You’ve really got something for this Allende character, don’t you? Seriously, I notice you drop his name in like people trying to nudge their way into Hollywood! 
Actually, I would love a few cites if they are pretty coherent and exhibit some attempt at an objective opinion.
Seriously, guin, do you think a country should act against its interests? 
I would have assumed that the fact the US messed up with Chile fell in the “common knowledge” category. But anyway, since the question is : “why do they bash the US?”, it is viewed as a fact by a lot of people, and indeed it certainly contributed to the opinion they have about the US.
Though I’m not guin, I would certainly expect from a country that it would, at least within certain limits, acts against its interests in the name of its values. And especially when it boasts about the latter. Now, perhaps I’m totally unrealistic, but it doesn’t really matter in this debate. If a country act only according to its interests, why its citizens should display any kind of proudness? And how would they expect their country not to be criticized???
Which only extends the question like nested Russian dolls… why would you adopt a value system which didn’t work for your interests? Doesn’t that seem a little self-defeating?
You’ve confused me more
May I request the right to, at some future point, use this line to your credit?
Some day, you and I will meet on the battlefield of self-interest versus altruism. Probably a steel cage match. 
There are lots of reasons.
One is most likely due to the fact that American politics is a very large and very vast field with incredibly diverse branches from the military to benevolent missions. So usually you can find a contradictory approach to almost anything involving foreign diplomacy. Especially since many of them have different goals. Often leading to feelings of frustration and anger from those who see America as one single unit.
The reason we don’t switch and can’t switch out the executive branch in 1 day is quite clear. We have checks and balances that assure that no part of our government can gather into it all power. Something that nations like the UK don’t have. When the new parliament was elected it was given right to Tony Blair and he could give offices to whomever he so pleases. For us the President has to come to our Senate and ask if he can give this job to this person and then they decide. Most nations used to have this again like the UK. But the House of Commons has appropriated almost all power there is. They still have vestiges however, I believe QEII still had approve Blair as PM, although as I understand it there’s no way she would ever deny someone elected the office, making it a non-event, but a nice photo-op.
Bad tourists I can assure you have absolutely nothing to do with nationality, it’s all about age. We were in England and Ireland this July and the entire place was overrun by the rudest most obnoxious people on earth, teenagers. Most of them were French, but that should be beside the point.
I think another part is culture. I’m not sure why some countires are so enamored with our pop culture but they are. And as always the older generations really hate this. Don’t worry, they hate it here too. There are some really great cultural things in America, really great, but you have to work for it, and it’s more expensive but it’s there and it’s some of the thigns I’ve most enjoyed in my life. As proof I humbly offer up The Straight Dope and it’s guru Cecil Adams. Not bad eh?
Im reluctant to enter this cheese debate but, really, have you people never heard of such names as:
Cheddar, Stilton, Red Leicester, Double Gloucester, Wensleydale, Cheshire
Not to mention Camembert, Brie, Feta, Mozarella
You dont seem to have a clue what cheese can be like. The heights that humble cheese can reach.
Pasteurised, processed cheese - oh pleeease, give me a break.
I like eris’ comment. But I look around this world and all I see are countries being extremely proud of histories that are nothing short of being chock-full with self interest.
Oh, and back to the OP. I think that there’s also this sense of **** that other countries no longer have, or maybe never had in the first place.
**** = profuse optimism or naivity. Naivity like the Victorians who they could right all wrongs if they just passed the right laws.
I’m talking about Cuba before Castro-who, might I add, was probably our fault as well. Everyone was so fed up by the crap we pulled, they supported Castro.
I bring up Allende’s name because it’s a valid point-the man was elected democratically. We didn’t like the fact that he was a Marxist, so we overthrew him, most likely murdered him, and brought in Pinochet, who was a monster.
Oh, I’m sorry december-I forgot, Pinochet just got a bad rap, huh?
Among those out there who take the side of the OP, there seem to be some common arguments:
The countries that criticise us aren’t as important as us so what they say doesn’t matter.
The countries that criticise us are far from perfect themselves, so instead of even listening to what anyone else has to say we’ll just point the finger back and say "I know you are, but what am I?
Despite the fact that the countries who criticise us are unimportant, we’ll still spend heaps of time playing the poor, downtrodden superpower. Woe is me! Mom, tell them them to stop picking on me!
Because we are the US, and therefore the best by definition, there’s no need to engage with anyone else’s argument.
The funny thing is that the Americans who are the least concerned about what others say are generally those who contribute the most to the US’s poor reputation. Those who make the effort to actually understand the concerns of non-Americans are not tarred with the same brush. Most non-Americans i know are willing and able to make the distinction between the two groups.
By the way, Guinastasia, i agree with your most recent post, but most Chile scholars (even supporters of Allende) tend to conclude that he committed suicide, although the US-backed military coup and the fact that he probably would have been killed anyway were no doubt responsible for his decision.
And i think that those of us from other countries should also be willing to recognise the less-than-perfect aspects of our own histories. For example, i’m from Australia and aspects of my country’s history of which i’m not proud include (but are not limited to):
I don’t necessarily feel personally responsible for all these things (although i realise that responsibility extends beyond the direct perpetrators in some cases), and i can listen to criticism of them without being so insecure as to think that the criticism is directed at me personally. I think too many people invest too much of their own personal worth in the doings of their government and the wealthy elites that control so much of what goes on in modern society.
I’m not really convinced. Here at least (and in my understanding in other west european countries, with, for some reason, the possible exception of Spain), expressing one’s proudness in one’s country, or obvious displays of patriotism tend to be frowned upon and considered with deep suspicion as hinting to an extreme-right political agenda.
I don’t mean that the average european, guts-driven, will never try to prove that his country is better than some foreign interlocutor’s country. But on the overall, in everyday life, in ordinary conversation, nationalism is out of place, and I would say, not really politically correct.
This could, by the way, explain partially why something which would appear to an american as a banal expression of patriotism could be interpreted by an european reader unnacustomed to them as an unbearable display of arrogance.
Thinking twice, I believe that paradoxally bashing another country would more acceptable (than expressing proudness of his own), and is certainly more common.Of course, it will still be frowned upon, with one exception…yes, you guessed it, american bashing is usually perfectly accepted.
Forgive me for saying so, mhendo, but I missed seeing the “supporters” that were doing what you mentioned in those four points.
Well, see, though I may not get quite so much of it on the boards I do hear it quite a bit at work, where I have the opportunity to work and associate with many people from all over Canada and Europe, and even two Asians. And rarely do I hear “America.” I hear “Americans.” Let me give you a sample of some of the crazy stuff I hear sometimes.
“What’s with Americans and peanut butter?”
“You Americans don’t care about helping people.”
“Well, Americans are mostly concerned with wealth.”
“Yeah, but not many Americans care enough about people to allow nationalised medicine.” (guess where that came from)
All I can say is: whatever. A very common remark is how “America’s” capitalism doesn’t work for everyone (to which I would say, no kidding), but for some reason other countries solutions to their problems seem to be perfectly applicable to America. :rolleyes:
Actually, I should have wrote america’s bashing, which is more on the money.
Honnestly, I didn’t read your post before correcting my own. I changed the wordings since in this context “americans” is actually intended to mean “america”. Though this turn of the language probably isn’t innocent.
erislover wrote to guinastasia:
The very fact that you call him “this Allende character” implies that you know very little about him. That’s fair enough - the world’s a big place and no-one can know everything. But one of the most common complaints i hear made about America is that (whether due to the education system, the media, or some combination of other factors) so many people here have so little idea about what goes on outside their own borders.
For info on Allende, hie thee to a library and get:
Tulio Halperín Donghi, The Contemporary History of Latin America, ed. and trans. John Charles Chasteen, Macmillan, London, 1993. (a text that includes an overview of what happened in Chile in the 1970s)
Gabriel Kolko, Confronting the Third World: United States Foreign Policy 1945-1980, Pantheon Books, New York, 1988. (obvious from the title - contains stuff on Chile)
Nathaniel Davis, The last two years of Salvador Allende, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1985.
Mark Falcoff, Modern Chile, 1970-1989 : a critical history, Transaction Publishers, 1989.
See also these articles on the web:
1. 2. 3. and 4. (this page has a bibliography; go to the bottom of it for more links)
If you want a book that compares the US media’s coverage of international news with the media in other countries, see:
Robert Donovan and Ray Scherer, Unsilent Revolution: Television News and American Public Life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
No one bashes America more than myself. I am totally disgusted by our government, its’ illegal laws, and its system of justice. It is not the Country the Founders set up. It is the rule of the Usurpers, and by every rule in the book, “They have no right to be obeyed.”
However, in response to those who bash America from outside, on any and all issues, from every angle, and at every turn, I can only say, why is it, that every time you need someone to bail your ass out of some problem, you put your hand out. Hell, we still haven’t been paid for the second world war. We supplied almost all the armaments, and a large portion of the manpower, with the understanding that it would be repaid after the war. In fact we were paid nothing, after every country guaranteed that we would be repaid. We saved the asses, of most of the asses, who tell us our business. It is obvious that without U.S. technology, and inventions, the rest of this planet would be in sorry ass shape.[emphasis added]
Further, without the U.S. it is clear that Europe, and the messes they keep getting themselves into, not only need our guidance and help, they could not survive without it. With the mass genocides, and ethnic cleansings, I find it incredible when they call themselves civilized, and us cowboys, or unprincipled. It is U.S. standards and ideals which the entire world envys, they know it, we know it, and I know it. Bash that butthead!!
Quite right, but from the point of view of a foreigner directly affected by US foreign policy (good and bad), this is often academic. The cause is usually complex, but the effect is often simple. If the US invades, defends, places sanctions against, or arms Country X (or even if it decides not to do those things), it is immaterial to the citizens of that country how that decision was reached, and how much lobbying, campaigning, protest, and congressional debate was involved. I’d also suggest that there are plenty of Americans who see the U.S. as one single unit.
If you’re confining this to the executive alone, then yes, maybe so. But the Westminster System of government does have the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, which separates the executive, judiciary, and police forces. I’m sure the US has a similar thing.
Prime Ministers in places like the UK and Australia do have more power of this type than a US President has. They are extremely powerful in cabinet, but once parliament is in session they are, in a lot of ways, just another MP. And Commander in Chief of the defence forces? Forget it.
It is fairly unthinkable that the Queen would overrule the result of an election, but at least one serving government has been dismissed by a Governer General.
[sub]Oh yes, and we make bloody good cheese.[/sub]
Dave Stewart said:
Yeah, and Castro offering to send observers to Florida–which as far as I was concerned made the whole thing worthwhile. But the question has to be asked–who cares?
In most banana republics the party out of power doesn’t end up winning the election, last I looked.
Sensitive in the sense of not liking to be criticized, sure, and Asian democracies may well have regard for foreign opinion. But my example was China–if you have evidence that the PRC government changes its policies due to foreign opinion (as opposed to trying to look nicer when they want something from foreign countries, which isn’t the same thing), then I’d like to see it.
Roughly and not very clearly, you’re describing the presidential constitutionnal system (US) as opposed to the parliamentary constitutionnal system (UK). Both systems are used by various democratic countries in the world. Some of them, like the UK have a parliamentary system for historical reasons. Most others (Germany, Italy, for instance) don’t have a king and nevertheless choose a parliamentary system. There are arguments pro and against both of them.
Very roughly, the presidential system insures that the executive and legislative are independant from each other. The parliamentary system insures that both have a control on the other (the prime minister can break the parliament and organize new elections, the parliament can dismiss and replace the prime minister). The goal of both system is to make sure that nobody can gather all powers. The fact that you’re accustomed to one of them doesn’t mean it’s the better, as you seem to imply.
By the way, when you say that the president has to come to the senate, does this apply to the nomination of the state secretary, for instance?
Sorry for the bold characters…I messed up something…
Based on those three words, I nominate Usurper for the Oxymoron Award of the Week.
Do you think the changes to get into WTO were insignificant.
It seems obvious to me that during the Hainan plane incident, representatives of the US and China got together for some horse trading. They came to an understanding on return of the plane, Taiwan and the Beijing Olympic bid. Not something that I can prove in a GD.