# Let's define "Anti-American."
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 28, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565 "2006-08-28T19:44:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)
#### Post date: [August 28, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/1 "2006-08-28T19:44:29Z")
_Apologies if this has been done before._
“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]
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 28, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/2 "2006-08-28T21:07:12Z")
> [@Hey you!](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)
#### Post date: [August 28, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/3 "2006-08-28T21:23:31Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)
#### Post date: [August 28, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/4 "2006-08-28T21:50:30Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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 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.
---
### Author:  [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)
#### Post date: [August 28, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/5 "2006-08-28T22:28:41Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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…
Could you elaborate a little more?
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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).
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/6 "2006-08-29T00:23:40Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> …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.
Poppycock.
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.** ”
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/7 "2006-08-29T00:37:41Z")
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_.
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/8 "2006-08-29T00:38:50Z")
> [@rjung](#):
>
> Poppycock.
>
> 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.** ”
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.
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/9 "2006-08-29T00:41:32Z")
> [@Hey you!](#):
>
> Could you elaborate a little more?
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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).
I disagree with your characterization of his plot.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.”
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/10 "2006-08-29T00:48:04Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/11 "2006-08-29T00:48:40Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> Third, it’s also just your opinion that this country is in the wrong, also not an established fact.
Yeah, dopey me for thinking that an unprovoked invasion over fabricated claims of WMDs and Abu Garade-style torturning are American values. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/12 "2006-08-29T00:51:03Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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:
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> I disagree with your characterization of his plot.
How do you justify that in light of the end of **rjung** ’s post?
> [@rjung](#):
>
> Cap ends up passing the documents to his journalist friend, igniting a political sh\*tstorm at home, but stays in Iraq to fight on, out of a sense of duty to help his brothers in arms survive the quagmire they’re now in and return home.
>
> Yeah, Act III would be a tough sell, but given the populace’s growing discontent for the war and distrust for the Bush Administration, it might not be as tough as it first looks. Especially if the movie ends on a support-the-troops note, which is a very Cap attitude.
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?
---
### Author:  [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/13 "2006-08-29T00:51:42Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.”
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.
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/14 "2006-08-29T00:59:06Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/15 "2006-08-29T01:04:58Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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?
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.
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/16 "2006-08-29T01:07:47Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#):
>
> 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”?
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.
---
### Author:  [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/17 "2006-08-29T01:08:55Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/18 "2006-08-29T01:22:57Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> You’re also making a subjective judgment about the state of Iraq now as opposed to the state of Iraq antebellum.
The Iraqis hate us and want us dead; their opinion is what matters.
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> Both subjective statements I disagree with.
I can’t think of a response to that doesn’t break the GD rules against personal accusation or insult.
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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 ?
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/19 "2006-08-29T01:27:10Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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?
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
Of course, the Nazis did arrest and kill people who spoke out against them, so that’s pretty irrelevant to my post.
> [@](#):
>
> That idea is ludicrous and just about impossible to accomplish in any realistic way.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> The “architects of the war” were our whole political system. It was voted on in congress and approved by an overwhelming measure.
**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?
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565/20 "2006-08-29T01:29:08Z")
> [@RikWriter](#):
>
> 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.
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.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-anti-american/370565.md?page=2)