Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 20

POV issues
In lieu of the issues surrounding whether or not this article conforms to NPOV, I've placed a warning. It seems that this article is written to give the impression of a neutral voice but does not actually demonstrate a neutral POV, instead it is favoring Anti-American sentiment. --67.184.163.248 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Ikiroid


 * I hate people deleting my notices quickly but here I am doing so... This page had the label for a long time, has been thankfully stable recently and hasn't had any comments about POV for quite a while. Anon thinks "it is favoring Anti-American sentiment." I don't see that at all. Please point out where on talk and we can edit. Marskell 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then edit out what you think is biased using the talk page to discuss controversial points... We've worked hard to make this page fair to different POV's. This will always be a controversial page but at this point, we should only return to the POV tag if we have an intractable edit conflict over some aspect. Tfine80 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Many charge that anti-Americanism stems largely from jealousy, especially from rival powers and fading empires whose glory is long past."
 * Well, it's a... uh interesting way of putting it, if nothing else. --TNC 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead
I have reverted to the original lead paragraph on this because I felt the changes were opening the door to everything we wanted to not have off the top: POV statements, semantic points which invite a qualifier etc.

"Consistent hostility" is not perfect but I'll stand by the initial change. If you can't say it in two or three sentences don't say it. Save it for use of the term. Marskell 23:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

However, the actual usage of the term as it is in reality can not be fixed by Wikipedia promoting certain definitions some Wikipedians (including me myself) had preferred. Wikipedia must describe reality and not someone's ideals disguised as general truth.

I do not find revertions helpful. It too often gives an impression of disrespect for other contributors. My choise not to work more on this article right now should not be wrongly interpreted as an endorsement of the revertion.  Ruhrjung 12:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * When I revert I always make a talk comment as I did below. This is not disrespectful. Marskell 12:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I made changes to the very beginning. The term "Anti-American" does not exist outside of a POV! And there are at least two fundamentally irreconcilable positions: 1) the word refers to something real  and b) the word does not refer to anything real and is purely rhetorical. I understand the term as purely propoganda - which is the reason why those of us (even if we are american) do not call ourselves anti-american. But in any case both of these meanings must be presented in any objective account of the meaning/lack of meaning of this word. As to the "history" of anti-americanism: This absolutely must be changed. It is a grotesque caricature of history to use a contemperary term like "anti-americanism" as the catch-all concept for a history. The european criticisms of american life and institutions from two centuries ago were not "anti-american" - no-one then called them anti-american - they were not understood as such. This is bogus history. Don't have the time for a more scholarly refutation but it is coming! (Canuckistani)

Anti-American sentiment
"Anti-American sentiment" redirects here. That seems wrong to me. The article as it is currently framed is about unreasonable or excessive hatred of the United States government or society. Anti-American sentiment is something that can be quite reasonable.

I'm new to this area of Wikipedia, is there an article that details the various criticisms of U.S. hegemony, culture and government policy?

Ben Arnold 04:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition
In regards to Ben's question, head to the bottom of the page and/or read over use of the term. It states clearly that some people find the attitude defensible.

Regarding the intro, the debate is not over definition but over application. Anti-American(ism) exists in dictionaries. As with other ethnic or national phobias "hostility" "dislike" and "fear" make perfect sense. The question is does x qualify as Anti-Americanism. Marskell 12:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC).


 * To further expand this point:
 * Six months ago: "Anti-American sentiment or Anti-Americanism is a hostility towards or disapproval of the government, culture, history, and/or people of the United States of America."


 * One year ago: "Anti-American sentiment or anti-Americanism is a hostility towards or disapproval for the government, culture, history, and/or people of the United States of America."


 * Eighteen months ago: "Anti-Americanism or anti-American sentiment is strong disapproval for the government, culture, history, or people of the United States of America."


 * Only going back two years do we find a real difference: "The many disparate phenomena that have been labeled "anti-Americanism" have little in common other than some degree of opposition to the US." A weak lead to be sure.


 * My point being again that the dispute has not been about the definition. These definitions vary in degree (ie., we could drop "irrational") but not in kind. The debate is about the context in which the term is used, whether it is a singular phenomenon or an aggregate and whether it has been over-blown. These issues are covered in the article. Marskell 13:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree the definitions only vary in degree. Because of the term's use as a pejorative, some might argue whether Anti-Americanism exists at all. They wouldn't agree that Anti-Americanism is a "...hostility..."; they would say that the phenomenon doesn't exist as described and is an inherently misused term. They would also argue that creating the term and giving it an established definition is function of politics or propaganda itself. Language is political and once the term exists, it gives the appearance of being tied to an actual phenomenon. Especially when we say Anti-American IS X, as an encyclopedia we can seem to imply that Anti-Americanism exists because encyclopedias define people, things, and social phenomenon. A dictionary would list the different definitions under the label and would only define how the term is used, never what it IS.


 * Anti-American, yes, that clearly means opposed or hostile to the United States government, and you will find this in dictionaries. In fact, that's probably how that previous definition was created, straight out of the dictionary. But, I think we both agree that the earlier introductory sentence was inappropriate because it conflated Anti-Americanism and Anti-American sentiment. Now that the title is Anti-Americanism itself, we have to be much more subtle in our definition. Anti-Americanism is a claimed ideology or basis for ideology or perhaps just an established pattern of thought, this is what is most critical to describe now.


 * I think there may be a need for new page describing "American hegemony" or "American unipolarity" or something. That could permit some of the other users' concerns. As to Anti-American sentiment, I think this is too broad, but History of opposition to United States foreign policy (if a true history and complete), International criticism of American social policy, Criticism of the Death Penalty in the United States, etc. might meet the other users' concerns as well.


 * Now in comparison to other national 'phobias' (a suffix that seems to be in vogue lately), I don't see these as parallel to Anti-Americanism as most conventionally defined (I am not arguing that we can't come to some basic definition of the term for the advocates who use it). The 'phobias' seem to be more like a racism tied to national origin or religion, like the situation for Islamic immigrants in some European countries. Employment discrimination, attacks in the press, etc. But Anti-Americanism is argued to be an ideological phenomenon that has affected the progression of philosophy and Communist doctrine... I don't think they are fully comparable. Maybe "National-origin discrimination toward Americans" or something would be most comparable....


 * I think we need to think more about the precise wording. I think the user who reverted your edit did so probably because he thought your definition was more right-wing and pro-American policy by assuming the phenomenon was something that could be clearly identified and defined. You didn't intend this, but this is the danger of having so definitive a definition. Tfine80 16:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Marskell's long-winded reply
"Because of the term's use as a pejorative, some might argue whether Anti-Americanism exists at all." Well, they would be wrong. Over-blown—quite possibly. A kind of double-speak—quite possibly again. But non-existent because it's used as a pejorative? That simply doesn't follow. "Creating a term and giving it a definition..." The culture has already done that; I watched a five minute piece on Anti-Americanism on CNN International this morning. Phenomenon appears, language fills the gap: Anti-American is a widely-used adjective and Anti-Americanism is its noun form (as the dictionary link I showed you points out). I will grant that a distinction can be made between sentiment and -ism and if we want a sentence to that effect, OK.

"A dictionary would list the different definitions under the label and would only define how the term is used, never what it IS." No—dictionaries reflect spoken language but they also have an inherently prescriptivist role, and yes, so do encylcopedias. "Cat: a small carnivorous mammal." That's what it IS. And here, I think we caveat our definition quite extensively with good tone and NPOV; I don't see a hard definition as such a great danger and I don't see again that there has really been much debate about definition. To use an example and point back to definition versus application, imagine a bigot and a race-rights crusader defining racism. They'd likely have little trouble arriving at a single sentence; where they part company is over how it should be applied and whether it is reprehensible.

"Anti-Americanism is a claimed ideology or basis for ideology or perhaps just an established pattern of thought, this is what is most critical to describe now." Right, and we are on track to that qualifier with your second sentence and with use of the term. I'm not saying that the lead sentence can't be worked on, only that equivocation and temporizing strike me as greater evils than being over-precise. A-A "...is a widely-used term without any commonly accepted definition" really, honestly, says nothing and is in some ways a contradiction in terms. If it's widely-used it shouldn't be impossible to say something substantive about it.

As for comparisons to other ethnic or national phobias I disagree again. That Anti-Americanism is analogous to Anglophobia, Francophobia or Russophobia strikes me as obvious. The only real difference I see is that Americans don't constitute an ethnic group.

In sum, work on it sure but let's not be afraid of having the first sentence stake a claim. Marskell 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an error to assume that terms widely in use must have widely or commonly accepted definitions. Wikipedia must strive to avoid confusing ideals with reality.
 * Try to attribute definitions to authorities. Contrary to established traditional encyclopedias that select editors and contributors through a careful wetting process, Wikipedia is not in itself an authority whose statements get accepted by face value.
 * And try to write a lead paragraph that survives by being acceptable also for people who do not agree with your own point of view. Particularly for the introduction this is critical. At other places there can be made plenty of place for NPOV-ing. In the introduction, this is not the case.
 * --Ruhrjung 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What point of view? This is essentially a stylistic issue: the intro should say something, not that we're hamstrung about what should be said. If the lead to Napolean stated: "Napolean was a controversial figure whose influence is disputed" I'd object on exactly the same grounds. A sentence of this sort may have a place—and do note that the first sentence of use of the term mirrors what you had as the lead sentence—but an article should not start with an equivocation. "Contrary to established traditional encyclopedias that select editors and contributors through a careful wetting (sic) process, Wikipedia is not in itself an authority whose statements get accepted by face value." While I understand this I disagree with the implication: that the editorial process is non-traditional does not mean we should be timid. I absolutely cannot imagine a Britannica article starting with "X is a widely-used term without any commonly accepted definition" or a similar evasion and I'm convinced Wiki should avoid it as well.

"Try to attribute definitions to authorities." OK, an adjective according to Merriam-Webster: Anti-American: "opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the U.S." Noun form: "Anti-Americanism." Marskell 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your points about the opening sentence, especially the internal contradiction. I hope my changes accomplish both of our desires. But relying on the dictionary definition of Anti-American is not how we should think about it. It may provide help in determining the most common denominator definition used in popular speech, but Anti-Americanism is also a term of art in academia used to identify a particular phenomenon. Describing something as an -ism implies a certain coherence and ideological nature.
 * "As for comparisons to other ethnic or national phobias I disagree again. That Anti-Americanism is analogous to Anglophobia, Francophobia or Russophobia strikes me as obvious. The only real difference I see is that Americans don't constitute an ethnic group." I'm surprised that you say this because this is not the major thrust of the literature at all. Except for the stereotypes of obesity and the like, the discussion of Anti-Americanism is not parallel at all. A phobia is a fear, perhaps tied to discrimination. An -ism is a system of thought or an ideology. These are very different suffixes and the words have different functions.Tfine80 05:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the intro now, good job. I tweaked the wording slightly. What's good is that if it is challenged we can point to the couple of articles we've passed back and forth. I absolutely agree we should not over-rely on dictionaries; I was only responding to Ruhr's comment about attributing definitions.

I seem to be posting the following a lot recently: when -phobe or -phobia are used as suffixes after ethnic or national labels they indicate dislike, hostility or fear. Arachnophobia is a fear. Anglophobia is a bigotry. To give a couple of examples, I have read Quebec nationalistic diatribes described as "anglophobic" or much 18th century British literature and commentary constituting "Francophobia." Indeed, it is some knowledge of the latter topic that leads me to the parallel: resentment and cultural disdain, fear of military hegemony, conflating personal insults with national character (Americans are cowboys, the French are effete). Believe me, Francophobia was an ideology for a couple of centuries in Britain. Marskell 11:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Obesity
The fact that theres a recent study that shows that there are more obese people in Finland and Denmark doesnt mean that people form the US wont be stereotyped as "fat" from now on; thus, the description of the article (while most likely of some use someplace else) doesnt fit where it was placed, and I have removed it. 12:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism / Strong feeling
The "History" section of the article contains various instances of anti-Americanism, some of which spring from prejudice but many of which are plain criticism of contemporary American politics. Samuel Johnson's charge of hypocrisy, for example, is properly a judgment rather than a prejudice. With that in mind I have changed "Prejudice against the United States (and at times the North American continent) has persisted since the country's original settlement, with criticisms varying greatly in content and motive," to "Strong feeling against...". I think the last part of that sentence already captures the variety of motivations, bona fide or not, for anti-American sentiment. Oliverkroll 20:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Other"
Firstly:-

I removed this (sorry forgot to login at the time)..

"Other nations like North Korea or Iran may need anti-American ideologies to defer criticism of the possible decay and corruption of their own political systems."

And someone replaced it. I think I then accidentally removed it again because someone put it back within a few seconds and I was already editing again. Apologies to that person for seeming to try and railroad it.. that was unintentional. However I would still argue it *should* be removed (it's back again now).

The reason is that this article talks about the concept of anti-Americanism as a prejudice and ideology. I believe that's correct. Nations such as Iran and Korea have been placed on the US list of "Axis of Evil" countries (some of which have already been invaded). And there is constant discussion in the media of how to "deal" with these countries, coupled with the refusal to rule out violence. If these countries oppose the US, this can hardly be ascribed to some irrational ideology, given that they live with the very real threat of being attacked. Also, this is highly POV.. there is no evidence to suggest that Iran and N.Korea's opposition to the US stems from a need to provide an "other" to control their own people.

Secondly:-

Someone removed a long section I wrote containing a counter-example and quote. There were two reasons. One was that part of it was repeated almost verbatim from earlier in the article. Reading back I now realise that this was the case.. apologies. The other was that it included a quote that was "tangential". This I dispute strongly. The "Other" section seems to be focussed entirely on the concept of anti-Americanism as a way that non-Americans set up the US as an enemy in order to maintain their own cohesion. Of course this is mentioned earlier in the article (briefly) but this "Others" section should be the fleshing out of that hypothesis.. including pointing the argument in BOTH directions.

The quote (which is *highly* relevant to this idea) was:-"'... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.'"

Anyone got any good reason not to fix this again? (assuming I don't make the embarrassing mistake of repeating earlier points.. *blush*)


 * Yes, it says "may" and "possible". However, it could be attributed to "some political observers", better perhaps a specific author, to make it a little less POV. This is only an argument and one that is frequently expressed for both Iran and North Korea (long before the Axis of Evil -- but that's not the point). We do not need to determine if it is true or not. "The other" point as you see it is already mentioned; this section attempts to create a history of the ideology if it exists -- the history of the discursive use of the label should be placed somewhere else. The Goering quote is a little cliche and "both directions" doesn't make sense in this context. You mean pro or anti US? Or pro or anti Anti-Americanism? Tfine80 21:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess if you adopt a POV then each example could be considered as either pro or anti either of those things... but what I meant by "both directions" was to do with the idea of Anti-Americanism being created and used as a tool for creating cohesion (the "them and us" thing). The examples here all assume that the "them" is America.. i.e. that another country creates and uses Anti-Americanism.  Whilst this is possibly the case, it's also possibly the case that the idea of Anti-Americanism is sometimes used BY the US as a tool to create an "other".  So the "history" section should mention that and go into detail rather than ignoring it.  Possibly in this same "The Others" section where other countries are talked about as the "users" of Anti-Americanism to create social cohesion... or maybe I'm trying to squeeze this into the wrong section and the "history" section should have yet another subtopic that expands on the idea of Anti-Americanism as a propoganda tool?  After all, the definition talks about a "coherent and dangerous ideological current" as well as a "propagandistic label used to undermine legitimate criticism" but the entire history section fails to discuss the latter.  Um.. also I think the Goering quote is highly relevant as an example of how "The Other" has been used in the past.  If it was a cliche then I'd expect this page to be much less contentious than it is :) Spandex


 * If you can find references that discuss the geneology of the attributed phenomenon as a propaganda tool, by all means, create a new section. Tfine80 02:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Anti-Americanism
I think most of the recent edits made by anonymous have not made the page more objective. The previous wording was a delicate consensus that had been carved after years of work by multiple users. Most of the phrasings were very careful and never fully declared that Anti-Americanism was more than a phenomenon that had been claimed. Refering to the concept -- not the rhetoric -- as a "propaganda tool" used by "supporters of American culture et al." has more POV danger in my opinion. However, if you look through the archives, you will see that I was uncomfortable with the current definition. However, I certainly think it is preferable to automatically pronouncing the concept as propaganda. The popular culture section is not sourced and has some POV problems. Tfine80 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "anti-american" is not objectively simple - its meanings are complex, people disagree fundamentally as to whether the word refers to anything at all! Therefore to objectively define this word must mean to include its differences. The word as it is defined now reflects a posivitist prejudice but many do not believe the word refers to anything - except the desire or the speaker (usually pundit) to avoid communication by vilifying all criticism. This happens here in Canada all the time. Of course there are those, most probably Americans, who believe that this word is a simple word and that it refers to something - all those who in the past, present and future who hate America. In order to have an objective account of this word both the simple posivitist and the complex rhetorical understandings of the use of the word must be included in its definition - at the beginning. To include only the simple positivist definition is to avoid the whole controversy around the meaning of the word. This would be a lie. And the history here - is a farce. Creating a more or less dubious concept "anti-americanism" and then retractively fitting all criticisms into this "concept" IS propoganda. I'm not going to change it for the moment until I investigate this word's history here and elsewhere - but it is blatantly POV at moment. Canuckistani 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the very beginning of the definition of this word - to include the fact the word is highly disputed. Perhaps not in america - but certainly in the world. To not include the fact that many understand this word only as propaganda vehicle for "americanism" is to not be objective. Of course many understand this word as referring to people who have (more or less irrational) hostility toward americans, american institutions etc.. and this must be included in its definition. I briefly looked at the rest of this article - it really is shoddy! Canuckistani 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A shame you find it shoddy. I think it quite decent, if a little over-bulleted at the moment. The fact "AA = propaganda" folks and "AA = serious threat" folks regularly come on here to accuse the page of POV for the other side tells me we hit both points well.
 * No one on this page "created" the term. It's an established part of political discourse. Also, retroactive labelling is a part of historical practice assuming appropriate caveats are provided. "Middle ages" is a retroactive label. "Totalitarian" is retroactively applied to Nazi Germany. Calling Sam Johnson an "anti-american" strikes me as perfectly sensible. Marskell 08:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It is not the retroactive application of a concept per se that I find troublesome here - we don't necessarily have words to describe everything that has happened and we need to invent new ones. But conversely just because a word exists does not mean that it is true! Some words are the cause of the effect that they say is their cause for being. They reverse the relationship of cause and effect. So rather than gathering up a series of events and understanding them (like the term "middle ages" does more or less) they impose upon things that have nothing in common. "Anti-American" is a word that knows no limits - it can take any criticism, from any time and anywhere, and project upon it an essential unifying hatred of the United States. This is paranoia. And this isn't simply my opinion. Ok, I understand that probably a lot of people would disagree with me and say "No, the word exists because people throughout the ages have hated America." As you well know the word is highly contested. But isn't this contest itself the objective reality of this word? Some believe that the word actually refers to something, some believe that it is a paranoiac fantasy. Why not include this objective reality in its definition at the very beginning?

Re: my comment on the shoddiness of the later parts: the tone of objectivity is an absolute farce – especially the “philosophical” and “academic” parts. And clothing the article in academic language and referring to philosphers just muddies everything up. Point by point then: in the section titled “Anti-Technology and Consumerism" the author wants to show that Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre participated in anti-americanism.  Three short quotes and two paragraphs later we have learned everything we need to know about those “anti-american” authors:  that they are “anti-american” because they have criticized America.  This is NOT something that is taught in Universities in Canada – you would get laughed out of the classroom.   Again this non-concept “anti-americanism” allows the collection of any disparate criticism – without regard to their context or their meaning.  If you are going to include Nietzsche, for example, in the cabal of america-haters you must prove that he had general and consistent hatred of the United States that pervades his writing.  But probably the most important modern writer for Nietzche was Emerson – he goes on and on about how sublime he is (I could give a quote but I am in a hurry). Emerson is a quintessentially American author. (More later – must go now)Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Anti-Americanism
I think most of the recent edits made by anonymous have not made the page more objective. The previous wording was a delicate consensus that had been carved after years of work by multiple users. Most of the phrasings were very careful and never fully declared that Anti-Americanism was more than a phenomenon that had been claimed. Refering to the concept -- not the rhetoric -- as a "propaganda tool" used by "supporters of American culture et al." has more POV danger in my opinion. However, if you look through the archives, you will see that I was uncomfortable with the current definition. However, I certainly think it is preferable to automatically pronouncing the concept as propaganda. The popular culture section is not sourced and has some POV problems. Tfine80 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "anti-american" is not objectively simple - its meanings are complex, people disagree fundamentally as to whether the word refers to anything at all! Therefore to objectively define this word must mean to include its differences. The word as it is defined now reflects a posivitist prejudice but many do not believe the word refers to anything - except the desire or the speaker (usually pundit) to avoid communication by vilifying all criticism. This happens here in Canada all the time. Of course there are those, most probably Americans, who believe that this word is a simple word and that it refers to something - all those who in the past, present and future who hate America. In order to have an objective account of this word both the simple posivitist and the complex rhetorical understandings of the use of the word must be included in its definition - at the beginning. To include only the simple positivist definition is to avoid the whole controversy around the meaning of the word. This would be a lie. And the history here - is a farce. Creating a more or less dubious concept "anti-americanism" and then retractively fitting all criticisms into this "concept" IS propoganda. I'm not going to change it for the moment until I investigate this word's history here and elsewhere - but it is blatantly POV at moment. Canuckistani 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the very beginning of the definition of this word - to include the fact the word is highly disputed. Perhaps not in america - but certainly in the world. To not include the fact that many understand this word only as propaganda vehicle for "americanism" is to not be objective. Of course many understand this word as referring to people who have (more or less irrational) hostility toward americans, american institutions etc.. and this must be included in its definition. I briefly looked at the rest of this article - it really is shoddy! Canuckistani 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A shame you find it shoddy. I think it quite decent, if a little over-bulleted at the moment. The fact "AA = propaganda" folks and "AA = serious threat" folks regularly come on here to accuse the page of POV for the other side tells me we hit both points well.
 * No one on this page "created" the term. It's an established part of political discourse. Also, retroactive labelling is a part of historical practice assuming appropriate caveats are provided. "Middle ages" is a retroactive label. "Totalitarian" is retroactively applied to Nazi Germany. Calling Sam Johnson an "anti-american" strikes me as perfectly sensible. Marskell 08:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It is not the retroactive application of a concept per se that I find troublesome here - we don't necessarily have words to describe everything that has happened and we need to invent new ones. But conversely just because a word exists does not mean that it is true! Some words are the cause of the effect that they say is their cause for being. They reverse the relationship of cause and effect. So rather than gathering up a series of events and understanding them (like the term "middle ages" does more or less) they impose upon things that have nothing in common. "Anti-American" is a word that knows no limits - it can take any criticism, from any time and anywhere, and project upon it an essential unifying hatred of the United States. This is paranoia. And this isn't simply my opinion. Ok, I understand that probably a lot of people would disagree with me and say "No, the word exists because people throughout the ages have hated America." As you well know the word is highly contested. But isn't this contest itself the objective reality of this word? Some believe that the word actually refers to something, some believe that it is a paranoiac fantasy. Why not include this objective reality in its definition at the very beginning?

Re: my comment on the shoddiness of the later parts: the tone of objectivity is an absolute farce – especially the “philosophical” and “academic” parts. Since the wikipedia entry is not an essay but a sort of encyclopaedia one cannot simply present opinion as objective fact. Clothing the article in academic language just muddies everything up. Point by point then: in the section titled “Anti-Technology and Consumerism the author procedes to show that Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre participated in anti-americanism. Three short quotes and two paragraphs later we have learned everything we need to know about those “anti-american” authors: that they are “anti-american”. This is NOT something that is taught in Universities in Canada – you would get laughed out of the classroom. Again this non-concept “anti-americanism” allows the collection of any disparate criticisms – without regard to their context or their meaning. If you are going to include Nietzsche, for example, in the cabal of america-haters you must prove that he had general and consistent hatred of the United States that pervades his writing. But probably the most important modern writer for Nietzche was Emerson – he goes on and on about how sublime he is (I could give a quote but I am in a hurry). Emerson is a quintessentially American author. (More later – must go now)Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the intro: "whether the term represents an actual ideological movement or merely a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms towards Americans or the United States is strongly debated." In the second section: "Critics of the term view it as a propagandistic label used to undermine legitimate criticism of U.S. policy insofar as it may conflate legitimate criticism with hateful rhetoric and prejudice." How are your concerns not addressed? Should we begin with "Anti-Americanism is a paranoiac fantasy" and proceed on that basis?


 * "Since the wikipedia entry is not an essay but a sort of encyclopaedia one cannot simply present opinion as objective fact." We don't do that--we present X's opinion as X's opinion and Y's opinion as Y's opinion. Sorry, I don't see the farce. If there's other historical figures you believe would be more appropriate, suggest them. I don't like using FN simply because he didn't deal with America at any length but insofar as we are accurately representing his words we are making no error. Marskell 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads right now I don't think that the first three sentences include the idea that for some the word is propaganda as paranoid fantasy (by the way with respect to this idea of "anti-americanism" being a paranoid fantasy I think the history of another similar word "un-american" could be brought up). I don't object to these beginning sentences as long as they are included with the whole palette of understandings of more or less common meanings of this word. And common does not mean how only how CNN uses this word. There is a debate in this country (Canada) and in Europe concerning the meaning of "anti-americanism". These beginning sentences, of course, do accurately represent the way the words are understood by some. I think that some criticism of the term should be included in the first section and not relegated to a later section - this criticism would not necessarily have to come first. And with respect to the third sentence - it does locate some problem with the term, but it is not very clear, as it could simply locate a division between those who basically agree that there is "anti-american" hostility but disagree as to whether it is a "rough composite" or an "ideology". The third sentence does not clearly locate a more fundamental difference which divides this word. This difference: whether the word really refers to something or not!

As to the section which quotes Nietszche and Heidegger - these two quotes are simply not enough to prove that there has been such a thing as "anti-americanism" and that these philosophers ascribed to it - consciously or unconsciously. I am sure that if I looked hard enough I could find a quote by George Washington complaining about the character of his fellow americans - I know I could find a quote from some american big-wig around the time of Andrew Jackson that complains about the common american rabble invading Washington. Since the 50's and much earlier many Americans have complained about consumerism and the fast-paced "soul-lessness" of American life - are these criticisms proof of "anti-americanism?" This section which quotes Neitszche and Heidegger and purports to prove of a historical european anti-americanism does NOT represent any generally agreed upon interpretation. This interpretation of "anti-americanism" as having a history in European philosophy is one that I have never heard of and I have a degree in philosophy. This version of the history of philosophy is perhaps what they teach in American Universities. But there is a large swath of the world which do not consider Neitszche, Heidegger, and Sartre to be "anti-american." The section that refers to these philosophers and attempts to make a case for a historical "anti-americanism" cannot purport to be objective unless it contains a rebuttal to this argument. Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does it label these philosophers as "anti-american." The article mentions intellectual trends regarding america and the united states that have been widely cited as perhaps connected to a geneology of the concept of anti-americanism. This does not mean that these ideas are definitively anti-american or that they as individuals were -- merely that some scholars have made an argument linking these intellectual trends and a theorized european phenomenon of "anti-americanism". I think a rebuttal would be perfectly appropriate, however. Tfine80 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tfine80, I find your tone is much more careful and reasonable than the article's. And although it is true that the article does not say that Neitszche, Heidegger, and Sartre were "anti-american" it presents their quotes as examples of "anti-americanism". A reader would not have a hard time inferring from this that they were "anti-american"; without a disclaimer this would seem to be implied. But I will provide a rebuttal to this section for your (all editors) perusal. But Tfine80 and Marskell (et. al.) what of my complaints re: the first three sentences? Also how do I get my handle to appear at then end here rather than my address - and without manually typing it each time? Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction has been edited back and forth frequently... Check the history. I think the article already clearly states that Anti-Americanism is only an alleged phenomenon, but I agree that this could be more clearly stated in the introduction. I find the recent addition of the "term" helpful in this respect. However, I don't agree that simply declaring it is propagandistic -- as a recent editor has -- (not sure if it was you) is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on "neutral point of view" (NPOV). However, in turn, the language throughout the article also needs to be clear that this is only a theorized concept. (To make a sig you need to add four tildes at the end of the line--if you start an account, you can enter your handle and the commands will be explained) Tfine80 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way - it is certainly undeniably true that there have been criticisms of America - and even that these criticisms were/are motivated by certain ideologies/religious faiths etc... - and I believe that it is true that some of these criticisms are either unfair, caricatures, or otherwise prejudiced and biased, and motivated by illwill, stupidity, and or ignorance. But none of this bears on the geneology and currency of the word "anti-american". I would argue that the way the word has come into being and its actual use - is as a paranoid phantasy/projection. It doesn't matter if by way of chance sometimes the "anti-american" phantasy lines up with someone elses perverse phantasy of a caricatured america. Neither of these non-communicants would understand each other. And the word "un-american" as is it was used in the 1950's has a similar paranoia about it. Some understand the rise of this word "anti-american" to be tied to recent attempts to rehabilate that whole sordid affair of the "Committee on Un-American Activities". You should believe that many people outside of America (and some within) find this word "anti-american" or "anti-americanism" to be the sign of a collective paranoia, of the incapacity to appropriately judge criticism.

Also in this regard there is the probably most famous book on America by an European "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville. This book is definately not "anti-american" - although it is critical. There are many things that de Tocqueville finds excellent and astonishing about America and Americans but one thing presciently, I believe, he finds problematic. He writes that although Americans have at their disposal a political freedom that at the time was un-available to the average european - he finds in Americans a will to social conformity that threatens to undermine and negate the political freedoms that he lauds. (One can also detect in his book a mourning for the end of European aristrocacy - as the beginning of the age of the common (american) man.) This word "anti-americanism" I and others believe, rather than pointing to any real unified ideology or practice outside America, is another example of the effects of Americans will-to-conformity. This doesn't explain much but at least the questions regarding this word would be directed to the right target. A proper history of the word "anti-american", and "anti-americanism" would include its relation to the word "un-american" and to American's understanding of themselves in relation the rest of the World. It is not likely that an objective account of this self-understanding could be written by an American. Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with a few of your points. However, I strongly disagree that an American cannot dispassionately write about this subject. Part of the concept of Anti-Americanism is that, perhaps uniquely in America's case, some may feel able to generalize about the United States while having little personal knowledge themselves. In fact, I think your simplified and extrapolated claims about an American "will-to-conformity" perhaps illustrate this. The question of the counterpoint to the term un-American is interesting, but I don't think it is as central as you see it. Another connected factor was American exhaustion with some Western European behavior during the Cold War. However, the burden of inclusion on Wikipedia is to find cited sources that make your claims. If you can find reputable sources that make that claim and support your speculations about the modern history of the term, feel free to include these arguments if you can write about the subject in a NPOV way with all sides equally presented. Tfine80 01:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI - and in the best spirit - you should know that I am half-american and I have lived half of my child-hood in the U.S. I went to high-school in Fresno CA and briefly went to University there also. Half of my family are American citizens. I have a green card. My comment about whether an American can write objectively about America is the one that I am least attached to. Although as a general phenomenom I believe one needs an "other" to write the truth of oneself. Americans more than ever need strong, intelligent, "others" who care about America but aren't afraid to tell her/him the truth. These "others" can, of course, be inside America. But I find that words like "anti-americanism" shut out this possibility. Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok I must say that I can live with the current edit of the first paragraph. The additional fourth sentence is excellent in my opinion as it provides a handle to a very different perspective from the first three. But as for the rest of the article I will argue for changes. But not tonight - tonight we have an election in Canada. Canuckistani 64.228.153.42 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be, for the most part, a list of criticisms (reasonable or not) of the U.S. I could make a list like this about any country on earth. The challenge in defending this term, in arguing that it actually refers to something, would be to show how anti-Americanism forms as “coherent and dangerous ideological current” that is “independent of the real attributes of the nation”; to trace the “ideological tread” that supposedly spread across the world; to show that is an "ism". This has not been done. As it stands now this definition would be able to include any criticism of the United State, from S. Johnson to J. Stalin to Jon Sewart, making it absurd. Samot27 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a clear idea of when this term first appeared and in what context?--Samot27 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pic
In archiving I noticed a post from a while ago that I hadn't responded to at the time regarding our first pic. Given that it's presumably two Americans protesting a specific issue rather than a non-American caricaturing the country as such, is it actually a good choice? The North Korean and Catalan pics are cluttered together. Maybe drop the Vietnam pic and move one of those up? Marskell 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Vietnam picture is too frequently read as a POV implication. Tfine80 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Americans are really hated
Because greedy American businessmen find they make more money by broadcasting mediocre shows showing grimey, disgusting people with low morals and no shame. These are not average, American people. Anti-Americans see this and think they are our majority.