Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 17

Article contradicts itself
Why exactly does the article, which is supposed to be a NPOV look at anti-Americanism, end with a huge laundry list of criticisms of the US? This contradicts the defense I hear from every critic of the US that they are NOT anti-American, but just criticizing the policy. "We don't hate America, we hate Bush"... So then, why introduce a list of "reasons" for something which may be an irrational hatred?? Does that mean that critics of the US are anti-Americans after all??? I get the feeling people have jumped the gun on the debate as to what exactly anti-Americanism is -- prejudice, policy critique, jealousy, clash of civilizations etc. -- and seem to be tacking on all sorts of rationalizations for it.

So which is it? Is criticism of the US policy anti-Americanism or not? So if you criticize the US, you are anti-American? If not, then why stuff the article with justifications??? And if anti-Americanism is more akin to anti-semtism or racism, then what do bigots care about the number of women in the US senate? Such justifications for truly prejudiced people are only excuses.

Compare this with the Anti-semitism article. It presents it historically and in various contexts. Maybe this article could be split -- one article called "Criticism of United State" and another one "Anti-Americanism" presented more lik the Anti-semitism or Racism articles. Willowx 13:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article with its "sentiment" title has just turned into a magnet for random US criticism and people seem very emotional about their particular edits. We would never have an article for people to bash any other people at will, whether they were rude and fat, or shy and skinny... Personally, I think the sentiment title should be deleted and the parts relating to the discussion of anti-Americanism as a debatable ideology moved back to Anti-americanism proper. Tfine80 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe there should be some kind of description of what this article is NOT? It is not "Criticisms of US policies" nor is it a "Comparison of social systems between US and Europe" nor is it "Personal List of Gripes". This should be a description strictly of "Anti-Americanism", its histories, and analysis of the phenomenon. I think many people surf in and mistake it for a free for all of complaints. (This is common on Wikipedia for the more controversial articles.) Also, please use sources and cite actual critics/references. Too much pretending that ones personal opinion is "widespread criticism". Willowx 06:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nor, if I may add, is it a list of excuses, justifications or counter-accusations. Rama 09:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

TFine, the outline form with links for AA rhetoric is a good idea. Direct people to the appropriate discussions. The Criticisms of AA is meant to balance that section and the History section. I think we need to include criticisms of AA here to show the debate. Willowx 07:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with that section is that it recreates the original problem that you first mentioned. It turns the article into a "US Good" / "US Bad" discussion.  It is a leftover of the mess that existed before.  The point is that we can't treat Anti-Americanism as a coherent ideology that can be debated because it has no single or clear ideological structure.  We can certainly discuss where Anti-Americanism as a form of prejudice could lead, but I think any trace of the "US Good" defense needs to be eliminated. Tfine80 14:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I also moved the Levy quote further up in the article because I thought it made an important point and was part of the section we could keep. Right now it is quoted twice. Tfine80 14:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

POV adjectives
Could people please stop using emotional and conjectural adjectives and descriptions? This article is full of "increasingly popular views" and "widely perceived" and "aggressive US policy". This is not appropriate nor necessary. Much seems like unsupported conjecture or simply impossible to define -- how can you prove or refute that something is "widely perceived"?? This strikes me as an author attributing his own perceptions to an allegedly wide audience. The article would be much better if it had a neutral tone and stuck to the facts. Also some parts strike me as unnecessary in this article: Does not joing the ICC warrant a full paragraph? Does anyone really criticize the US for lack of women in government? It seems like a sentence would suffice for some issues.Willowx 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

I don't see the point in removing information - both the US government's policy towards the ICC and the unequal representation of woman in US political life are major points of criticm in Europe - maybe not so much in the Near East... Themanwithoutapast 4 July 2005 20:45 (UTC) (please sign your comments with   (without the space in between))


 * The only reason for some concise sentences for off-topic stuff woulb be to keep the page size reasonable! Is lack of women really a "major" criticism in Europe? Really? I'm fairly well-read on this topic and have not heard that criticism made in Europe a single time, even on the BBC or Guardian. Some reference would be nice. And nonetheless, it could still be shortened. It seems like overkill.Likewise, ICC stuff could be shortened. I imagine an ICC page covers the topic in detail. Why not just add a link? Willowx 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)


 * Once again, I don't see the purpose in removing information - the article is not to long and the 2 paragraphs you are pointing to are on-topic (I don't know who you were talking to in Europe, but I guess you won't find a single European who thinks the US' policy regarding the ICC is right) and are just a few lines (not pages) long. I just do not see your point. As with references - follow the links given in the text to the relevant wikipedia-pages -> there you'll find your references. Themanwithoutapast 5 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)


 * Here's a Guardian editorial which mentions the US/ICC issue . Cadr 5 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)


 * I asked for a link for the "lack of women in govt" complaint, which in point of fact, I've not heard once. I don't claim that ICC is not an issue. A sentence and a link might suffice. I just don't think we can really go into detail on this page. The page is 51 KB, and the Wikipedia software seems to recommend a lighter page size. I don't get why you don't get removing irrelevant and long-winded parts. Removing useless info is not bad at all. It is called "Editing" and it is as importantto good writing as writing itself (if not more so). Article_size  Willowx 6 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Better photo?
The NYC protest is a poor choice, since most of the protestors are presumably Americans. How about a photo of protests in South Korea or France or Middle East? They have much more violent protests replete with flag burning and effigies.

If you have a photo that is not copyrighted go ahead. However with this photo there are no such issues, because I took it myself. In addition I think it is a prime example of Anti-American sentiment - if you read the article you will find many points of criticism that are directed to the policy of the Bush administration. Themanwithoutapast 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am still a little bit unconfortable with the photo as well (though, sorry for clumsily removing it in the first place). As it is, it sort of sends the message in the first place that anything that is not agreed with the deeds of the US government is "anti-American". This is a very dangerous and slippery tendency, reminiscent of McCartysm and negating everyting remotely democratic. I would thus agree that a photograph of some Middle-East protesters burning a US flag, for instance, would be more adequate far far. Rama 12:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I concur - if you find a better photo (flag burning, etc.) that is NOT copyrighted (really hard to find) then go ahead and replace this one. However, as long as this is not the case, the current photo should not be deleted, because it is on-topic. The term anti-americanism was coined by those who adhere to the Bush administration and applied to everyone who critizises the current American government - to Americans as well as to foreigners - in a "If you are not with us you're against us" mentality. Themanwithoutapast 23:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since I don't see anyone defending the photo I'll move it down the page and shrink it. -Willmcw June 28, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
 * Correction - since there is already a second photo of the same protest, I'm just going to delete it. -Willmcw June 28, 2005 21:36 (UTC)


 * As you did not replace the lead in pic, I have rv your edit - please read my comment above. And why did you change the size of the North Korean pic? Themanwithoutapast 28 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)


 * Why are there two pictures of the same protest? We can get rid of the other one, doesn't matter to me which goes. The pictures are all rather large, many of them could do with a trim. Remembers, some folks still use slow connections. Let me see if there's a better photo for the lead. -Willmcw June 28, 2005 22:37 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't understand the meaning of this caption on the second protest photo:
 * American patriotism shown by a man during the demonstrations against the Bush Administration in August 2004 in New York.
 * Are we saying that anti-Bush protesters are patriotic? They may be, but I think it's a POV assertion. -Willmcw June 28, 2005 22:42 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the ideal photo would be of someone burning an American flag. In lieu of that, the book cover is probably the next best thing, or the North Korean poster. Those are more relevant than an anti-war protest in the U.S. -Willmcw June 28, 2005 23:35 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, a picture of peacful protesters hardly makes for good liberal bashing, perhapps you want to photoshop hitler into one of those pictures and upload it again, or maybe have hitler burning an american flag AT a nyc protest -- myself July 7, 2005 21:16 (UTC)


 * 1. the second photo, the man with the flag, well that guy wasn't really a protestor (as I remember - I could be wrong), he was kind of an anti-protester protesting against the protesters - but in any case this photo is relevant to the section as it portraits an American showing openly his affection for his home country (=patrionism). 2. As I pointed out a couple of times now, if you find a photo of a protest or flag-buring etc. THAT IS NOT COPYRIGHTED than please go ahead and replace the lead-in pic, but until then we should leave it there because it is not off-topic (and the book-cover or the North Korean Poster are both not illustrative enough for a good lead-in pic). Themanwithoutapast 29 June 2005 03:15 (UTC)

The second photo might be suitable for the article on patriotism. I don't see its relevance to this article. Regarding the protest, an anti-war protest is not inherently anti-American, and there is nothing in the photo itself that is anti-American. Here's what I suggest. Delete the second photo, move the first photo to its place, and move up the book cover that has a burning flag. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 03:36 (UTC)

The first picture DEFINATELY needs to be removed. When I first saw it, I laughed. I'm sure the Americans in the picture do not consider themselves to be anti-American, and most Americans would see the difference between a war protest and being anti-American. Brendan OShea 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this photo. It is extremely misleading, to say the least. Saying "you can't remove it unless you replace it with something else" is crazy; if it doesn't belong, it doesn't belong. Unquestionably, this protest is anti-Bush and anti-Republican, but no way "anti-American"; an anti-American protest would have people with "America sucks" posters or similar. It might be reasonable to refer to Chomsky's beliefs as anti-American, as he tends to engage in sweeping criticisms of nearly all US policies and of all administrations since the 1970's, and to view it as a monolithic, more-or-less evil entity; it is almost certainly reasonable to use "anti-American" to refer to insinuations (Chomsky and others) that the US somehow "deserved" the 9/11 attacks; but to refer to the half of this country that voted against Bush as anti-American is crazy. Benwing 06:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree (at least partially) with Benwing on the above subject, and feel that the photo is better suited to the article, but yet not the best it could be.LtDoc 17:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Why no sections on any Middle Eastern countries?
Surely there ought to be sections on anti-American sentiments in Saudi Arabia and, say, Israel, at least. Mr. Billion 04:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--piccolo-for whatever reason i dont have a problem with this article. It's not the same sort of crap I see on other nations; or perhaps i just have more sense of humor about this one because it's my own nationality.

Anti-Americans in Britain
I'm British (I prefer English Myself) and I wouldn't describe myself as Anti American. I have nothing against American people I just disagree with the American government and if you look at American history you'll find its very hypocritical, but "Anti-Americanism" is largely misunderstood - Especially in Western European countries but the media in these countries ignores the fact that America is a colonial power and a war-mongering militaristic state with unacceptable nuclear capabilities. And American children are tought that America is the best country in the world and that people in other countries are denied freedoms that those in America have that is 'Grade A' Bullshit. I think there should be a page on ordinary people in other countries as it normally concentrates on the governments opinion(How many british people in Wikipedia)!

Reply to that: I'm American but live in England and I'm pretty much the same as you. I'm obviously not against the American people - I just don't like the American culture. In American schools, they don't tell us that we're better, but that's the impression they give. Atleast that's the impression I got (I'm 14, by the way). They make it seems like we're more free than other countries. We are more free than many countries, but not all countries, such as the ones in Western Europe. Even before I was interested in politics and stuff like this, when I came to England for the first time, I began to wonder why America was so proud of being free, when it seemed like lots of countries in Western Europe were more free (i.e. less censorship). Hmm... Not sure what the point of writing this was...
 * yes, I concur james gibbon  17:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply to the starter of this section: It's pretty pathetic. You don't know anything about Americans, yet you feel qualified to tell the world what we are. As an American I can tell you first hand that we are not taught that we are the best country in the world. This is coming from an American who even took classes such as JROTC, which I'm sure your uneducated mind believes to be the part of dark heart of jingoism. The concept of the United States being superior is not implied in the school system, either.

I also find it amusing that you call the United States a "war mongering country with unacceptable nuclear capabilities." Clearly you know nothing of the efforts both Russia and the United States have undergone in the dismantling of nuclear stockpiles. You also seem quite ignorant of the fact your own country has its own nuclear arsenal--which has enough nuclear weapons to glass Europe or North America! For shame.

In this context, you not only are ignorant of the nature of the United States, but you also have negative stereotypical views of Americans themselves. You say anti-Americanism is misunderstood, but given your lack of knowledge and your prejudices, I have to wonder.

YES!!! Right on, brother!!! Gabriel


 * How dare you attack someone's views as pathetic! Using phrases such as "your uneducated mind" and "your lack of knowledge" is a prime example of why we in the rest of the world view Americans as extremely arrogant. You are very right to point out the failings of other countries, particularly those of Europe. Yes, we Europeans ran the Atlantic slave trade, we created death camps, and we used to constantly fight devastating and usually pointless wars. We Europeans marched around the planet flying our flags, singing our anthems, and claiming the superiority of the Spanish, British, French, Germans, whatever. But we've been through that and have seen its effects. You Americans are still going through that now, and we can't understand why. Europe today is a peaceful, plentiful, and liberated continent. Whilst America is rife with racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and blind patriotism, Europe is relatively free of these evils. Of course there are examples, but not nearly as many as in the US. Europe is now a continent of freedom and tolerance - unlike the US, we do not have the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and extremist religious hate groups to anywhere near the same degree as the US. As you correctly point out, Britain and France have nuclear stockpiles, but we have stopped building them since the end of the Cold War and are currently engaged in reducing our arsenals. The UK and France have around 450 nuclear weapons between them, ut the US has somewhere around 10,000! Why does the US need these bombs? And why is the US still building them? The Cold War is over, and nukes aren't going to be that useful in fighting urban terorism. We don't enjoy militarism and patriotism anymore. Our continent was torn to pieces in the last world war, and growing up in the rubble (I was a child during the Second World War and lost my father in France in 1940 and my mother in a V2 attack in 1944), we realised the futility of patriotism and war. You people never learned that. All you have to do is compare war films - those made in Europe emphasise the intense suffering and devastation of war, whilst American war films are all too often gung-ho, lads' army, all-guns-blazing pigswill which depict war as glorious. Believe me, it isn't. Which is why the rest of the world is so incensed at your idiotic military. It does not do to drag up the past mistakes of Europe either - yes, we made terrible mistakes, but they were a long time and we are deeply sorry for them now. You, on the other hand, are still making mistakes now. And you're not sorry for them. Seeing the photos of Abu Gharib was like seeing photos of Auschwitz, seeing the "Night of Shock and Awe" was like watching the Blitz in 1940, and when my black friends in America describe the racism they encounter there, it makes me think me of the blind ignorance of Victorians. The Europeans, Asians, and Africans have been through it all before. The Americans haven't. NEVER refer to our opinions as pathetic. and don't even bother dragging up Europe's mistakes to try and justify the actions of a country which we once used to worship as a land of freedom and liberty but now despise as the country which does NOTHING to solve the world's problems.

Albert Hampden, June 28th 2005. All that being said, this argument makes me very angry. Not the contents of the argument, though that also does, but the fact that we're actually having it. Europe, the country that gave birth to America, that gave her her ideals, should not be our enemy. Such strife between two brothers is... painful to me. Such strife between Britain and America, especially, in light of the "special relationship" we've shared for nearly a hundred years. We bled together in World War II and Korea. And Western Europe and America stood firmly together for fifty years against the Soviets, and now that the Wall has fallen, you no longer need us. Russia, against whom we were allied, is now more of an ally to us than Western Europe! That's horrible! Let's stop the bickering! LET THERE BE PEACE BETWEEN BROTHERS--Gabriel
 * Let me say one thing first-- I do not want to argue. I am American and I myself care very much for Europe; I have a great amount of respect for it.  My maternal grandmother is from Frankfurt, I've vistited Germany and Spain several times, and am fluent in both languages, and I'm going to France in eleven days.  I hate this ongoing fighting between two continents.  However, that being said, your views were pathetic, so you really shouldn't be suprised to see them described as such.  Europe, my fine friend, is not the utopia you describe.  Europe has all the problems America has, true, not to the same degree, but they nonetheless exist, merely in different variations.  I can tell you one thing, though, a pig like Jean-Marie Le Pen would never become a Presidential candidate in the United States, as he did in France, the country of peace and love.  Joerg Haider would have never become the President, as he did in Austria.  Racism exists in Europe as well.  You should read a book called "Diario de un skin" by Antonio Salas.  It's a book by a Spanish reporter who infiltrated Neo-Nazi groups in Spain, and the levels of infiltration Neo-Nazis had accomplished the reporter discovered were rather frightening.  You have to be fluent in Castillian to read it, though.  It's funny you should mention the KKK, one of these ignorant pigs tried brining the KKK to Spain.  I guess he didn't know that the KKK reserves a special place of hatred for Roman Catholics...  And as for Neo-Nazis, you should go to East Berlin sometime (that was by no mean a criticism of Germany).  There are Neo-Nazis throughout Europe.  And I nearly died laughing when you said there weren't as many religious extremists in Europe as in America.  You fool!  There are, they just subscribe to a different religion!  They're Muslims, not Christians!  Maybe you didn't hear how Theo van Gogh was killed in the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight by a Muslim extremist?  You didn't hear how he was shot while begging for his life, then how his throat was slit and two stakes were implanted in his chest, one holding a letter threatening the West and Hirsi Ali, in particular?  You haven't heard how Morrocan youths beat homosexuals in the streets of Holland?  Or maybe how the mayor of Paris was stabbed by an Algerian who hated homosexuals?  Or how an imam in Rotterdam was permitted to spew hate against gays because he was an imam, but had he been Christian or secular, you can forget it.  And you didn't see all the anti-gay protesters in Spain after the Spanish parliament voted to legalize gay marriage?  You, like your countryman who is the origin of the phrase, seem to turn a blind eye to many of Europe's problems.  Yes, America has thousands of nukes, and we continue to build them.  Why?  Because Russia does, too.  Because Iran wants to.  Because North Korea already has.  And your rebuttal that France and the UK only have 450 nukes is not very convincing.  There's no real differnce between 450 and 10,000.  The damage done will be the same.  And you're very wrong that you Europeans have lost your patriotism, you've merely exchanged it for a new one.  You're not proud to be an Englishman, a Spaniard, a German, or a Czech or a Slovene anymore, you're proud to be European.  You don't think Britian is the greatest country on earth anymore, but you think that Europe is.  Very hypotrical  "NEVER" refer to our opinions as pathetic"?  Who the hell do you think you are?  That sounds like something you would accuse os of saying!  Anyone who read what you wrote about Europe being problem-free can see that it smacks of patriotism.  And you know what?  There's nothing wrong with that!  Patriotism is a good thing!  Blind patriotism isn't!  You're right, war is a very horrible thing, but sometimes it is necessary.  You mention World War II.  Would you prefer that we had not intervened?  That we, the evil America, had stayed out of that war?  Do you like the German language?  I myself do very much, but I don't think you would prefer it to your mother tongue.  And perhaps, my English friend, you have forgotten that your own countrymen are in Iraq and that British soldiers are going to prison for prison abuse scandals.  Your friends tell you of racism they encountered in America.  Let me tell you something.  My father is a civil rights lawyer, a barrister, I think you would call him.  He sues companies as well as the government for discrimination, discrimination against anyone, whites, blacks, Mexicans, women, Arabs, Jews.  Yesterday, June 30, a jury granted his clients 2.4 million dollars in a case.  The City of Tempe, part of the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area, discriminated against Mexican workers, refusing them promotions, harassing them, and demoting them.  Pedro Amaya, not an American citizen, not born in this country, was awarded money for the maltreatment he endured.  THAT shows what we stand for.  Go to google and type in "AZ Republic" and you'll see the article on the front page of the newspaper.  Oh, by the way, I'm not even white.  I'm Mexican-American.  And I'm proud of that, to be of Mexican ancestry and to be an American citizen.  How many Pakistani Brits or Turkish Germans would say they were proud to be British or German?  Not many!  And I think it's funny that you should mention colonialism.  You still have Northern Ireland!  Get your damned hands off the Emerald Isle, it's not yours!  Your British constitution does not allow a Roman Catholic to be Prime Minister.  That seems rather discriminatory to me.  Does it to you?


 * This is just getting ridiculous now. ALL opinions on here are just as valid as each other, so why are people squabbling over them and referring to each other as "pathetic"? I must say I don't like the condescending tone of the last writer (whoever he/she is) and I can't imagine that such pig-headed phrases such as "who the hell do you think you are" and "I laughed out loud" are helping in bridging the gap between America and Europe. But despite a tone which could well offend people, this User has as much right to state his/her opinions as anyone else has. And in response to the User, I would advise you to try and be a little more diplomatic in your statements - you're perfectly entitled to speak in this tone, but bear in mind a lot of people will not be very impressed at your vicious and completely unnecessary attack on a man who appears to be a war veteran. America is behaving arrogantly and in a dangerous way these days, but so are many other countries, and Europe has done it in the past. Anyway, America will fall one day, as all countries do. America and Europe have far more similarities than differences, and at the end of the day, the two continents are inextricably linked. Yes, there are arrogant and deeply unpopular elements of America (like our good friend who wrote the above entry), but America's good points undoubtedly outweigh the negative issues. Rusty2005 3 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

That being said, I apologize to Albert Hampden for losing my cool. I also would like to know what he thinks about what I wrote. I notice the user who upbraieded me earlier had nothing to say about the contents of my writings besides what he found not to be diplomatic--Gabriel
 * I didn't mean to come off as condescending, I meant to come off as frusterated and offended. It was the Englishman before me who was condescending, but I notice no one criticizing him...  "The Europeans, Asians, and Africans have been through it all before. The Americans haven't. NEVER refer to our opinions as pathetic."  Doesn't that seem condescending?  Or pigheaded, maybe?  But I never saw protest leveled against that user, and one could hardly make the claim he gave his views in a diplomatic fashion.  "We know more than you do.  Don't insult my beliefs just because I'm European, we know everything, don't you remember?"  Please, how was I supposed to react?  That's something about Europeans very offensive to Americans, the fact that they automatically assume they've seen it all, just because they're Europeans.  I've heard stories about World War II, also, but I heard them from the losing side.  My grandmother, as I said, is from Frankfurt and my aunt is an East German refugee.  I was much more diplomatic, before saying anything, I stated my intentions and expressed my admiration and respect for Europe (which I STILL feel!), and when I finished, I said I hoped the argument was finished and that the United States and Europe would again find themselves on the same side.  The other user systematically insulted my country and portrayed my countrymen as starry-eyed, bellicose novices to the wider world.  I'm sorry, I just don't like my country being maligned by people who REALLY don't know what they're talking about.  If they did, I wouldn't mind so much.  We have plenty of flaws, believe me, I know.  Iraq...  However, we act unilaterally because we feel no one else gives a damn about us.  No one else has our interests at heart.  Do you think we want our troops to be the only ones dying?  No.  Yes, America will not always be the strongest country in the world, that we are right now is arguable itself, China very well could be and will be within the next five to ten years, that is true.  (As Europe well knows, they seek to end the weapons embargo against China, despite the fact that China is the violates more human rights than every country except maybe Iran)  Then, after our descent from power, maybe America and Europe can be friends again.


 * Well I must say I can see Gabriel's point completely. We shouldn't be bickering over things like this and we should all try and be civil and diplomatic. God knows there's enough problems in the world without Europe and America fighting like children. We're all the same people aren't we? Of course there's going to be tension between the two, because humans are naturally territorial, but it's absurd to start picking faults with each other, especially over things that happened in the past. I'm a historian myself, but I've never understood people who drag up the past to try and support their arguments - everyone has done bad things in the past, but equally, theyve done good things. And anyway, we can't change what's already happened. I know this sounds cliched, but if the two continents put aside their petty little prejudices and worked together, we could accomplish anything. A united Europe and a strong America have the power to build a better world for everyone, but we can't achieve that if we waste our time arguing. Instead of seeing each other as arrogant, self-important, or dragging skeletons out of the historical cupboard, we should put our differences behind us and pull together, for the benefit of the whole world. Rusty2005 4 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)


 * For every bad thing the US does, you can give an example of another country which has done the same thing. So what? That doesn't mean America shouldn't be criticized, especially since it is constantly proclaiming itself to be the gold standard for freedom and democracy. Its leaders are also constantly criticizing other countries for having nuclear weapons, so the hypocrisy goes both ways. Cadr 13:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that the anti-American types refuse to be critical of their own stance. Isn't it extremely easy to blame the US for every ill of the world and systematically distrust its every motive when you are a Brit, European or whoever? This reeks of simple nationalism. Yet it is a rare US critic who is cautious about a knee-jerk criticism of the US  which approached xenophobia. I myself am critical of the government, yet don't need to resort to ugly stereotyping of Americans as stupid, fat, warmongering cowboys or whatever the fashionable charicatures are. And I find it sad that Europeans especially, who have a dark history themselves with regard to hatred of one minority group after another --- Roma, Jews, religious minorities -- that they are unable to be more critical of their own biases.


 * If you're talking about me or any of the posters above, you're attacking a straw man. I don't blame the US for every ill in the world or distrust its every motive, nor do I mix American stereotypes into political arguments. Although, some of the "stereotypes" you mention are merely statistical facts: Americans are, on average, fatter than usual and more ignorant of world events than usual. The second of these facts is certainly of some political relavence, but the prime motive for (so-called) anti-Americanism is American foreign policy. If the political debate sometimes descends into name-calling, that's just because people can be a bit silly. Certainly, the rhetoric used in the heat of the moment by some critics of American foreign policy is no worse than the anti-Arab rhetoric used by supporters of the war on terror. Cadr 28 June 2005 11:15 (UTC)

“Your British constitution does not allow a Roman Catholic to be Prime Minister. That seems rather discriminatory to me. Does it to you?” Yes it is discriminatory if it were true. The British MONARCH cannot be a Roman Catholic or married to one. This dates back to the 1689 Bill of Rights after the Revolution of the precious year in England when Catholic King James II threatened the religious and political elite of the protestant majority of England as well as Britain. However as I may point out this constitution (if one may call it that) is not codified therefore it is not written and can be open to change or compromise. If you take the role of the monarch in politics since 1689; it has been greatly reduced and is used nowadays as a ceremonial figure for the British government when 400 years ago the monarch had greater political influence and control. When the Prime Minister and his party are elected he/she is said to be ‘her majesty’s government’. This, however, is just part of all the pomp when we know that the government has been elected through valid elections. Although seeming to go off topic please be aware that the issue of the monarch not being a Roman Catholic or being married to one is not set in stone. We will probably visit the issue when it is presented to us. Look at the marriage just now with Prince Charles and Camilla although frowned on at the start the public have accepted this more so than after Diana’s death (although some die hard monarchists are still against this). Although not to my knowledge, I don’t think any of the British Prime Minister’s have been Roman Catholic; however the former leader of the Conservative Party (the main opposition party in Britain) Iain Duncan Smith was a Roman Catholic so if elected he would have become a Roman Catholic Prime Minister. I have no interest in the monarchy whatsoever and I am a Roman Catholic myself but I have just finished my first year studying British History at Uni I thought I would set it straight! Apart from the above useless information I have wrote I am interested in this debate. Anti-American feelings never really crossed my mind until a couple of years ago so I haven’t a great depth of knowledge on the subject. I feel the Anti-American feelings have esculated over the last couple of years and I believe that it has been instigated by the Presidency of George W Bush and his ‘War on Terror’. To be honest if he ruled Britain I would be Anti-British to an extent. Anyway by-the-by I feel Europeans can be very sweeping in their assessments of America. It’s not all that bad!! Although we don’t agree on some things we don’t have to start trading insults about one another. When the September 11th attacks happened I was completely outraged and was gunning the Americans to get out and get Osma Bin Laden. However, I was only 16 at the time and quite naïve. I didn’t understand why some of my teachers did not have a great deal of sympathy toward the Americans in the days and weeks after the attacks. It’s only when you study things in a wider context that you can truly understand the extent of what’s happening. I feel that is what needs to be done here. Some Americans need to stop being on the defensive of why people dislike some of their ideals. Freedom of Speech and all that should be respected even if we challenge your way of life. Americans who are outraged at our thinking should realise why we feel like that. Is it really that ‘pathetic’ to question your ideals or is it fair to trade insults that counter your beliefs? You have a greater understanding for your own argument if you understand the other side.

It is important to always remember that criticising a country i.e. USA, UK or whoever, is usually directed at the government and not the people. People of all countries come in various shapes, sizes, colours, beleifs etc. To brand a nation as wicked, evil or whatever is not fair on the diverse range of people it contains. I do not believe in patriotism, patriotism is an expression of insecurity. I am linked to my fellow human beings by common ideas, attitudes and behaviour - the ability to share a joke, sympathise or empathise. I did not choose to be born in a particular nation, it just happened to be where my parents had a night of passion and decided to live for 9 months. The only time the world will truely unite is when aliens from outer space decide that the human race needs exterminating. Many policies of the Bush Adminerstration and other countries are appalling. All governments need to be criticised and scrutinised at all times. Unfortunately Mr Bush is presenting us with a bi-polar world ("you are either with us or against us") that does not exist. The Bush reality is non-existent - it is a fantasy land of propoganda - the same fantasy land that many other ideas and beleifs choose to live in to further their cause. I know exactly where I am - "I am neither with you or against you" - I am above you existing in a colourful world with a full spectrum of beleifs. The worrying thing is some peoples need to look for leaders in time of (perceived) trouble. Why rally around a piece of cloth (flag)? Why offer blind support to our governments because they tell us that to not do so is somehow giving tangible support to terrorists? The new era of global politics has arrived - its a phoney world of fear and control - where governments can push through bad legislation under the banner of security and patriotism (in fact the is not a new idea at all). The new war has arrived - the "War on Terrorism" as illogical as as a "War on Drugs", also, funnily enough, an unwinnable war. How can you have a war on a tactic (Terrorism is a tactic)? Can you have a war on pincer movements? On infantry flanking manouvres? On carpet bombing? On Poppy plants? The "War on Terrorism" is perfect - an unwinnable war that will last for eternity - two opposing groups are rubbing their hands at this thought - PNAC, the Bush Adminsterstration, and anyone who profits from war vs any group labelled as a terrorist group. Most people are stuck somewhere in the middle getting hit with propoganda from both sides and getting robbed of taxes to pay for it! We live in an insane world and I am proud to be part of it.

Jeff Haycock

Merger
I have re-merged Anti-Americanism with Anti-American sentiment. Anti-Americanism (also Anti Americanism sans hyphen and "Hostility towards America") now re-direct here. The introduction has been expanded to include the critical point of the old Anti-Americanism article: that critics of the term see it as a propaganda tool to stifle criticism. I may actually include a new sub-heading about the propaganda thing as the Anti-American article went into great detail on the point (someone else can do this if they feel not enough of that article is included here). Also expanded on the history of the concept.

Fire away... Marskell 12:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perceived lack of culture
I'd like to say a few words about the section dealing with the "perceived American ignorance". It's all right. But, what Americans are very often reproached for (here in Italy, for example, or in France and in Germany) is not only ignorance of important notions; it's much more: it's a thorough lack of culture. Culture is much more than notions. For example, the problem is not only that some Americans do not know where, say, Italy is, or are likely to believe that Robespierre was a contemporary of Julius Caesar. The problem is that even those who know such things very well, and even many intellectuals, have no true sense of history and of its importance, of how it is complex and full of problems; they have no, or very little, sense of intellectual subtlety, no taste for distinctions; they are superficial, simplistic and ingenuous. This, at least, is a common opinion, especially among those who have received the traditionally European humanistic education. (Someone said - was it Albert Einstein? - that culture is what remains when one has forgotten everything; well, that thing is exactly what, in the opinion of a lot of people, Americans, even those who know plenty of notions, do not have; and, what is worse, they usually do not even suspect that such a thing exists, and is very important for individuals and nations.)


 * This is from an anthropological point of view, utterly absurd. All human beings are cultured. All human activity is based on 1) biology and 2) culture, ie. learned behavior passed from generation to generation. Hunter and gatherer societies that have relatively simple lives -- nothing like advanced IT technology nor operas -- are equally cultured. The uncritical view of Culture with a big C is, in my view, simple chauvinism, and typically European chauvinism -- the same chauvinism which led to the destruction of many of the aboriginal cultures they came in contact with. It seems all are uncultured barbarians except Europeans!

Some other common opinions about Americans: 1) Such a lack of culture, and of well digested thoughts, is often considered to be a consequence of the fact that, as the commong saying goes, "they've got no history", they haven't got a tradition. 2) Americans are considered to have a sort of "horror vacui": they must act, and so they tend to be rash and reckless. They're sometimes compared to boys or children, who can't keep still. This is what is implied when they're called "cowboys". 3) Furthermore, they're considered vulgar: this opinion is very common. In the opinion of a lot of people, and even of the man in the street, they don't understand beauty: they are said not to understand the difference between a work of art, or even great historical monuments, and the products of cultural industry (what the Germans call kitsch); they are said to have no taste, and no sense of moderation.

These are only some of the opinions that are common, especially in Europe, about the "perceived American ignorance": I might tell you much more (e. g. about the "puritan mentality", etc.) I don't want to offend anybody: as a matter of fact, these opinions do exist, not only among intellectuals. (And I often agree with them; but this is unimportant here.)

Admittedly, what Americans are reproached for does exist in Europe, too. But many people think that one of the causes of this cultural and intellectual decline of Europe is the servile imitation of America, and the importation of American films, songs, words, fashions, etc. This is called American "cultural imperialism". And the resulting society is called the "mass society", where everything is vulgar, and no cultural aristocracies exist. Some call this the "Americanization of the whole planet".

Sorry for my bad English. But perhaps somebody who writes English better than I do might write something in the "perceived American ignorance" section. User:82.49.78.250

Did you have a point?--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 23:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * To say America lacks culture is not only false, but ignorant. America is arguably the country with the most culture in the entire world, though there is truth to the argument that we lack a uniform and strong culture. The fact that America is made of many different ethnic groups that each brought their own culture to their new country is enough evidence to disprove the argument of our lack of culture. That is the strength of America, the fact that we are made of perhaps the entire world combined. We are Italian, German, English, French, Chinese, Mexican, etc. And yet at the same time, we are all American, and will likely be assimilated into a larger culture given time. I know this because of the fact that I myself am Mexican-American. My family has been in the geographical United States for more generations than the majority of Caucasian Americans, since the area of the Southwest was taken over by the United States. The people of this region, my region, have gradually been assimilated. Neither of my parents speaks Spanish, and my maternal grandmother is a German from Frankfurt. America is far from the only country that could be attacked with such arguments. In Europe, there are huge problems with the integration and assimilation of immigrants from the Middle East, are there not? Specifically, with the fact that the new immigrants refuse to take on the culture of their new country and clash with said culture. The murder of Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Muslim extremist, the incidences of beatings of homosexuals in the Netherlands by youths of Morroccan extraction, the refusal of Muslim girls to abandon their headscarves in French public schools are all examples of disunity in cultures. The fact that our culture pervades Europe (for I think that is what bothers you, not that it pervades Africa or South America) is hardly our fault and something completely natural. The recent time was ours. It was simply our time to shine and dominate, no different from how Germany dominated the world of music during the Classic and Romantic time periods, or how Italy did before it. Such arguments that America has no history are foolish. The New World was discovered in 1492, and colonization by the great European powers commenced a few centuries afterwards, well before Germany or Italy were united as countries. If the argument that we Americans have no uniform culture, could the same argument not also be used for certain parts of Germany, or perhaps Italy? Because of my German blood and the fact that I speak the language, I know of the differences among each state, Bundesland, and how each region has its own distinct culture and dialect. Bavaria is still "Freistaat Bayern," the Free State of Bavaria, something not suggestive of cultural unity. Does this lessen a Bavarian's identity with Germany? Absolutely not. In fact, the stereotypical German is thought of as a Bavarian. The other stereotypes mentioned are just those, sterotypes. Just as Irishmen are stereotyped as drunks, Frenchwomen as whores, Greek men as homosexuals, Italians as Mafiosos, and Germans as fascists or devoid of taste, Americans are stereotyped in these fashions. By the way--"Kitsch" exists in English as well as in German.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:82.49.78.250"

If I offended you, I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to offend anybody, as I said. Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to write a long answer now, but I hope I'll be able to explain myself better after.

But, first of all, what I described was not necessarily (not always, not entirely) MY opinion: these are opinions that are fairly common here in Italy, and generally in Europe (and maybe also in other parts of the world, I don't know). And I think that, if one wants to write a short essay on critical opinions about the United States, these should be mentioned, too.

Furthermore, I'm afraid you are missing the point. With some explanations or distinctions, I agree with most, perhaps with all, of the things that you say. But it seems to me that the things that you say hardly ever answer the things that I wrote. I used the words "lack of culture", but I didn't mean "culture" in the ethnological, or anthropological, sense, as you seem to understand ("the American culture", or "cultures").

I used the word in its common meaning, i. e., in the meaning that we have in mind when we say that somebody is, or is not, a "cultivated (cultured) person": that is NOT only knowing plenty of notions, it's something that can't be easily defined, but certainly includes:

— the awareness that things are usually difficult, complicated, have many different aspects;

— and that, therefore, the task of understanding requires a great effort of intellectual subtlety, and many distinctions;

— a strong dislike, and refusal, of superficial, simplistic, statements, with no, so to say, light and shade effects;

— a genuine interest in history: the awareness that man is a historical being, and that a subtle understanding of the extremely various and complex conditions of his life (not only material, but especially spiritual life; not only of present life, but also of the past) is quite NECESSARY, both to understand and to act (for example, for a politician);

— the idea that, if it's necessary to act, one must think and talk a lot before: that study, reflection, and dialogue are very important; that our will must follow, not precede, our reason;

— a certain taste for art, literature, etc., with the awareness, again, that they can't be understood without an understanding (so to say, an empathetic understanding) of their historical setting;

— ... (Sorry, I'm in a hurry right now. But I have some other points in mind.)

So, "that is the question" (to use a stupid quote). It seems to me that Americans really have great problems with the preceding points.

I hope I've not been too confused. I would really be very glad if you would tell me your opinion. And, again, believe that I only want to talk, not to offend anyone.

And excuse me for my bad English and my mistakes.

(As for "kitsch", it's a German word, though it's also used in English and in other languages.)

User:Tom Hope

reply to that^ : Americans do have culture. Everyone has culture. Here is the definition of culture: "The complete way of life of a people: the shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize a group; their customs, art, literature, religion, philosophy, etc.; the pattern of learned and shared behavior among the members of a group." Americans and everyone else has attitudes, values, goals, practices, customs, art, literature, religion, philosophy. American sayings say a lot about American philosophy, America obviously has lots of religious people (I don't think I need to explain), the "American Dream" could be a goal for some Americans, Americans do have art, literature, and the other things in that definition.


 * It’s sad to see that you (plural) refuse to admit any other meaning of culture than the anthropological one; and this seems to be the communis opinio in America! The anthropological notion of culture isn’t false in itself, but it isn’t the only meaning. There’s a difference (not only quantitative, but also qualitative) between a Coke tin and the David of Michael Angel. Oh, sorry: this is European chauvinism. Of course. Well, I wish you understood that this way of thinking (yours, I mean) has made the world (Europe, too) a desert, and life a nightmare.

User:naryathegreat, do you even hear youself talk? You use the word "assimilate" as if your in the Borg collective. This is a fact of american ignorance, they think that everything they get involved with must be done "their way or no way". I am not saying that you yourself are ignorat, but by the way your talking is "a" reason why people around the world dislike americans. Our "culture" is baised more on "Must have" rather then the collective good of mankind. As this article says, we have the highest prison rate in the world, and the resources we use are more harmful to the environment and few in america want to clean up for the good of "progress".

--Admiral Roo 13:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) No, people around the world don't dislike Americans. That's just a lie fabricated by the American right-wing media. It true that some people around the world have issues with the American government, and the ignorance and arrogance of some Americans - but I'm sure veru, very few people around the world actually dislike all Americans. I'm sure most people around the world are not so small-minded as to judge people by the country that they from. I mean, people do not choose to be born American after all.

68.117.18.6 15:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)