Well the US does pretty well tell the UN to shove it.
Well, I’ve seen on this message board in two days time already enough posters who fit exactly the stereotype of the rude, uncivilised, arrogant, ignorant, self-absorbed American.
I’ve also seen others who don’t fit that description.
So here is my quesiton: Which one of both do you prefer the world to see?
Reminder: boards like this are open for the world to see.
Salaam.
Aldebaran.
Define “rude, uncivilised, arrogant, ignorant, self-absorbed American.”. i am not sure if when people say that they are referring to people who automatically assume the US is better than they are and that they don’t matter or just people who don’t agree with and roll over with the constant US bashing that occurs on an international level.
What i don’t understand is why the French or Brits hate the US but people in Guatemala, Honduras or the Phillipines love us.
They do?
Calculus,
If you look around, you can easily see who I refer to.
Salaam.
Aldebaran.
The USA isn’t the world’s shining beacon of hope, liberty and freedom but neither is it the great satan. One of the big problems with the US is that the US government is unwilling to admit fault in anything, always takes the moral high ground on every issue and does pretty much whatever the hell it wants no matter what happens to anyone else. Time after time, the US government rapes and destroys poor countries’ economies, environment, social structure or system of government.
Furthermore, the US government does all this an either doesn’t tell their citizens the whole truth or weaves a web of lies and propaganda to spoon-feed the media. The average American on the street has no idea what happens outside their borders aside from the rosy picture their government paint about their own actions and demonising their enemies.
So the average American is always going to be shocked and dismayed that anyone dares criticise the US and they simply dismiss any criticisms as jealousy or unfounded lies… which is why nutcase scumbags like Al Qaeda will continue to smash planes into buildings and the world will continue to despise the US until its downfall.
The saddest part of all of this, is that many of America’s friends (Aussies included) are trying to tell the US what’s wrong and why things are going to shit, but the US ignores us all… Why? Because they think they know better.
damn right. read the report ‘what the world thinks in 2002’
Even people in vietnam like the US better than the british or Canadians do.
I disagree. i don’t think most americans are opposed to criticism. but i do think alot of us know we are the current scapegoat de jure and that it is fashionable to hate the US, so any criticism is looked at skeptically. In your post you’ve managed to state that
- Al Qaeda has respectable motives
- Americans are stupid propaganda tools
- Americans won’t accept criticism
all of which i disagree with.
I do agree that the US ignores advice from its allies though. And that we do victimize smaller countries but i am unsure where truth ends and fashionable hate begins. Which is probably in part why some americans are skeptical of criticism.
No macaenas didn’t. S/he was stating that certain actions by the US make terrorist responses more likely. That in no way assigns respectable motives to those responses.
It sounded like s/he was implying that Al Qaeda did what they did because the US was victimizing the rest of the world and lying to the american public about it. Its common knowledge that Al Qaeda was more pissed of with westernization, US support of the wrong dictators, Israel and troops in saudi arabia. Most of which the average US citizen knows about.
Hence my statement ‘i am unsure where truth ends and fashionable hate begins’.
The way I read the argument is:
- the US government behaves in ways that piss off people and groups in other countries, such as Al Qaeda
- this makes it more likely that Al Qaeda will perpetrate terrorism against the US
- other countries, such as allies of the US, have potentially useful advice for the US government. The US government by and large ignores this advice. See point 2.
- the US government lies to the American public about foreign policy, reasons for war and such. The American public seems not to care as they are being made to feel good as “kings of the castle” in the modern world. This attitude further pisses off foreign enemies. See point 2.
Now none of that changes the fact that Al Qaeda are nutcase scumbags. Pointing out that certain actions are more likely to foster a terrorist response in no way legitimizes the response.
To draw an analogy - if you leave your car unlocked in a bad neighborhood with an expensive camera in full view, you have taken actions that increase the likelihood that you will be robbed. The crooks are still crooks, though, and the circumstances are not mitigating factors in any way - they just point to your own foolishness.
We import the majority of our oil. We also import the majority of our beef and quite a bit of lumber. I am sure if you examine it, we consume far more than the environmental carrying capacity of our environment. If you are referring to our economic buying power, of course we can purchase the resources we need.
The zero-sum game implies that in many cases there are finite resources. Kaplan referred to this when he examined the depletion of the rain forests in many third world countries. This lumber was of course exported to other more affluent nations.
Now, let me make it clear that whether Americans “deserve” to be hated is not the nature of my point. However, even in america, there is resentment towards the rich and we even have violence that stems from the natural desire to conspicuosly consume. My point was, just imagine what individuals think in third world countries when they see the affluence of America.
It is not possible for everyone in the world to live like we do. There are simply not enough resources for that. Thus, when people do not get as much as we do, it is human nature to be angry, bitter and resentful.
Add this to the reality that the American government, in the interest of the American people, supports many of the governments/corporations that oppress the people of third world nations because we need those inexpensive resources from these countries. It is neo-colonialism and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles written about it.
Does this make it ok, good, bad etc… I am not really one to say. But to deny the reality that there may be resentment in third world nations to neo-colonialism is folly.
Link?
I think that what The Calculus of Logic is referring to is this .pdf or the report linked from this page.
I never said that it was.
If I were poor, hungry and miserable, I would want someone to blame for my plight. I might look at the United States, in which even most of our poor are richer than the wildest dreams of some in Third World nations, and feel bitter resentment and jealousy.
The causes of this hatred are myriad.
*Hatred is simple and comforting. Ask any racist. He may tell you the reason he doesn’t get ahead in life is because black people are taking all of the jobs with affirmative action. If my country were ripped apart by ethnic or religious strife, I might believe my leaders’ words that it’s because God is displeased with the unbelievers in our land. The Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany’s woes, and tried to exterminate the “menace” to their country.
Whether it’s logical or not, a scapegoat is a wonderful thing to have. It takes the pressure off of the people. “It’s not our fault we’re poor! It’s so-and-so’s fault! If it weren’t for them, everything would be so much better!” To accept blame for your problems implies that you have done something wrong. No one wants to think about that, especially if you are a member of God’s chosen people, and, of course, everyone thinks that they are. They live their lives according to the rules of their faith and society, but what have they to show for it? Poverty and short, hard lives. They should be enjoying the blessings of righteousness . . . what could be wrong? Rather than examining the mistakes of their leaders, it is much easier to blame an outside party.
*Also remember that a lot of time, the only Americans that a person in a Third World nation may have met are representatives of the “exploiters”: those who run the factories in which people work for slave-wages in terrible conditions to make products which will sell for hundreds of dollars in the US.
Rumors spread quickly among the disgruntled. Rumors of atrocities committed against people in another nation of my faith or ethnic group might anger me, especially if the only tales I had ever heard about the US were negative. Whether the stories are true or not doesn’t matter. Their power comes from the anger and dissapointment that people have about their lives. The words of a leader who claims that there is a singular root cause of all of these problems can rig true in the ears of someone who has never heard differently.
Their media may have anti-US bias, and honestly, a lot of our actions don’t stand up to close scrutiny. It’s not hard to find legitimate things to criticize us for. The biggest kid on the block is going to have many eyes upon him. Some may look with fear, some with awe, and some with hate. All of our actions will be interpreted through those various viewpoints.
*Perhaps they live in a country which has battled with the US or its allies in the past. I can imagine that if I were living a life of abject poverty because my husband had been killed by the “invaders” I might have a lot of hate in my heart. Political niceties don’t matter to a grieving soul. Because of my anger, I may have raised my son to believe that his father was “murdered” by the Americans. He, in turn, will hate America for robbing him of a parent, and causing the devestation around him. He doesn’t necessarily care * why * the war happened: he just has to live with the results.
These people live in their history in a way that Americans do not. Battles twenty years ago are still fresh in their minds, whereas a lot of Americans have probably long forgotten them unless they or a loved one participated. But these people may have never rebuilt or recovered from the war. They still see the craters and the the cracked buildings every day, and worry about their children stepping on a left-over land mine in a battlefield. Americans do not have these visual reminders of past suffering.
The American public has an astoundingly short memory, and I think that sometimes we don’t understand why someone hates us because we’ve forgotten what we did to them a couple of decades ago. When we realize the root of it, we sometimes interpret it from the standpoint of “Oh, that happened so * long * ago. Why don’t they get over it and move on?”
*We give charity to them, and expect it to buy the love of the people, but, in a lot of cases, it won’t. Sometimes, it can even make them resent us * more * if they see us as being smugly gracious for the distribution of crumbs from our table. (I think some may remember the terror of the bombs, not the bread.) Some may think that they wouldn’t have to beg us for food had we not put their country in that condition in the first place. Many never see any direct results of economic aid packages-- they may never even hear about them.
*We may try to “Westernize” their culture. Female genital mutilation is disgusting and barbaric to us, but in some cultures, it is a time-honored tradition. They may see it as America’s arrogant assumption of cultural superiority in saying that it’s wrong and trying to stop it. They may see any laws passed which interferes with any of their cultural traditions as trying to bully them into acting like Westerners. Christian missionaries may try to convert them, making them again resentful at what they see as attempts to destroy their way of life, and be angry at the misssionaries assertion that their religion is the “right” one.
So, valid or not in our opinion, the hatred that some people feel for our country is very real. For some, it runs so deep that they would even give their lives just to make us weep. It can’t be dissmissed by claims that their feelings not justified. Hell, saying that would make 'em madder.
Just quickly, back to the example I made of Monsanto. From the two Aussie documentaries (by 4 corners or the Big Picture, I forget which) that I’ve seen on the topic, it is proven that GM crops breed with non GM crops (spreading the terminator gene/resistance to the herbicide Roundup) and that Monsanto actively endorses the export of these crops to farmers of other nations fully aware of the damage they will do.
Blake tells me:
"Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Monsanto originally wanted to include the terminator gene in GM crops as a safeguard against GM strains hybridising with other crops. People whined, just as you are doing now."
Who cares what Monsanto originally wanted. What matters is that they continue to do it at the farmer’s expense (unwanted interbreeding of GM crops with non GM crops etc).
Lets not forget that Monsanto also controls the pesticide/herbicide industry and can thus do whatever it wants with it.
There are US companies such as Monsanto that contribute in their own way to the opinion some nations have of the US in general. And some US citizens wonder why they are ‘disliked’?
To throw a further spanner in the works; can someone explain why the US has around 11,000 gun related homicides per year, when Canada has around 50 (population has nothing to do with it).
Because we can get it cheaper elsewhere than we can produce it ourselves. This tells us nothing about self sufficiency. I pay someone to fix my car too. Doesn’t mean I’m incapable of doing it myself.
The US has huge oil resources and a massive capacity to produce beef and lumber. The fact that the US can make enough money growing strawberries and exporting them to Europe to buy lumber and beef and still have change doesn’t justify saying the US is using 8x its carrying capacity resources.
I have examined it. The trouble is that carrying capacity when it comes to humans I pretty hard to measure. There is no logical justification for claiming the US is above carrying capacity, much less 8 times above.
While that is true, I am referring to the fact that the US can produce all the resources it needs, at least for the next 400 years or so. Any projection of carrying capacity beyond that is as pointless as extrapolating today’s carrying capacity from the amount of grazing land required by horses 400 years ago.
It may imply it, but there is no evidence of such a thing as it applies to human carrying capacity, is there? Whale oil was implied to be finite, yet when demand outstripped supply alternatives were found. Ditto for rubber, charcoal and flint.
The idea that whole world can’t live like the US is a bit erroneous. If we took the whole world’s population as it is now and allowed them to live with US material goods, then the answer is no. Conversely if we took the whole world and allowed them to live a US lifestyle then the answer is yes.
The US has made a trade-off between fertility and lifestyle, so that while per capita consumption is high, consumption per area or unit GDP is fairly low. You can’t separate these two processes, they are intertwined. Because f this the assertion that ‘There are simply not enough resources for everyone in the world to live like we do’ is completely true in one respect and completely false in another.
Let me just say that if the whole world were propelled to US levels, and allowed time to adopt new technologies, then the people could be supported at that level far more easily than they are supported now.
Because of that fact I fail to see the link between these three points. Yes some people are jealous of their ‘superiors’ even to the pint of homicide. That’s human nature. But that doesn’t mean that people have to be that way. Nor do I see why his must engender hatred of the US’s living standards, rather than simply envy.
I can see what you are driving at, but isn’t that more dependant on the amount of aid the US provides to these countries that the may develop to a US standard, rather than any inherent problem?
I agree wholeheartedly on the problems created by US foreign policy. What I don’t accept is the implication that this is somehow a physical problem that can only be overcome by reducing the US standard of living. There is no rational basis for that belif.
I gathered that you did. If you don’t care what they want to do then why discuss it?
But 2 days ago you were complaining that the gene didn’t allow any breeding at all. Now you are complaining that they are breeding. If this is the cause of hatred of the US I fear there is no solution.
Let’s see some evidence for this assertion first. Then I’ll see whether it’s worth remembering.
Not so much a spanner as a fish, specifically a red herring.
How do you figure that Seppos killing each other influence’s the world’s opinion of US foreign policy?
In reply to Blake:
“Who cares what Monsanto originally wanted.”
Note the use of ‘originally’, signifying that I’m only concerned with how Monsanto acts today.
“But 2 days ago you were complaining that the gene didn’t allow any breeding at all. Now you are complaining that they are breeding. If this is the cause of hatred of the US I fear there is no solution.”
The terminator gene is passed to the farmer’s unaffected crops through pollen. A hybrid crop is thus created, which features the unwanted terminator gene. The farmers crop dies out. The farmer gets pissed off.
“Lets not forget that Monsanto also controls the pesticide/herbicide industry and can thus do whatever it wants with it.”
You want proof? Here you go:
"Monsanto, meanwhile, has turned its Roundup herbicide into an industry giant, partly because the company developed soybean seeds that are resistant to it, making the seeds and spray easy to use together. Roundup had $2.4 billion in sales last year, more than all of DuPont’s crop protection business. "- http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2002/04/05dupontpursuingp.html
Dupont is Monsanto’s nearest rival, don’t forget.
“Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of poisons in the world responsible for aspartame, agent orange, RBGH and genetic engineering.” -http://www.karinya.com/neotame.htm
"Monsanto’s previous acquisitions made the corporation a major player in agricultural biotechnology, but its $33 billion merger with American Home Products in June established the corporation as the largest agro-chemical firm and second largest seed company. "- http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980911b.htm
There’s plenty more on the internet.
Posted by me:
"To throw a further spanner in the works; can someone explain why the US has around 11,000 gun related homicides per year, when Canada has around 50 (population has nothing to do with it).
You replied:
"Not so much a spanner as a fish, specifically a red herring.
How do you figure that Seppos killing each other influence’s the world’s opinion of US foreign policy?"
Are you implying my figures are bogus? Have you seen the documentary/movie ‘Bowling for Columbine’ from which they are quoted? Secondly, I was not implying that US citizens killing each other influences the world’s opinion of US foreign policy; rather that the 11,000 figure suggests something if fundamentally wrong in the US. It’s just an interesting aside to the “What the world thinks of America” topic.
It’s “fashionable” to hate America? What a perfectly unfalsifiable rationalization you’ve conjured up. A simply wonderful excuse to plug your ears. Enjoy.
I stand by my statement. I also stated i was not opposed to criticism, i am just wary when double standards or fashionable hate are applied. It is fashionable to hate the US, and/or to hate Bush. There is an entire political subculture in the US based on hating the US. The US is hated roundly in the muslim world (while other exploiters like western europe get off scot free). I have no idea how ‘fashionable’ it is to dislike/hate the US in canada or western europe. Feel free to describe to me why the US is hated, i have probably heard it before. I am not an ‘ignorant flag waving american’ who assumes all hate is due to jealousy. I am just of the impression that disliking the US is fashionable, the same way disliking recreational drugs was fashionable 10 years ago. So condemnations of the US are looked at skeptically, as they may be double standards, unfair or half truths.
I realize the seeds of dislike/hate of the US is grounded in fact and fairness, but i feel the hate & dislike is disproportionate to our actions. For example, in the recent gulf war, alot was made of how ‘the US armed Saddam’, when in reality it was the USSR, france & China that armed Saddam. The US gave minimal conventional weapons support, but the US and the US alone was held accountable for its actions.
Its like if there were 12 people beating up someone and a cop who dislikes person 4 sees it. The cop lets everyone but person 4 go, but tries to charge person 4 with attempted murder. Same situation. many countries armed saddam, but only the US was condemned for it and the condemnation was disproportionate to the act. Hence the feeling that double standards or fashionable hate are applied. Hell, i think Col talked about how the US armed saddam, but his country (egypt) gave about 2x as many arms to Iraq as the US did. I never see Muslims complain about the UK, which has done alot more to screw over muslim countreis than the US has. the UK invented Israel, but only the US is blamed for that.