Sorry - messed up the earlier posting as you can probably guess.
Sailor, you seem to feel that US - French relations are particularly bad. Here’s a little list of the history, culture and trade the two countries enjoy together.
It really looks to me like you, for whatever reason, don’t like the French. Fair enough, each to their own, but please try not to let that form your basis of opinion on US - European relations.
Gary, that link brought a sentimental tear to my cynical old eyes. God bless Benjamin Franklin, Edith Piaf, and Fieldmarshal Foch, now playing pinochle together in Heaven. C’mon, SING wit’ me…“Allons, enfants de la PAHHHHHHHHH-trieeeeeee…”
– Uke, mailing a case of Chateau Moine LaLande de Pomerol 1983 and a wedge of stinky cheese to **sailor
Gary, I posted that just because I found it interesting and to to make any grand point about France. I have said that Europe and America have common history, culture and values and have much more in common than what may separate them. That is exactly my point. That, given this, which we all seem to agree on, I do not understand so many attitudes of anti-americanism which I have seen in many countries in Europe.
The USA is not much more different culturally from European countries than those countries are different among themselves. Europe owes a lot to the US as has been pointed out. During WWII and after WWII. That is my point. I only see reasons for friendship and yet many people take pride in being antiAmerican. Not anti something very specific but just antiamerican.
Obviously it varies much by country, education, age, and many other factors but it is undeniable that many people in Europe are anti American without even much foundation, it is a visceral thing. To the people America can do no good. I have found many like this.
Their attitude is summed up in “if America did it then it is wrong”. I have come across quite a few people like this over the years and I am always shocked by their ignorance and lack of understanding of things American.
Bush is received in Madrid with demonstrations. Now, I am sure Spain has similar or larger issues with other countries and yet they do not demonstrate with the same enthusiasm when the leaders of those countries visit.
Suppose their problem is with the death penalty. Well, China executes huge numbers of prisoners compared to the US and yet I do not see the same intensity of protests against China. Suppose it is the Kyoto agreement. Heck, China isn’t even bound by it. And on and on.
In summary, I agree that Europe and North America share strong ties of history, culture and values. We should work to strengthen these ties and to resolve our differences peacefully.
But I also think in real life many people are not so analytical and rational and form opinions on the basis of superficial perceptions and visceral feelings. Corporations know it and use it to sell us their stuff, politicians know it and use it to sell us their stuff and I cannot see anything wrong for country leaders to do the same when they go abroad. It’s all about selling image.
that should read: Gary, I posted that just because I found it interesting and NOT to make any grand point about France
Two points:
Firstly, do we have any idea yet about how prevalent “anti-Americanism” is? All we have is personal anecdotes; not to be dismissive, but I’ve never met anyone “viscerally” anti-American, or anyone who’s taken part in an anti-American demonstration. My observation is therefore quite a lot different from Sailor’s. Anyone got any stats?
Secondly, it’s undeniable that there is some anti-Americanism in Europe. But (as I said already) America has a huge presence in most European countries. Music, films, television, clothes, consumables, anything – and while there’s no denying that an awful lot of us Europeans want and enjoy American culture and products, that doesn’t reduce the uneasy feeling that the economic power that backs it is slowly squeezing out local equivalents.
Europe owes a lot to America, but it’s not all one-way. A lot of American prosperity is due to the opportunities that the Marshall Plan opened up for US businesses. And a lot of Western Europeans remember the feeling of being a pawn in the Cold War, the first in the firing line if the US and the USSR had gone head-to-head. The presence of US forces in Europe was as scary as it was protective.
America is a big target because of the impact it has on our daily lives. China doesn’t. Russia doesn’t. And America seems (empasised: seems) to embody a certain set of values and beliefs that are unquestionably “right”. My guess is that people are protesting because they don’t want to feel that their beliefs, values or way of life is any worse for not being American.
Sailor – You’ve got to get a grip, dude, because there is really no point at all in wittering on about common heritage and flag burning by a few media aware protesters. Exercise a little clarity of thought and focus on specifics. For example:
What do you mean by ‘Europe’ - the entire populations of all thirty something countries or the few hundred protesters you see on the news or, perhaps, something in between ???
What do you mean by ‘Anti American’ – cos the term means absolutely nothing without an awful lot of clarification ???
The issue here is simply, one more time, policy as practiced by this particular US Administration. It’s Politics > Diplomacy > Policy > A self-serving domestic agenda vs. ongoing collective efforts to address global issues. And on that broad canvass very many shades of opinion are being expressed in a variety of ways.
Patriotism, Nationalism and the Marshall Plan it ain’t.
Look this is silly. If you say there is no antiAmerican feelings in Europe then fine. I am not going to argue. My perception is just very different. You want to get me into a nitpicking of “define Europe”, “define antiAmerican” etc.
As I have said, antiamericanism varies with many factors: country, education, age, etc. The UK probably has the least as it is the country with closest ties to the US but in my travels and contacts in other European countries I have found plenty of gut antiAmerican feelings. Nothing to do specifically with Bush or this or that guy, just general antiAmerican feelings.
If you have never found this anywhere in Europe, then our esperiences are very different. I have travelled quite a bit and I see it all the time. I see it when I talk to people. I see it in the press. You can say they are only a few who vandalize Mcdonalds and it is true but they have a certain sympathy from a much larger segment.
The fact is I have hardly ever experienced the same thing in reverse. When I mention European countries to Americans I hardly ever get that type of negative reaction which I often get in Europe when I mention the USA. Any examples which I can supply would be just “unrepresentative anecdotes”.
If you are telling me there is no more antiAmericanism is Europe than there is anti-Europeism in the USA then we’ll just have to disagree. Our perceptions are just very different and I am not about to embark on writting a long work full of supporting cites and evidence for something which to me is just palpable everyday experience.
In other threads it has been mentioned that Canadians abroad do not get the negative reaction Americans often get and so they will display their flag so as to not be mistaken for Americans. I think Canadians have a basis for that. I guess you don’t.
French Education Minister Jack Lang has labeled Bush “a serial assassin”[…]
Am I the only one who wonders how the hell a French Education Minister (born in 1939 in Mirecourt (Vosges), no less) winds up with a name as un-French as “Jack Lang”? Maybe his remarks about Bush are just over-compensating. 
{gently easing the thread away from sailor’s xenophobia and back onto track}
Sez here in the papers (NY Daily News…haven’t gotten to the Times yet) that Bush’s limo went sailing right past King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia during the welcoming ceremony…that he mispronounced Prime Minister Aznar’s name, calling him “Anzar”…and describes him as “Red-faced at times and fidgeting as he spoke.”
Yep, looks like he’s cooking on all burners with that “charm” thing.
Hey, sailor? (I can’t believe I just said that).
Ahem, maybe it isn’t actually anti-Americanism you’ve encountered.
Maybe they all just don’t like you.
:ducking and running:
Well, sure, Ike. But:
He got Aznar to say something nice about the whole silly missile shield thing, and;
No one caught him mentioning that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is “still dead.”
I say Spain was a win.
Now, on to NATO!
>> {gently easing the thread away from sailor’s xenophobia
As I have said, I have lived in several European countries and now the US and I believe we have much in common and no reason for enmity. I have explained this several times. Can you now explain to me why you would apply “xenophobia” to me? Or is it that you do not know the meaning of the word? I have lived and travelled to more countries than you probably ever will and I do not think you have heard me say I disliked them.
I realize you are just looking for support to your contention that Bush is a moron and I am not helping you. I guess that makes me a xenophobe in your eyes.
>> Sez here in the papers that Bush’s limo went sailing right past King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia during the welcoming ceremony…
Well, let’s see. Clinton deliberately kept the same King and Queen waiting outside the door to the White House for over 20 minutes. If that is not rudeness I do not know what is. The limo incident looks like a mistake which cannot be taken as meaning offense.
>> he mispronounced Prime Minister Aznar’s name, calling him “Anzar”…
Well, it must be difficult to concentrate when you are dealing with a guy who is doing an impression of Charlie Chaplin. Have you seen the guy?
At any rate, I do not think pronouncing foreign words is the highest qualification for office. If it is that Aznar is disqualified for life because I have seen him trying to say Schwartzkopf and the result was pitiful and laughable. I guess the Spanish people need to elect someone else pronto!
To judge Bush (or anyone else) on these issues strikes me as the acme of superficiality.
>> Hey, sailor? Ahem, maybe it isn’t actually anti-Americanism you’ve encountered. Maybe they all just don’t like you.
No, they do not say we do not like sailor and, as I have said, I am NOT American so they have nothing against me. They say things against the USA. Read the press.
This is getting really silly. Americans who have travelled know it. Canadians take steps not to be confused with Americans. Are you saying Canadians are all paranoid and delusional?
You hear and read about antiamerican demonstrations. In the years I have been in Washington DC I have not heard of a single antiEuropean demonstration. Maybe I am missing them.
As I say, this is silly. This thread was meant a a Bush bashing and I am not helping. Sorry.
You want to prove the demonstrations are antiBUSH and i disagree. Every other American president has faced the same kind of popular demonstrations. And definitely Clinton was not better than Bush when it came to foreign relations.
I can guarantee you Bush, in spite of the mispronouncing the name, etc. has not made a bad impression in Spain. And If he has on account of that, it would be a very poor reflection on Spain, not on him. I cannot believe they would judge him by his ability to pronounce Aznar.
I have not heard a single Spanish politician or reporter who can pronounce “George” or “Reagan” correctly. Does that disqualify the whole country? Try to get Chinese people to pronounce Western names.
Silly? yep , I agree, you’ve made several broad statements about Americans in general, and several times have been asked to support your statements. Here you say ‘read the papers’. Apparently then, you should have no difficulty providing substance to your posting. Call when you have them, ok?
sailor, while I agree that this thread has a strong element of anti-Shrubbery, I think you still may be missing the point somewhat in other posters’ criticisms of your opinion that European reactions to Bush are nothing but generic anti-Americanism. Nobody’s saying that there isn’t any knee-jerk anti-Americanism in European countries or elsewhere; many people just don’t care for our culture or our general geopolitical bent or our superpower status, and we tend to be sufficiently isolated from the rest of the world to be surprised and hurt by that. (I think most other cultures are more familiar with low-level national animosities and don’t take them so much to heart; we still tend to assume that we’re automatically the Good Guys™ so naturally everybody must like us. :))
But as EC posters have pointed out, there is also a significant level of resentment or hostility against the US in much of Europe these days for very specific reasons having more to do with policy than with bigotry. It’s not just about liking the Canadians better: it’s about particular high-visibility policy decisions in the Bush administration (a few that I can think of off the top of my head are the funding elimination for international relief agencies that do family planning counseling, the decision to cease pursuing the goals of the Kyoto Protocol, the renewal of emphasis on NMD, and the hands-off policy towards Israel).
You hear and read about antiamerican demonstrations. In the years I have been in Washington DC I have not heard of a single antiEuropean demonstration. Maybe I am missing them.
What I think you may be missing is the fact that the average American tends to be much less interested in or informed about international politics than the average European, and also that European policy decisions tend to affect us much less than our policy decisions affect them—that’s just part of the superpower thing. How much European news even makes it into our major news media? It would take something pretty high-profile to get Americans worked up enough to demonstrate (not to mention the fact that the demonstrator types tend to be more on the left end of the spectrum anyway; as a matter of fact, there were quite a few protests against France during that showdown with Greenpeace). Don’t imagine that this means that there doesn’t exist any generic anti-Europeanism in this country, though: for a shining example, I offer the OP of puddleglum’s new thread in this forum, “How do we get Europe to like us?”
Every other American president has faced the same kind of popular demonstrations.
Hmmm, here’s where I join the other posters in wanting to see a cite.
And definitely Clinton was not better than Bush when it came to foreign relations.
Without getting into the question of what it means to be “better” at foreign relations or who beats whom, I think it’s pretty clear that Clinton’s policies were (if only somewhat) less disliked by most Europeans than Bush’s are. Though even Clinton, like almost all other American politicians, was pretty far to the right by European standards, he was at least somewhat more aligned with them on things like global warming and nuclear defense, and he wasn’t quite such an obvious American-hegemonist as many in the Bush administration (esp. Cheney and Rumsfeld) seem to be. Remember, most European leaders were hoping pretty hard to get Clinton’s vice-president as the new American leader instead of Bush, which is another reason to think that European anti-Bush sentiment isn’t solely undifferentiated anti-American bigotry.
Once again I’d like to just chime in and say that I agree with sailor, at least to a certain extent. I regularly encounter Swedes who seem to have a kind of vague, visceral dislike of America.
There is a certain basis to this sentiment that I can understand. The left has always had a stronger presence over here than it has in the States. That’s true for practially every European society, other differences notwithstanding. It is from this corner of the political spectrum that one hears the most vocal criticisms of the US; and on one level, I think, disliking the States has served a kind of unifying function for leftists. Maoist or Marxist, revolutionary or parlimentary, the goals of the left have always been to avoid exactly the kind of economic and social developments that have occurred in America, and that many Americans are inordinately proud of. In Swedish media, for example, the US is often used as an example of a “bad” or “failed” society – nonexistent social services, poor quality education, the death penalty, the anti-abortion movement, poverty, drugs, a strong christian fundamentalist movement (don’t forget, that’s why they kicked us out in the first place), the pro-gun advocates, the high-crime rate, ad infinitum. Opponents of government policies here often tend to compare them to US policies as a warning (“if we’re not careful, we’ll end up with a health care system just like they have in the US!” for example).
But it’s more than that. It’s also a gut-level, genuine dislike for all things American. In an intervju program recently a well-known TV personality here said, for example, “I’m so fucking tired of Americans waving their fucking flags everywhere.” It’s only one anectodal example, but I assure you I’m exposed to this sort of thing on an almost daily basis.
I don’t think this is something you can get a feeling for by reading newpapers, or doing research. It would be difficult to operationalize the concept “anti-American” attitude in a manner that would allow for a useful study, IMHO. But believe me, at least in Sweden, it’s something you encounter regularly – on the street, in the media, and so forth. Then there are other specifics for Sweden as well, of course; as a culture they tend act rather superior. And as has been pointed out earlier, people tend to like disliking other people who aren’t like them, and they also like to critcize the Big Boy. As “world leader,” the US is set to a highter standard and expect to act the part; no one expects China to set the example when it comes to solving environmental issues, for example. I think the US is often perceived as spewing out a lot of rhetoric and stuff like, “standing up for human rights and freedoms,” and then not really doing doing all that much “standing” when push comes to shove.
Oh, one other thing I’ve thought of that I believe has had a very negative impact on the image Europeans (or at least Swedes) have of us: programs like Ricky Lake, Sara Jesse Raphael, and all that other trash stuff. Cops. The Jerry Springer show. These programs had (and some still have) large viewing audiences. The Swedes here watch “them crazy Americans” who go on stage to confess that they’ve been sleeping with their own sister, and then break out into some kind of stupid yelling match with the audience. My friends look at me and ask, “Where do these people come from? Are Americans really like that?” I have to explain to them the idea of trash TV, becuase until very recently they didn’t have anything like that here. It might sound overly simplistic, and it might even be overly simplistic, but I think these shows have had a very bad influence on the average Swede’s perception of the average American, and American culture in general.
And of course, having written all the above, I have to admit that the attitude is ambivalent. The US is big and shiny and seductive. The director of the insitute where I study, for example, is extremely virulent in his dislke of America – its politics, its culture, it history. He seldom misses a chance to say something disparaging about the States when I’m in his presence, and talkin’ trash about America is one of his favorite passtimes when he lectures.
After those lectures, he hops onto his all-American Harley Davidson, and, secretly pretending to be a member of Hell’s Angels, he rides off “Walter Mitty style” into the sunset. So as you can no doubt guess, the question is complex.
I must also say in defense of many people I know that while they don’t really understand US culture, they don’t automatically dislike specific Americans, and I have many good friends here who don’t automatically hate the US. But getting back to sailor’s point, there sure are a mess o 'em over here that do.
Finally, regarding the OP: Bush’s Texas style, I feel, is going to go over here like a ton of lead bricks. His laid back, easy-going manner and Texasisms can only be perceived as boorish, uncharming, and uncultured by European standards, IMHO. On the other hand, the anti-Bush protests scheduled tomorrow, entitled “Bush Not Welcome,” and led by a whole gang of different radical organizations, are planning to greet the President with the world’s largest-ever “public mooning.” The argument is that to communicate with him, we have to sink to his level. We’re shooting for a Guiness World’s record, folks; I hope to be among the participants. Somewhere between 20 and 25 thousand demonstrators have gathered for the festivities.
Kimstu, I thank you for posting something reasonable and constructive. I had pretty much given up on this thread but it would be impolite to not reply to your post so here goes:
>> your opinion that European reactions to Bush are nothing but generic anti-Americanism
I did not mean “nothing but generic anti-Americanism” is the only cause, just that it is a substantial part.
>> Nobody’s saying that there isn’t any knee-jerk anti-Americanism in European countries or elsewhere; many people just don’t care for our culture or our general geopolitical bent or our superpower status, and we tend to be sufficiently isolated from the rest of the world to be surprised and hurt by that
Well, I thought somebody was saying that. I agree 100% with what you say there and in the paragraph that follows it. I like it when I can find agreement as I have much less to type
>> the average American tends to be much less interested in or informed about international politics than the average European, and also that European policy decisions tend to affect us much less than our policy decisions affect them—that’s just part of the superpower thing
Yes, I agree, but that does not contradict what I say, rather it supports and explains and justifies it.
I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I guess my point is that, given the circumstances, Bush isn’t doing bad. He handled the China incident pretty well and he is doing OK now. Am I crazy about him? No. Do I think he is Superman? No. Do I agree with everything he thinks or says or does? No. But I do not think he’s doing bad.
Now, if we are going to judge him by a slip of the tongue then I cannot take this seriously. If this is a thread where the only point of it is to bash Bush then there’s no point in posting anything but Bush bashing.
I will give you an example of something which often comes up in my conversations with Europeans. They will bring up the Kyoto thing and I will bring up something which to me is related and much more important: tobacco smoke. I cannot stand it. One thing I like about America is that I can go into public places and breathe. In many places and meetings in Europe I am extremely uncomfortable because of the smoke. My eyes itch and I feel I cannot breathe well. Now, to me this is of immediate concern, forget about Kyoto, I need air now. Their response is along the lines that Americans have become tobacco nazis etc. and they want their freedom to smoke. Well, my question would be, why do countries where offices are full of tobacco smoke and people are breathing crap all day, care so much about the US and Kyoto? Do you or do you not want clean air? No, they do not want clean air, they want to tell the US what to do.
The US may do many things other countries do not like just like other countries do many things Americans would not like. I do not think other countries have any more right to impose their views on the US than the US has to impose its views on them.
On the whole the US is a pretty good country and I would advocate working together to resolve things rather than seeking confrontations. Americans who dislike Bush may like to see him bashed abroad but this is not a good thing for America or for Europe. It just creates a bad climate which makes resoving things more difficult not easier.
Anyway, thanks for a very reasonable post.
Svinlesha, you raise some very good points. One is the duality love-hate for American things. Another is that those people who are anti american are anti <the idea and concept of America>, but they will be very friendly to individual Americans. Most Americans who have spent time, especially in Mediterranean countries will tell you the people were the warmest and friendliest and yet felt the need to tell them how much was wrong with America.
A friend of mine from California told me a funny story. At a party she was surrounded by a group of people doing just that: pointing out to her everything that was wrong with America. Mind you, they did not think of this as rude or confrontational, they were her friends. Antway, she is backed into the corner of having to defend her country. Finally one says: “Oh yeah? So, If Americans are so clever how come they have not discovered the cure for cancer? Huh? Huh?” My friend was dumbfounded and speechless as the other woman glowed in her dialectic triumph. We still laugh about that to this day. Yeah, America is guilty of not having discovered a cure for cancer.
Attacking Bush because of Kyoto is the height of hypocrisy. I say, unless you are Romania (the only country to ratify Kyoto), keep your damned mouth shut. Not one of these countries was ready to sign that treaty, because it was manifestly unfair, unworkable, and there wasn’t enough science behind it to determine if the accords agreed to were reasonable or not. The Kyoto treaty has turned into a kind of mutant political football, which legislators could support at will to show how ‘green’ they are, while knowing that there wasn’t a chance in hell that it would ever become law. Bush simply called it for what it is. A better politician would have supported it, because it’s free political capital - by supporting Kyoto, you can be ‘green’ without giving up a thing.
I love the fact that the Democrats bash Bush on Kyoto, in spite of the fact that NOT ONE Democrat voted for it. The last Senate bill on Kyoto was voted down 95-0. If Bush had been a better politician (say, like Clinton), he would have sent it to the Senate and let THEM take the political heat for ashcanning it. It was never going to become law.
And any ‘world’ treaty that exempts China and India, and therefore about half of the world’s population (and increasingly large CO2 emissions) is ridiculous.
So Bush formally says something that everyone already knows (that Kyoto will NEVER be accepted), and he’s bashed for it. Then he lands in Europe and is greeted by protestors calling him a murderer because of the death penalty. Clinton was strongly in favor of the death penalty too - did he ever face such protests?
The big problem with Bush is that he somewhat matches the stereotype Europeans have of Americans - gun totin’ good old cowboys that chew tobacco and drive SUV’s. Like Reagan before him, he takes a lot of heat in Europe just because of what he resembles, rather than for the substance of what he has to say.
But here’s my prediction - Bush will come back and his trip will be widely proclaimed a success. Partially because the bar is set so low that his trip will be defined a success if he just manages to avoid any major gaffes, but also because Bush truly is a lot better at this stuff than he’s getting credit for. I read today that there is already a lot of movement in Europe towards his position on missile defense, and that he is showing a side of himself that no one over there thought was in him.
So it’ll be like the tax thing - while the negotiations are going on, everyone will be talking about how Bush is falling flat on his face, and how he’s being outmanoevered, etc. ad nauseum. And in the end, people will wake up and realize that he got pretty much everything he wanted and wonder how THAT happened.
Well, this is somewhat off the main topic but anyway. I think history has treated better, with more respect, presidents who were leaders, who stood and fought for what they believed was right even it was impopular at the time. Civil rights legislation was unpopular and yet Kennedy and Johnson fought for it rather than try to please everyone. History has treated them well for that.
I think Clinton suffered from wanting to be liked and was not really a good leader in the sense that he was governed by the polls and stood for everything and for nothing. He wanted to be all things to all people.
Bush seems to take the opposite stand and will do what he believes is right even if unpopular. No doubt he will make some mistakes which will later be reversed but if on the whole he scores more than he fails, history will treat him well for the courage he is showing.
People respect persons who stand for something, even if they disagree with that something, but do not respect those who show no convictions or principles.
I have to admire a guy who has the guts to tell California they made the mess and they have to get out of it. Whether you agree with his position or not is not the point. The point is it takes guts. I believe in the long run this will gain him respect even from those who disagree with him. Even politicians respect courage in their opponents. The line “those are my principles, if you don’t like them I have others” will not gain you much respect.
We need more politicians to tell us the tough choices and lead us through them. Sugarcoating stuff is just leading ourselves into bigger problems.
This does not mean imposing your will on others. That is almost impossible and if you try it you just make enemies. It means leading which sometimes means prodding like Johnson had to prod to get his legislation passed.
From this point of view I think Dubya is not doing bad.