ruadh,
You might have a point there…the standard of comedy here is pretty good at the moment. Still, “Friends” is enjoyable as a ‘safe’ choice every now and then.
Matt (debating whether to go with a trip to the pub or the entire first series of “Red Dwarf” on UK Gold…oh well, I could use a drink)
I never touched him, ref, honest!
Joeyblades, A number of the quotes you picked out as examples of “insensitivity” were from me. I have been very careful not to generalise in this thread, and you have done me a disservice by taking my remarks out of context.
On each of these occasions, I was referring specifically to views expressed by NightGirl, Sentinel and Rainbowcsr, as the third quote makes clear, and as is clear from the context of the other two. You have quoted me in such a way as to suggest that I was talking about Americans in general, which I certainly was not.
I was responding to the suggestion that all the provision of social health care and education in Europe was inferior to the system in the States because Europeans complained about it (to be more accurate, because he once heard a German complaining about their system). I was pointing out that everybody complains about the state of their own nation and that Americans are no different. I do not see how this is “insensitive”.
It is a simple fact that McDonald’s is an American corporation, with its origins in the USA, as are KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc. They may not be representative of American food, but I wasn’t the one who first dragged them into the argument: It was an American poster (one of the three cited above, I forget which) who first suggested that the global proliferation of American fast-food outlets was a sign of American greatness. I was countering this with the suggestion that it was necessary to examine their quality as well as their prevalence. I know that a lot of Americans think it’s crap too.
As I said before, if you want examples of really offensive generalisations, read the posts by NightGirl who, among other things, described Japan as “a nation of potential paedophiles”.
However, the most prevalent offensive generalisation is the suggestion that people from other nations dislike Americans because they are jealous. The implication behind this suggestion is, of course, that every other country in the world is inferior to the USA. More than an implication in some cases, as some posters have explicitly argued precisely that. If that isn’t an offensive generalisation, then what is?
Jai Pey: the mountain you were on in Switzerland is called ‘Pilatus’.
Bj0rn is right about many things… his comments are right to the point.
i know one thing about the USA that is certainly true: everything you say about the states is true, and so is the opposite. as for me, if i ever had children, i wouldn’t want my child to grow up in a country where you could be executed by law. i have lived several years in the states and now i’ve even won a greencard in the lottery but now i am not sure what to do with it; i don’t know if i want to build my life around rules and laws that i cannot support. many people who have lived in other countries will agree with me when i say that you’ll always be a bit torn between your home and the place you lived because you see the good and bad in both.
Lana,
Not all of the states allow executions. If you move here and become a citizen, you can vote to abolish capital punishment. Just don’t move to Texas.
(Worrying about having your kids in a country where they might be executed? Are they THAT bad? Just kidding.)
TomH,
Sorry if you feel I did you a disservice. Also sorry if you feel I took you comments out of context. I admitted at the start that some of what I was quoting was out of context and came from people of good intentions, of which I counted you a part. I also realize that some of these statements I perhaps, misinterpreted the points you were making. However I don’t feel I should retract all of it. For instance the two quotes:
Seem to be characterizing all Americans based on the behavior of a few. These traits that you mention are not patently American. I acknowledge that this was not your intent, but you can’t deny that this is the way it comes off. At first read, I didn’t perceive these as hostile in any way. On second read, I decided that the only reason I felt this way was due to other comments you have made which make me feel that you are a very fair minded individual and generaly without bias. I was not attacking you (or anyone else I quoted) only the statements that I felt could be taken as inseesitive to Americans or American culture. Admittedly, I was scanning fairly quickly, however I did try to cull out stuff that was obvious sarcasm or had other text in the near vacinity that disclaimed the remark or otherwise neutralized it.
On this one, I completely missed your point. Sorry.
No argument. In fact, it’s probably a sweeping generalization to even make statements like “people from other nations dislike Americans”. The fact is, some people dislike Americans for no apparent reason and likewise some people like Americans for no apparent reason.
You know, for what it’s worth, sometimes, like when the U.S. government kidnaps very young Cubans, I am ashamed and don’t particularly like ‘Americans’ either…
talking about individuals
talking about groups (ive know more from experiance and reputation about them than individual americans.)
they are…
as for your quotes:
generally the quotes you made are true, so i do not see them as insensitive, a bit inpolite perhaps. but honesty cant be insensitive.
thank you lana, you are very kind
thats how surveys are made 
again, i AM making generalization about ALL americans, but NOT any individual american. even if i have an opinion on all americans i do NOT relate that opinion to any single american. that would be wrong to do. its just that all theese individuals as a group have their own personality (group personality) and what i know of that personality, i dislike ALOT.
bj0rn - an individual
Alright, you English American Bashers, here’s a little about the civilized nation of Great Britton:
<font face=RED>Prison Conditions in the United Kingdom<font face=BLACK>
Prisoners in the U.K., which has the highest per capita rate of imprisonment in Western Europe, suffer from unsanitary conditions, extremely poor conditions for remand prisoners, and the lack of useful educational or work activities. In addition, this report describes the serious problem of overcrowding in many prisons in England as well as the political tensions running high in Belfast Remand Prison in Northern Ireland
Britain has** NO constitution, and therefore criminal defendants have no constitutional rights or guarantees.** Obviously, there is no British Bill of Rights either. In Britain, individuals have the right under an unwritten “understanding” to do whatever is not prohibited by law.
*But under British COMMON LAW, don’t defendants in N. Ireland have the same basic rights that American defendant have? *
Not hardly. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a defendant the right to remain silent and not testify at his or her trial. Concomitant to that right is the rule that neither judge nor prosecutor may refer to a defendant’s exercise of that right and tell a jury (if there is a jury) to draw an inference of guilt as a result. In fact, in America the trial judge is obligated to instruct the jury that they cannot infer guilt or draw any negative inference from the fact of a defendant’s silence or refusal to testify.
The contrast between the Fifth Amendment privilege in American and a defendant’s silence in Northern Ireland could not be any greater. Or more disturbing. In Northern Ireland a defendant literally has no right to silence whatsoever.
Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.
Anything he does NOT say can also be used against him in a court of law.
The British literally outlawed this fundamental right in 1988. In fact, an arrested individual cannot even remain silent during police interrogations since this silence can also be used against him or her in court. (Hmmm. In America, we have the RIGHT to remain silent and any violation of that right can result in the prisoner being set free or a misstrial.)
In Britain the police need not charge a person whom they arrest. That means a man or woman can be arrested (and detained for up to 7 days) without being charged. If during that time he or she remains silent for whatever reason, that silence can be used in court as “evidence” of guilt of a crime the police later (usually much later) allege that he or she committed. (In American one may not be held without JUST CAUSE.)
The police can detain a person for 7 days FOR NO REASON AT ALL?
That’s right. The British have a unique system of 7 day detentions. It’s so unique, in fact, that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that these 7 day detentions violate the European Convention. The British threw a temper tantrum and responded to the ruling by opting out (or derogating) from the Convention, thus ignoring the condemnation of the Court for violating established international legal principles. In other words, what is generally considered illegal everywhere else is considered legal in Britain and Northern Ireland.
But they need PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest and detain you for 7 days, right? And you get to SEE YOUR LAWYER, of course…don’t you?
The police most definitely do NOT need probable cause to arrest someone anywhere in the north of Ireland, nor do they need to articulate any basis whatsoever for their decision to arrest. They can deny a detained person access to his or her lawyer for the first 2 days for no reason at all; but fortunately they aren’t completely unfair: if they want to deny access to a lawyer for the whole 7 days they have to articulate “certain specified reasons” first. So how can detainees complain?
Section 11 of the EPA is the section under which most people are arrested. That’s because it’s so easy to use. The RUC may arrest any person they suspect of being a “terrorist” and detain them for at least 72 hours without charge. Of course there is no requirement that suspicion be reasonable or supported by probable cause.
This section is obviously abused and used strictly for purposes of intimidation and intelligence gathering. Most people are arrested under this section in pre- planned operations. That means the RUC literally break into their homes in the early morning and drag them out of bed. Over the past 25 years more than 60,000 people have been arrested under this section and Section 12 (1b) of the PTA
<font face=RED>Search and seizure and the PTA Bill of 1988<font face=BLACK>
Limitless powers of search are provided for under the Acts. Over 400,000 premises have been searched by the RUC and British Army. The searches are extensive, which means the place gets torn apart and serious damage results. Any property can be seized by use by the military. Residences, schools, industrial premises, sport grounds and farmland have been seized for use as military installations. The British government has even given itself the power to seize the homes of political opponents.
The 1988 PTA amendment allows the police to probe through and seize bank accounts and personal savings. It can be used to intimidate both groups and individuals. It also allows them to detain people in their homes while carrying out raids. This bill also removes the 50% remission for prisoners won through long and difficult prison protests. Prisoners must serve two thirds of a sentence before release.
**In America, there is seperation of Church and State and freedom of religion. **
*Only a Protestant Christian may be head of state. The law prevents the king or queen of Britain marrying a Catholic.
There is no separation of Church and State in the UK. In the UK the followers of one religious group have a privileged status. The Church of England, or Anglican Church, is the state church. Its bishops have seats in the “upper” house of the legislature. Only Anglicans may be the head of state. Bishops of the Church are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, the head of the government.
British schools are required by law to organise a daily act of religious worship that** must be mainly Christian.** All tax payers are forced to give financial support to the promotion of Christian, Jewish and Muslim beliefs, through state financial aid to religious schools.
In American we have FREEDOM of SPEACH.
*In the United Kingdom watching television or listening to the radio is against the law unless you have a licence. The licence, a form of poll tax, costs £101 (US$158) a year. Extraordinary as it may sound, the licensing agency monitors every home and workplace in Britain, stores selling TVs are required to file reports on purchasers with it and its agents patrol the streets using electronic devices to locate those who are watching TV without a licence.
Should I go on?
If we are a bit rude overseas, it probably is because we have the greatest freedoms around. Though I have heard from many sources that the French, in their home country, are rude as hell to EVERYONE.
Sentinel, what’s your point?
You use subjective evidence (e.g. British reports about British problems, without any other countries’ reports to compare and contrast against) without cites, to answer your own leading questions about theoretical freedoms.
Nobody from Britain has “bashed” America here. The point that’s being made is that touchy, defensive, condescending attitudes (“my country’s better than yours, and here’s a list of all the things wrong with your country to prove it (oops, forgot to mention all the things wrong with my own)”), from any nationality, are bound to get right up the nose of most other nationalities.
America is a great country with many freedoms and opportunities lacking in others - but also many problems, dangers and failings lacking in others.
Why can’t you just acknowledge that?
I never touched him, ref, honest!
I think I see some illegal activities going on in these fine, outstanding members of the European community which cannot happen in America.
EGYPT
Although political violence reached its lowest ebb in almost a decade, the government of President Hosni Mubarak appeared impervious to demands for political reform. In a major setback, legislation was enacted that appeared carefully crafted to decrease the independence of civil society organizations. Substantial curbs on freedom of association and assembly prevailed, ensuring that peaceful political opposition activities remained marginalized or restricted. No steps were taken to address the grave human rights violations that had accompanied the state’s pursuit of armed Islamist militants-including torture, deaths in detention, extrajudicial executions, and “disappearances”-and the architects and perpetrators of these acts continued to enjoy impunity. Evidence continued to mount that local police forces were employing similar torture techniques against ordinary citizens that elite security forces had used systematically against suspected armed militants, their families, and supporters.
On September 26, some 18.6 million citizens voted in a national referendum and 93.97 percent approved Hosni Mubarak’s fourth six-year term of office, according to the interior ministry. As in past referenda, there were no other candidates.
(My, no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no civil rights upon arrest, no freedom of a democratic election of a government.)
ISREAL
Widespread and systematic discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities and against women on issues such as personal status, housing, and employment continued to be a serious problem. In May the Ministry of Internal Security reported that there were more than 200,000 battered women in Israel-one in seven.
Despite some encouraging rulings on issues affecting non-Orthodox segments of the Jewish community, the courts overall were reluctant to challenge discriminatory laws and practices. For example, in its November 26, 1998 ruling the High Court of Justice acknowledged that “there is no equality for Arab religious communities in budget allocations of the Ministry of Religious Affairs,” but declined to rule on whether Israeli law safeguarded the right to equality.
(No woman’s rights, violations of freedom of religion, no civil rights, wide spread racial discrimination.)
GREECE
Migrants remained targets of xenophobic violence and discrimination. The criminalization of libel continued to violate free expression guarantees, and laws regarding conscientious objection were applied in a punitive fashion against those who choose alternative civilian service.
Discrimination against religious minorities persisted throughout 1999 as the Eastern Orthodox Church retained its privileged status as the only official religion in Greece. On July 11, 1999, the mayor of Kassandreia incited residents to obstruct the construction of a church for Jehovah’s Witnesses who had secured the required building permits over the objections of the municipality. Residents dug a trench using the municipality’s bulldozer and impeded access to the site. The municipal zoning office temporarily revoked the permits, and construction has been temporarily halted.
Journalists continued to receive prison sentences for public criticism of government authorities under Greece’s draconian libel laws. On May 19, 1999, Charalambos Triantafyllidis, editor and publisher of the Florina-based Enimerosi , was convicted by a court in Kozani and given a five-month suspended prison sentence and fine of U.S. $1,635 for insulting Florina’s then prefect-elect in November 1998.
(Supression of freedom of the press, freedom of religion, no civil rights, no free speech, and racial discrimination.)
TURKEY
As of September, over nine thousand petitions against Turkey were under consideration by the European Court of Human Rights. The court handed down decisions in a series of cases representing a wide variety of violations committed by the Turkish authorities: violations of freedom of speech, imprisonment for expression of nonviolent opinions, and violations of the right to life, including one “disappearance” case.
(No free speech, no freedom of expression, violation of civil rights, no right to life, not to mention few, if any, woman’s rights.)
My, my! It DOES seem to me that America gives those citizens and non-citizens within it’s boundries, legal protection to cover all of those civil and human rights.
We might not be all that polite over seas, but you can say what you want in the States and not get tossed in jail, beaten, tortured or killed for your opinion. PLUS, you are PROTECTED under American laws while here. We might not be perfect, but we’re a damn sight better than the majority of the other nations in individual freedoms and human rights. WE have to ‘understand’ when we are treated rudely in other countries, so I would like to think that the same should be done for us.
Is it even worth arguing about nations with a person who thinks Egypt and Israel are “members of the European community”?
Egypt, Israel, and Turkey are offered as examples of the “European community” ? My God, we are a nation ignorant of geography, but really!
Thanks, Sentinel. Amazing that in just a few posts, you, NightGirl, and Rainbowcsr have managed to reinforce nearly every negative American stereotype out there… I give up. After this, I don’t see how I could possibly convince anyone that we’re not all that way… I’m not sure I believe it myself anymore…
Having read Sentinel’s post, i’m not sure this
is such a good idea ;).
Sentinel, i’ve a couple of other mind-blowing facts for you…the UK does not have a president (Imagine that!)…it has yet to enshrine the US constitution into it’s own laws (Inconceivable!)…we drive on the left hand side of the road (Ridiculous!!)…you can’t spend US dollars in most trading establishments (What? There are other currencies in the world!!!)…I could go on but this isn’t funny, and it’s probably boring the crap out of everyone else and is a waste of [strike]ink[/strike] or pixels or whatever. Suffice to say, it is not news to most reasonably intelligent and informed people that different geo-political entities have different laws to deal with the different conditions in their respective countries. In fact, I think the average imbecile might have a basic grasp of this concept.
Sentinel,
I’m not sure you should respond to percieved American bashing with the bashing of other countries… lest somone point out that the stereotype of the average American includes hypocrisy.
Tongue in cheek though, in response to your quote: “but you can say what you want in the States and not get tossed in jail, beaten, tortured or killed for your opinion”
Well no but you can get sued prety easily for it. Or shunned by entire communities. Oh wait what about Rodney King or balcks down south…
BEFORE you take me to task I’m only kidding around to prove the point that America just like every other country lacks a total consistency or perfection.
I thought this thread was to discuss WHY Americans suffer under this stereotype (one that I belive is unjust btw and I’m Australian). Such a discussion will of course have to bring up negatives or there’s no point to the discussion. Consider them and take them on board - don’t respond to them with criticism of other country’s. You’ll only start irrelevant arguments. Maybe start another thread called “All other countries suck and here’s why.”
Peace brother.
(sorry, new to the board and haven’t figured out how to ‘quote’ correctly yet)
enough said i belive
bj0rn
One answer: Phaedrus!
thats a bit harsh dont you think?
besides, he was originally greek
bj0rn
Joeyblades, Thanks. I suppose I could have expressed myself more clearly in some of those posts. As I said before, my view is that Americans are not particularly disliked worldwide, but that almost everywhere you go there will be some tension between tourists and locals.
I think you’re right about things like the kidnapping of the Cuban boy: someone else said that America is the world’s 300-pound gorilla, and that’s bound to breed resentment. However, I think that most reasonable people recognise that you shouldn’t judge the people of a nation by the behaviour of its government. (Lord knows, I wouldn’t want to be judged on the behaviour of any of our governments, present or past).
Sentinel, mattk and others seem to have done a good job of pointing out the numerous errors in your posts. You are an idiot. You obviously have no idea how stupid remarks like “the UK has no constitution” and the suggestion that Egypt and Israel are EU members make you look. It’s as if somebody came along and said that Guatemala was part of the USA, or that the US still had prohibition or slavery. It’s so wrong as to be laughable.
It seems to me that you’re cutting and pasting this suff from other sites but are so lacking in any meaningful critical faculties that you are unable to distinguish between what is and isn’t relevant to the debate, or even to understand what some of what you are posting means.
With the exception of your contributions and those of a couple of others, this has been a fairly reasonable and good-natured debate. Then you and your like come barging in, mouthing off about how crap every other country is and, by default, how great America is. If you really believe that America is so wonderful, why can’t you try to establish it by pointing to what’s good about America (and FWIW, I think there are plenty of good things about America)?
I realise that your behaviour may be motivated by insecurity: if you can’t feel good about yourself as an individual, you need to feel good about yourself as part of a group. If you can’t feel good about the group (perhaps because you don’t understand the issues involved), you need to feel bad about other groups.
Likewise, the fact that you feel threatened by the articulate expression of views other than your own may have led you to adopt a more aggressive rhetorical technique - I use the words with a modicum of irony - than you might usually do. I don’t know where you’re from (or much care), but I would understand if it were a more isolated community with not-very-good educational facilities (perhaps the kind of place where they try to ban the teaching of science in schools on religious grounds), and a paucity of fresh genetic material.
No matter, you are now becoming tiresome. May I offer the following advice:
(1) grow up;
(2) if you can’t say anything intelligent or worthwhile, don’t say anything at all; and
(3) learn to spell - it will make a small contribution to improving your credibility if you can manage (1) and (2).
Oh, boy, where do I start? First things first: Nightgirl, Sentinel, and Rainbow are obviously ignorant jerks. Nightgirl, in addition, is racist, and Sentinel seems to have an anti-English bone to pick, possibly due to IRA sympathies. There are a lot of ignorant jerks in America. There are also a lot of ignorant jerks here in Spain. I have never lived in any other country, but I assume that they have their fair share of ignorant jerks as well. I don’t judge Spain by its ignorant jerks, and I hope that people from other countries will not judge us Americans by ours.
Going way back to the OP, there is a strong undercurrent of mild anti-American feeling in Spain, which is usually expressed in the prevalence of anti-American stereotypes. Typical ones: Americans know nothing of geography or world history. They eat nothing but hamburgers. They’re all too fat. Smokers are all hunted down by the cops. They dress badly. They’re religious fundamentalists. They’re all racists. They all carry guns. Random shootings are rampant. They’re hyper-nationalistic. They’re Puritanical. Sex is forbidden unless you’re married. They don’t know how to read. They have no culture. They have no history.
Obviously, some of these stereotypes are partially true, some are completely false, and some are prejudiced and insulting, but they are all widely held among Spaniards, most of whom have had no contact with Americans or America except what they see on TV, read in the papers, and see at the movies. (Note: Spain gets about 600,000 American tourists a year, which seems like a lot until you realize that they get a total of about 35 million foreign tourists a year. Americans are a drop in the bucket. Most Spaniards never see an American tourist.)
About 5-10% of Spaniards are deeply anti-American, mostly for political reasons. I would bet that there is a strong overlap between deeply-held anti-Americanism and sympathy for the Communist Party, for obvious reasons. (No, I’m not red-baiting. I’m serious. People who vote Communist are not likely to be pro-American.) Most of the rest are mildly anti-American and subscribe to at least some of the stereotypes I mentioned above. Let me point out that few Spaniards will be unfriendly to someone just because he’s American, though some of them will try to make fun of you and some of them will grill you on the above-mentioned stereotypes and then not believe your answers if they don’t correspond to their preconceived beliefs.
Why? I think there are several reasons. One is our own damn fault. We make dumb movies and airhead TV and sell it to them. Of course, they buy it, which is their own damn fault, but it’s not really their fault if they believe the image of ourselves that we present to them. And since American product dominates Spanish TV and movie screens, they see Dirty Harry and Die Hard and Beverly Hills and Baywatch and believe it.
A second is the incredibly biased and frequently inaccurate journalism that the Spanish (and French, since I read French papers sometimes) journalists put out. Most journalists in Europe tend toward the Left and many form part of the 5-10% who are hard-core anti-Americans. I remember that the Spanish correspondent for La Vanguardia once wrote a feature on American social mores in which he flatly stated that in the US you had to take a girl out ten times before she would let you sleep with her. I wrote back suggesting that the paper print a photo of the correspondent so that readers could judge whether his amorous difficulties were due to American puritanism or simply aesthetics, but they didn’t even print the letter. Now imagine distortions like this in stories about politics and economics.
Factor number three, to avoid words like “jealousy” and “envy”, is “pique”. Josef Joffe, the German journalist (he’s the publisher of Die Zeit in Hamburg) sums this up better than I can in the Jan. 12 New Republic (I don’t have the URL but the article is on-line). He says that many Europeans resent US power and influence but understand that “the beast is a necessary evil”, since “during the last century bitter experience has taught the Europeans that there is no European security without Atlantic security…when nasties need to be punished, the US organizes the posse…America is a pretty useful beast”. He says that “This monster is more like an elephant–bumbling rather than bloodthirsty, oblivious rather than fierce”. He adds that “America is the most alluring and seductive society in history…and America the ubiquitous riles the souls of those whose language, culture and power once radiated from Madrid, Vienna, Paris or Berlin”. His conclusion is “If your pique exceeds your clout and the beast is a necessary evil, you resort to psychological compensation, especially the assertion of moral superiority”, to which I would add the assertion of cultural superiority.
I thought Mr. Joffe’s article was excellent and I highly recommend it. It explains those widely held anti-American stereotypes. It also explains Bjorn.
I don’t want to give the impression that I dislike Spain. I like it here. If I didn’t like it, I’d go home. It’s a great country and I suggest you visit it, especially Barcelona, if you ever make it to Europe.
By the way, I denounce Mary Hart’s Legs as a troll. She set up the OP as if she really wanted an explanation of anti-Americanism and then jumped in with her own political reasons for why she hates America midway through the fray. She set us all up. This post, and all the other posts in this thread, are us biting on a troll’s fishing line. Good job, Mary.
–Lawrence, your Barcelona correspondent
Nice work Lawrence. You nailed in one try what we’ve all been grappling with for 190-some-odd posts. Dead-on accurate on all points.
(And yes, Spain is a great place, in spite of their misconceptions about us. :))
“Every time you think, you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard (addressing his brother, C. Howard).