Does anti-Americanism really exist?

[grey_ideas]

@Tibbycat

Although, the days of empires have past, when they did exist, I consider myself pro-empire. I may question many of the methods they used for control and assimilation, but on balance, I believe they did more good for civilization than harm. So, my stance is: former empires were good; America, as a superpower today, is even better.

I would say some of the achievements of some of the Empires were notable but at a huge cost to a lot of people living within the boundaries of those Empires. As for whether the US is any better, that sort of judgement will have to be left to history. I certainly don’t think we are able to view this objectively right now.

@Tibbycat

Some people in this thread belittle American patriotism, and that bothers me, somewhat. I don’t equate our patriotism with nationalism – particularly European type nationalism, which, to me exemplifies xenophobia to a high degree.

I’d be interested to see you expand on what European nationalism is in your view and how it is comparable to US patriotism.

@Tibbycat

I do agree with the tenet that America is not so much a person, place or thing, but rather an idea - better still, a dream of an ideal democracy.

What in your opinion makes the ‘ideal democracy’? I see a lot of these terms in your comments so far with no attempt at quantification.

@Tibbycat

We are a big country with a large population, so you will, of course, be able to cite isolated examples of bigotry and intolerance.

The US is a geographically large country with a large population if you look at the pure numbers but you do not have a large population density.

Just a couple of examples;

#48 United Kingdom 244.69 people per sqkm
#93 France 108.09 people per sqkm
#168 United States 29.77 people per sqkm

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-t/geo_pop_den

Since a lot of the comparisons on this board seem to be between the US and EU I thought this was an interesting snippet from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union)

“The European Union has 25 member states, an area of 3,892,685 km² and approximately 460 million EU citizens as of December 2004. If it were a country, it would be the seventh largest in the world by area and the third largest by population after China and India.”

@Tibbycat

Although it has become a much bantered about cliché, America really is the melting pot of the world and that imbues us with more tolerance than countries that aren’t melting pots.

So looking at the above quote from Wikipedia isn’t it Europe that is the ‘melting pot of the world’? There are a lot more of us, in a lot smaller area…sounds like a melting pot to me. Well, it would if I didn’t like the use of such terms or the claiming of such terms by any group.

@Tibbycat

And, even when prejudice does rear its ugly head in the USA, it’s more…well, democratic than in other countries. American bias can be white v. black v. oriental v. Spanish, v. Muslim v. Christian v. Jewish…and so on and so forth; or visa versa; or any combination thereof. If they are citizens of the United States, they are all Americans. We really don’t care where you came from or who your mama is, if you behave yourself you can be one of us. You can speak any language you want, so long as you can figure out a 1040 tax form and pay Uncle Sam your due.

I don’t see how you can be more ‘democratic’ about prejudice, are you saying that all people from the US are free to be prejudice against each other?

Interestingly on your last points, as far as I can see (6 months spent in the US, rest is just media exposure or speaking with people from the US) the US is one perhaps the most obsessed about pigeon holing it’s occupants by where they came from. Constant use of ‘country’_American as a descriptor doesn’t lead me to believe whole heartedly about your last few comments there.

@Tibbycat

My brother, who travels to the UK quite often, tells me that they have airport personnel at Heathrow airport who direct pre-boarding passengers to security lines by pointing to the lines that the individual travelers should get into. One line always seems to move quite a bit slower than the other line. The fast line demographic: quite white and rather Anglican; the slow line demographic: not quite as white and less likely to enjoy crumpets and a spot of tea.

Interesting…I am from the UK and since I am living abroad at the moment I travel back and forth to the UK a great deal and I can say I have never seen any such thing. The only time I could claim to have seen something along these lines would be at passport control where the lines are split between EU passport holders and those outside of the EU. The EU line does move a lot faster than the other since there are more checks to be performed on the outside of EU passports.

@Tibbycat

If we attempted that sort of profiling in this country, “foul” would be charged against us in a New York minute:

What profiling? All I see is a second hand comment from your brother who may well have been painting his own prejudices onto what he was seeing.

@Tibbycat

first by the American Left, second by France. (France would most likely attempt to punish us by…I dunno…forbidding our military aircraft to fly over their airspace…again? And, England simply wishes it could coerce us by taxing our tea and stamps again ). America is tolerant and committed to justice to the point of weakening our national security. We should profile, but we don’t. Other countries just do it, and aren’t taken to task for it.

I haven’t seen any proof in your post of any other country profiling. The rest of the jingoism against the other countries in the paragraph above is just, well…cheap.

@Tibbycat

France, desiring a source of cheap labor, magnanimously invites Muslims into their country with open arms. However, they forbid them from speaking in their native tongue (Americanized French words are particularly verboten), they forbid Muslim women from wearing veils, they don’t really want Muslims to live near other French people and they don’t want Muslims to take any but the most menial of jobs. Somehow that does not strike me as being toleration incarnate. France can talk the talk, but they often fail to walk the walk. France willingly accepts immigrants…as long as they are French

Forbid them from speaking in their native tongue? – proof?
Forbid Muslim women from wearing veils? – you might be referring to the banning of religious symbols from schools? But, to the best of my knowledge, this applied across all religions.
Don’t want Muslims to live near other French people? - proof? Yes, there are certain areas in France where short sightedness in immigration policy created ‘ghetto’ areas. Are you claiming that this isn’t the case in the US? This is something both countries (and a lot of others) need to improve.
Don’t want Muslims to have anything other than menial jobs? – proof? Again, the recent riots in France showed that the previous short sightedness had created issues with employment in areas of France. But there are plenty of people of all religions gainfully employed in France.

@Tibbycat

Cheap shots: America was raked over the coals for being a cheapskate with regard to the Tsunami relief effort. It’s true that many countries pledged more money than did America. On paper, America didn’t look so hot with the amount that it pledged compared to other countries. However, we look a great deal better when you realize which countries actually made good on their pledges – the US followed through on its pledge (indeed, Japan pledged a lot and followed through with their pledges, so they deserve a tip of the hat, too). Then, when you factor in contributions from private citizens of the USA, we look pretty good, indeed, when compared to the rest of the world.

Do you have these facts and figures to hand? I’d be interested in reading them.

@Tibbycat

The fact is, America meddles in the affairs of other countries for two reasons:

1. Because it is in our best interest to do so.
2. Because we can.

Take the combined military might of all Europe, and add to that a big chunk of the rest of the world’s military power, then put it up against the US military machine. Who do you think will win that war? (Hint: it won’t be close, and the victors will be humming Yankee Doodle Dandy). Yes, war is ugly and it is bad, but sometimes it is still necessary for the stability of the world. The human race has not evolved to the point where conflict can be taken out of the human equation. Sure, it would be nice to take all the assets out of our military war chest and siphon them into all the social services that many Europeans now enjoy as entitlements, but it would not be prudent for us to do so – somebody has to do the wet work.

I don’t really know where to begin with this paragraph.

Who cares? Very nice, the US has a large military…your point is? Why does this point come up so often from a certain subset of Americans? This is the sort of comment that sets my teeth on edge, it just brings to mind the worst stereotypes of the US. Why does it always come down to the ‘I’ve got the biggest guns’ comment? You may feel that the human race has not evolved past conflict, the cynic in me agrees but I’d at least like to think that the self styled ‘leaders of the free world’ would be able to discuss politics without the ‘my dad could beat up your dad’ line of reasoning.

@Tibbycat

The question is really two-fold:

1. Should a superpower exert its influence on the rest of the world?
2. Who is the best country to do so?

IMO, the answer to # 1 is “yes”: progress and stability result from the influence and control of a tolerant global power hierarchy. My answer to #2 is a “resounding yes”: almost any other country that could exert as much control and influence over the rest of the world as does the United States, would do so in a heartbeat - but, at this point in time, they can’t, so they won’t…and we are lucky they can’t. Many countries have been in our position of power in the past, and many of them mourn the loss of that power. Even though America does what it does primarily for its own best interest, America’s best interest, for the most part, is in the best interest of the rest of the world. We should all thank our lucky stars (and stripes) that America is the superpower of the world today and not another sovereignty. America is uniquely tolerant of diversity and it takes to heart the tenet, “liberty and justice for all.”

In my opinion…’no’ and ‘none’. I would much rather see a global styled government than one country with power. To take a topical view…the British Empire I believe is quoted by some sources as being the largest empire to date. If you could snap your fingers and say to me that Britain could be in this position of power again I would refuse point blank and without a second thought. The time of Empires is over, the time of one country exerting power over others (ala; Superpower) I hope is on the way out and I really hope that a ‘global government’ could be the way for the future.

The second part of your paragraph is, I feel, full of jingoism with little substance. I apologise for being harsh but that’s how I feel. I do not feel that a lot of things that the US does are in the interests of the rest of the world even if the politicians use that justification in their actions. I don’t feel that any country truly acts in the interests of anything other than itself and that is the reason that I don’t think there should be any ‘superpower’.

@Tibbycat

I think that I speak for most Americans when I say that we understand many foreign county frustrations with many of our government’s policies (heck, even Americans are divided on most issues), and, having a good sense of humor, we enjoy being ridiculed and lam basted as much as the next county (it goes with the territory, particularly when you are in a position of power). But, when the anti-Americanism gets excessive and vicious, it really pushes the envelope of ungratefulness and shortsightedness. Americans like foreigners. Really, we do. We also like out pets. Go figure.

As has been mentioned here before, I think some Americans take it to heart far too much. Admittedly there are groups of people outside the US who are too militant in their criticism and are just as narrow minded as those Americans who would blindly defend their own country without seeking to see someone else’s point of view.

To set the field, I am what I would suspect be called a left leaning European (suspect the ‘global government’ thing might just have given that away). There are a lot of things that I don’t like about the UK (and a lot of things that I do). Should the topic come up then I am not shy about voicing these opinions in front of people from the UK or anyone else. In a similar vein there are things I like and dislike about Denmark, I will voice these opinions too if I am asked about them. Now, being a guest here in Denmark you might expect some Danes to get upset that I even consider expressing what I dislike about this country. Not even once have I heard that, I have had fantastic discussions about the pro’s and con’s of both the UK and Denmark with my friends and colleagues over here and in the UK. Sometimes there is agreement, sometimes disagreement. Not once has anyone here ever accused me of being ‘anti-Danish’ and similarly I have never been accused of being ‘anti-British’. It is possible to discuss the good and the bad points about your country or any other without resorting to insults on either side.

Is the US the only country that has this “anti-American” thing? I’ve never heard it used by any other country for people (either within the country or outside) expressing negative comments about the country in question.

@Tibbycat

But, when the anti-Americanism gets excessive and vicious, it really pushes the envelope of ungratefulness and shortsightedness.

Ungratefulness? What are people outside of the US supposed to be grateful for? Are we supposed to express our gratitude every day, every month?

Shortsightedness? Is this suggesting that the US has some sort of master plan that we (outside the US) are all just not seeing?

I hope you can see that statements like that are the sort of attitudes from some Americans that can rankle with those outside of the US.

I’ve spent time in the US (about 6 months) and I met some of the most fantastic people over there. I even remember laughing about the ‘culture shock’ lecture they made us attend before we set off for the US…thinking to myself “there’s no way I need to go to this, I know the US”. I was wrong, even being what I would like to consider as open minded, there were a lot of things that caught me by surprise. Perhaps we all need to keep in mind that cultures (even when we speak the same language) are very, very different from each other.

grey_ideas

[clairobscur]

@Tibbycat

A long statement about why the USA is the best thing since sliced bread

Your post is a rare (on this board) example of jingoism. If you’re not sure what the cause of anti-american feelings is, look in the mirror.

[smiling_bandit]

In line with Tibbycat’s post, I think that racism in America is a lot less important than in western Europe. I haven’t seen much of WE, but what I have suggests that racism is much biggere and more immediate problem there.

by irishbirl
Basically Tibbycat’s post exemplifies why some people dislike the USA. They DON’T feel that America being in charge is a good thing, they don’t want them to continue to be in control and they resent the fact that they are. They feel that the USA has spent long enough ruling the rest of the world selfishly

We never ruled the world.

America never wanted to be in charge of anything except itself. We were dragged into it, and payed dearly in blood (including risking the utter annihilation of our entire people) - to save others. We made hard choices, and we live with the consequences. But we’re not going away again; we won’t risk that kind of threat again. If ya’ll would leave us alone, we might leave you alone. But you (and I mean this in reference to the world as a whole) won’t, so we don’t. It was not America’s will to get involved. Our empire is at home.

by grey_ideas
So looking at the above quote from Wikipedia isn’t it Europe that is the ‘melting pot of the world’? There are a lot more of us, in a lot smaller area…sounds like a melting pot to me. Well, it would if I didn’t like the use of such terms or the claiming of such terms by any group.

I don’t think you uite understand what it means. It doesn’t mean “a big place with a lot of people.” It means a new nation, where all peoples become one. Europe isn’t it, and even to the extent it is, is half Americanization.

Ungratefulness? What are people outside of the US supposed to be grateful for? Are we supposed to express our gratitude every day, every month?

No. But actual appreciation, even in the most vague or general way, is not something I see very commonly. I often see people say “Well, individual americans aren’t so bad.” Do you know what that tells me? That the nicest thing they can say is that they don’t like more than one of us.

Shortsightedness? Is this suggesting that the US has some sort of master plan that we (outside the US) are all just not seeing?

Actually, yes. There is at least one group which does. We neither want a world government (which will inevitably become corrupt) nor the current global chaos. We want to live like we wish without going to war. So we intend to kick over a few rats’ nests and clean the gutters. Then, we don’t have to care what anyoe else does.

Some people think Bush is an idiot. This is a mistake. He (and we) might be crazy to think we can succeed, but not stupid.

[crowmanyclouds]

@grey_ideas

I would say some of the achievements of some of the Empires were notable but at a huge cost to a lot of people living within the boundaries of those Empires. As for whether the US is any better, that sort of judgment will have to be left to history. I certainly don’t think we are able to view this objectively right now.

How long do you think we’ll have to wait before we can?
My great fear is that by the time it’s acceptable to ask the question, the answer will be “it’s to late to do anything about it”.

[crowmanyclouds]

@smiling bandit

…We never ruled the world.

America never wanted to be in charge of anything except itself. We were dragged into it, and payed dearly in blood (including risking the utter annihilation of our entire people) - to save others. We made hard choices, and we live with the consequences. But we’re not going away again; we won’t risk that kind of threat again. If ya’ll would leave us alone, we might leave you alone. But you (and I mean this in reference to the world as a whole) won’t, so we don’t. It was not America’s will to get involved. Our empire is at home.

What are you referring to?
When were we “dragged into it”, what were we dragged into?
When did we pay dearly in blood (including risking the utter annihilation of our entire people) - to save others.

[grey_ideas]

@smiling bandit

I don’t think you uite understand what it means. It doesn’t mean “a big place with a lot of people.” It means a new nation, where all peoples become one. Europe isn’t it, and even to the extent it is, is half Americanization.

Actually…again quoting from Wikipedia I’m afraid;

“The melting pot is a metaphor for the way in which heterogenous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their discrete identities and yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor, which is quite different from the original inputs.”

The phrase may well have originated in the US but I would say that in the lose term of ‘melting pot’ in the way that different societies and relgions mix I would say that it is equally applicable to Europe. Not so much the strict definition of melting pot where the loss of identity and assimilation into the host society is key though.

@smiling bandit

No. But actual appreciation, even in the most vague or general way, is not something I see very commonly. I often see people say “Well, individual americans aren’t so bad.” Do you know what that tells me? That the nicest thing they can say is that they don’t like more than one of us.

I still don’t see what you say we are supposed to be appreciative of (although in fairness it wasn’t your comment originally). I read the comment about ‘individual Americans’ you put there as being more that the individuals are good people but that the person saying that may not like the American culture or something similar. It’s still a badly phrased explanation on behalf of the person saying it, but I think I see what they are saying.

@smiling bandit

Actually, yes. There is at least one group which does. We neither want a world government (which will inevitably become corrupt) nor the current global chaos. We want to live like we wish without going to war. So we intend to kick over a few rats’ nests and clean the gutters. Then, we don’t have to care what anyoe else does.

Some people think Bush is an idiot. This is a mistake. He (and we) might be crazy to think we can succeed, but not stupid.

I still don’t see what this plan is. I also don’t see how you can say that a global government will ‘inevitably become corrupt’, if you are so concerned about this then why not make sure that the checks and balances are in place to ensure it will not happen. Why is it that a global government will be corrupt but the government of a superpower will not? Or are you saying that the government of the US will ‘inevitably become corrupt’ as well?

You’ve made contradictory statements from here;

@smiling bandit

If ya’ll would leave us alone, we might leave you alone.

to here;

@smiling bandit

We want to live like we wish without going to war. So we intend to kick over a few rats’ nests and clean the gutters. Then, we don’t have to care what anyoe else does.

Going to the most recent conflict (I really wish I didn’t have to go onto this subject but it ties well with the above) I believe it’s been established that Iraq didn’t actually do anything to the US. So in line with your first comment above, why did the US invade? So you want to be left alone because you don’t like going to war but then again you want to go to war when you feel like it as well? I don’t think you can have this both ways, you can say ‘we want to be left alone and sit over in our corner here’ and combine it with ‘BUT will want to be able to interfer when we feel like it’. Do you see what I mean?

@smiling bandit

America never wanted to be in charge of anything except itself. We were dragged into it, and payed dearly in blood (including risking the utter annihilation of our entire people) - to save others. We made hard choices, and we live with the consequences. But we’re not going away again; we won’t risk that kind of threat again. If ya’ll would leave us alone, we might leave you alone. But you (and I mean this in reference to the world as a whole) won’t, so we don’t. It was not America’s will to get involved. Our empire is at home.

My history might be a little rusty but when did the US enter into a conflict that risked the annihilation of it’s people? As I mentioned above, the latest conflict the US entered into was one in which the US was ‘left alone’, but nevertheless the US still entered into conflict.

grey_ideas

[smiling_bandit]

by grey-ideas
I still don’t see what this plan is. I also don’t see how you can say that a global government will ‘inevitably become corrupt’, if you are so concerned about this then why not make sure that the checks and balances are in place to ensure it will not happen. Why is it that a global government will be corrupt but the government of a superpower will not? Or are you saying that the government of the US will ‘inevitably become corrupt’ as well?

Why? I don’t care about what Pakistanis do, or the English. They may live however they please, and I want the same courtesy. I don’t want to say how they should run their lives, nor do I believe that they should have a say in mine. That which governs least, governs best.

Given my choice of all option, the U.S. would have virtually no national government, a thin state government, and a moderately strong local government. That proved not to be possible in the 18th century, but it may be in the future. I don’t expect to see that in my lifetime.

So in line with your first comment above, why did the US invade? So you want to be left alone because you don’t like going to war but then again you want to go to war when you feel like it as well?

Well, first off, this isn’t about America but about one group (to which I belong) within it. But the reason was not that they posed an diect threat, but that they created the kinds of conditions - poverty, violence, repression - which are dangerous to the U.S. In the short run, we could have ignored Iraq and the entire Middle East. But, we decided that in the long run, the danger was too great; sooner or later someone would pull out a very nasty weapon. And the consequences of that would be too dangerous and unpredictable for both sides. America might not even survive as a free democracy if we sustained sufficient damage. The Middle East might not survive at all. That was and is unacceptable on both counts. So, by acting now, we believe we can divert history; alter the future to a considerbaly better outcome.

In fact, I believe we have already done this, which is why I am not particularly worried by most anything which happens in Iraq. It is sufficient for me that we have reduced the probability of mass destruction. The task was not enjoyable, but I believe it was worth it; the only reason anyone objected was that this future was not oreseeable with perfect accuracy. To me and mine, the risk was high. I would estimate it had been around 75% over the next century. I would now peg it much lower, perhaps only 5-10%.

The purpose of taking Iraq into our camp was many-fold. (1), to prevent it from becoming worse or using its remaining weapons program. (2), [This is the ironic one] to inculcate a sense that international order might not be defied at will. (3), to, unlike Afganistan, stab directly into the heart of the Arab world [recognizing that neither Iraq nor any country there is wholly Arab. (4), to eliminate the stain of cowardice on America’s reputation, showing potential enemies that we are not weak. (5), to create the potential for democratic succes in Iraq. (6), to use to this to show other people in the Middle East that their destiny could be in their hands, not the petty dictators.

Iraq was a target of opportunity. It would have been better in theory to take Saudi Arabia, or to take Syria along with Iraq. But for a number of political and military reasons, we haven’t and probably won’t do that. Same with Iran.

My history might be a little rusty but when did the US enter into a conflict that risked the annihilation of it’s people? As I mentioned above, the latest conflict the US entered into was one in which the US was ‘left alone’, but nevertheless the US still entered into conflict.

The Cold War. We came to the brink of MAD on at least two occasions, though more in the early years than the later.

It’s true that Iraq, as a state, did not directly strike at us. But the Afganistan war could never finish things either for us, for Al-Quaeda, or the entire social phenomenon we are opposing. The heart of it - oppression - must be rooted out, or it will continue to fester. Some elites would like you to think that the “root cause” of terrorism is poverty. This is patently false, but it contains a kernal of truth. Oppression can cause terrorism and poverty; a lack of economic opportunities can exacerbate the problem. But then, without ending the opporession, the poverty always remains. There is a clear record of economic success following freedom, and no amount of money can long enrich a kingdom of slaves.

[Fridgemagnet]

@Tibbycat

This may rankle the ire of non-Americans and the Left, but I believe that when it exists, Anti-Americanism is typically nothing more than a thinly veiled variation of penis envy. I would be dumbstruck to learn of many countries not harboring a fair degree of resentment toward any country with more power, particularly if that country meddles in global affairs. If I may equate America to a parent and other countries to it’s children: a minor degree of rebelliousness is healthy, even productive; too much and they need to be spanked.

I’ve heard this “envy of the US” statement so many times, but only from bewildered Americans. The only real example I can think where this may have been true was with GIs stationed in the UK during the latter stages of WW2. Relative to the local population, they were rich, with nylon stockings, chewing gum and chocolate bars a-plenty. As such, many British men felt they were unfair competition in dating British women. “Over-paid, over-sexed, and over here”, as the saying goes.

After the 9/11 attacks on the US, I was seeing a lot of ordinary Americans confused and hurt as to why anybody would want to do this horrible thing to them. The “envy” line was trotted out over and over. Just for the record, no, no, and thrice fucking no. If there’s a list of things that bug the rest of the world about the US, it isn’t lifestyle envy. US citizens may get the endlessly-looped message that the good ol’ US of A is the greatest country in the world, invented democracy, patented Freedom ™, and is the paternal guardian of lesser nations, but us lesser nations may (and do) hold a different opinion.

If there’s a lot of anti-Americanism about at the moment, you can blame GW Bush. The US is a supposed democracy, after all, so ultimately the people are responsible* for the dangerous fucktards they elect. He’s not making the US very popular with the world at large just recently. Not just Iraq, but the undermining of the United Nations, refusal to sign up to Kyoto, refusal to sign up to the International Court, dumping of government subsidised goods on third-world countries… the list of woes just goes on and on.

The best summary of anti-Americanism I’ve heard comes from an episode of South Park: “The reason the rest of the world hates us is because we don’t understand why the rest of the world hates us”.

• Not quite true. Voters don’t wield all the power in democracies, big business has a major stake.

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling bandit

America never wanted to be in charge of anything except itself.

What are you talking about? Our leaders have been scheming for empire ever since we got free of the British. Ever heard of the Spanish-American War? United Fruit? The antebellum Southern project to annex the entire Caribbean as slave territory? The fucking Monroe Doctrine?

[crowmanyclouds]

@BrainGlutton

What are you talking about? Our leaders have been scheming for empire ever since we got free of the British. Ever heard of the Spanish-American War? United Fruit? The antebellum Southern project to annex the entire Caribbean as slave territory? The fucking Monroe Doctrine?

Mark Twain, “Incident in the Philippines”

WAR IS A RACKET Smedley Darlington Butler Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.”

[Rodgers01]

@irishgirl

Lots of people still disagree with America’s foreign policy for the whole of the 20th century…not joining WW2 until you were attacked, Hiroshima, Vietnam, dirty dealings in South America etc.

Yes, I suppose we should have followed Ireland’s example and just remained officially neutral throughout the war. Funny how often people love to bring up the former, but never mention the latter.

Any person who “disagrees with America’s foreign policy for the whole of the 20th century” strikes me as being either incredibly ignorant or incredibly biased. There were bad things, to be sure, but there was a lot of good as well.

“The melting pot is a metaphor for the way in which heterogenous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their discrete identities and yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor, which is quite different from the original inputs.”

The phrase may well have originated in the US but I would say that in the lose term of ‘melting pot’ in the way that different societies and relgions mix I would say that it is equally applicable to Europe. Not so much the strict definition of melting pot where the loss of identity and assimilation into the host society is key though.

By that definition, the entire world is melting (how can you not, given modern mass communications?) but Europe is not exactly leader of the pack. One reason the proposed EU constitution failed was because a lot of Europeans were opposed to the idea of melting (Polish plumber, anyone?). The recent riots in France are a sign that the melting process isn’t happening well enough. Having lived in both Europe and the US, I can say that there is much more open racism (a key indicator of how well the melting pot is working) in Europe. Sure, there’s less difference between the various European countries now than there used to be, but again, that’s just part of the global trend – there’s less difference between all countries now than there used to be. That definitely goes for the richer countries of the world, at least on superficial measures: most of us listen to the same music, watch the same TV shows and movies, read the same books, etc.

@Fridgemagnet

I’ve heard this “envy of the US” statement so many times, but only from bewildered Americans. The only real example I can think where this may have been true was with GIs stationed in the UK during the latter stages of WW2. Relative to the local population, they were rich, with nylon stockings, chewing gum and chocolate bars a-plenty. As such, many British men felt they were unfair competition in dating British women. “Over-paid, over-sexed, and over here”, as the saying goes.

That seems to follow GIs wherever they go. Some German nightclubs have been known to not allow American servicemen in; this often has a racial element, and just black GIs are refused admittance. I’ve read (and heard from friends) that this is even worse in South Korea, and that some of the anti-Americanism stems from “penis envy” among Korean guys who are angry to see “their” women going out with American guys. That may be a bunch of psycho-babble, but that’s the way I’ve heard it.
Anyways, with all this back and forth, I’m reminded of something a friend of mine once asked me: Why do Europeans talk so much about us in the first place? There are valid questions about Americans being too sensitive to perceived anti-Americanism, but the first question is seldom asked. And they do talk about us a lot: the media is disproportionally full of what’s going on in the US. When I lived in the UK earlier this year, I remember walking into a bookstore in London and being struck by the fact that more than half the titles on the wall of bestselling non-fiction titles had to do with the US. I was over their during the elections, and I heard more people talking about the American election of the previous November than the one that was taking place in their own country. They’ll know (or think they know) American history, to the exclusion of other countries’ history. An Irish guy was once lecturing me about the Vietnam War, but his knowledge of the conflict was largely limited to the years of American involvement – nothing about the French origins of the war, or what happened after the Americans pulled out. A German coworker was explaining some half-cooked theory about the US’s war-mongering being connected to the fact that we once had slaves – but she was unaware about the majority of slaves who were shipped to Central and South America.

What gives? I don’t mean to sound disingenuous; I know the US is a big, important country, and that informed people will want to know what’s going on with it. But if it’s just a matter of being worldly and informed, how come many of those same people who obsess over the US can’t say squat about other global heavy hitters like China, India, Russia, Brazil – or even often their own neighboring European countries? Isn’t there enough to talk about back home?

[smiling_bandit]

by Fridgemagnet
Not just Iraq, but the undermining of the United Nations, refusal to sign up to Kyoto, refusal to sign up to the International Court, dumping of government subsidised goods on third-world countries… the list of woes just goes on and on.

Ironically, we’re not undermining the UN. rather, we’re insisting it clean house, because it’s becoming useless and corrupt. Bush didn’t refuse to sign up for Kyoto; that was dead before he entered office. The ICC does not comply with the COnstitution, and no President or COngress can change that. Bush merely refuses to lie about it.

As for dumping subsidized goods, that has a some truth to it. But then, Bush is hardly the first or most subsidize-happy President.

by Brainglutton
What are you talking about? Our leaders have been scheming for empire ever since we got free of the British. Ever heard of the Spanish-American War? United Fruit? The antebellum Southern project to annex the entire Caribbean as slave territory? The fucking Monroe Doctrine?

I’m well aware of those things. But consider how quickly and easily we let Cuba (and later the Phillipines) go; almost before we got them we realized we didn’t want them. Similarly, the U.S. was much friendlier to Chinese and Japanese interests, and led the way in returning sovereignty.

United Fruit is indeed a good example of American interference (for the negative) but neither is it a good example Imperialism. We didn’t establish colonies, tax citizens of those nations, or take over their governments, though we certain removed a few. =

Your argunent betrays a fundamental understanding of the Monroe doctrine; it was not, at least as originally intended, an imperialist doctrine. Rather, it was a bulwark against European powers establishing fiefdoms in the Americas. During the Cold War, we did interfere in Latin America. But recall how spotty that interference was, and how easily we walked away. Indeed, our behavior during the early part of the 20th century was not ideal; I did not and do not claim we did not make mistakes. But we were less cruel in making them, and more willing to recognize them.

Seriously, Brainglutton, had we really been scheming for Empire, we would have succeeded. The U.S. could easily have owned Mexico, or taken the entire Carribean, not to mention possessing large territories in the Pacific. (We do have a few tiny protectorates, but none of them seem to object. Likewise Puerto Rico.)

I think Rodgers01 has an important point. It’s not that we believe we are perfect (though we are always trying to create a more perfect union), or even that we are wholly better than anyone else. No other country on earth has been as willing to learn as America; we learned British politics (before that was fashionable), German science, Japanese business, Chinese cooking, and so much more. But it seems that so often criticism is not sufficient; we are subjected to obsession. Everyone and their brother has a lot to say about America, much more than even we feel capable of addressing. And so much of it is founded on mistakes, and confusions, and ignorance, that we feel drowned in a sea of half-baked anger.

And I don’t think there’s any place on Earth which wants to be loved as much as America. people sometimes acuse us of having thin skins; to put it another way, we want you to like us. And so often (including on this very board), I encounter people who seem to hate America root and branch, often without ever living here, and understanding who we are. Well, yeah, that does hurt. Americans may not like Arabs or Chinese or even Europeans very much, but we don’t hate them, nor do we constantly offer criticism on the nightly news.

[Ximenean]

[QUOTE=Rodgers01]
When I lived in the UK earlier this year, I remember walking into a bookstore in London and being struck by the fact that more than half the titles on the wall of bestselling non-fiction titles had to do with the US./QUOTE]
Unless you happened to wander into some specialist American bookshop on Charing Cross Road, I seriously doubt that. Or you have a very broad definition of “having to do with the US”. Atkins Diet books don’t count.

[Tibby]

Russia has all the natural sources Europe needs. We have only a capacity to produce. And Russia needs all the products we are producing. In Europe, China and India.

So, why not let Russia assimilate your country? In a few months, when you peel yourself away from the bread line, you can tell me how that is working out for you…if you can figure out how to post to the Internet on an abacus. (Ok, maybe that scenario is a wee bit antiquated…but not by much).

@Irishgirl

Many people find the majority of Americans they have met to be loud, ignorant, thin-skinned, neurotic and unable to accept defeat in any argument.
I would never live or work in America, simply because I couldn’t deal with being around Americans and immersed in American culture. It has no appeal for me.
As individuals, Americans are just like everyone else, as a country, a culture, a group, I’d prefer to keep my distance.

…uh, was it something we said? Our breath? Something to do with leprechauns?

If the United States suddenly embraced total isolationism and left the world stage, what do you suppose would happen?:

1. No other country would attempt to fill the power void? You would all form a synergistic global government (like a happy world kibbutz)? Everyone would share everything and all live happily ever after? They have a section in our library that showcases geopolitical societies of this sort, it’s somewhere between the sci-fi/fantasy and children’s fairy tale sections.

Or

2. Some country, more enlightened than the United States, would assume world leadership? Who would that be, prey tell, Ireland? Irishgirl, judging from your above quoted text, you seem to be a (ahem) culturally tolerant individual, and I assume that you may speak for many of your countrymen? How would foreigners like us loud, ignorant, thin-skinned, neurotic American’s fair in an Irish super-powered world? Would you strap us to the front of your potato plows or make us human bombs for the IRA?

What puts the steam in the engine of the civilized world today is not political theory, cultural diversification/assimilation, or even military might – it is the economy, pure and simple. Even national security takes a back seat to the economy. Like it or not, the world is economically interconnected in ways not imagined a few years ago. Each and every country has the right to stabilize their economy as best they see fit (following accepted rules of fair play) for the benefit of their people. Well, our economy is now global (and becoming more so all the time), so global economic stability is needed in order to maintain local economic stability. Even though each country has a right to influence the global economy toward it’s own benefit, the United States is uniquely able and willing to influence and affect it the most. Are we selfish when we attempt to stabilize the global economy for our own gain? Sure we are - and we should be. Don’t you expect your country to look after your interests first and foremost? Fortunately, our goal – a healthy, stable, growing world economy - is not only in our best interest, it is in the best interest of the world. If your economic goals coincide with our economic goals, then you reap the benefits of our involvement. Mistakes are sometimes made, but our objective is the correct one. Irishgirl, if you and your fellow countrymen think that your country would be better off without the influence of the United States on the world economic scene, perhaps you should opt-out of the global economy – just make sure you plant plenty of disease-resistant potatoes before attempting to immigrate to America this time.

@HazelNutCoffee

The parent-child analogy made by Tibbycat still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

But, you’re ok with my owner-pet analogy?

@grey ideas

I still don’t see what you say we are supposed to be appreciative of

Actually, we don’t solicit or expect appreciation from foreigners. Like I said, America does what it does primarily for Americans, not for you. Expect your own government to look after your best interests, not ours. However, when you’re on the ground stuffing acorns in your little squirrel mouths, you shouldn’t bite the leg of whoever shakes the tree, and you shouldn’t take a dump on the tree shaker’s head when he shoes away squirrel-eating predators. We wouldn’t object if you gave us a nut once in awhile, but we don’t really expect that to occur.

@grey ideas

Who cares? Very nice, the US has a large military…your point is?

It puts us in better control of our own destiny. It allows us to be the tree shakers.

@grey ideas

What in your opinion makes the ‘ideal democracy’? I see a lot of these terms in your comments so far with no attempt at quantification.

Imagine pure market-driven capitalistic democracy and put it on the top of the list. Now take soviet-style central planning communism and put it at the bottom of the list. Take your country’s version of democracy and place it somewhere between those two. Finally, take the American version of democracy and place it between the top two. Communism creates a disincentive for work and production, so it was doomed from the start. Socialism creates a lazy attitude toward work and production, so it is not far behind. When the effects of negative population growth begin to put a strain on incentives and production, socialist countries had better scramble to assemble a large class of tax-paying immigrants or the inherent fragility of socialism will become apparent. Socialism aspires to equality of results; it should aspire to equality of opportunity.

@Grey ideas

“The European Union has 25 member states, an area of 3,892,685 km² and approximately 460 million EU citizens as of December 2004. If it were a country, it would be the seventh largest in the world by area and the third largest by population after China and India.”

And as big as all that, you would probably still collectively go scampering under your beds if a tyrant said, “boo”. Or worse, pay ransom or protection money. You don’t appease tyrants; you topple them - and you shouldn’t have to apologize for doing so. Admittedly, Iraq is a political mess at the moment, but not nearly to the extent many people portray it as being. The proper timing of that war was arguably miscalculated, but mostly we miscalculated the extent to which insurgents would go in their perverted jihad to deny their own people a better life, free of an evil dictator. Blood is on the hands of the insurgents, not on the hands of America for fighting a just war; to believe otherwise is a perversion of reality.

Did we engage Iraq solely for reasons of national security? No, in all likelyhood, we did not. IMO, we went to war for three reasons: the reactive reason: national security, the noble reason: to depose a tyrant, and the self-serving reason: economic gain. Each reason is valid, and in combination, military engagement is justified.

@Clairobscur

Your post is a rare (on this board) example of jingoism. If you’re not sure what the cause of anti-american feelings is, look in the mirror.

Actually, I do know the cause of anti-Americanism, I just find it reprehensible and juvenile.
When I look in the mirror, I see…(yikes)…you…(and you and you and you). Well, actually, I see a more tolerant “you”. In just the last few generations of my ancestral past I am mongrelized with the following blood: English, Irish, German, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish…and a little (don’t tell anybody)…French. When I picture an American in my mind, I think of a multi-hued, multi-cultural, multi-religiositied mish-mash of people. When I think of people of different nationalities, I think of them first as being my forbearers. I get along just fine with foreigners, unless they are whiney little anarchists. Trust me, I don’t love all aspects of my government, or all political administrations, unconditionally. Healthy criticism is productive. I’m not ashamed to be an American, in fact, I’m not ashamed to say I’m proud to be an American. If that is your definition of jingoism, then let me sing *jingo-bells, jingo-bells, jingo all the way. *
Now, what do you see when you look in the mirror?

@Henry-Finland

Yes, you can win any war, but not peace.

War means never having to say your sorry (or was that the theme from the movie, Love Story?!?)
If you win peace by appeasement and keeping a blind eye to threats of aggression and economic instability, at best, the peace is temporary. At worst, it buys time for tyrants to gain strength and to perform more heinous atrocities. Passivity doesn’t work with misbehaving kids, pets or tyrants. If you research more deeply than the lay press allows, you will notice that many Iraqis are already quite thankful that we attempted to liberate them. As time progresses, I predict that number will grow a great deal. At some point after that, the world at large may be forced to admit (albeit silently) that the world is a little better with one less tyrant and that the resultant long term economic stability may actually benefit many, including them.

Anti-Americanism is out there and it is vicious at times, but, if that’s what floats your boat, that’s OK. We are, for the most part, a friendly lot, and we would like to be liked, but if we’re not, we’re not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. We will still do what we feel is in our best interest to do. You may rest assured that America strives to play fairly and by the rules. Most of us don’t take offence when you criticize our culture (it is, admittedly pretty wacky, at times), but we do find it somewhat ironic that despite all that criticism, there sure does seem to be a large demand for it. You protest when we shake the tree, but I suspect louder protestations would ensue if we stopped shaking and you had to find your own [del]balls[/del] nuts.

[Rodgers01]

[QUOTE=Usram]

@Rodgers01

When I lived in the UK earlier this year, I remember walking into a bookstore in London and being struck by the fact that more than half the titles on the wall of bestselling non-fiction titles had to do with the US./QUOTE]
Unless you happened to wander into some specialist American bookshop on Charing Cross Road, I seriously doubt that. Or you have a very broad definition of “having to do with the US”. Atkins Diet books don’t count.

As I remember, it was a chain branch (Blackwell’s, I think?) near the hostel I was staying in near St. Paul’s Cathedral. This would have been sometime in January. I can’t say if it was the best-selling non-fiction books nationwide, or just at that branch, which might make a difference. All the Michael Moore books were there, as were several exposes on the Bush family, Dick Cheney, and the war in Iraq. There was one rather sinister looking book with an American soldier on the cover called “American Dream, Global Nightmare”; I opened it to a random page and read a paragraph about the Fatty Arbuckle trial in the 1920s – thought it was rather bizarre that they would reach that far back to prove their “nightmare” scenario, though maybe it worked in context.

Not that all the books were anti-American (or anti-Bush, or what have you); I think there were also books on American history, celebrities, etc. But it was definitely very heavily American; I think I even counted. I remember it clearly because it was right after I had flown into the country, and I was still kind of jet-lagged and I had a brief sense of “wait, where the hell am I?”.

[Henry-Finland]

Tibbycat!
When you can’t answer a post straight, You forge! :eek:

Your post # 114 is just snipping a sentence here, another there, and then you put your answer together.
If the other posters posts does not suit your answer, you snip them thus, altering the meaning of the post. In this case, post # 97.

And when you see that the snippets would show your tactics, you choose not to put the name of the person you are quoting. [The first and last quotes are written by me, in post # 114, and there is 7 quotes from 4 different posters between].
Nice.
It works like this (reposting my own post and the answer of Tibbycat):

---

@Henry-Finland

Yes, you can win any war, but not peace. Not even in a country that had a brutal dictator. And the reason is not the army, but extremely stupid administration.

and

@Henry-Finland

“Progress and stability” ???
You have to be joking!

• Putin is doing everything to make friends of China, (sold cruise missiles), and India. And even Europe.
• Bush administration seem to do anything to show the middle finger to Europe (except Tony that has his somewhere deep…).
• Russia has all the natural sources Europe needs. We have only a capacity to produce. And Russia needs all the products we are producing. In Europe, China and India.
• US, who has helped us before, is now indirectly pushing us in the lap of the devil. We certainly hope that the administration will be changed. By our friends in USA.

“Progress and Stability” - my ass. USA is now steaming with almost all its power to a check-mate position, taking us others with them.
Down the drain, that is.

Your army is out-strained, those that obeyed you for so long, is now knowing your position. (Look south). Just because some ignorant people believed all the shit about terrorists being in the only country in ME where they were not.

Putin and his gang is laughing in Kremlin so hard, that they have to change their pants twice a day.

---

Do not think that we hate you. We know very well that we can’t survive the hug of “those other friends”. Sorry to say: Neither will you.
Henry

---

Then the “answer” of Tibbycat:

@Tibbycat

So, why not let Russia assimilate your country? In a few months, when you peel yourself away from the bread line, you can tell me how that is working out for you…if you can figure out how to post to the Internet on an abacus. (Ok, maybe that scenario is a wee bit antiquated…but not by much).

@Tibbycat

War means never having to say your sorry (or was that the theme from the movie, Love Story?!?)
If you win peace by appeasement and keeping a blind eye to threats of aggression and economic instability, at best, the peace is temporary. At worst, it buys time for tyrants to gain strength and to perform more heinous atrocities. Passivity doesn’t work with misbehaving kids, pets or tyrants. If you research more deeply than the lay press allows, you will notice that many Iraqis are already quite thankful that we attempted to liberate them. As time progresses, I predict that number will grow a great deal. At some point after that, the world at large may be forced to admit (albeit silently) that the world is a little better with one less tyrant and that the resultant long term economic stability may actually benefit many, including them.

Anti-Americanism is out there and it is vicious at times, but, if that’s what floats your boat, that’s OK. We are, for the most part, a friendly lot, and we would like to be liked, but if we’re not, we’re not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. We will still do what we feel is in our best interest to do. You may rest assured that America strives to play fairly and by the rules. Most of us don’t take offence when you criticize our culture (it is, admittedly pretty wacky, at times), but we do find it somewhat ironic that despite all that criticism, there sure does seem to be a large demand for it. You protest when we shake the tree, but I suspect louder protestations would ensue if we stopped shaking and you had to find your own [del]balls[/del] nuts.

Sir, you do not see where those are that in reality ruins your country, ruins an old friendship, and thus you have to imagine that the remote friends of your country are the enemy, the anti-American!

Pathetic!
Henry

[Tibby]

We’ve got bigger missiles than you, I’ll snip as I please.

But, what the heck does this mean:

@Henry Finland

Sir, you do not see where those are that in reality ruins your country,…

[Henry-Finland]

Tibbycat does the same snipping/forging with the irishgirl’s post, post # 98.
And again, surprise, surprise, Tibbycat finds an anti-American ‘foe’.

Henry

[Tibby]

What, are you, the international snip-cop? So, I wasn’t savvy about your little <snip> tag. Just imagine that it’s in my quotes above. Then, calm down and take a laxative. <snip> <snip> <snip>

[Henry-Finland]

@Tibbycat

We’ve got bigger missiles than you, I’ll snip as I please.

But, what the heck does this mean:

@Henry Finland

Sir, you do not see where those are that in reality ruins your country,…

It means, what many posters here has pointed out:

• Your administration is ruining our friend USA.

And my post before meant:

• Your administration is ruining our friend USA.
• We, USA and the rest of the Greek-Roman-western civilisation needs to work together. United we stand…
• Within some decades or a century, our (your, mine) culture, as we know it, is on stake.
• Saddam was not the threat.
• Your administration is spoiling our future, (your, mine), absolutely not the American people (US-citizens).

---

Just for your knowledge:

• We, Finland, was very alone 1939, except for Sweden, USA and Canada. These countries helped us.
• 1944 we were very alone, except for that “someone” whispered to Stalin’s ear that an occupation of Finland would not be proper.
  We never forget that deed as we never forget our forefathers that kept us free.
  Finland was the most pro-American in Europe during the Kennedy-era.

Kennedy, facing the wall in Berlin, said: “Ich bin ein Berliner!”
We understood that he speaks about the “whole wall”, the Iron Curtain, not just some concrete-wall in Berlin. US guaranteed the status quo.
As I said, we never forget.

The last decades USA has gone further away, and since Reagan it seems that USA believes it will stand alone or act at will, and still win.
It does not work thus.
Our heritage is at stake, (yours, mine), and the world is getting smaller every day.
We have to face facts, we have to try to tell “the others” about our culture etc., trying to increase our influence. Influence through your “bigger missiles” is very short-sighted. As you can clearly see in Iraq, whose people took you first as their liberators, and now fights you. Why?
That you can read here:
How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq

How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq

Henry