<december>
Then they must be a feeble-minded liberal.
</december>
What about those who tend not to see the world in such polarized, falsely dualistic terms?
Hey** jr8**, you miss the point. The transfer of information requires that multi-variable propositions be reduced to general observations between communicating human beings in order to effect the efficient flow of information .
Sorry such is the nature of language.
But surely you understood the “good guys, bad guys” part.
Forgive me while I quote my fascist crony Ezra Pound…
- Any general statement is like a cheque drawn on a bank. Its value depends on what is there to meet it.*
I understand** december** perfectly.
__________________________________
Milum: *"The transfer of information requires that multi-variable propositions be reduced to general observations between communicating human beings in order to effect the efficient flow of information .
Sorry such is the nature of language."*
:rolleyes: Says who? Certainly not Ezra Pound.
Look, I think it’s really, um, doubleplusgood that you and december, have found a kind of kinship over this issue. But don’t hold your breath for anyone else to buy in.
december, who has a fully functioning intelligence, probably realizes that the good guys/bad guys worldview falls apart just as soon as two self-styled “pro-Americans’” disagree about what it’s “good” or “bad” for America to do. And that’s the way it should be.
Language is certainly no bar to our pluralism as the English language is extraordinarily rich; and there’s nothing about the information age that makes it less so. In other words Milum, don’t confuse “the nature of language” with your particular ideological understanding of the nature of language.
They are neither pro-American nor anti-American.
This thread is about the people who do tend to see America as the “bad guys.” Strikingly, within certain American sub-cultures, this position commands respect. E.g., Michael Moore won an Academy Award. Noam Chomsky is regarded as a leading intellectual. Louis Farrakhan has millions of followers. Jim McDermott is a Congressman from Washington State.
OTOH this position doesn’t command respect everywhere, as the Dixie Chicks learned to their sorrow.
Mandelstam, you’re missing my point. You said,
I don’t disagree with you, but that’s a separate issue. Let me try again with a hypothetical example.
Suppose you were told that America planned to get involved in the General Strike planned in Iran to try to topple the Mullahs. What’s your immediate reaction? If it’s, “Good. Our help will improve its chances of success,” then you’re pro-American. If it’s, "Oh, no! We’ll fck it up,"* then you’re anti American. If you have no preconception, then you’re neither.
december and Milum:
As some others have suggested-- criticism of an administration/government when it may be making a big mistake is both necessary and patriotic.
Isn’t our right to openly disagree with our national leadership one of the FUNDAMENTAL ESSENSES of the United States?
Why do you feel so threatened by this layer in the bedrock of our nation? So displeased?
In honor of right-wing ideologues everywhere, I offer a blatant rip-off of one of their favorite “bon mots” and submit this for debate:
“If you don’t love America, why don’t you just leave?”
C ya.
Yes. I understand that it is a false dilemma, with a smidgen of prejudicial language thrown in for good measure. Arguments constructed poorly for the sake of efficiency are still poorly-constructed arguments.
**
Pithy. Irrelevant, but pithy.**
Alas, so do I…
“Fundamental essenses” is probably redundant. But you catch my drift.
Dear December,
Mandelstam and Mtgman want a definition of “anti-americanism” and further, they want a working “litmus test” that will identify and distinguish what we call an "anti-american.
I defer to you. But please explain to these guys the difference between an “anti-american” and an “un-american”.
Your fellow American,
Milum
________________
I haven’t used the word “un-american.” Dictionary.com defines it as “Considered contrary to the institutions or principles of the United States.” That’s not the sense in which I’m using the term “Anti-American.”
I agree.
Absolutely.
Because a widespread attitude that the US is the bad guy tends to discourage beneficial activity by the United States – actions that are in the best interest of the people on earth. E.g., replacing Saddam’s godawful regime.
On the semantics of “anti-american”:
Websters defines “anti” as “one that is opposed”.
“Anti-american” would then translate to “one that is opposed to america”. One that is opposed to all that is america.
This is obviously not true of all the people december wants to pin his new (?) terminology on. So maybe you should simply invent a new, more appropriate adjective, december?
Actually I don’t care much about a definition of “anti-American”. december asserts anti-Americanism is a form of bigotry, a modified version of the definition of bigotry with “American” as the object is assumed. I would like a definition of what exactly is “American”. A loose listing of virtues/values doesn’t cut it unless your litmus test can accurately identify individuals posessing unreasoning prejudices against all/most of those virtues/values. Since the list of virtues/values commonly trotted out when someone asks for the characteristics of “American” are universal and not specific to an “American” way of life someone with an unreasoning prejudice against these virtues would, almost by definition, be a sociopath. It would be easy to prove them as anti-American because such a person would be anti-pretty-much-everydamnthing. A definition of “American” can have some overlap with general virtues/values, but it should contain some which are specific to America and which do not change based upon the current political leadership.
A litmus test for even racial bigotry, when it is fairly well understood what the characteristics of the subject one is bigoted against are, is extremely difficult to formulate. With a nebulous concept such as “American” as the object of this form of bigotry it will be even more difficult to formulate a working litmus test. It’s a devilishly difficult task, but it is necessary if one is to be able to honestly and fairly evaluate “anti-Americanism”. It would not be necessary, however, if all one wanted to do was devise a rhetorical tool to demonize one’s opponents. In fact, the presence of such a definition and litmus test would severely limit the ability of someone to demonize others as “anti-American” because some smart ass would surely trot out the definition and litmus test at every such accusation and demand the accuser prove the accusation has merit.
Enjoy,
Steven
“Begging the question” again. Who gets to decide what’s beneficial, given that the medium- and long-term effects of an activity can’t be known until long after the event?
december, I understand that there are, in theory, some Americans whose reflexive disdain for anything involving this country might qualify as “anti-Americanism” even according to my judgment. I understand entirely.
But on the basis of this premise you are willing to broaden the definition to the point where it becomes nonsensical. Case in point:
"This thread is about the people who do tend to see America as the “bad guys.” Strikingly, within certain American sub-cultures, this position commands respect. E.g., Michael Moore won an Academy Award. Noam Chomsky is regarded as a leading intellectual. Louis Farrakhan has millions of followers. Jim McDermott is a Congressman from Washington State.
"
I don’t know enough about Louis Farrakhan to speak to his position. But to call the others anti-American is patently absurd. McDermott is, as you say, a congressman from Seattle. Do you think people in Seattle vote for “anti-American” Democrats. On what do base such a ludicrous assertion? Because of his trip to Iraq? So what? How does that make him anti-American? Whether one agrees with his views or not, agrees with the trip or not, he was there because he disagreed with Bush’s policy, and to explore different options; not because he hates his country.
Same goes for Moore or Chomsky. Moore won an academy award for a documentary (well sorta) about gun violence in the United States. How is that anti-American? Moore has hundreds of thousands of American fans. Are they anti-American too?
Chomsky. I’ve heard Chomsky speak and read two of his books. I don’t always agree with his analyses and he’s not my favorite social critic–but Manufacturing Dissent is an awesome book, and there’s a very good documentary version of it as well. Anti-American? Hardly. Among other things he’s an avid defender of free speech. Am I anti-American because I admire some of Chomsky’s work?
You just don’t get it december. Your idea of reflexive disdain for all things American is so broad that it includes all kinds of people who probably take huge pride in their citiizenship. These people’s dissent from specific American policies–no matter how vigorous or far-reaching–does not qualify as anti-Americanism.
How about SAAABG (seeing America as a Bad Guy)
Mandelstam, I’m glad we now agree on a definition, even if we disagree about where it applies.
You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. What I wrote wasn’t part of the definition. It was an answer to Doctor Goo Fee’s question about why I disapprove of anti-Americanism.
december, we agreed on that definition on page 1 or 2 of this thread. We’ve been disagreeing about where it applies ever since. On this kind of issue, the devil is always in the details ;).
[sub]Gosh, sometimes I wish there were a devil emoticon handy[/sub]
Then, why on this very page did you write:
Because you have never come up with workable definition that would fit your examples, from Newsweek, to Chomsky to Michael Moore.
Think about it.
Here is the definition I proposed:
“…[Th]ere are, in theory, some Americans whose reflexive disdain for anything involving this country might qualify as “anti-Americanism”…”
Now for that definition to be workable for you you’d have to demonstrate that Newsweek, Chomsky, Moore, et al. exhibit a reflexive disdain for anything involving this country.
I think even you realize that you can’t do that.
Ergo you may assent to my definition, but really you have a different one in mind–one that is so broadened that few of us reading this thread are likely to consent to it.
There is nothing “anti-American” about that segment of American society that is endlessly negative and critical of the USA. They have just as much right to do that as you have to criticize them for turning it into a lifestyle. Ain’t freedom and democracy great?
It’s what brings a smile to my face as I see the Dixie Chicks flailing in the wind. You just know they want to castigate those who are making their lives miserable right now. But someone has apparently pointed out to them that they are exercising the same rights that they did when they spoke their piece on their fellow Texan.
I guess it’s a matter of opinion. This immigrant agrees with me.
Note all the people on this board who buy the idea that the majority of the world’s citizens oppose America, even though there are no reliable polls. Look at all those who focus on the half dozen countries who didn’t support our Iraq effort, rather than the 40 or 50 who did. Look at all those who focus on the Iraq museum looting, rather than all the things that went right: children released from prison, very low civilian and coalition casualties, quick war, no use of WMDs, no attack on Israel, only 3 or 4 oil well set ablaze, no spreading of the war to other Arab countries, etc.
Here are a couple of of examples where many people were looking so hard to find something bad that they stretched the facts to fit their pre-conceptions.
All these examples all represent a mind-set of America is bad. People with that pre-conception will look for the worst, focus on the worst and believe the worst.
There’s a semantical problem. I have used the word “Anti-American” to describe these people, because that’s the word that critics of this behavior use. It’s not quite the right word, but I don’t know of a more precise one.
Another reason to use that word is that some of the opinion leaders of that group really are anti-American in every sense of the word. E.g., George Galloway, who apparently was on Saddam’s payroll.
December:
George Bush is not all of America. Neo conservatism is not all of America. The US troops are not all of America. Good ol’ boys and corporations are not the only components of America. Stop acting as if it should be.