“Anti-American” is a term that is thrown around a lot. Off the top of my (left-leaning) head, I hear it used most frequently as a right-wing all-purpose counter-attack against criticisms of conservative ideologies. More specifically, I have seen it use to counter criticism of:
…the policies of the President and/or his cabinet. But wouldn’t anti-administration be more accurate?
…the current war. But wouldn’t anti-war be more accurate?
…“traditional conservative family values.” But wouldn’t liberal or progressive be more accurate?
I guess what I’m troubled by is (my perception of) the conservative half of this country equating “American values” with “Conservative values,” thereby excluding — and insulting — anyone who doesn’t agree with them. When I examine it’s usage, it seems like nothing more than the (not so) grown-up version of juvenile name-calling. I love America despite the fact that I loathe the current administration. When I use the term “American” I don’t equate it with my “liberal values.” Instead, I use it to refer to it’s Constitution and it’s people.
So in my head, “Anti-American” are those things that either:
[list=a]
[li]run ideologically counter to the Constitution[/li][li]put the citizens of the country in danger.[/li][/list]
I agree with that definition in so far as it goes, but I would extend it to a third point: things that run counter to the spirit upon which the nation was built (and rebuilt, after the Civil War), eg self-reliance, equality, independence, etc…
But getting back to the origin of this thread, back in Cafe Society, the plot that the person spoke of was predicated upon portraying Americans as being the bad guys in a foreign war. While it’s fine to be anti-a-particular-war (as opposed to being a pacifist…that’s another argument), and it doesn’t make you anti-American, to publically portray your fellow countrymen, your military and your government as the bad guys in a war, particularly in a war against an enemy as ruthless and barbaric as the one we’re fighting, is being anti-American IMHO. It’s one thing to argue the justification for a war; it’s entirely another to portray your country as the bad guy in that war.
I always thought “anti-American” simply meant anything that attacked the basic principles of the United States, or intended to do America harm. And I always thought the basic principles included freedoms of expression and from oppression; the rule of law, and the right to protest and change that law peacefully; the right to do business and make a profit, within the laws and rules of fairness and safety.
I disagree. I think the plot in the other person’s thread wasn’t saying the Americans are “the” bad guys, only that they are not “the” good guys. There doesn’t have to be a “good” side and a “bad” side; both sides could be good, or, much more likely, both sides could be considered “bad”.
Is it anti-American to point out that the U.S. may be doing some bad things? No, I don’t think so. I’d consider it anti-American to ignore those people, though.
It portrayed the administration as the bad guys. Not the country, not the soldiers, not the citizens of the country, only the people in power. (I’m still talking about the fictional account, not real life).
What’s the difference between anti-a-particular war and regarding those people complicit in the objectionable aspects of the war as bad guys? I don’t understand.
If anything, the unquestioning acceptance of an attitude like yours is about as anti-American as you can get – this nation requires its citizens to speak out against the government when its leaders are committing atrocities. “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.”
As an outsider, my jaded perception is that it is a new term, having arisen pretty much out of a need to fill the vacuum left by the obsolesence of the term Communist.
No, actually you’re quite wrong on more than one point.
First of all, I never suggested an unquestioning acceptance of anything.
Second, it’s your opinion that our leaders are comitting atrocities, not an established fact.
Third, it’s also just your opinion that this country is in the wrong, also not an established fact.
I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. If you want a for-instance, I would say that any attempt to socialize our industries would be anti-American.
I disagree with your characterization of his plot.
Because there can be honest differences of opinion as to whether a particular war is justifiable or warranted without either side of the argument being “bad guys.”
Torture is always an atrocity, and always wrong. Devastating a country that was no threat to you and reducing int to the mess Iraq is in is an atrocity, and always wrong. They’ve done plenty of other evil things as well. In a just world the majority of the American leadership would be tried for crimes against humanity and executed.
But what if your country really is the bad guy in that war? Let’s leave Iraq aside for a moment and pick an example that should be less contentious: Nazi Germany. Would a German citizen who felt that the Nazi party was an active evil and had no right to invade its neighbors be “anti-German,” under your definition?
And no, I’m not saying our current government is in anyway analogous to the Third Reich.
Also:
How do you justify that in light of the end of rjung’s post?
His idea ends with the architects of the wat being taken down by the American press/political system, and explicitly says the movie should end on a “support the troops” message. How does that make either the country or the military itself the “bad guys” in his plot?
Can there be honest differences of opinion as to whether a particular war is justifiable or warranted without either side of the argument being “Anti-American”?
Bearing in mind that “Anti-American” seems to be slang for “bad guys”, these days, i’d be interested in your answer.
No, not only are you making a subjective judgment about what is and is not torture, you’re ascribing the blame for the so-called torture in Abu Ghraib onto the administration without evidence.
You’re also making a subjective judgment about the state of Iraq now as opposed to the state of Iraq antebellum.
Both subjective statements I disagree with.
If you firmly believe your country is wrong, and your government voted according to its laws to go to a war you think is evil, you have no moral choice but to leave. Such as Einstein and many others did.
But here’s a hint: if you don’t leave but just keep speaking out against the government and they don’t arrest you and/or have you killed…you’re probably wrong about them being evil.
That idea is ludicrous and just about impossible to accomplish in any realistic way. The “architects of the war” were our whole political system. It was voted on in congress and approved by an overwhelming measure.
I already explained that. Just because someone disagrees with someone else about whether a war is justified doesn’t make them bad. It MAY mean one side is mistaken, or it may just mean that neither side has a complete picture of the facts and are forced to make assumptions…some of which may turn out later to be mistaken. In that case, neither side is evil or anti-American.
IMHO, though, once the Congress approves a war, the die is cast. The time to argue against a war is before it’s waged, not in the middle of it.
At any rate, I suggested that Hey You start these two threads so I could explain my position and I’ve done that. Now I will go back to the reason I hang out at SDMB, Cafe Society. Adios.
People died; if that’s not torture nothing is. The Admin wrote the justifications for torture and have tried to pretend it’s no big deal when caught; that’s plenty of evidence.
The Iraqis hate us and want us dead; their opinion is what matters.
I can’t think of a response to that doesn’t break the GD rules against personal accusation or insult.
Or try to tear it down and replace it with something better, like an obscure fellow by the name of Gearge Washington. Heard of him ?
Or . . . they just don’t care. Besides, the government does arrest and harass people who disagree with it. “Free Speech Zones” and all that nonsense.
Really? No moral choice at all? So, what would be your opinion of a German who stayed in Germany and gave covert aid to the Allies to overthrow the Hitler’s regime? Would such a person be immoral, in your view? Just another Vidkun Quisling?
Of course, the Nazis did arrest and kill people who spoke out against them, so that’s pretty irrelevant to my post.
Yeah, well, so is the idea of freezing a guy in a block of ice for fifty years, then thawing him out to fight space aliens.
rjung’s plot specifically included the idea that this was the result of an illegal conspiracy by the upper echelons of our government, using manufactured evidence to dupe the electorate. Not our whole political system. But that’s besides the point. The question wasn’t about the feasibility of rjung’s post. The question was, how can you read rjung’s post as saying America as a nation is evil, or that our troops as individuals are evil, when what rjung wrote and flatly contradicts that interpretation?
A truly vile sentiment. An attitude which leads straight towards a 1984 style permanent war which can be used to justify anything, and demand no one question.