Anti-Americanism

[AntiochusIII]

*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...

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 ?

[Husar]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Whacker]

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 - Great list, and you DO realize that more than a few of your points work in reverse, right??

@ 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]

Hm, Id say the conquest, subjugation, and extermination of other native peoples is pretty imperialistic, if you ask me.

[Incongruous]

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...

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.

[Odin]

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]

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]

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]

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 ). 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.

[Odin]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Odin]

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.

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.

[Odin]

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]

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" 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.

[caravel]

@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.

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.

[Odin]

well no problem, I'll enjoy "protecting them" 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]

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]

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.

[Odin]

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]

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.

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 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]

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]

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.

[Slyspy]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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.