man what is thomas greg fucking talking about?
look at his grammar.
Man what is ThomasGreg fucking talking about? Look at his grammar.
Like that yeh?
Olentzero:
Hello there, Olentzero. Is King anti-American? I wouldn’t say that, though if he truly believes that the problem of racism in 60’s America - while it was indeed horrible - was a more pernicious evil than, say, the deliberate mass-starvations in Maoist China, or the forced labor of the Soviet Gulag, then he’s a fool. My guess would be that his statement was simple hyperbole. However, the fact of the matter was that racism was an awful problem then, in a very real way, and it was in many ways sanctioned by the American government. The problem of American “terrorism”, however, doesn’t compare, as it’s imagined and overblown by those whom I would label “anti-American”. You can’t always view history through a modern-day lens.
I didn’t mean to imply that Chomsky is quite that blunt in his anti-Americanism - my example was solely to demonstrate that one doesn’t have to say that one is anti-American in order to be so, that indeed, most who would fall in that category would deny it. However, just as mine was an example of someone who was clearly racist in spite of protestations to the contrary, I see Chomsky as someone who is blatantly anti-American, regardless of whether or not he admits it. However, it takes some familiarity with his work to really see it. Any one soundbite of his could probably be defended. His work taken in whole, IMO, can’t - in much the same way that Trent Lott’s one verbal flub could be explained away without resorting to charges of racism, but all of his actions over the years taken in whole make it hard to deny.
sailor:
You don’t have to necessarily want America destroyed in order to be anti-American, just as - to fall back on the racism parallel - you don’t have to want all blacks killed to be racist. I Know Lots summarized it somewhat better than I did above. Some people automatically assume that whatever the US does is bad, by virtue of the fact that it’s the US doing it. Everything this nation does has ulterior motives. If we go to war, it’s because we want oil. If we don’t go to war, it’s because we don’t want to destroy the oil. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Anti-Americans tend to define America by what they consider the worst things we’ve done. Ask an anti-American for a brief synopsis of 20th century US history, and you’ll get the following.
“Well, first you oppressed all the poor people. Then you threw a bunch of Japanese in internment camps for no good reason. Followed this up by screaming “McCarthyism” right and left, declared a bunch of illegal wars, and murdered babies in Vietnam. Propped up dictators so you could buy cheap oil, oppressed poor people some more, exported McDonalds and Starbucks to the world, and then commited some more illegal wars, all so you could save a nickel on gas.”
Going back to Chomsky, if he had to summarize the 20th century, it would look pretty much like the above. While some of it is accurate, it’s by no means complete, and much is taken out of context, while no mention is made of any good that has been done by the US.
I suppose whether or not you perceive 99.9999% of the charges as being bogus depends on who you listen to. If your source of news is Rush Limbaugh, then maybe. Personally, I read slightly more nuanced writings, and when I hear the term “anti-American” bandied about, there’s a good chance I agree.
Jeff
First of all, the second quote above should be attributed to Avalonian. My bad.
Secondly, there’s also the foreign brand of anti-Americanism, which is just the assumption that Americans are inferior to… well, whoever is doing the assuming. It presupposes that Americans are vulgar, ignorant, violent, prejudiced, and so on. This can be seen in a lovely little email I stumbled across, that is allegedly making the rounds in Europe:
Lovely, no?
Jeff
That’s a pretty strong statement to make about somebody. What specific positions or writings of his do you base it on? For those of us not familiar with Chompsky.
I called BS on this soon after it was published. Noam, I’m waiting for my retraction.
C’mon, folks. Lets not stray from the OP, please.
“clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”-- From MLK in 1967, as per the above post.
I would have no hesitation in saying that this is an anti-American statement. That doesn’t necessarily make the person who said it anti-American. I’d only consider someone to be anti-American if they ranted on and on in the same tone (w/o backing up any of their statements w/ facts) constantly. But, really, name calling is a pretty pointless activity. Calling someone anti-American, to me, is about as meaningful as calling someone a racist. It’s too easy and too vague to really man anything.
Being the 800 lb gorilla makes the US the likeliest target of anti-whatever sentiment. But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be wise to tread a bit more lightly in the world.
If it weren’t for the way words like “favor” are spelled (i.e., “favour”) that e-mail you quote would, upon first glance, look like standard redneck-baiting. However, it’s not a completely thorough job because it doesn’t mention Americans listening to country music, living in trailer parks, operating meth labs, being Klansmen/Neo-Nazis, and having unconventional relationships with livestock.
Actually, that e-mail seems to be one of the consequences of our importing “Jerry Springer” and “Cops” overseas–those shows become the image many Europeans have of life in America.
Is there anyone who here who would hesitate to say that Ossama bin Laden is anti-American?
Or how about this? I would say that those Americans calling for a boycott of French products are anti-French. Perhaps that’s a good example of someone being anti-other-than-American.
Certainly, though I think it speaks ill of any Europeans who watch Jerry Springer that they would believe the people on that show are indicative of the behaviors of anything but a miniscule number of Americans. And they claim that we know nothing about European culture? 
Jeff
Beagle, thank you for that spectacular example of Chomskian anti-Americanism. Saved me some leg work.
Jeff
Isn’t that really anti-Bushism? I haven’t heard anyone seriously ascribe those ulterior motives to “the US” as a whole, only to our current administration.
As was said above, the term is used all too often IMO to describe americans who disagree with american policies. To call someone anti-american for excercising freedom of speech seems a little anti-american to me…
I think that people who are always looking for whats wrong with the country are our greatest asset. If we pretend that we are always doing a great job, we will never work to make anything better. We should always question the government because the only purpose of government is supposed to be serving the people; us. I think we should always question the media too, but thats another story…
The term is part of GWB’s new brand of doublespeak. I know the people out there who count themselves in the Republican camp denounce it as ludicrious, but look at what absolute abuse of language has taken place since Bush got into office- 1. a vast, sweeping law enforcement package was called the “Patriot Act”, when only the most perverse stretch of the imagination could name it that. 2. Suddenly, the United States is re-named the Homeland. Where the fuck did that come from? Why not “Dept of Domestic Security?” 3. Invasions overseas start getting increasingly banal names- “Operation Enduring Freedom”? “Operation Iraqi Freedom”? Give me “Desert Storm” any day.
And the biggest doublespeak of all… “Anti-American”.
This is my primary contention : ** Manipulating language is an almost unconcious way to manipulate the way we think. ** If you need more proof of this than political theorists and psychologists have written about since the 60s, consider the phenomon of Political Correctness. Liberal camps introduced words to describe minorities and such that were acceptable, and demonized those that werent. Nowadays there is a genuine emotional responce to calling someone “fat” or a “midgit”. Our gut reactions are shaped by the language we are taught.
This is not to say that previous administrations and political movements havn’t tried to do the same thing; undoubtedly they have. But the doublespeak I’m hearing now is especially sinister because of the taxonomial dichotomies it draws. “Anti-American”, for instance, encompasses both the widlest terrorist and the most humble critic of foriegn policy in the same conceptual box. As it becomes a commonly hurled word, these groups both draw a stigma (especially amoung young people just learning the language!) and people’s opinions change.
I wasn’t always dead set against the Cheney administration, but I think the domestic reaction to people who opposed this military action has convinced me otherwise. People are turning on their countrymen and slandering them for their disagreement. They are spitting at the overseas protestors and proclaiming that those people are either ignorant or just self-interested. The glimmer of respect for the opinions of others that was the foundation of this country always flickers in troubled times… I pray that Cheney doesnt find a way to make it permenant this time.
-C
Person A states a position and their reasons for it.
Person B instead of providing a real counterargument simply calls the position of person A or person A themselves the appropriate name(ie unpatriotic, racist, homophobic…). Person B then goes on, ignoring all statements from person A. Usually quite a bit of shouting follows.
This helps no one understand the issues any better, but it makes for good TV. So we see it over and over again from both sides of the political aisle.
And they wonder why Americans are so apathetic when it comes to politics.
I would certainly agree that we can use a word to describe the persistent knee-jerk complaints of Ramsey Clark that serves as a counterpart to the knee-jerk jingoism of a Charles Krauthammer. However, “anti-Americanism” does not serve that purpose. While jingo has a long and dishonorable history of indicating mindless support for the actions of one’s country, particularly in extending power outside the country, “anti-Americanism” is a more particular complaint, challenging one’s patriotism rather than challenging one’s perspective.
In addition, it is not (and has never been) limited to people who are simply hypercritical. It has always been used (by both the Right and Left, depending who was in power) to portray critics as seeking to destroy the fabric of our society. Once used, it is then extended from hypercritics to all criticism. As such, it is merely a weapon of repression. People who oppose hypercritical comments need to coin a new word that actually describes the activity of those who are excessively or reflexively condemnatory. Otherwise, hurling “McCarthyism” at the users of “anti-Americanism” is appropriate–one mindless demonization for another.
It’s certainly possible that someone could use the term “Anti-English” or “Anti-British” in the UK, although I doubt it would cause the same kind of ruckus that it does in the States (but then, not much does). However, I think the only time someone would use such terms would be referring to the attitudes of Republicans in Northern Ireland - people who are specifically and ideologically Anti British and say so with regularity. I don’t believe it would occur to someone to use the term to describe an act of criticising the government, or even criticising England or the UK as a whole. While it might be an anti-British sentiment to say that the island is full of limp wristed soppy individuals in bowler hats, I feel it unlikely that someone would actually say that.
On the other hand, the UK is not an ideology, it is a place, wheras the USA, as Hitchens correctly pointed out, is a mindset as well. What that mindset actually is is entirely fluid, and can mean whatever you want it to mean, I suppose. But the fact is that people are used to the idea of being an American meaning more than just a description of the place where you live, or of certain cultural mores and pecadilloes. It is, like every aspect of national or cultual character, at once a strength and a flaw.
I think the problem with “Anti-American” is that, while it may have a genuine use in the world, and there have been good suggestions from all sides as to what it means to be anti-American, it is used for everyone that does not agree with Bush, or agrees with Clinton, or has a sensible haircut. It has been diluted beyond recognition so that, like “Communist” or “Liberal”, its use immediately smacks of an ad hominem attack, whether it was or not. There may well be “real” Anti-Americans, but how do we know what you mean when the term is so broad and all encompassing? I read an article not so long ago, I might have linked to it on this board, making a case for the Bush Administration being classified as “Anti American.” It’s interesting, because America’s “idealogue” nature makes it probably the one nation where the head of state could be Anti-(Insert.State.Here). However, the cumulative effect of all this is that the term is now so diluted as to become meaningless.
Where to go, though, is the problem. The problem is much like us “liberals” - what do we use to replace the term that has been bastardised into an insult in the USA? To me, “liberal” means a desire for universal freedom and equality, a love of peace, and a burden to change things for the better. To most of the UK, “Liberal” means someone vaguely left leaning with pro-socialist tendencies. To someone on the American Right, “liberal” means I’m a sponger off the state who never wants to do any work and wants everyone to be gay. Really, I should be able to drop the term and replace it with another one, and as often as I can I try to describe myself as “progressive” or “world federalist” or, my personal favourite, “one of them liberal lefty pinko commies (for whom hanging is definitely too good)”, forcing the stereotype out into the open to expose the ridiculousness of it all. It’s not an ideal solution, and a term I can use to describe myself in the UK is something that means something completely different across the pond, which makes this whole “separation by a common language thing” keep cropping up again and again.
What can someone who genuinely wants to describe the actual phenomenon of Anti-Americanism do, given that the term has been bastardised into uselessness? My only advice would be to avoid it wherever possible, and qualify it where it is used, or think of a new term that describes what you want it to describe and has not been picked up by the kneejerkers. Then, maybe even us liberals would feel able to use it without betraying our Hive Mind Conditioning.
So GWB is clever enough to fool the American people with doublespeak, although he’s also too stupid to speak coherently. 
Beagle, was that quotation from the link you posted? I skimmed the link to see what the context was and couldn’t find the quoted passage.