I meant to write “…frightful conception of ‘American anti-Americanism’”
I see. For an example of anti-Americanism on an American college campus, see this thread.
Okay, so we’ve got someone on this board who reports that someone on a campus introduced a 1970s Pink Floyd movie with a paper of some kind in which Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich were (erroneously) called fascist dictators. And now we’re asked to accept that the person in question was “anti-American.”
Well, I’ll say this: based on the linked OP, the person sounds like a more plausible candidate for anti-Americanism (defined as reflexive and uncritical disdain for the United States) than anyone else you’ve come up with so far (i.e., Newsweek, Congressman McDermott, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky, none of whom I accept as being anti-American in the least).
OTOH there are, to be fair, some other possibilities we ought to entertain since we don’t know the speaker in question. It’s remotely possible this guy was just very ignorant about what a fascist dictator is (though he got Saddam Hussein more or less right), in which case I wonder how he got to be a professor of anything. (I would note that people who teach on campuses aren’t always “professors” though students will often call them that; still the actual rank of the person is not very important since we can only hope that any teacher with a bachelor’s degree would know the meaning of that term.)
Less remote is the possibility that this speaker has an irrational dislike of Nixon and Gingrich that leads him to exaggerate when given a soapbox, in which I’d say he’s an ineffective and (IMO) irresponsible public speaker, and I wouldn’t want to have him as my colleague, but do we know for certain that he was motivated by a reflexive disdain for the United States? After all, for all we know, the same person eager to call Nixon or Gingrich a fascist dictator might be eager to call Henry David Thoreau or Walt Whitman great American exponents of freedom. In other words, it’s possible that this fellow is unreservedly anti-Republican or anti-conservative but not necessarily anti-American.
Or it’s possible that the paper, which concerned a 1970s Pink Floyd movie, was setting up some kind of context in which these assertions were to be understood. I’ve never seen the movie version of the The Wall and I don’t even know the rest of the album; but I know the song and I can distinctly hear the lyrics “We don’t need no education; we don’t need no thought control;…Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!..All we are is just another brick in the wall.” In other words the song, which is of course a British song, presents education as a kind of government-sponsored thought control, which is indeed an assertion of fascism. So in this context it’s possible that what the speaker was reported to say wasn’t intended as reflexive and wholesale disdain for the United States, but as a way of discussing the kind of pervasive “fascism” seen by Pink Floyd when they made their movie in the 1970s (prior I think to Thatcher–in which case we’d be talking about a labor government, Callahan IIRC–and certainly bad economic times in the UK).
What I will say is that under the circumstances, I see no point in arguing about it, since we just don’t know. But in exchange for that–that is, in exchange for my allowing that it’s reasonable for you to produce such an individual as a candidate for anti-Americanism so defined–will you now admit that the others you’ve named have given you no such cause (outside of your strong and reflexive disagreement with their opinions).
After all, as we speak the Iraqi population is expressing enough serious discontent with the American presence to lead Jay Garner to express surprise: though many people (including many Republicans) foresaw a far more complicated picture than “arrogant” Rumsfeld predicted. In any case, Rumsfeld is arrogant in many people’s estimation; and I spotted a Newsweek cover last week with an Iraqi kissing an American soldier. The idea that Newsweek fell prey to “anti-Americanism” when it criticized the progress of the war at that time is just ridiculous. And even more ridiculous is the idea that a Congressman who opposes that war is “anti-American”; or that a filmmaker who opposes the war and opposes the level of gun violence in this country is “anti-American”; or that an intellectual who opposes the war and writes about many other policies that he also opposes, inside and out of the US, is “anti-American.”
And so it’s not surprising that when you attempted to elaborate your own definition of the term, tom was able to show you how according the recipe you’d produced the conservative critics of Clinton’s foreign policy were “anti-American.” (Mtgman raised some important objections as well.)
Why don’t you let it go december. After seven pages you’ve found at best one example of reflexive anti-Americanism and the rest comes down to political differences and differences of opinion about this war. It’s a divsive enough subject: but much though you may wish to you can’t arrogate “America”–or baseball, or the flag, or Mom, or Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, or apple pie, or the Constitution, or “freedom,” or Bruce Springsteen ;)–for your position on the matter as though the rest of us necessarily forfeited those things because we disagree with you or with George Bush.
[sub]BTW, several posts ago I misquoted the title of the Chomsky book (and video) I like; it’s called Manufacturing Consent. [/sub]
"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." ~ capacitor
Well maybe so capacitor although that pretty well takes care of the important ones, but I still find the terms** “unamerican” **and "anti-american" interesting and perhaps revealing.
Until late the mild rebuff “anti-american” was usually reserved for foreigners. You know, the french and those other third world people that called us “Ugly Americans” behind our backs. That Ok, all good and rich, uncles know that their poorer relatives are uncouth and not too bright but they love them anyway because they are kin. For a long long time no one called an American an “anti-american” because it just plain didn’t make no sense. So instead Americans who behaved like anti-americans were called “un-americans”, although the term was mostly used as an adjective to describe a particular odious activity like being a commie or a coward, e.g.* Senator McCarthy was a coward who called american commies “un-american”*.
That was the way it was and the way it should be. But in walks december who writes that some Americans are anti-american! ________ ? ________
Well. That’s crazy. Can pigs be anti-pig? Is december anti-december? Its enough to make a etymoligist forsake etiology.
Hmmmm…december ain’t exactly dumb…hmmmm…Wait!..I got it! Yes! december was talking about crazy folks. Yeah, that far left or far right fringe group of american self-flagellents that wished in their secret dreams that america would lose the war…or the peace…or suffer a plague of locusts.
Hey Mandelstam hey ** mtgman**. Here’s a surefire questionaire to flush out anti-american americans…
** 1. Have you ever in your secret heart ever wished that the united States would lose the war in Iraq?
Yes No
-
How about losing “the Peace”?
Yes No -
How about “a plague of locusts”?
Yes No **
*No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous.
- ~ Henry Brooks Adams
And if they refuse to answer your questions? Is “anti-American” the default for those who refuse to participate in your rightful investigation? What if they decide the answer doesn’t fall within your bounds of “Yes|No”. Some other answers.
1. Have you ever in your secret heart ever wished that the united States would lose the war in Iraq?
I didn’t know I had a secret heart! Wow, that’s amazing. Can you give me a clue as to where it is? I know of one heart, but it is a pretty prominent and noisy thing. I’d think I would know if I had a secret heart tucked away somewhere, especially after a nice jog. I think I’ll take a jog real quick and see if I can trace a second heartbeat. I’ll let you know what it thinks about Iraq after I find it.
2. How about losing “the Peace”?
I’m not sure about “the Peace” but I lost a copy of War and Peace one time and the library fines were HORRENDUS! My mom was livid “How in hell do you misplace a book thicker than the dictionary?!!?”. No, I don’t think losing the peace would be a good thing.
3. How about “a plague of locusts”?
Can I trade congress for that plague? If so I’m all for it.
Enjoy,
Steven
This thread has an even better example. More than half the law students at City University of New York want to honor Lynne Stewart. Her best-known “achievement” is having been charged with conspiring with anti-American terrorists. The Dean overruled her selection, which may be an example of the kind of change in attitude the OP alleges is occurring. OTOH, despite the dean’s decision, the school’s criminal law society plans to give Ms. Stewart the award on its own behalf.
Mandelstam, I recall that you are in a university in some capacity. Perhaps the unusual level of anti-Americanism in your environment may have dulled your sensitivity to it.
Remember the story about the person from a polluted city who climbed to the top of a pristine mountain. There was nothing around but trees, a bubbling stream, and fresh, clean air. He took a deep breath, and said, “What’s that smell?”
december! Bad puppy! I thought we had agreed to use your more accurate term:
SAAABG (seeing America as a Bad Guy)
instead of “anti-american”?
What happened, man?
Well, december, you never let me down do you? I read the Times articled linked in the other OP, and as usual, you’ve gotten only half the story–the half that suits your prejudices. According to the Times, the students who wanted to honor Stewart "say the charges against her are groundless and part of an assault on civil liberties."
Protesting interference with their traditional of giving the honor to whom they choose they also say: “If you can’t have free speech at a law school, where can you have it?”
Ms. Stewart herself denies aiding terrorists and her “lawyers have argued that all of her actions were consistent with her legal defense of the sheik and protected by the First Amendment, and that there is no evidence she sought to incite violence by the sheik’s followers.”
“It’s sort of a bad lesson for the students,” said Joshua L. Dratel, the vice president of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who has worked on terrorism cases. "We teach students about the presumption of innocence, and yet the school does not appear to be implementing that."
So what we have got?
The presumption of innocence on the part of someone who so far has been found guilty of no crime.
A lawyer who appears to have been zealous in defending an unpopular client.
A group of students who claim she is innnocent and that her civil liberties and First Amendment rights have been violated.
Interference from the Dean which the students feel has interfered with their free speech.
Sorry but these sound like American principles to me–or do you support an America without presumption innocence, where unpopular clients get no legal defense, where civil liberties and the First Amendment count for nothing, and where students vote for someone and then get their decision overturned by the Dean?
Now it’s possible that Stewart is guilty, that the students are her unwitting dupes, and that the dean is being prudent, prescient or both.
But until we know that for certain the only one being anti-American here is you.
“Mandelstam, I recall that you are in a university in some capacity. Perhaps the unusual level of anti-Americanism in your environment may have dulled your sensitivity to it.”
december, you know jack about my “environment” and, in my opinion, double-jack about what it means to be an American. How could you when you know nothing about this country’s history, nothing about citizenship, and nothing about critical thinking? Furthermore, you nothing at all about the people with whom I work–about whom, the less you speculate the better. It’s a testimony to my undulled sensitivity that I bother I debate with someone as narrowminded and blinkered as yourself.
How could the students at CUNY how well-grounded the charges are? They don’t know. They assumed that the US has brought groundless charges against an innocent person in order to assault her civil liberties. Their willingness to support that set of assumptions is convincing proof of their anti-American prejudice.
Sure, but free speech on behalf of what?
She’s pleading Not Guilty.
Joshua Dratel is spoofing. He knows that presumption of innocence applies at a trial, not with regard to honors given by organizations.
Law students ought to know that there’s no First Amendment right to be given an honor by CUNY. No wonder over 50% of them flunk their Law Boards.
This misses the point. She wasn’t selected despite being charged with abetting terrorism. She was selected because of it.
In fact, it’s likely. A majority of those charged with serious crimes are guilty.
Yep.
The Dean’s decision is prudent, regardless of whether she is eventually convicted or not.
I am cut to the quick. NOT. 
Well. Like it or not, ** december** won that exchange.
Oh wait – you were joking, right, Milum? Because from here, december’s comments merely bear up Mandelstam’s points.
The point at which we start questioning free speech because we don’t agree with what people are saying, and presume guilt on the basis of unprovided and assumed statistics is the point at which we start questioning the Constitution. Sounds pretty anti-American to me.
Yep. Here in the US, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. It’s the american way.
I mean, you’re not against the constitution and the american way, are you? Some people could see that as being… gasp Anti-american!
december’s point was that our wonderful inspired Constitution pertains only to the laws of goverment. Social judgements are left to the whims of the people as long as they don’t transgress the laws protecting the rights of the individual.
We didn’t jail the “Dixie Chicks”, we just burned their CDs and called them “whores”.
Whats wrong with that?
Down in Cuba they probably have laws that will land you in jail if you say bad things about proffessors or “Dixie Chicks”, but flipside, they don’t have cars down there too. They got boats. But don’t steal one.
december: I tire of you. Your last post is nothing but thoughtless piffle…
“Law students ought to know that there’s no First Amendment right to be given an honor by CUNY…”
No, but any reader of the article ought to know that the students haven’t made that claim. The First Amendment was mentioned in regard to Stewart’s defense of her client. The students complained that the Dean ought to respect their free speech by allowing them to bestow the honor as they seet fit. Read more carefully before you fashion bogus replies.
“She wasn’t selected despite being charged with abetting terrorism. She was selected because of it.”
How do you know why she was selected? Should we add crystal-ball reading and The december Mind Grip ™ to your dubious abilities to penetrate the anti-American mind? Has it occurred to you that the students perhaps like Stewart and, since they’re convinced she’s innocent, feel that she’s been persecuted somehow? Stop speculating about people’s motives and then asserting your speculations as though they were fact.
“In fact, it’s likely [that she’s guilty]. A majority of those charged with serious crimes are guilty.”
And on this basis should we just dispense with the courts entirely? Maybe we should fill her pockets with stones and see if she floats in the East River.
Read my lips december: “presumption of innocence”–it’s as American as the fourth of July.
Furthermore, what statistical evidence do you have that lawyers charged with aiding terrorism while engaged in defending their clients are likely to be guilty? Is this category something you have analyzed in great detail? Desist from alleging bogus and/or non-existent statistical proofs in order to impart a scientific air to your personal prejudices.
And while we’re talking about statistics, what is the point of this entire digression? If this lawyer is proved guilty of having gone too far to help her client then she will be disbarred and possibly sentenced. Was she motivated by anti-Americanism? How can we possibly know? She insists she is innocent and that her activities on behalf of her client involved no terrorist violence. She claims what she did was part of a bona fide legal defense. We don’t even really know the specific content of her alleged actions, much less what she really did, much less why she did it.
What we can see is that more someone who–in your monomaniacal view–is anti-American, she sure cares a lot about some very American principles.
In any case, lest another Timothy McVeigh leap onto the scene before this thread breathes its last, no one is arguing that anti-American Americans do not or cannot exist. We are arguing about your lame assertions that Newsweek magazine and Jim McDermott fit that bill. To wit, the odor in the air you should be sniffing for is still coffee: the coffee you have yet to waken and smell.
“The Dean’s decision is prudent, regardless of whether she is eventually convicted or not.”
And that is the meaning of “or” in my original sentence. This is the second time I’ve had to coach you in grammar just to get you through the haze of your own illogic.
More substantively: I know more about Deans than you seem to know about statistics, december. I understand the position that the Dean is in; Deans, since they mediate between students, faculty, the trustees, and the public, almost never get to play the nice guy or gal. Knowing so very little about this case I can’t say whether the Dean was right or not; but I’m certainly not unsympathetic.
The main point is that the students in this story, whether they’re right or wrong in their beliefs about Stewart, have veritably doused themselves in the language of American civil liberties and enshrined principles of the American judicial system.
You know, it’s interesting because I actually disagree with the standard ACLU line on various issues: I’m not a first amendment absolutist to use the relevant parlance. But it would never occur to me to assume that the ACLU was anti-American simply because I disagreed with their interpretation of the constitution and the ends towards which they were making that interpretation. But that’s the difference between you and me–or at least one of many.
Since you’ve grown so tiresome, let’s set a new ground rule or drop this thing. I’m not interested in your one-by-one dredging up more nonsense for me to read and reply to. If you think I am anti-American (or, if you prefer, some other poster in this thread), say so right now and make that case. Otherwise, this is the end of the road. If you can’t find the thinking cap, smell the coffee, and get on with your life I won’t lose any sleep tonight over your prejudices and delusions.
Apologies for garbled sentence. Correction:
What we can see is that for someone who–in your monomaniacal view–is anti-American, she sure cares a lot about some very American principles.
Uh oh december, now you’ve done it. You’ve made Mandelstam mad. You’ve grown tiresome and he is no longer interested in reading the nonsense that you dredge up.
Pity. On occasion Mandelstam actually had something to say.
__________________ _________________
Mad? 
“Tiresome” means “causing fatigue or boredom.”
You see Milum, december and I have known each other in this way for years. I know when I reach the point of finding it worthless to argue with him; in this case it’s because his definition of anti-Americanism isn’t, IMO, workable as I said pages ago. He may be willing to try endlessly to find examples that will fit a definition of the term to which all of us agree–but so far that has required someone else’s (and often my) reiterating the definition since december tends to lose sight of definitions as he aspires to make his point. Deductive reasoning is not, IMO, his strong point on this kind of politically charged issue.
But don’t let’s confuse matters by imputing anger. I have no personal hostility towards december and, as I’ve often said, I kind of like the guy in my own way.
Oh, and I’m a “she,” for what that’s worth.
Thank you Mandelstam, I do admire your ability to " joust about", a trait normally associated with a man, but I also appreciate knowing that you are a “she”, because sometimes I forget that I’m a gentleman and act a wee bit uncouth.
As for you december, would it break your jaw to apologize?
__________________ _______________
Good point. I stand corrected.
Because being charged with abetting terrorists is the reason why she is well-known at the moment.
As I said, I think that shows that the students have a prejudice against the government. Also, some of them may sympathize with her as a victim or may be easily-led dupes.
On that basis, we should hesitate to hold her up as an examplar.
I checked to see what the Constitution says and was surprised to find that the answer is
I certainly agree that one is presumed innocent by the courts.
Good point. From what I’ve read, the government seems to have a strong case, but I haven’t demonstrated that on this thread.
Not much point. It was quibbling with an earlier comment.
[quote If this lawyer is proved guilty of having gone too far to help her client then she will be disbarred and possibly sentenced. Was she motivated by anti-Americanism?[/quote]
I would guess she might have been, but that’s not my point. I was addressing the students’ motivation in honoring her.
I agree. More generally, I claim that it’s fairly widespread, and you disagree.
Yes, they have used the language of civil liberties, but the choice of honoree is not really a civil liberties matter. It’s a struggle between the students and the Dean as to who will get to make the selection of honoree.
I certainly do not think you are anti-American, Mandelstam. I apologize if my posts gave that impression.