Examining Anti-Americanism

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 16:25
VIEWED: 6927
PAGE 1 of 1

KHYRON

Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:16 PM

The other thread ( http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=28392) has gotten quite long, so maybe it's time for another one.

Okay, so it's Geezer vs SignyM ... round 143? I don't know, I've run out of fingers to count on a long time ago. But regardless of my inability to keep track of numbers above 10, let's continue the great debate.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

KHYRON

Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:21 PM

I'll start off by posting Rue's thought-provoking post from the previous thread (hope you're okay with that, Rue):

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM,

I was thinking about expressed v silent anti-Americanism.

If the US should ever need help, to whom would it turn? Let's say China decided to call in it's debt* and the US economy took a dive. Who would help out? Or would you see anti-Americanism in full force as the countries who previously felt inhibited suddenly faced no more repercussions?

My sense is that the US would be swarmed - figuratively speaking - by countries getting in whatever licks they could.

I think that would be the prediction of most people. And that is a tacit acknowledgement that the US isn't envied. B/c if the US were to suddenly become, say, destitute, there would be no more envy and so no more anti-Americanism.

* Not that it's doing that, my understanding is they are actively buying things w/ US dollars as a way to dump dollars

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:27 AM

I read a book (I think it was 'Warday') about a post-nuclear war U.S. where the nukes were largely contained to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The author was of the opinion that the only countries that would stand by us in our hour of need would be Britain and Japan and the rest would ignore us or try to screw with us.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:02 AM

Quote:
Fear is a vast oversimplification. You might be able to make the case that some countries have reason to fear us. Syria, North Korea, Iran maybe. But even in those cases, I don’t think fear is as big as motivator as you're making it out to be. Even after Iraq and Afghanistan most countries that pose a threat to the US don’t really expect to be invaded by the US. But most countries don’t pose a threat, like France which has one of the largest anti-American populations? French people don’t fear the US. Neither do Germans or Canadians or the Brits or the Irish. And you will find considerable anti-Americanism in all of these countries. Envy is a better explanation.

Why would western Europe envy the USA? Their standard of living is in many ways higher than ours.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SINGATE

Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:25 AM

The only beef I have with the previous thread is DTH's clearly defined anti-American manifesto. Being an ignorant, red blooded flag waver I can only assume her opinion is representative of the entire poulation's beliefs about us. Therefore, I decree that we should invade Ireland, seizing all stockpiles of Guinness. To arms!!!

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why would western Europe envy the USA? Their standard of living is in many ways higher than ours.

True, but on balance the US is still more successful, and many in Western Europe feel that this success is undeserved. Kind of like a C-average student who goes off to become very successful in his career; the B- and A-average students who have less success will inevitably be jealous.

However, I don't think envy is the major reason for anti-Americanism (if there is a major reason, which I doubt, it's probably many things that add up), although I think it plays more of a role than fear does.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:18 AM

Sin, in my opinion DTH's concept was a list of constructive criticism we'd be well advised to take note of, in much the same fashion you would advise a friend who's about to do something supremely stupid.

The only analogy I can possibly apply would be trying to reason with and help a friend that has fallen into the throes of severe addiction and denial - truth is, that is how a lot of the world sees us right now, even now, as a friend who has started to slide down into something horrible.

Sure, some have given up on us, like happens many a time in the above analogy, but a good bit of it is also the equivalent of trying to snatch the baggie away before we kill ourselves with it.

War and Hate are addictive poisons, and America needs some serious rehab, and soon - or some day we might find those UN Blue Helmets *here*, which would precipitate a disaster beyond all reckoning, given how certain far-right elements get almost pre-orgasmic at the thought of blowing away UN troops.
(And no, that's not hyperbole, and I *wish* I was kidding, go look for yourself if you don't believe.)

Right now we got one, that's right, count it, ONE, planet to live on, and we as a species ain't even civilized to share it, can you just imagine how bad it could get if we did manage to get off ?

Be very glad we don't have contact with other specie out there, they'd probably regard us the same way we regard a wasp nest in the corner of our workshop and respond in the same fashion.

Just some thoughts,

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KANEMAN

Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I read a book (I think it was 'Warday') about a post-nuclear war U.S. where the nukes were largely contained to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The author was of the opinion that the only countries that would stand by us in our hour of need would be Britain and Japan and the rest would ignore us or try to screw with us.

I would ask the author why he left Israel, Canada, Australia, and The US virgin islands off that list.....

KANEMAN

Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:41 PM

"My sense is that the US would be swarmed - figuratively speaking - by countries getting in whatever licks they could."

In this one little opinion, one can find the root cause of anti-USA sentiment. We don't lick. We kick - figuratively speaking - and that, my little brown friends, bothers some.......Read what I just wrote....Again....Once more......

KANEMAN

Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:30 PM

Is it possible that some of the anti-American resentment is fueled by our blatantly arrogant truthyness? Take this gem as example:

As an American who has lived the past 3 years in the UK, I am sorry to say that I must agree with the "bad teeth" stereotype. I know that some Brits (as I have been reading in the above comments) see us Americans as being "obsessed" with good teeth, but some of the teeth I see here are absolutely appalling. Otherwise attractive people are rendered hideous by misshapen, stained, rotten teeth. One time a man I was talking with in a pub claimed he was getting drunk that night so he could go home and pull his bad tooth. When I asked why he didn't go to a dentist he announced, with pride, that he had never been to a dentist in his life. I found it absolutely disgusting - just as if he had announced he had never bathed. I have also seen women in the UK spend thousands of pounds on cosmetic surgeries, including breast augmentation, while completely ignoring a mouthful of crooked, fang-like tobacco stained teeth that badly effect their appearance more than anything else. Sorry, Britain. Us "yanks" happen to be right about this one!

Jovanka Steele-Williamson, London UK

I love my fellow 'Yanks'.... Always tell it like it is......even if it gets us in a little trouble.

I joke of course. I would like to point out that Americans don't care what other nations think about us...sad? Maybe, but it is very true. It is almost impossible to make the average US citizen feel bad. We are raised with huge amounts of national pride. We know we are the creme DE la creme(pardon my French). We know we are the star quarterback in a class full of chess players. We have this pointed out to us at a very young age. I think having that trait, in a time when other countries are chock full of metrosexuals and lesbians, may work against us in world opinion. But, just as parents don't let children rule the home, US citizens have to take our places as the universe's Alpha males and Beta females....sorry.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
True, but on balance the US is still more successful

Can you be specific as to what ways the USA is viewed as "more successful"? Is it our education system? Our health care? Our advanced technology? The safety and cleanliness of our cities? Transportation? Lack of stress? Overall happiness? Economic opportunity? Social mobility?

You see, I find this kind of unexamined statement to be reminiscent of VOA propaganda. I have family in Hungary (one of poorer European nations) and I have not heard anyone express envy. In fact, when they came to the USA they were shocked at the difference between the propagandized version of the USA and the reality.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:09 PM

Here's a question for you history buffs! I don't know the answer so it's not a trick question, but whyizzit that of all the major mainland European nations, France is the only one with an independent nuclear weapons program AND which does not have American bases in its soil?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Can you be specific as to what ways the USA is viewed as "more successful"?

I was thinking along the lines of economic power and global influence.

Quote:
You see, I find this kind of unexamined statement to be reminiscent of VOA broadcasts.

The out-of-control global media (just a right-wing spin machine, obviously) and numerous books and articles (written by quacks, obviously) have this thing about calling the US a superpower. If the uneducated proletariat buys into this preposterous fantasy one could infer that it might view the US as a successful country, perhaps even more successful than their own. If they feel the success is undeserved, they might become envious. Ludicrous, I know, but most of them have dandruff anyway, so what do they know...

Quote:
I have family in Hungary (one of poorer European nations) I have not heard anyone express envy.

I haven't heard anybody openly express envy either, because envy isn't a desirable quality to have and hence to express. Perhaps many people don't realise they're a bit jealous and try to rationalise their hatred with other reasons (and there are plenty of other reasons, justified or not). That doesn't mean envy isn't a factor.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... whyizzit that of all the major mainland European nations, France is the only one with an independent nuclear weapons program AND which does not have American bases in its soil?

Maybe they said 'non' to American bases and 'oui' to nuclear weapons. But the real reason I'm responding is that I thought this was funny and you might like it too:

http://www.theassassinatedpress.com/adiodi.htm

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:38 PM

Quote:
I was thinking along the lines of economic power and global influence.

What do you mean by "economic power" and "global influence"? And what would that enable Europe to do that it isn't currently doing?

Quote:
The out-of-control global media (just a right-wing spin machine, obviously) and numerous books and articles (written by quacks, obviously) have this thing about calling the US a superpower. If the uneducated proletariat buys into this preposterous fantasy one could infer that it might view the US as a successful country, perhaps even more successful than their own. If they feel the success is undeserved, they might become envious. Ludicrous, I know, but most of them have dandruff anyway, so what do they know

The VOA broadcasts were actually refering to American standard of living not to global positioning. And my Hungarian relatives not only did not express envy, they expressed a certain amount of distaste for the American way of life. Several of the things that shocked them was the number of homeless, the huge difference between rich and poor, the fact that most land is privately owned (They were in some wealthy suburbs. The comment was: "Yeah it's pretty but you can't go on it"), lack of quality food, lack of public tranportation, and the really high number of fat people.

ETA: I would really appreciate your views about European lack of global influence, and why you think that might chafe. I think if you dig down you'll find a surprise.

Also, please google up French atomic weapons. You will see that they did not get their weapons from the USA but developed their own. One of the advatanges to being an ancient old coot is that I remember the French testing their nuclear weapons in the Pacific and the Sahara, and what a stir that caused among Americans.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What do you mean by "economic power" and "global influence"?

I get the feeling that this is where you want to drag me into some pointless debate along the lines of "what does 'economic power' truly mean" and "what does 'global influence' truly mean", and explore various ways in which we can discard with the accepted connotations of these terms and come up with new ones, ones that make these things sound like they're not generally accepted indicators of a country's success on the world stage. Or something like that, don't really care.

Quote:
The VOA broadcasts were actually refering to American standard of living not to global positioning.

Yeah, but we're dealing with anti-Americanism outside of America, so global positioning is something that should be looked at ahead of standard of living. In spite of the fact that the standard of living in Canada is slightly lower than in Europe, Europeans aren't anti-Canadian.

Quote:
And my Hungarian relatives not only did not express envy, they expressed a certain amount of distaste for the American way of life. Several of the things that shocked them was the number of homeless, the huge difference between rich and poor, the fact that most land is privately owned (They were in some wealthy suburbs. The comment was: "Yeah it's pretty but you can't go on it"), lack of quality food, lack of public tranportation, and the really high number of fat people.

These are all valid reasons not to be too impressed by American culture and society. So when people see a nation that is so flawed in so many ways, and that nation has more global power and influence than any nation in history (i.e. it's successful), it might make people jealous because they feel the success is undeserved.

Why do you feel that the idea that jealousy might be a motivating factor for anti-Americanism is so objectionable?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ETA: I would really appreciate your views about European lack of global influence, and why you think that might chafe.

I think you misunderstood, I don't think Europeans want more power, it's that they feel Americans don't deserve so much of it.

Okay, I realise now that jealousy might not be the best word. What does one call it if one feels the other person got more of a good thing than they deserve but one doesn't necessarily wish too much of that thing for oneself? Need to find a thesaurus...

Quote:
I think if you dig down you'll find a surprise.

I suck at finding Easter eggs. What's the surprise I was supposed to find?

Quote:
Also, please google up French atomic weapons. You will see that they did not get their weapons from the USA but developed their own.

I didn't say that they got them from Americans. I meant they said 'oui' to having nuclear weapons. It was meant to be a vaguely humourous response, don't read too much into it.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:11 PM

Oops, I x-posted my edit with your reply. I really need you to to define what you consider to be "success", and why the Europeans might be envious (jealous? I can never keep those straight) of the USA. Specifically, what would American-style "success" allow them to do that they're currently not doing?

I'm not going to pointlessly debate the meaning of success. I'm going to tackle the concept of jealousy being a motivating factor head-on. I think "jealousy" is simply a feel-good rationalization that allows Americans not to understand their effect on the rest of the world, and to pat themselves on the back while they're doing it.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:19 PM

I'll respond to that last post in a moment, just want to say that I don't know what the difference between jealousy and envy is either. But I realise now (as I said towards the end of my previous post) that jealousy might not be the best word after all.

Might be taken as a "not our fault"-reason to dismiss anti-Americanism by some Americans, but objectively speaking I think it has a role to play (as I've mentioned before, one of many).

EDIT: Okay, this is sort of what I meant by envy/jealousy:

invidia - spite and resentment at seeing the success of another

Although I would add ', especially someone deemed to be less deserving'. So, even though I now realise that with the words I used it may not have seemed like it, I wasn't trying to argue that Europeans want all that success for themselves, I was trying to get across that they just feel Americans don't deserve it. I hope you don't see this as goal-post shifting by me, it was an honest mistake of using the incorrect vocabulary.

With this interpretation I don't think it's necessary to answer your questions about why Europeans would want to have the power and influence America has, because I honestly think that most Europeans don't find the thought of the EU being a superpower all that appealling.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:32 PM

So they see America as ignorant slobs who have somehow stumbled onto the world stage and it offends their sense of fairness? I think the feeling is a little more pointed than that. If someone is successful boor but too far away to make much difference, the natural reaction would be t'ant pis and a shoulder shrug. For example, although I think the Russian mafia are unimagineably wealthy boors who've impoverished an entire nation, I'm not about to grind on it (emotionally or mentally) for any length of time. Yeah, it offends my sense of "fair" but it's not about to ignite a national pastime of picking on Russian mobsters. And so as not to be coy about the whole thing, I think the missing element is fear. If the Russian mafia were to suddenly pose a threat ... or be perceived as posing a threat.... anti-Russian feeling would ratchet up immediately.

Just take a look at America's view of the Middle East. There they are, by unearned virtue of geography, sitting in pools of a vitally necessary resource. As long as they are under our control we can simply look at them as benighted, ignorant, corrupt, goat-herding towel-heads. But once they escape control they becomes a potential threat. Something to fear. At that point anti-Arab feeling soars.

The French have seen themselves as contending with America since WWII, and possibly since before then. They have maintained an independent military and nuclear weapons program. They kicked out NATO in 1966. They- along with the Russians- were negotiating contracts with Saddam just before the USA invasion, and were about the base the price of oil on the Euro. Do you suppose the fact that France maintains some independence from towing the USA line... is somewhat out of USA control... is the reason why anti-French feeling in the USA is so strong?

It's been my experience both politically and personally that there is nothing we hate so much as what we fear.

--------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:46 PM

I've edited my previous post. Invidia was the word I was looking for, apparently. EDIT: 'A feeling of inequity' might have also been fitting. Sorry again for the misuse of vocabulary, but if you re-read my posts you'll find that they're consistent.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So they see America as ignorant slobs who have somehow stumbled onto the world stage and it offends their sense of fairness? I think the feeling is a little more pointed than that.

Basically, yes and yes. I think an offended sense of fairness is one of the reasons for anti-Americanism. But there are other factors that indeed make the feeling a little more pointed. But I don't think fear is one of them, at least not in Europe.

Fear may be one reason to hate something, but just because it is doesn't mean it contributes in this case in a significant way. The reason I don't think it does is a bit anecdotal, but I've simply never heard anybody in Europe express a genuine fear of America. That may be totally different for people from other parts of the world who do have reason to fear American interventionism, but not in Europe.

Don't think it's fair to compare America with the Russian mafia. For one thing, people really do fear the Russian mafia, and with good reason.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:01 PM

Again- I xposted an edit with your reply.

The French have a good reason to be fearful of the USA, as do Europeans in general and a lot of it has to do with the flow of oil. The French were about to sign a big contract with Saddam as soon as Iraq was certified to be in substantial compliance with UN resolutions. Hans Blix was heading in that direction, which is why the USA had to invade before the UN report was finalized. Up until about 2000 the EU had good supplies from the North Sea and Norway. Since those oil fields are declining they will need to find stable imports. Iraq- the largest untapped source of oil- is now out of the question thanks to the USA. The EU will need to use its economic and diplomatic muscle to fight for new supplies from emerging export countries such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Angola where it has to be noted that BP and Total already have a significant presence. http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/22/95855/4850

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:04 PM

I don't think that explains why the common European Joseph on the street, who would be unaware of all of those sort of dealings, would fear America.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:10 PM

Americans, as internationally insensitive as we are, know where our oil is flowing from even if we can't find it on a map. If "someone" were to threaten to turn off the spigot they would become Enemy #1 in a heartbeat. And Europeans are more politically attuned than we are. It's as I said in the other thread- the USA is an elephant in a playground. One wrong step militarily and a lot of people get hurt. And although we no longer make up more than half of the world's economy we still influence it mightily. If you combine our total power with our total unawareness that there really are different people out there that are not Americans- our unconsiousness of others' needs and viewpoints - it will lead to an underlying sense of unease at best in other nations.
-------------------------------
It's been my experience both politically and personally that there is nothing we hate so much as what we fear.

--

Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:29 PM

1) I bet the average American couldn't name me America's #1 source of crude oil.

2) You over-estimate the political acumen of the average European.

3) A large part of Europe's oil comes from Russia. If we should be fearing someone, it should be Russia, not America.

4) Even if Europe's oil reserves were to depend on America's whims, that means we should be sucking up to America. Instead, students shout anti-American slogans on the streets and politicians run on anti-American platforms.

-----

Quote:
It's as I said in the other thread- the USA is an elephant in a playground. One wrong step militarily and a lot of people get hurt. And although we no longer make up more than half of the world's economy we still influence it mightily. If you combine our total power with our total unawareness that there really are different people out there that are not Americans- our unconsiousness of others' needs and viewpoints - it will lead to an underlying sense of unease at best in other nations.

I agree with this.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:43 PM

Quote:
1) I bet the average American couldn't name me America's #1 source of crude oil.

Americans believe it's in the Middle East somewhere, which is not our major source of crude oil. However, it IS an important source of imports, and any disruption of flow from the region is painful. Americans understand in an basic way that we "need" to control Middle East oil.

Quote:
2) You over-estimate the political acumen of the average European.

I beg to differ. But this will need polls or statistics to demonstrate one way or another

Quote:
3) A large part of Europe's oil comes from Russia. If we should be fearing someone, it should be Russia, not America.

Russians do not represent the same level of power. Due to their straightened circumstances they are not in a position to withold oil from Europe for a long time, altho I know that the supply was shut off due to a contretemps with the Ukraine.

Quote:
4) Even if Europe's oil reserves were to depend on America's whims, that means we should be sucking up to America. Instead, students shout anti-American slogans on the streets and politicians run on anti-American platforms.

European power is ascending. They are not strong enough to "take on" the USA but not so weak as to identify completely with the USA either.

Hence Rue's question about what happens when power changes hands?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:38 PM

Last post for a while. Need to do some more studying (functional analysis, ), spent way too much time talking politics and not enough doing maths today.

Quote:
Quote:
2) You over-estimate the political acumen of the average European.
I beg to differ. But this will need polls or statistics to demonstrate one way or another

I find it highly unlikely that the average European knows how much oil is flowing into Europe from different oil-producing regions, and how much of an indirect influence the US may or may not have on that oil supply. Heck, I'm interested in the subject and even I don't know the exact details of it (and find data on it surprisingly hard to come by for some reason - I had a pie chart of the different sources a couple of months ago but now I can't find it anymore).

Quote:
Russians do not represent the same level of power.

They have more power over European energy policies than the US does.

Quote:
Due to their straightened circumstances they are not in a position to withold oil from Europe for a long time, altho I know that the supply was shut off due to a contretemps with the Ukraine.

Yep. So Europe shouldn't fear the Russians although they have a direct influence on Europe's energy market, but Europe should fear the US because it has an at best indirect influence?

Quote:
European power is ascending. They are not strong enough to "take on" the USA but not so weak as to identify completely with the USA either.

Yeah, I agree with this, but I honestly still don't see where the fear would come from.

Quote:
Hence Rue's question about what happens when power changes hands?

An interesting question indeed.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 30, 2007 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
We know we are the star quarterback in a class full of chess players.

LOL, that was extremely well-put!!!
Holy crap, America's whole problem is that sentance in a nutshell!
Well done!

Chrisisall, liking the concise

GEEZER

Monday, April 30, 2007 4:15 PM

Thanks for the new thread, Khyron.

Yesterday was just too nice to argue, so I spent it sitting on the deck with a pitcher of lemonade and the new Harry Dresden book.

Last night and a bit this morning I googled "anti-americanism". I didn't have time to read all 1.35 million hits, but jumped around enough to get a taste. The Wikipedia entry seems to present a relatively balanced overall picture, and seems a good place to start for anyone who wants to dig deeper.

So just rolling up some of the repeated themes:

There is no "Grand Unified Theory" of anti-Americanism. Different people and countries have different reasons.
-Some are dismissive of American culture and perceived lack of intellectual standing. Along with this is the fear that America's "Big Mac culture" will spread to their country.
-Some don't like the success of America's democratic and capitalist systems, since it marginalizes their concepts of socialist rule by an educated elite of scholars and intellectuals.
-Some are disappointed that America does not always live up to its own ideals regarding liberty, law, and equality.
-Anti-globalization supporters see America as the driving force behind globalization, and as out only for America's benefit.
-Some countries resent perceived or actual interference by America in their internal politics and development.

Anti-Americanism is sometimes justified, and sometimes used to hide or enhance other events.
-America has been hasty and careless in it's use of power, and anger at this is justified. It was noted in several places that this anger doesn't seem to be expressed as much against other powers, such as China.
-Anti-Americanism seems to be used as a unifying theme for the EU. It has been noted that to pull countries together, you need a common enemy, and America is both available, and unlikely to actually do anything.
-Islamic fundamentalist groups and governments also use hatred of "The Great Satan" as a unifying theme - revolving around our libertine lifestyle and support of Israel.
-Blaming everything on America makes it possible for some countries and their governments to gloss over their own economic, social, and political failings.

Some other observations.
-People in other countries don't know any more about American than Americans know about their countries.
-People with an anti-American bias see no difference between American liberals and conservatives. They're all lumped together.
-There is a difference between disagreement with American policy, which is largely aimed at the American government, and anti-Americanism, which is also aimed at the American people, their perceived culture, and their social institutions.

As an aside: Based on arguments used in this thread and encountered in my research, I'd bet that some of the folks here have read a good bit of Noam Chomsky.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREDGIBLET

Monday, April 30, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I read a book (I think it was 'Warday') about a post-nuclear war U.S. where the nukes were largely contained to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The author was of the opinion that the only countries that would stand by us in our hour of need would be Britain and Japan and the rest would ignore us or try to screw with us.

I would ask the author why he left Israel, Canada, Australia, and The US virgin islands off that list.....

Without the U.S. supporting it Israel would probably have WAY too many of their own problems to worry about us. I don't think Canada likes us as much as some people think. Australia and the Virgins I don't know why, but it was a few years back when I read the book so there might have been more.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 30, 2007 6:00 PM

Geezer, re Noam Chomsky. Sigh, if you're referring to me, it is my misfortune to keep reinventing the wheel. I don't know if that means I'm smarter or stupider than him, but my arguments are all my own.

There are a lot of flavors of anti-Americanism, but let's look at your list and some of the other wikipedia comments and see if we can find some commonalities:

Quote:
Some are dismissive of American culture and perceived lack of intellectual standing. Along with this is the fear that America's "Big Mac culture" will spread to their country.

Some don't like the success of America's democratic and capitalist systems, since it marginalizes their concepts of socialist rule by an educated elite of scholars and intellectuals.

Anti-globalization supporters see America as the driving force behind globalization, and as out only for America's benefit.

Some countries resent perceived or actual interference by America in their internal politics and development.

America has been hasty and careless in it's use of power, and anger at this is justified. It was noted in several places that this anger doesn't seem to be expressed as much against other powers, such as China.

Everything in this list revolves around fear: fear of loss of cultural identity, economic viability, or sovereignty; fear of interference with internal processes. The small Haitian, French or Japanese farmer might not be able to compete with (American-subsidized) agribusiness, the religion-dominated peasant farming culture of the Middle East (very much like our Middle Ages) may fall to science and commercialism, the land-reform and labor movements of Central and South America and Asia were squashed by American military intervention and internal interference. Because America has a long history of global interference, a current military footprint all over the world and retains its position as the holder of world currency, everyone sees the USA as the driver of unwelcome changes. They fear these changes and their inability to deflect them.

Quote:
People in other countries don't know any more about American than Americans know about their countries.

People with an anti-American bias see no difference between American liberals and conservatives. They're all lumped together.

There is a difference between disagreement with American policy, which is largely aimed at the American government, and anti-Americanism, which is also aimed at the American people, their perceived culture, and their social institutions.

Some are disappointed that America does not always live up to its own ideals regarding liberty, law, and equality.

With some other nations it's possible to say: Well, it's a tyranny, this doesn't reflect what the people want. But the United States is a democracy, as Bush reminds everyone at every opportunity. I think previous to the Iraq invasion most people distinguished between our government and people, but the high approval rating of George Bush and his invasion of Iraq made it obvious that Americans cannot be counted on to prevent government from egregious acts. In fact, I think that many foreigners looked on our flag-waving and hurrahing with a certain amount of horror.

Quote:
It was noted in several places that this anger doesn't seem to be expressed as much against other powers, such as China.

There is no mystery nor great exception here. The other powers have little foreign presence. Where they intrude or have intruded in an unwelcome way, they are resented. For example, China has purchased a number of coal mines in Africa and is bleeding its employees dry. As a result, China is resented. They- and the other powers- don't get a "pass" on bad behavior, they're just not as omnipresent as we are.

Using the USA as a foil for internal politics only works because we're a relevant target. While it's possible to create a imminent threat out of nothing (after all, we did it with Saddam) it's hard to keep the justification alive very long. It would be difficult for the Arabs to

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 30, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
While it's possible to create a imminent threat out of nothing (after all, we did it with Saddam)

NOTE TO ALL:
Signy DID NOT mean Saddam was an okay dude, or that he never killed lots and lots of peeps. Signy meant 'as an imminent world threat', okay?

Nipped in the bud Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Monday, April 30, 2007 6:08 PM

Thanks Chris. I meant something even more restricted: an imminent threat to the USA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 30, 2007 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Thanks Chris. I meant something even more restricted: an imminent threat to the USA.

I just saw a potential for the evil straw-man offensive there...

Chrisisall

GEEZER

Monday, April 30, 2007 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, re Noam Chomsky. Sigh, if you're referring to me, it is my misfortune to keep reinventing the wheel. I don't know if that means I'm smarter or stupider than him, but my arguments are all my own.

Couldn't help but notice that they're similar in content and expression to Chomsky's. Great minds, and all.

Quote:
Everything in this list revolves around fear: fear of loss of cultural identity, economic viability, or sovereignty;

Every form of dislike revolves around fear, to a certain extent. So, are these rational fears?

Fear of loss of cultural identity, more often called "Americanization", is interesting, because it is the populations of other countries who choose to become "Americanized". Given the option of sticking 100% to their culture, or adopting some American ideas, habits, food, dress, etc. they sometimes choose the American stuff. The French and German elites seem particularly terrified by this. I find it hard to believe that any time a Frenchman eats a Big Mac, America is forcing it down his throat. Also note that Americans don't seem to have any problem with picking up bits of other cultures and making them their own.

Fear of loss of economic viability has a couple of branches. America is big, but transportation of goods is relatively cheap, so the economies of scale gave it a good economic boost in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. World War II also left America with just about the only standing industrial base. Economic domination under these circumstances seems inevitable. If maintaining this domination after WWII was the American's plan, they didn't do too good a job of it. Any number of European and Asian companies compete with America on the world market, and even in America.

Fear of loss of sovereignty and of interference with internal processes is probably the most valid. America has been guilty of both. Most all countries who have been major players on the world stage have done so, but that does not excuse it. Unfortunately, smaller countries are always vulnerable to undue influence and interference, but Western Europe and the advanced Asian nations shouldn't have to worry.

Quote:
Because America has a long history of global interference,

110 years, maybe? Compare with any European nation.

Quote:
a current military footprint all over the world and retains its position as the holder of world currency, everyone sees the USA as the driver of unwelcome changes. They fear these changes and their inability to deflect them.

But is this fear justified? Only if you subscribe to the "Rogue" or "Outlaw" nation theory put forth by Mr. Chomsky and others.

Quote:
But the United States is a democracy, as Bush reminds everyone at every opportunity. I think previous to the Iraq invasion most people distinguished between our government and people, but the high approval rating of George Bush and his invasion of Iraq made it obvious that Americans cannot be counted on to prevent government from egregious acts.

Anti-Americanism, especially concerning people, culture, and social systems, was prevalent long before Pres. Bush, or even Pres. Bush I. It doesn't depend so much on who's in office. It's basis is that America is wrong, root and branch. Our beliefs, our culture, our economic system. I found it interesting that the French said one of the things they dislike about America was our obsession with religion, while the Arab states said it was our lack of religion.

Quote:
Using the USA as a foil for internal politics only works because we're a relevant target. While it's possible to create a imminent threat out of nothing (after all, we did it with Saddam) it's hard to keep the justification alive very long.

Not really. European socialists sucesfully kept up the railing about "Imperialist America" from WWII to the end of the Soviet Union, while ignoring the Soviet empire of captured countries on their eastern border. Now they've shifted to railing ab

SIGNYM

Monday, April 30, 2007 7:36 PM

Quote:
Anti-Americanism, especially concerning people, culture, and social systems, was prevalent long before Pres. Bush, or even Pres. Bush I. It doesn't depend so much on who's in office.

If you look back in history, you'll find an "anti" for just about every nation. The French hate the British and the Brits have not had much nice to say in return, the Koreans and Chinese hate the Japanese, and the Arabs hate Israel. Focusing on "anti-Americanism" makes it sound like we're the ONLY nation that's ever been disliked and -gosh!- people have been picking on us since whenever!

While you can find a low-level anti-American feeling throughout history, it's been balanced by pro-American feelings and prolly been more or less on-par with the anti-everyone-else feeling. But that feeling flares up in response to events. The first big wave of anti_Americanism that I recall was during Vietnam. The second flareup was after we invaded Iraq. According to the wikipedia entry, favorable view of America went down to half (or less) of it's previous values after the Iraq invasion. I don't think there's anything strange or peculiar about waves of anti-Americanism as they seem to result directly from what we do, and if we were to stop doing what we do the feelign would subside to be more-or-less on par with the usual backbiting and griping that normally goes on between nations. .

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Monday, April 30, 2007 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Here's a question for you history buffs! I don't know the answer so it's not a trick question, but whyizzit that of all the major mainland European nations, France is the only one with an independent nuclear weapons program AND which does not have American bases in its soil?

Charles de Gaulle. He wanted France to have defense capability and nuclear weapons independent of NATO. He also wanted to return France to what he considered her rightful place in the world.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Monday, April 30, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look back in history, you'll find an "anti" for just about every nation. The French hate the British and the Brits have not had much nice to say in return, the Koreans and Chinese hate the Japanese, and the Arabs hate Israel.

Not us! Everyone loves the Irish!

...except the English.

...and Singate.

Banners, Avatars, LJ Icons and other fun stuff at www.desktophippie.com

GEEZER

Monday, April 30, 2007 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look back in history, you'll find an "anti" for just about every nation. The French hate the British and the Brits have not had much nice to say in return, the Koreans and Chinese hate the Japanese, and the Arabs hate Israel. Focusing on "anti-Americanism" makes it sound like we're the ONLY nation that's ever been disliked and -gosh!- people have been picking on us since whenever!

Probably has something to do with the thread's title, "Examining Anti-Americanism".

Quote:
I don't think there's anything strange or peculiar about waves of anti-Americanism as they seem to result directly from what we do, and if we were to stop doing what we do the feelign would subside to be more-or-less on par with the usual backbiting and griping that normally goes on between nations.

But strangely enough, no matter what we do it sparks a wave. American economic success in the late 1800s sparked a wave in Europe. The success of America's polyglot "mongrel" culture set off a wave in pre-WWI Germany. American success in helping to liberate France made the French mad. Ading in the defense of Europe from the Soviet Union made European intellectuals angry. Keeping North Korea from taking over South Korea made lots of folks unhappy. Military intervention in Iraq made people upset. Failure to intervene militarily in Rwanda and Darfur made people upset. If we just withdrew to our borders and didn't deal with anyone in the world, that'd aggravate folks too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CAVALIER

Monday, April 30, 2007 8:43 PM

I think that is just human nature.

In fifty years time the Chinese will probably be complaining about Sinophobia.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 30, 2007 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
Everyone loves the Irish!

...except the English.

...and Singate.

I'm roughly half Irish & 1/4 English...
and I love me fine.

Sure an it's Chrisisall

MARINA

Monday, April 30, 2007 9:45 PM

Thought this article might interest people:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/04/that-ineffable-islamic-threat-t
o.html

Has some links and data about
1) terror attacks in Europe
2) terror ARRESTS in Europe
3) evolution of terror tactics under American Imperialism

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 30, 2007 9:48 PM

Good article, thanks M.

Cisall

GEEZER

Monday, April 30, 2007 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
Thought this article might interest people:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/04/that-ineffable-islamic-threat-t
o.html

Some might say that the lack of Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe in 2006 was due to the number of Islamic terrorists arrested prior to and during 2006. Also, limiting the discussion to 2006 conveniently takes the London and Madrid subway bombings and the school attack in Beslan, plus several other attacks in Russia and Chechnya, out of play.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some might say that the lack of Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe in 2006 was due to the number of Islamic terrorists arrested prior to and during 2006. Also, limiting the discussion to 2006 conveniently takes the London and Madrid subway bombings and the school attack in Beslan, plus several other attacks in Russia and Chechnya, out of play.

You hear people sometimes using this bogus argument to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism. But it’s never been the number of terrorist attacks that has made Islamic terrorism so vile. It is the damage and bloodiness of their attacks. Most separatist groups who use terrorism rarely focus on massive casualties. They attempt material or property damage, often minor, with little or not loss of life and casualties that do occur are often accidental; it’s sometimes not far removed from vandalism. But Islamic terrorist attacks focus on killing innocent human beings and as many as possible. This makes Islamic terrorists orders of magnitude worse then anything that is typically perpetrated by American or European separatist groups.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 4:59 PM

It also garentees that they will fail. Kill people and it makes people mad and more likely to retaliate. Damage property and you are far more likely to get the interest of government.

SINGATE

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
Not us! Everyone loves the Irish!

...except the English.

...and Singate.

Oh no you have completely misunderstood me, I covet your nation for it's fine alcoholic libations in the same way Dubya loves the Middle East for it's oil.

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 6:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

-Some don't like the success of America's democratic and capitalist systems, since it marginalizes their concepts of socialist rule by an educated elite of scholars and intellectuals.

This one really jumped out at me. One, why is it bad to have the smart people in charge? I'd much rather than than another Bubba in charge. And how is it worse than our current system of rule by corporations?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 1:39 PM

Poor Geezer- look at him ranting about anti-Americanism! Do you want to feel aggrieved? Pobrecito!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 7:03 PM

Finn,

I put my response here with enough of the quotes (I hope) to indicate to what I am responding.

--------------------------------------------------

Finn:
"Demonstrating that competition for profit engendered in capitalism is an excellent tool for alleviating social barriers. The EU was formed for the EU’s own profit, not out of fear of the US."
Rue:
As I mentioned earlier, the EU is not a voluntary or happy marriage. What drove them together (and forced them to give up literally two millennia of history and culture) was fear of being subsumed by the US. Not by China, or Russia, or India, specifically by the US and its profit at any cost business model.
You'll note btw that the EU and the individual countries are slowly dissolving the US bond and turning to Russia, China and India as trading partners instead. This is due to hate (dislike, fear) of the US business model and its culturally coercive effect.
--------------------------------------------------

Finn:
"If Russia launches a nuclear first strike against the US, the UK will respond by launching their nuclear arsenal against the Russian military ... France will also launch against Russia. Russia will not risk leaving France’s considerable nuclear arsenal operational.
Furthermore, why would Russia necessarily launch against interceptors? The interceptors are of no military threat. So if Russia wastes half its arsenal destroying European GB Forward BMD, there will still be Aegis, ABL and midcourse to worry about."
Rue:
Europe's nuclear arsenal is submarine-based. The longest range missile France has reaches ~3600 miles. While that may be enough to strike at Moscow, it won't be enough to strike at launch sites in Siberia. Europe just can't assure MAD and would probably not want ot get in between as US/ Russia pissing match.

--------------------------------------------------

("Finn:
"thanks for your concern."
Rue:
It's hard when relatives decline. If you have any legal standing, you might want to have her medications reviewed by a doctor. They can cause confusion, even delusions and hallucinations.)

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

-Some don't like the success of America's democratic and capitalist systems, since it marginalizes their concepts of socialist rule by an educated elite of scholars and intellectuals.

This one really jumped out at me. One, why is it bad to have the smart people in charge? I'd much rather than than another Bubba in charge. And how is it worse than our current system of rule by corporations?

From what I read, this dislike started back in the early 20th century, when socialists were trying to sell their form of government and had to explain the rapid economic success of the US.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Poor Geezer- look at him ranting about anti-Americanism! Do you want to feel aggrieved? Pobrecito!

Well. I'd respond to this, but since maintaining your level of discourse would probably require the use of the words "cooties" and "booger-head", I think I'll skip it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 10:51 PM

"Some don't like the success of America's democratic and capitalist systems, since it marginalizes their concepts of socialist rule by an educated elite of scholars and intellectuals."

This is a good bit of mud-slinging. No wonder Americans come across as arrogant and ignorant.

You think pobrecito is a bad word? My, we are touchy today, aren't we. Oh wait a minute. I should just be ignoring the flame-bait. Nevermind.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rue:
As I mentioned earlier, the EU is not a voluntary or happy marriage. What drove them together (and forced them to give up literally two millennia of history and culture) was fear of being subsumed by the US. Not by China, or Russia, or India, specifically by the US and its profit at any cost business model.
You'll note btw that the EU and the individual countries are slowly dissolving the US bond and turning to Russia, China and India as trading partners instead. This is due to hate (dislike, fear) of the US business model and its culturally coercive effect.

I think that's a little simplistic. Reality is that Europe has been having wars on it's teritory for the better part of the last 2000 years. Remember that neither of the two world wars were fought on the continental US. American civilians didn't have to survive a blitz, didn't have to become refuges or deal with ethnic cleansing. The initial idea of the EU was to make a land war in Europe less likely via closer economic and social ties. Later it had an economic component, basically an attempt to create one market that could offer the economies of scale that US companies take for granted. It is only relatively recently that the EU has become a political project and even then only the French see it as a nescessary counterballence to US raw power.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 11:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Some don't like the success of America's democratic and capitalist systems, since it marginalizes their concepts of socialist rule by an educated elite of scholars and intellectuals."

This is a good bit of mud-slinging. No wonder Americans come across as arrogant and ignorant.

This is not my statement. It's just one of the reasons suggested for anti-American feeling which I came across in a couple of places in my reading. Bop back up the thread to see the others. If I get the time I'll try to find a cite.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, May 3, 2007 2:31 AM

The EU has evolved FAR beyond the original organization. The EU itself "was established in 1992 by the Treaty on European Union (The Maastricht Treaty)" and "was the result of separate negotiations on monetary union and on political union."

All of the trade articles I've read over the last few decades - having to do with international petroleum, bulk and fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals - and submitted from the EU - make the case that the EU is there to provide economic muscle vis-a-vis the US. No one has been or now is under the impression that the EU was re-created in its current form just 'cause people thought it would be a hoot. The looming presence of the US is ALWAYS a topic.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:14 AM

Geezer, don't you know what pobrecito means? It means poor little thing.

Anyway, mine was a personal jab. Not cool. Here are some interesting articles which show how nations view each other is changeable and subject to what they do. The Iraq war had a MAJOR impact on view of the USA.

In Germany, prior to the 9/11 attacks, 80 percent of the Germans had a favorable opinion of the United States. That fell all the way to 45 percent in May 2003, after the war. It's now at 38 percent.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/survey_3-17.ht
ml

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/314/opinions-of-us.html
http://www.compagnia.torino.it/english/comunicazioni/pdf/GMF%20Trends%
202004.pdf
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Indonesia%20Bangladesh%2
0TFT%20Final%20Poll%20Report.pdf
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=825

You will notice in some of these polls (where nations' views of each other are displayed as a matrix) that many nations have unfavorable ratings of eahc other that match our unfavorable ratings. However the USA rates the lowest overall because of our invasion of Iraq.

What I found from these articles is that there is no historically identifiable "anti Americanism" but that it surges and subsides depending on specific circumstances.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I found from these articles is that there is no historically identifiable "anti Americanism" but that it surges and subsides depending on specific circumstances.

I have to disagree. Admittedly, anti-americanism is at full boil right now, due in part to understandable political differences, but there has been an underlying simmer, especially in Europe, since colonial days.

This started with the "Degeneracy Theory", which suggested that the very climate of the New World was not conducive to intellectual thought. Lack of culture and a cock-sure attitude(perhaps a positive attribute for people planning to settle a wilderness) were the next complaints. Then fear of American industry as a challenge to European sensibilities and lifestyles. After WWI America's growing world power was resented. In the 1930's anti-semitism was rolled in with the image of the jewish-American moneyman. The after WWII the Leftists start in with American Imperialism.

And I probably left a few out.

See the articles below for more details.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030301fareviewessay10345/walter-russel
l-mead/why-do-they-hate-us-two-books-take-aim-at-french-anti-americanism.html

http://www.itssd.org/Issues/TheHistoricalAntecedentstotheCurrentWaveof
Anti-Americanism.pdf

http://www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/a.j.a.s/Articles/1_04/OConnor.pdf

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/the_longburning.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/10/09/france_ed3__0.php

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:02 PM

"Despite the myth in Europe that Americans are a bunch of ill-educated louts, there are many more Americans who have studied European history than Europeans who have studied American history."

Any truth to this? I think it is true.....

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:24 PM

Yes, there are anti-American comments that can be traced back a few hundred years, just as anti-French comments in Britain can be traced back to William the Conquerer. Enough nations have said enough nasty things about each other that looking at history is like looking at the Bible- you can find anything if you look hard enough.

But don't forget that France, Spain and the Netherlands helped the American Revolutionaries. In that case their hatred of the British was the driving factor, so if they were "anti" anything they would have been anti-British. Rebel Filipinos and Cubans initially allied with us in the Spanish-American War because they were anti-Spanish. Time prevents me from posting more examples at the moment.

Americans whinging about anti-Americanism seem to be peculiarly self-centered. The articles that you linked all manage to avoid that fact that the USA is doing things today that create anti-American feeling.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:58 PM

"Americans whinging about anti-Americanism seem to be peculiarly self-centered. The articles that you linked all manage to avoid that fact that the USA is doing things today that create anti-American feeling."

I think the articles do make a differentiation between anti-US and anti-Bush. And aren't Americans always doing something that other nations resent...Going to the moon, inventing just about everything that makes modern society possible, becoming a superpower so quickly, kicking ass at the Olympics, and doing things like parading Pelosi around in our media.........or worse even, H. Clinton?

RUE

Thursday, May 3, 2007 4:54 PM

"inventing just about everything that makes modern society possible"

Uhh, the scientific revolution happened during the European Renaissance, while the Industrial Revolution was steam-powered in Britain.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 3, 2007 5:23 PM

I wanted to add a hypothetical. Let's say that Germany did something particularly egregious... allying with Iran to establish Chinese oil concessions in the Middle East, wresting currency control away from the dollar, and selling advanced military technology and intel to China, Russia, and Iran. I'm sure American blood would come to a boil. Now if Germany continued to do that over the next ten years despite USA and worldwide protest, anti-German bias would be quite high. Germany could then certainly point to anti-German statements made during the Revolutionary War and WWI and WWII and claim that the USA has been "anti-German" all along.

I may be wrong but that's how I view the current complaints about "anti-Americanism".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:35 AM

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6681&&&edition=2&
ttl=20070627083006

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

HERO

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Germany could then certainly point to anti-German statements made during the Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War had lots of good Germans. Why Baron von Steuben's training program was vital to transforming Washington's collection of misfitting colonial militias into a real Army able to go toe to toe with the British regulars.

But the Hessians...bad folk they were. Bad.

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:25 PM

Hey Khyron, thanks for the heads up. Since I'm likely to be realy busy this coming weekend, will you link to the scheduled article when it comes up?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.