I don't know what I intended to say now so I'm gonna stop(yeah, humiliating myself again, but don't worry, a descendant of the nation of the great Bismarck won't lose any glory due to such actions :2thumbsup: :sweatdrop: ).
Im not worried Husar, your posts are highly predictable to be blunt, I rather expected this type of response. If its of any solace I do respect the fact that you have an opinion that differs from mine, which your entitled too.
Cheers
InsaneApache
05-10-2007, 12:48
Americans can't speak proper English, like what I do. :embarassed:
Examples:
Pavement = sidewalk
Rubbish = trash
Lift = elevator
Flat = condominium
Bumper = fender
Tap = faucet
Bonnet = hood
Boot = trunk
Tom(ah)to = tom(ay)to
Ringroad = beltway
Pot(ay)to = pot(ah)to
Crossroads = intersection
Chips = fries
Crisps = chips
Car = automobile
Ale = gnatspiss :laugh4:
L(ef)tenant = l(oo)tenant
Petrol = gasoline
The list goes on. Another thing, US miles are shorter, US pints are smaller, US tons are lighter. Oh! and US (English) spelling is rubbish (trash) :clown:
All these things contrive to make me dislike America. :smash:
Mom* made me an apple pie once, it was delicious. :yes: So, in retrospect, I'll let you off. :2thumbsup:
*the Yank one. :beam:
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 12:53
The comment you quoted from me isnt universally applied, I havent met everybody.
why dont you start a thread Husar, I'd be curious to see the level of response in comparisson to this one.
Yes, americans come from all over the world. "My little colony" is antagonism and sadly indicitive of your ability to make an argument or have a discussion, however I am not surprised, name calling, put downs and general antagonism is normal reaction of envy :beam:
I prefer you didnt honestly, I for one wouldnt be welcoming. Sadly there are millions of americans who would probably make your visit enjoyable.
Maybe they are, you would have to ask them based on thier expirences.
Im not worried Husar, your posts are highly predictable to be blunt, I rather expected this type of response. If its of any solace I do respect the fact that you have an opinion that differs from mine, which your entitled too.
Cheers
Perhaps a cooldown might be a good idea?
Perhaps a cooldown might be a good idea?
What do you mean?
Perhaps a cooldown might be a good idea?
Pepsi or Coke? :beam:
What do you mean?
I believe he is advising that you "cool off".
:bow:
Pepsi or Coke? :beam:
I believe he is advising that you "cool off".
:bow:
That assumes a great deal, why am I not surprised?
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 13:15
Pepsi or Coke? :beam:
I believe he is advising that you "cool off".
:bow:
Y'know I prefer pepsi, it's just soooo much better, like I can drink it after a particularly spicy curry without tongue burn at all.:yes:
That assumes a great deal, why am I not surprised?
What do you mean?
Y'know I prefer pepsi, it's just soooo much better, like I can drink it after a particularly spicy curry without tongue burn at all.:yes:
To be honest though, and I have to point this out, drinking Pepsi with curry seems a bit Anti-American don't you think? I mean, you're mixing a fine American beverage with a food that is associated with British Pakistanis - that will soon require visas to travel to the US. :inquisitive:
Edit: It also seems a bit anti-british in that curry should be eaten with beer and not soft drinks.
What do you mean?
Assuming someone needs to cool off supposes that you know what thier emotional state is. On the web thats next to impossible unless someone states it (which I didnt).
I am not surprised because I find it a very common practice in topics like this, and in discussion of this vein for others to make assumptions of others that they couldnt possibly verify.
That clear it up for you ?
the problem is that as Americans, we're trained from a very early age to say the pledge, salute the flag, and think we're the greatest and most noble nation on earth, full of goodness and morality and throughout our history we've been a 'blessed' people, from Columbus to 9/11 and beyond.
That sounds like you hit the nail on the head. If that is true -- what you're describing here, and it probably is -- it's... disgusting for lack of a better word. Blind faith in the goodness of the nation, etc., blah blah, badabing badaboop.
____
America, the big insecure bullying power-hungry competitor in the world who wants to be on top. Politicians who only serve themselves.
Sometimes you just need to ask a simple question and one can already go into a good direction and find many -- plausible at least -- answers: who benefits?
Don Corleone
05-10-2007, 16:16
Bah, Zak's just sucking up to all you guys, telling you what you want to hear. I don't know where he went to school that he was goose-stepping around singing the Star Spangled Banner, but it wasn't anyplace like the America I was schooled in. If anything, I grew up thinking that whenever there was a problem in the world, we were always at least partially, if not mostly, responsible. Sounds like my history teachers, Zak and you of course, would get along famously. ~:cheers:
ajaxfetish
05-10-2007, 17:18
Bah, Zak's just sucking up to all you guys, telling you what you want to hear. I don't know where he went to school that he was goose-stepping around singing the Star Spangled Banner, but it wasn't anyplace like the America I was schooled in. If anything, I grew up thinking that whenever there was a problem in the world, we were always at least partially, if not mostly, responsible. Sounds like my history teachers, Zak and you of course, would get along famously. ~:cheers:
Well, I remember patriotism being pretty big in say elementary school. Since then it's been really downplayed and self-criticism is the usual order of the day. Columbus Day still appears on the calendar but isn't celebrated; Civil Rights Day and so forth became a lot more important.
And Husar, there are plenty of Americans who are not so isolationist as Odin. You're welcome in my neck of the woods anytime, and I hope next time I'm in Germany you'd be happy to have me there as well.
Ajax
The comment you quoted from me isnt universally applied, I havent met everybody.
Good to know.
why dont you start a thread Husar, I'd be curious to see the level of response in comparisson to this one.
I don't usually start threads in the backroom as I'm not intelligent enough to do so.
Yes, americans come from all over the world. "My little colony" is antagonism and sadly indicitive of your ability to make an argument or have a discussion, however I am not surprised, name calling, put downs and general antagonism is normal reaction of envy :beam:
Hmm, I don't want to be banned for being humorous and apparently my humour seems to escape you anyway. My inability to have a discussion is pretty real however, but it wasn't me who wanted to hear why people hate the US, maybe I hate it because I'm unable to discuss and now you know.
I prefer you didnt honestly, I for one wouldnt be welcoming. Sadly there are millions of americans who would probably make your visit enjoyable.
Oh the love, and you wonder why people don't like you?:sweatdrop:
(Ok, you may not, but maybe your fellow citizens will get an idea now)
Maybe they are, you would have to ask them based on thier expirences.
It's quite hard if you want me to stay out of the US, maybe you could ask them for me?
Im not worried Husar, your posts are highly predictable to be blunt, I rather expected this type of response. If its of any solace I do respect the fact that you have an opinion that differs from mine, which your entitled too.
Of course my posts are predictable, I'm a pretty bad writer anyway and that our opinions differ was clear to me for some time already. I think Bopa's advice was a very good one and in addition, you may not want to take my posts too seriously all the time.:2thumbsup:
Hmm, I don't want to be banned for being humorous and apparently my humour seems to escape you anyway.
Oh no I got the humor.
but it wasn't me who wanted to hear why people hate the US
Fair enough
Oh the love, and you wonder why people don't like you?:sweatdrop:
(Ok, you may not, but maybe your fellow citizens will get an idea now)
No, I dont wonder.
It's quite hard if you want me to stay out of the US, maybe you could ask them for me?
I suspect you'll show up, If I want you to or not.
you may not want to take my posts too seriously all the time.:2thumbsup:
I didnt take your post seriously, nor the follow ups by other patrons. Perhaps that speaks volumes to the dangers of assuming someone elses disposition ?
** insert clever icon here**
KafirChobee
05-10-2007, 18:22
Reality check.
In the more serious posts numerous points were touted to the causes for most of the world's nations to either hate or distrust American policies and its leaders. Most are accurate, unfortunately.
Items of interest; American history as taught in public schools in exclusively of a patriotic theme - we only do good, we have never been wrong, and we have saved the world twice from evil forces (WWI and WWII) - and America (USA) is the only hope for the world today. Oh, also by pure force of will (Reagans - all the other Presidents efforts were mute, only he knew how) defeated Soviet Communism [Kruchev's quote, "We will bury you.", was taken literally by most americans - rather than the economic threat it was meant to be] We have a tendency to modify history in a light that favors us - as do all nations, but we also tend to put a halo over any misdeeds that our heroes committed by saying they were forced into such situations by the savagery of their adversary - it is un-american to believe other wise. Our true history is of little interest to most Americans - the patriotic one is much more appealing, and further justifies the ill adviced actions of some of our Presidents simply because the true patriots know that "history" always bears out that we were right in taking such action (heck, there is still a large portion of us that believe we could have won in Vietnam, we were betrayed by "the cut and runners" - as we are today in Iraq).
Americans hate sacrifice, today. In WWII it was a different story - though it can be argued that only the Middleclass and poor actually made any real concessions - the wealthy and rich have never had to (why should they, they're special and above all governing factors of the masses - and rightly so since they can afford to force the system into complying to their will). Examples of our unwillingness to sacrifice? During the Carter administration he imposed a 55mph speed limit to decrease the usage of gasoline (think of song "I can't drive 55"), it was a big deal to the free wheeling Americans that felt by driving slower was an impossition on their god given right to drive as fast as they wanted - people hated it, even if the reality was that it did reduce the amount of gas useage in the nation. Carter also tried to lead by example by installing solar panels at the Whitehouse and building the first solar energy power plant (still in opporation - Mojave). Reagone's first actions as President were to negate all the power saving policies imposed by Carter, and to tear out the solar panels at the WH - and of course to begin the mass buliding of Nuclear power plants. Carter, was the last American President to ask for any sacrifice from those he governs. It is a campaign killer to even suggest that any tax be raised be raised, regardless of the need to do so. [Note: Reagan raised taxes more than any Prez in our history, but that fact is obscured by rightist revisionists.] It is un-American to ask for americans to give up a luxury they have adopted as a right, and not a privelage. As a comedian pointed out - "if you told Americans they could reduce global warming, gasoline consumption, and have clean air if they just gave up their remote control TV changer - and changed the channels manually (like in the 50'w and 60's)? They'ld keep their remotes." That is the fact of American indulgence today, and our leaders unwillingness (in most cases) to lead by example.
The point of these is to demonstrate the changing "mores", principles, and perceptions americans as a people have digressed to. If something doesnot have profit written on it - it is un-american.
Then we come to the part about "World policeman". At first glance one would believe that the only superpower in the world ought to be involved in the solution of the world's ills. However, as others have pointed out, when a nation uses military power and economic power exclusively to solve any and all situations they become suspect to the other nations trying to use political power first as the means to resolve differences. It is the impulse to shoot first and ask questions later, that has made America something of a piriah to many of the older nations of the planet. Somewhere during the present administrations term of leadership (probably day one) it was determined that a redneck, cowboy form of diplomacy was the only means to attain any and all goals they created - especially after 9/11 and a GOP congress gave them the ability to subjigate any and all laws they disagreed with or that limited their power. Ergo, all the goodwill created by the preceeding administrations was superceeded by the arrogance and ignorance of the Bushys. Is there a soul out there that believes that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq on the false premices created by Chenney & Co. (PNAC)? It is a matter that political system and former methods of diplomacy (and goodwill) were high-jacked by a bunch of thugs. Quite seriously, the methods these characters have been employing are identical to the rantings of rightists-patriots I've been listening to for years in redneck bars (where I live, that is about all there is to drink in - I've quit attending them, to old and tired to fist fight any more - which is the appropriate response in America today when someone disagrees with another. Much the same as the Bushys, "You're either with us, or against us", mentality.).
Not to worry though. Regardless of whom the next Prez is, congress is back to oversee that his administration abides by our laws - something that has been missing for 6 years. Then, maybe ... maybe, we can begin to rebuild the bridges burned by Bush and begin to demonstrate that we still have a vague concept of what diplomacy is - and that we don't have a war or crusade against those that dislike, hate or we perceive as misunderstanding us (or hating us because we are better off or just better than they are). Maybe?
:balloon2:
InsaneApache
05-10-2007, 18:45
Bloody hell KC, nail hit squarely on the head. :whip:
Seamus Fermanagh
05-10-2007, 19:05
So, the more we loathe our own nation, dwell on the mistakes it has made, trumpet our hypocisies, and ringingly announce that we are clearly no better than anyone else and worse then some...the more others will like us? :inquisitive:
Seems rather silly.
I don't view myself personally as an example of perfection, but I rarely spend a lot of time trumpeting my flaws for all to see.
Perhaps we should all re-write our resumes in this spirit of "honesty." Here's a list of all the classes I hooked but somehow managed to pass the exam :deal: please don't count these towards my education as you evaluate me. Oh, and here's the list jobs I quit without notice because the work schedule would have prevented me from going to a good concert. The following publicans (bartenders) can confirm that I was half-decerebrated from ethanol on a work/school night on the following occasions.....
So, a knowledge of how things really happen(ed) is useful -- the polyanna versions can be misleading -- but taking it too far the other way is just as silly.
So, which is reality?
The "founding fathers" of the USA, faced with the increasing tyranny of an imperialist government, pledged their "lives, fortunes, and [their] sacred honor" to struggle for independence from the foremost power on the planet in that time. Having, with help from the traditional opponents of that power, won their independence, these founders then crafted a unique nation, dedicated to a relatively secular ratio-legal form of participative self-governance in which social class would not limit opportunity and in which individual freedoms would be formally specified in the founding legal documents of the republic.
Or
The "founding fathers" of the USA, a pack of ingrates who had been defended at great cost by their mother country but then rejected reasonable efforts to have them share in the ruinous cost of that defense, agitated to de-stablize and radicalize the colonial population and followed this with armed violence against agents and soldiers of their own country. Despite the fact that more than 60% of the residents of these colonies either wished to maintain their loyalty or simply would have preferred an end to all the violence and turmoil, these founders leagued together with their country's enemies to defeat their own country and ram this new independent USA down the throats of a majority that really didn't see the need for one. And why? To avoid taxes, amass personal wealth, and to discard the limitations against Westward expansion imposed by the mother country and go back to exploiting the native population for their own ends.
Which is truth?
Both of course. But rejecting the former is every bit as silly as rejecting the latter.
Thus endeth the lesson.
KafirChobee
05-10-2007, 20:00
Er, Seamus, you are aware that for some years only men that owned land had the right to vote? Or,that business and profit were considered to be more important than individual rights. That some states only counted black votes as 1/2 a vote (if they allowed them to vote at all - reference the Jim Crow laws), and that women have only had the right to vote for 70 years. Not that any of this or what our founding fathers has any point to the real discussion at hand, but it is curious that someone would even bring them up as a counter-point to my summation.
Still, I think your point is that regardless of what one knows about history - or believes, it is a mute point because reality has no place in the decision making process of our leaders or the understanding of it by the masses. That to review the reality of our history is somehow irrellevent and even unpatriotic. Maybe you are right. After all, Reagone once said something to the affect that history never entered into one of his decisions and had no place in diplomacy, governing, or the making of a policy decision. [words to that affect]
Makes one wonder why we keep making the same bad decisions over and over again, doesn't it? Rather than accepting and understanding past mistakes, or understanding those that oppose us - we simply do what ever feels good at the time. Why bother with knowing reality, when we live in the alternative universe of america right or wrong.
Further, I do not view the knowledge of history as slamming the nation, as much as I see it as a necessity for creating realistic foreign policies and establishing true goodwill amongst other nations. It is not a bad thing that one makes a mistake. However, it is if they are unwilling to acknowledge it (them) and place binding laws that would prevent such an error from occuring in the future. Though with Bush, things were in place, he simply ignored them.
ajaxfetish
05-10-2007, 20:16
Er, Seamus, you are aware that for some years only men that owned land had the right to vote? Or,that business and profit were considered to be more important than individual rights. That some states only counted black votes as 1/2 a vote (if they allowed them to vote at all - reference the Jim Crow laws), and that women have only had the right to vote for 70 years.
I thought the nature of his post made it abundantly clear that he is aware of all of that. Did you read it? He asserts that neither rosy-colored glasses nor [whatever the opposite of rosy is . . . thorny?]-colored glasses will give an accurate picture of history. There is a degree of merit to either perspective, and the truth is somewhere in the middle, in that gray area that no fundamentalists admit exists.
Ajax
Seamus Fermanagh
05-10-2007, 20:27
Er, Seamus, you are aware that for some years only men that owned land had the right to vote? Or,that business and profit were considered to be more important than individual rights. That some states only counted black votes as 1/2 a vote (if they allowed them to vote at all - reference the Jim Crow laws), and that women have only had the right to vote for 70 years. Not that any of this or what our founding fathers has any point to the real discussion at hand, but it is curious that someone would even bring them up as a counter-point to my summation.
And for representation purposes, each slave counted as 1/3 of a person -- even though they were property (who says smelly political deals are a modern phenomenon).
Still, I think your point is that regardless of what one knows about history - or believes, it is a mute point because reality has no place in the decision making process of our leaders or the understanding of it by the masses. That to review the reality of our history is somehow irrellevent and even unpatriotic. Maybe you are right. After all, Reagone once said something to the affect that history never entered into one of his decisions and had no place in diplomacy, governing, or the making of a policy decision. [words to that affect]
My real point is that it is just as harmful to dwell on the negatives and view that as the sole defining component. We are a nation of freedom AND of all the silly restrictions you noted. The USA is and has done all of these things. Does this invalidate our right to like ourselves? If so, is that wise? How does it help to loathe yourself?
...why we keep making the same bad decisions over and over again, doesn't it? Rather than accepting and understanding past mistakes, or understanding those that oppose us - we simply do what ever feels good at the time.
Which is all very human and normal. I try to revel in those brief interludes when we rise above our mudane selves a bit -- and I am quite proud of them. I do support the USA -- right or wrong -- while striving to make us right as often as I can. I am not blind to our failings, but seek to use them as a tool to improve (though I know we, as do most, tend to repeat mistakes) rather than as an act of self-flagellation (btw, Zak' is closer to that end with his posts than were you with yours).
Further, I do not view the knowledge of history as slamming the nation, as much as I see it as a necessity for creating realistic foreign policies and establishing true goodwill amongst other nations. It is not a bad thing that one makes a mistake. However, it is if they are unwilling to acknowledge it (them) and place binding laws that would prevent such an error from occuring in the future. Though with Bush, things were in place, he simply ignored them.
Consequence of the current (polarized) political climate. To acknowledge a mistake is to end your career and usefulness as the wolves close in -- and they're surprisingly bipartisan about that if nought else. Who would seek leadership if they were "that" ready to relinquish power? Politicos truly believe that they and their policies can make a difference -- so why would they readily take a step that denied them the opportunity to continue their work?
Politics in this country have been polarizing more and more since about 1968. This trend will reverse, all trends do in time, but it's gonna be a while.
Louis VI the Fat
05-10-2007, 20:36
Predictably enough for those who know me, I would like to quote Bernard-Hénri Levy for my contribution to this thread. He's not my favourite philosopher, but I do admire his political instincts. Below he gives a definition, some causes and a valuation of anti-Americanism that I approve of:
You can protest a particular policy—such as the war in Iraq, which I oppose and think could be a real mistake. But there is no “good” anti-Americanism.
America does not threaten peace in the world. Peace in the world is threatened by North Korea, Osama bin Laden, by the Pakistani jihadist groups and maybe its secret services, by the terrorist organizations financed by Saudi Arabia.
No, you can’t say America threatens the peace of the world without a certain hatred that makes you completely blind and deaf to reality. This kind of anti-Americanism, particularly in Europe, is a grave danger. It is a warning signal of something deeper—a hatred of the very idea of America not as a geographic region but as a region of the soul.
What is this America they hate so much? An “unrooted” and “inorganic” country, built not around an historical culture with roots but around a constitution and the tolerance of diversity. Its democracy is a mixture of races. America is about the triumph of law, not ethnicity or community. It is thus seen in Europe as somehow a dirty mongrel, an inauthentic abstraction.
Yes, America often fails to live up to this ideal. But it is nonetheless built according to the “social contract” of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as a “community that assembles itself.”
For the French ideology—shared today by both the extreme right and extreme left—this is the enemy that must be killed because France, according to them, is a nation built on blood, race and culture.
Anti-Americanism in Europe is therefore linked to the other filthy genies we have known—fascism, anti-Semitism, nationalism and racism.
Certainly, America has its faults and has committed its share of tragic errors. But that is not the issue. What I fear is that the anti-American sentiment we see today, not only in Europe but in the world at large, hates not what is bad in America but what is good.
I have just come from Pakistan, where there is a very violent and mad anti-Americanism. But they hate what is best in America. They don’t hate the death penalty. They don’t hate the lack of gun control.
What they hate is democracy. They hate sexual freedom and the rights of women. They hate tolerance. They hate the separation of religion and state. They hate modernity.
And they hate it all in the name of their own purity. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Pakistani jihadists who killed Daniel Pearl are nothing other than the kind of fascists with which we in Europe are all too familiar.
A hypothesis: In the recent history of humanity, the hatred of America has been one of the main structural links between the three totalitarianisms—fascism, communism and Islamism.
So, anti-Americanism is a structuring passion, not a mere surface feature, that shapes the worst perversities of our time. It is a deep current that must be resisted. Its appearance on a wide scale is very dangerous.
Louis VI the Fat
05-10-2007, 20:36
@InsaneApache: your post made me laugh out loud. :laugh4:
I don't usually start threads in the backroom as I'm not intelligent enough to do so.I appreciate your posts and value your opinion. :yes:
Conradus
05-10-2007, 20:59
So, the more we loathe our own nation, dwell on the mistakes it has made, trumpet our hypocisies, and ringingly announce that we are clearly no better than anyone else and worse then some...the more others will like us? :inquisitive:
Eeuh Seamus, without wanting to hijack the thread and turning it into something humorous -and maybe I'm just wrong. But this is how most Belgian think about their country, well it's how I think most Belgian think about Belgium. And I don't know how we stand in foreigner's eyes, but most nations don't have problems with us and most foreigners I know regard us as a friendly, hospitable and hard-working people -though they might be biased.
So some of your ironic statement may very well be true.
Banquo's Ghost
05-10-2007, 21:17
I know the subject is anti-Americanism but a couple of posts have bordered on outright country bashing with little supporting substance.
Americans are not immune to feeling offended when someone insults their country. Please let's not do it.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Predictably enough for those who know me, I would like to quote Bernard-Hénri Levy for my contribution to this thread. He's not my favourite philosopher, but I do admire his political instincts. Below he gives a definition, some causes and a valuation of anti-Americanism that I approve of:
After the first quoted paragraph I stopped reading. Then when I tried to continue, I stopped after the first phrase of the second paragraph.
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 22:35
After the first quoted paragraph I stopped reading. Then when I tried to continue, I stopped after the first phrase of the second paragraph.
Same here.
Kralizec
05-10-2007, 22:39
On a sidenote, I'd really like to visit your country some day.
I prefer you didnt honestly, I for one wouldnt be welcoming. Sadly there are millions of americans who would probably make your visit enjoyable.
Hey Odin, I could understand the reaction if Husar's comment upset you, but if you understood it was intended as humour when you wrote that, I guess that makes you a real :daisy:
Have a nice day.
]Originally Posted by BHL
You can protest a particular policy—such as the war in Iraq, which I oppose and think could be a real mistake. But there is no “good” anti-Americanism.
America does not threaten peace in the world. Peace in the world is threatened by North Korea, Osama bin Laden, by the Pakistani jihadist groups and maybe its secret services, by the terrorist organizations financed by Saudi Arabia.
No, you can’t say America threatens the peace of the world without a certain hatred that makes you completely blind and deaf to reality. This kind of anti-Americanism, particularly in Europe, is a grave danger. It is a warning signal of something deeper—a hatred of the very idea of America not as a geographic region but as a region of the soul.
What is this America they hate so much? An “unrooted” and “inorganic” country, built not around an historical culture with roots but around a constitution and the tolerance of diversity. Its democracy is a mixture of races. America is about the triumph of law, not ethnicity or community. It is thus seen in Europe as somehow a dirty mongrel, an inauthentic abstraction.
Yes, America often fails to live up to this ideal. But it is nonetheless built according to the “social contract” of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as a “community that assembles itself.”
For the French ideology—shared today by both the extreme right and extreme left—this is the enemy that must be killed because France, according to them, is a nation built on blood, race and culture.
Anti-Americanism in Europe is therefore linked to the other filthy genies we have known—fascism, anti-Semitism, nationalism and racism.
Certainly, America has its faults and has committed its share of tragic errors. But that is not the issue. What I fear is that the anti-American sentiment we see today, not only in Europe but in the world at large, hates not what is bad in America but what is good.
I have just come from Pakistan, where there is a very violent and mad anti-Americanism. But they hate what is best in America. They don’t hate the death penalty. They don’t hate the lack of gun control.
What they hate is democracy. They hate sexual freedom and the rights of women. They hate tolerance. They hate the separation of religion and state. They hate modernity.
And they hate it all in the name of their own purity. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Pakistani jihadists who killed Daniel Pearl are nothing other than the kind of fascists with which we in Europe are all too familiar.
A hypothesis: In the recent history of humanity, the hatred of America has been one of the main structural links between the three totalitarianisms—fascism, communism and Islamism.
So, anti-Americanism is a structuring passion, not a mere surface feature, that shapes the worst perversities of our time. It is a deep current that must be resisted. Its appearance on a wide scale is very dangerous.
Good, and I agree.
Louis VI the Fat
05-10-2007, 23:24
After the first quoted paragraph I stopped reading. Then when I tried to continue, I stopped after the first phrase of the second paragraph.
Same here.
That is a pity, for this means we can't even disagree about it.
Incongruous
05-10-2007, 23:26
Sorry, I mean, I don't even accept that anti-americanism exists. I require that a proper antism is taught instead, such as anti-britishism.
Pannonian
05-10-2007, 23:31
I don't usually start threads in the backroom as I'm not intelligent enough to do so.
You don't need to be. All you need to do is find a news story about a bloke who mangled his manhood and you can start a thread on it. IIRC that's what nearly all my threads were about, and I've heard someone was even promoted to moderator because of his aptitude in finding these sausage-scrambling stories.
Hey Odin, I could understand the reaction if Husar's comment upset you, but if you understood it was intended as humour when you wrote that, I guess that makes you a real :daisy:
Have a nice day.
Masked name calling, boy i've been shocked over and over today in the anti american threads.
If being honest and forthright with board members (good or bad) makes me a real :daisy: Im prepared to live with the title. Honesty has its draw backs from time to time
All you need to do is find a news story about a bloke who mangled his manhood and you can start a thread on it.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Zaknafien
05-11-2007, 02:36
KafirChobee hit the nail on the head, American history as taught in our public schools is largely propaganda. For example, the standard American history lesson starts with something like Columbus shows up in the New World, a few days later the Pilgrims came over, you know, for freedom of religion and all, and got along just fine with the Indians, who made them turkey and corn. No mention of the genocide conducted by Columbus and his thugs, let alone what today would be called "war crimes" committed by founding father and American hero Andrew Jackson, etc.
Entire chapters are written on the Spanish-American war which lasted 4 months, while the Phillipine War, which carried on for 13 years, merits only a paragraph or two at most and makes no mention whatsoever of the vast butchery and rape and murder of children inflicted by American soldiers.
TevashSzat
05-11-2007, 02:40
You can protest a particular policy—such as the war in Iraq, which I oppose and think could be a real mistake. But there is no “good” anti-Americanism.
America does not threaten peace in the world. Peace in the world is threatened by North Korea, Osama bin Laden, by the Pakistani jihadist groups and maybe its secret services, by the terrorist organizations financed by Saudi Arabia.
No, you can’t say America threatens the peace of the world without a certain hatred that makes you completely blind and deaf to reality. This kind of anti-Americanism, particularly in Europe, is a grave danger. It is a warning signal of something deeper—a hatred of the very idea of America not as a geographic region but as a region of the soul.
What is this America they hate so much? An “unrooted” and “inorganic” country, built not around an historical culture with roots but around a constitution and the tolerance of diversity. Its democracy is a mixture of races. America is about the triumph of law, not ethnicity or community. It is thus seen in Europe as somehow a dirty mongrel, an inauthentic abstraction.
Yes, America often fails to live up to this ideal. But it is nonetheless built according to the “social contract” of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as a “community that assembles itself.”
For the French ideology—shared today by both the extreme right and extreme left—this is the enemy that must be killed because France, according to them, is a nation built on blood, race and culture.
Anti-Americanism in Europe is therefore linked to the other filthy genies we have known—fascism, anti-Semitism, nationalism and racism.
Certainly, America has its faults and has committed its share of tragic errors. But that is not the issue. What I fear is that the anti-American sentiment we see today, not only in Europe but in the world at large, hates not what is bad in America but what is good.
I have just come from Pakistan, where there is a very violent and mad anti-Americanism. But they hate what is best in America. They don’t hate the death penalty. They don’t hate the lack of gun control.
What they hate is democracy. They hate sexual freedom and the rights of women. They hate tolerance. They hate the separation of religion and state. They hate modernity.
And they hate it all in the name of their own purity. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Pakistani jihadists who killed Daniel Pearl are nothing other than the kind of fascists with which we in Europe are all too familiar.
A hypothesis: In the recent history of humanity, the hatred of America has been one of the main structural links between the three totalitarianisms—fascism, communism and Islamism.
So, anti-Americanism is a structuring passion, not a mere surface feature, that shapes the worst perversities of our time. It is a deep current that must be resisted. Its appearance on a wide scale is very dangerous.
My central argument towards this would be that although it is true that many hate America for its democratic ideals, it was because America caused such hatred. For many especially in non western countries, America seems to be attempting to force everyone else to accept American ideals. To them, their government is just fine, it may be a bit restrictive and corrupt, but to the majority of the people, life does not seem that bad. When they see Americans saying how wonderful democracy is and try to remake the world in their image, they start thinking that such a practice cannot come out from something that is good.
As a metaphor, if your parents keep on telling a teenager to do something, like do more homework, and bugs about it over and over and over again, what is the most likely thing the teenager is gonna do? He wil rebel which is why America cannot keep on trying to tell how other people should live
KafirChobee hit the nail on the head, American history as taught in our public schools is largely propaganda. For example, the standard American history lesson starts with something like Columbus shows up in the New World, a few days later the Pilgrims came over, you know, for freedom of religion and all, and got along just fine with the Indians, who made them turkey and corn. No mention of the genocide conducted by Columbus and his thugs, let alone what today would be called "war crimes" committed by founding father and American hero Andrew Jackson, etc.
Entire chapters are written on the Spanish-American war which lasted 4 months, while the Phillipine War, which carried on for 13 years, merits only a paragraph or two at most and makes no mention whatsoever of the vast butchery and rape and murder of children inflicted by American soldiers.
I learned about the Indian Wars and the mass extermination of the Buffalo in an effort to force teh Natives onto reservations. I learned about the vile individuals who ran the Indian Affairs who were more concerned about lining their pockets. I learned about Yellow Journalism was one of the primary causes of the Spanish-American War. That while the Panama Canal was a great engineering feat that it almost failed and the land was forced over to the United States by some dubious diplomacy. That the United States attempt its hand in late 19th Century Imperialism in China along with the Phillipines. Hell I even learned about the Lincoln County War, and not the popular myth of it built around a killer.
Oh there is much much more, but many schools are not as blindly patriotic as you are attempting to make, nor its it an on purpose propaganda program. It might be one by default but its from laziness not design. The error of the current education system is that it rarely focuses on the past, anything older then 20 years ago is given bullet comments in all books. In such instances for a single textbook - only major events are covered - and rarely the ugly ones. So your complaint should be directed at an education system that focus on teaching to a test - versus teaching to the subject and the interest of the students.
So while your attempting to beat up on a poor education system which I normally don't mind, how to you explain that I learned such information from the same public educatin system that your complaining about. Maybe I had teachers that went beyond the textbooks provided in class - they were all educated hippies you know - we were able to ask questions because we were not being educated to a standardize test.
Reality check.
In the more serious posts numerous points were touted to the causes for most of the world's nations to either hate or distrust American policies and its leaders. Most are accurate, unfortunately.
Oh I never worry about much of it, for the simple reason, that it will continue to happen regardless of what I say or not.
Items of interest; American history as taught in public schools in exclusively of a patriotic theme - we only do good, we have never been wrong, and we have saved the world twice from evil forces (WWI and WWII) - and America (USA) is the only hope for the world today. Oh, also by pure force of will (Reagans - all the other Presidents efforts were mute, only he knew how) defeated Soviet Communism [Kruchev's quote, "We will bury you.", was taken literally by most americans - rather than the economic threat it was meant to be] We have a tendency to modify history in a light that favors us - as do all nations, but we also tend to put a halo over any misdeeds that our heroes committed by saying they were forced into such situations by the savagery of their adversary - it is un-american to believe other wise. Our true history is of little interest to most Americans - the patriotic one is much more appealing, and further justifies the ill adviced actions of some of our Presidents simply because the true patriots know that "history" always bears out that we were right in taking such action (heck, there is still a large portion of us that believe we could have won in Vietnam, we were betrayed by "the cut and runners" - as we are today in Iraq).
Or I think history is taught as a matter of laziness. Classes are designed to educate kids to a standardize test level. The inablity to go in depth on any aspect of history is a failure of our education system, but its my belief its from an inherient laziness of the American People toward studing history, and iherient failure of standardized testing. Only minor blips are taught in class because they must cover the material in a certain time line.
Americans hate sacrifice, today. In WWII it was a different story - though it can be argued that only the Middleclass and poor actually made any real concessions - the wealthy and rich have never had to (why should they, they're special and above all governing factors of the masses - and rightly so since they can afford to force the system into complying to their will). Examples of our unwillingness to sacrifice? During the Carter administration he imposed a 55mph speed limit to decrease the usage of gasoline (think of song "I can't drive 55"), it was a big deal to the free wheeling Americans that felt by driving slower was an impossition on their god given right to drive as fast as they wanted - people hated it, even if the reality was that it did reduce the amount of gas useage in the nation. Carter also tried to lead by example by installing solar panels at the Whitehouse and building the first solar energy power plant (still in opporation - Mojave). Reagone's first actions as President were to negate all the power saving policies imposed by Carter, and to tear out the solar panels at the WH - and of course to begin the mass buliding of Nuclear power plants. Carter, was the last American President to ask for any sacrifice from those he governs. It is a campaign killer to even suggest that any tax be raised be raised, regardless of the need to do so. [Note: Reagan raised taxes more than any Prez in our history, but that fact is obscured by rightist revisionists.] It is un-American to ask for americans to give up a luxury they have adopted as a right, and not a privelage. As a comedian pointed out - "if you told Americans they could reduce global warming, gasoline consumption, and have clean air if they just gave up their remote control TV changer - and changed the channels manually (like in the 50'w and 60's)? They'ld keep their remotes." That is the fact of American indulgence today, and our leaders unwillingness (in most cases) to lead by example.
The point of these is to demonstrate the changing "mores", principles, and perceptions americans as a people have digressed to. If something doesnot have profit written on it - it is un-american.
Then we come to the part about "World policeman". At first glance one would believe that the only superpower in the world ought to be involved in the solution of the world's ills. However, as others have pointed out, when a nation uses military power and economic power exclusively to solve any and all situations they become suspect to the other nations trying to use political power first as the means to resolve differences. It is the impulse to shoot first and ask questions later, that has made America something of a piriah to many of the older nations of the planet. Somewhere during the present administrations term of leadership (probably day one) it was determined that a redneck, cowboy form of diplomacy was the only means to attain any and all goals they created - especially after 9/11 and a GOP congress gave them the ability to subjigate any and all laws they disagreed with or that limited their power. Ergo, all the goodwill created by the preceeding administrations was superceeded by the arrogance and ignorance of the Bushys. Is there a soul out there that believes that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq on the false premices created by Chenney & Co. (PNAC)? It is a matter that political system and former methods of diplomacy (and goodwill) were high-jacked by a bunch of thugs. Quite seriously, the methods these characters have been employing are identical to the rantings of rightists-patriots I've been listening to for years in redneck bars (where I live, that is about all there is to drink in - I've quit attending them, to old and tired to fist fight any more - which is the appropriate response in America today when someone disagrees with another. Much the same as the Bushys, "You're either with us, or against us", mentality.).
Not to worry though. Regardless of whom the next Prez is, congress is back to oversee that his administration abides by our laws - something that has been missing for 6 years. Then, maybe ... maybe, we can begin to rebuild the bridges burned by Bush and begin to demonstrate that we still have a vague concept of what diplomacy is - and that we don't have a war or crusade against those that dislike, hate or we perceive as misunderstanding us (or hating us because we are better off or just better than they are). Maybe?
:balloon2:
Oh I don't have any strong disagree with the rest of this, politics create different opinions on about any thing that the American People do. In some parts your probably right, some parts your right because that is your preception of America. My preception is slightly different because of my own hard work and success that I have had. Your right the majority of Americans are currently to lazy and selfserving to sacrifice anything. However I find that without sacrifice and risk live is just mundane. I will continue to live life without being a bitter individual because things didn't go the way I wanted in life or politics.
I don't depend on the public education system that is designed to teach to the slowest individual to actually educate past a simplistic basic level. And while the education system is stuck on such a system, children will only learn a limited amount of history.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-11-2007, 03:55
Redleg makes a sound point.
Most USA students abhor history, see it as valueless and un-connected to their lives, and cram enough into their heads to get the grade they want and promptly "wipe the RAM" when finished.
A large percentage (majority?) of USA students, given a test on history 3-5 years after the class was finished, would have trouble with everything on the test after their name and the date.
En masse, we are profoundly ignorant of the history of other nations, and largely ignorant about out own. What really matters is who the last three winners of "Idol" were.
I have been comforted to learn on this forum that these "charming" characteristics are not unique to my country. God save Western Civilization from itself.
KafirChobee
05-11-2007, 08:51
So, the more we loathe our own nation, dwell on the mistakes it has made, trumpet our hypocisies, and ringingly announce that we are clearly no better than anyone else and worse then some...the more others will like us? :inquisitive:
Seems rather silly.
I don't view myself personally as an example of perfection, but I rarely spend a lot of time trumpeting my flaws for all to see.
Perhaps we should all re-write our resumes in this spirit of "honesty." Here's a list of all the classes I hooked but somehow managed to pass the exam :deal: please don't count these towards my education as you evaluate me. Oh, and here's the list jobs I quit without notice because the work schedule would have prevented me from going to a good concert. The following publicans (bartenders) can confirm that I was half-decerebrated from ethanol on a work/school night on the following occasions.....
So, a knowledge of how things really happen(ed) is useful -- the polyanna versions can be misleading -- but taking it too far the other way is just as silly.
So, which is reality?
The "founding fathers" of the USA, faced with the increasing tyranny of an imperialist government, pledged their "lives, fortunes, and [their] sacred honor" to struggle for independence from the foremost power on the planet in that time. Having, with help from the traditional opponents of that power, won their independence, these founders then crafted a unique nation, dedicated to a relatively secular ratio-legal form of participative self-governance in which social class would not limit opportunity and in which individual freedoms would be formally specified in the founding legal documents of the republic.
Or
The "founding fathers" of the USA, a pack of ingrates who had been defended at great cost by their mother country but then rejected reasonable efforts to have them share in the ruinous cost of that defense, agitated to de-stablize and radicalize the colonial population and followed this with armed violence against agents and soldiers of their own country. Despite the fact that more than 60% of the residents of these colonies either wished to maintain their loyalty or simply would have preferred an end to all the violence and turmoil, these founders leagued together with their country's enemies to defeat their own country and ram this new independent USA down the throats of a majority that really didn't see the need for one. And why? To avoid taxes, amass personal wealth, and to discard the limitations against Westward expansion imposed by the mother country and go back to exploiting the native population for their own ends.
Which is truth?
Both of course. But rejecting the former is every bit as silly as rejecting the latter.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Know what? I never made a comment about loathing the nation, or even its history. As to there being two sides to the story of our founding? Well, duh. One thing you left out was the bit about "no taxation without representation". Fact is, had King George (Englands, not ours - today) and his Parliament given in to that demand we may very well be speaking proper English today and still be a part of Greater Britain. But, they didn't and we aren't.
It is a matter that we all tend to oversimplify issues to make it easier to stress a point. I think, that in essence we agree - but in defining the differences of our particular approach to that view we focus on different shades of an issue and ,therefore, seemingly differ.
My point was that we (as a people) do not pay enough attention to history. And, that the history taught in most (Red obviously had some excellent teachers, and parents that didn't mind their children hearing about the darker side of our past) public schools is pap. Ultimately we have leaders that grew up on the pap, believed it, saw no need to delve further, and if they had would have ignored it anyway. That's it.
When I was in grade school (many .... many moons ago) a teacher once asked the class, "Why do the Soviets grow trees on the side of their roads?" The answers ranged from 'the soviets hiding things to the soviets concealing things'. Answer: for shade and wind breaks - same as in the USA. Well, long story short, the kids went home and pulled THE question on their parents - who decided the teacher was a commie for asking such a thing (my parents, btw, found it amusing) and demanded she be fired (she wasn't btw, and retired there after like 40 years). Not all Americans are known for their tolerance of what or how a subject or lesson is presented. For most, it is a matter of preferring to wear rosecolored glasses when considering the nations history or the fubars of our leaders (unless of course the prez was in the opposition party - but, that is mostly a new thing).
_______________________________________________________________
And now for something completely ....
Anyone, imo, that believes the present anti-americanism is out of some mythical form of jealousy, or because we are the new Rome and everyone hated the old Rome, because of "greatness" - is either delusional or unwilling to admit to our short comings. We have missed so many opportunities to demonstrate our ability to be humble or willing to assist former adversaries, as we did after WWII when we had the greatness to assist our former enemies and allies to rebuild their wartorn nations. When the USSR reformed, we did nothing to assist them (as a nation) to reformat their economy or to even send economists (capitalists) to advise them - we did let the mega-corporations teach them corruption though. We missed a major opportunity - of course most of Europe stayed out of it too. Other similar opportunities come to mind, but what prevailed in all instances was our spirit of laise faire - let our corporations take as much advantage as possible, let that be our contribution. Versus, assisting a floundering former foe in securing some form of economic security for the populace and not just a privelaged few. It is what we became at some stage after the Korean Police action, I suppose. Cause and reason - personally I believe it is our instinct for isolationism. Most Americans prefer to just not get involved in the problems of others.
Aside from that, as a people, we are very giving to those in need; unless it raises our taxes (j/k, just look at the number of charities we support - but, ignore the welfare thingy) - especially in times of disaster. But, we also (as a whole) have short-selective memories. We are unable to conceed that our understanding of the political is less sophisticated than older nations; primarily because of the weakness of our media, but it is also because we learn more about our politicians through commercials - than their actions or voting records. We know less about is happening in the world than any free nation in the world - that to is a media problem, they think we would rather hear about a litter of kittens than what is happening in Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, SE Asia, etc. Thing is - they're probably right. More's the shame on the media, and the more is our ignorance for being able to comprehend why other peoples hate us. It isn't because of who we are, but because we tend to ignore the problems of these "others" until it is to late to resolve anything. Then we wonder, gee what did we ever do for them to hate us? And that is the point - we did nothing. Absolutely nothing, we just went into our isloationist mode and ignored that there was or ever could be a problem. Or, as in the Middle-East, we took one side of the debate ... and pretended the other side had little merit, wasn't in our national interest, or was being led by someone that was evil and did not warrant diplomacy, economic aid or any form of understanding.
The other day I read where some (many) third-world nations are placing their trust with China over that of the USA - because they believe China will still be around in 2,000 years, where as they doubt we will be. Personally, I don't give the world that much hope to be here in 2,000 years (know I won't be, well maybe in another life) - but, their arguement seems plausable. China is a very old civilization. Where as, the US is still a the new kid on the block when it comes to the majority of 1st and 2nd world nations - we are still on a learning curve. That is our one saving grace. After the BUSH-experience, hopefully we can will be able to say "We won't be fooled again". Then again, it seems we can be - depends on how good the commercial is.
ajaxfetish
05-11-2007, 09:48
Anyone, imo, that believes the present anti-americanism is out of some mythical form of jealousy, or because we are the new Rome and everyone hated the old Rome, because of "greatness" - is either delusional or unwilling to admit to our short comings.
I think this point has been fairly misrepresented in this thread. A few thoughts.
First, I don't think this is the only cause of anti-Americanism, but one among others.
Second, I am willing to admit our shortcomings (see the self-criticism thread).
Third, this doesn't apply to everyone in the world who takes issue with America. People in Australia or Holland or whatnot are unlikely to wish their culture or standard of living was more like America's, as they have one that is similar or possibly superior already. Someone living in Pakistan or Botswana who hears about America or sees American media programs has a little more reason to be upset they don't share that standard of living, so envy along those lines applies more to those situations (and I fear we have few people from such conditions who are members of the org, so we are unlikely to find either reliable corroboration or contradiction here). People from countries with a standard of living comparable to the US may still envy the power the US wields, even while not envying US culture, but it's certainly not the case that everyone would wish to have that power on the world stage. When I say that I think envy is a reason for anti-Americanism, that is not to say that America is the uberleet, and of course everyone else would wish they could be as cool as me. It is to say that there are a lot of benefits to living in America (witness our immigration situation), and both individuals and nations have good reason to wish they shared some of those benefits.
Ajax
My point was that we (as a people) do not pay enough attention to history. And, that the history taught in most (Red obviously had some excellent teachers, and parents that didn't mind their children hearing about the darker side of our past) public schools is pap. Ultimately we have leaders that grew up on the pap, believed it, saw no need to delve further, and if they had would have ignored it anyway. That's it.
That is the most sound point about the teaching of history in the American School system. Calling it propaganda is giving our school system to much credit, since its all based upon how lazy americans are in learning anything of the past. When a society is lazy in its studies - it only tends to learn what is easiest.
[...]the US is still a the new kid on the block when it comes to the majority of 1st and 2nd world nations - we are still on a learning curve. [...]
That's what I've been trying to say in some other thread. Only thing is: I called it "lack of civilization", though your way of saying it sounds... "more pleasant".
In some time -- some centuries or something(?) -- the US will generally have reached the state that overall Europe is in now. Or maybe not: Europe's still a continent of different cooperating nations that are close to each other geographically; America is still America -- one big nation that doesn't have to cooperate with anybody at all.
Ah, let America continue its bullying and policing of the world through abuse of power, military force, and corporatism. It's a young country, but maybe they will learn after a couple of centuries :)
America is the kind of country that when an enemy is defeated, they start looking for the next one. And if there's no enemy, they make one, and convince their people that it's necessary to attack this enemy that threatens them.
I appreciate your posts and value your opinion. :yes:
:flowers:
You don't need to be. All you need to do is find a news story about a bloke who mangled his manhood and you can start a thread on it. IIRC that's what nearly all my threads were about, and I've heard someone was even promoted to moderator because of his aptitude in finding these sausage-scrambling stories.
Well, I gotta be honest now, the real reason I don't start threads here is because I rarely if ever read english news sites.
And if I find something interesting in the german press or hear it in the news, I usually can't find an english article about it...
Anyway, the guy you quoted Louis, he sounds a bit like scaremongering, as if the whole world outside the US consists of evil orcs who want to destroy the shiny ideas of the US because they embrace darkness.
IMO that may be true for some, but those people also exist in the US itself, almost every state has such people.
And why does he talk all theoretically about anti-Americanism in Europe and then gives a practical example from Pakistan?:sweatdrop:
Pakistan is not in Europe as far as I know and I don't think the european mindset is the same as the Pakistani mindset.
Muslims often feel a very big religious bond against non-muslims apparently, so if you oppose one of their groups like the US does, you may soon end up with more than one group hating you. Add to that a lot of propaganda from their leaders to distract from internal issues etc, and there you are. And that may just be the broad picture, not even all muslims hate the US, I'm pretty sure about that.
I think there is still that sort of natural rebellious reaction in many people, if someone walks around, waving his flag, boasting with his success etc, people start hating him because he rubs it in their face, a conclusion may be to stop rubbing all that superiority into peoples' faces. My favourite guy Bismarck once said that when you defeat an enemy you either make sure he will never rise again or that he can still look into a mirror without being ashamed, he did the former to France and the latter to Austria and apparently it worked, at least until Bismarck was gone. The connection I want to make is that a lot of the US superiority they show is somewhere in between, they constantly make us feel inferior because they can do what they want, but they don't crush us either, to some degree they ask for jealousy.
Dîn-Heru
05-11-2007, 17:49
American politics and policy = the avarage american..
This seems to be one of the more common misconseptions I hear from friends and aquaintances. People who disagree with Bush's war in Iraq, and other matters related to the war on terror, seem to forget that there are 260 million americans (?) and either intentionally or inadvertadly lump all of the together as all supporting and agreeing with Bush.
Secondly little contact with "normal" Americans make people rely on stereotypical view perpetuated through the centuries about how americans are. "Stupid, ignorant, loud, impolite, arrogant" and so forth. This combined with the media often showing Americans who fit this image more than "normal" Americans. And because it is easier to recall things that confirm your stereotypes than that which refutes it, the examples that confirm your impression is the one you remember and not the one where an American gavea reasoned and intelligent response.
As a side note a us/they effect might be a cause, we see our own countrymen as diverce and unique while they are all the same. So when the examples of ordinary americans you remember are the sterotypical ones, you mistakingly state that all americans are like that one bad example.. (And at the same time conviniently forgetting that there are plenty of morons in our own country as well..)
But in my view, the current trend of anti-americanism is caused by mistakingly equating Bush's policies with the views of avarage americans.
AntiochusIII
05-12-2007, 00:05
I have been comforted to learn on this forum that these "charming" characteristics are not unique to my country. God save Western Civilization from itself.Oh no, it ought to be God save Humanity. I'm pretty certain that the Malaysian school system doesn't achieve any better job in teaching its students the truth of history...and was it only a few months ago that one of the news magazines ran an article how the Chinese history class in some elite Shanghai school is now focused on teaching the children biographies of Bill Gates and Capitalism instead of the Glorious History of Mao Zedong. Some would call that an improvement. :dizzy2:
But in my view, the current trend of anti-americanism is caused by mistakingly equating Bush's policies with the views of avarage americans....is quite a sound point. People equate government action to the populace anywhere, and that barrier is only broken down by intimate contact. Since the USA is very active worldwide it is only natural that the particular misconception, common everywhere against anyone otherwise, would be more pronounced.
Wasn't there a cliche back then about how America is about extremities?
Someone living in Pakistan or Botswana who hears about America or sees American media programs has a little more reason to be upset they don't share that standard of living, so envy along those lines applies more to those situations (and I fear we have few people from such conditions who are members of the org, so we are unlikely to find either reliable corroboration or contradiction here).I personally would conclude otherwise; rather that these people would more likely appreciate the promises the American Dream gives and seek out America rather than hating on it. However, I must also admit that the general attitude really isn't like that, but I attribute such hatred to other factors.
Say, it could be that the people of the country in question has seen the promises of the West gone empty, it would only be natural that they would be bitter about it. The bitterness increases tenfold if the local oppressor decides to run a propaganda machine pointing out "the Americans" as the External Enemy or at least the protector of Another External Enemy (usually Jews), a concept I'm sure everyone is familiar with.
In the end, though, I must thank Pindar for starting this thread. I get to see a lot of things here: self-absorbed, just-a-little-too-proud Americans, self-bashing, we-really-suck Americans, anti-American Everyoneelse, pro-American Someoneelse, "self-aware" Americans...
Seamus Fermanagh
05-12-2007, 03:33
Oh no, it ought to be God save Humanity. I'm pretty certain that the Malaysian school system doesn't achieve any better job in teaching its students the truth of history...and was it only a few months ago that one of the news magazines ran an article how the Chinese history class in some elite Shanghai school is now focused on teaching the children biographies of Bill Gates and Capitalism instead of the Glorious History of Mao Zedong. Some would call that an improvement. :dizzy2: ...
Well, I didn't have any data on the Asian nations and their schooling, so I didn't want to cast apsersions. As to downplaying Mao in favor of Gates, at least Gates is responsible for killing far fewer people -- though he may have anger....[insert system crash and re-boot]ed more than [system crash...reboot] Mao.
Redleg makes a sound point.
Most USA students abhor history, see it as valueless and un-connected to their lives, and cram enough into their heads to get the grade they want and promptly "wipe the RAM" when finished.
A large percentage (majority?) of USA students, given a test on history 3-5 years after the class was finished, would have trouble with everything on the test after their name and the date.
En masse, we are profoundly ignorant of the history of other nations, and largely ignorant about out own. What really matters is who the last three winners of "Idol" were.
I have been comforted to learn on this forum that these "charming" characteristics are not unique to my country. God save Western Civilization from itself.
Yeah, well in NZ people don't even have to do history, and don't get the chance to until their 3rd to last year at high school.
So I'd say it's pretty safe to say NZ is just as bad, if not worse in that respect.
InsaneApache
05-14-2007, 10:37
Well I should imagine that any history classes for the former colonies would be a tad short. Let's face it, you all only have a couple of centuries to ponder upon. A rainy Monday afternoon would just about see it off.
:laugh4:
Well, one fat person is jolly, and two are a couple who maybe need a lifestyle change. Two hundred million ruin the party.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.