Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 21

Biased?
This article is completely biased!

Why is it that under the 'critisisms' section, all the points start off with "some people" while, the first, most promisnatn point starts with... "Many charge that anti-Americanism stems largely from jealousy"

Why the many? Why is this particular 'charge' many while the other are only some? And their is know sourse backing up the 'many'people who make this charge.

How can anybody claim that anti-americanism is like waht the Jews suffered during the 1930's and 40s? Currently, americans are not being round up on every corner and thrown into gas chambers.

And lets review the last point of the crisisms secion as well:

"Overall, the most common theme of many critics is that anti-Americanism is usually irrational in tone, and they thus distinguish it from simple criticism over policy. They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on sheer anger, jealously, bitterness, spite, or cruelty. Gestures such as flag burning, for example, might be disregarded as hysterical or "crazed"."

This catch-all point completley dismissed any form of legitimage anti-americanism, and should be placed in an anti-anti-americanism page all on its own. And the world cruelty makes no sense at all? "They argue that many manfestations of anti-American protest are thus based on ... cruelty. " ???

This article is really below standards, and needs to be balanced out. Right now its just brushing away such a perseptive as being "crazed". To be Anti-american, is to be "crazed", "cruel", "jealous" and the like.

I removed the POV claim that France, above all other countries, is 'jealous' of America. If we're going to have that claim, then include all the other 'former empires'. That line was blatantly anti-French and silly. [I'm British, by the way.]


 * Hello. The claim in the article is that the argument is made, not that it's true. The opinion page is the appropriate place for it--you (hopefully) aren't going to find speculation about the ideological motivations of the French elite in the news section. I provided a link to an article in The Economist, which is one of the many prominent places this has been argued. If you want, I can provide several others, such as Jean-François Revel's book pictured on the article. But IMHO the Economist piece sums it up nicely and is of an appropriate prominence to be sufficient as the only reference. --rehpotsirhc [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px| ]] 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle East edits
Regarding recent reversions over the Middle East bit...


 * Were the celebrations "widespread"? No, as our own page makes clear. There's basically one famous photo of a woman with her arms in the air that may well have been a set-up.
 * "Sympathy and support" does indeed require sharpening. Public attitudes toward Al Qaeda et al. are ambivalent in the extreme in the Mid East and government positions are uniformly hostile. Marskell 10:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the first point, I don't much care except to point out how worthless "our" page is on the subject. Thousands were in the streets cheering in multiple countries. I saw it myself on tv and it was probably the worst event of all that day. Meanwhile our little page discusses stupid behavior of a handfull of people in the meantime. whatever.
 * On the second, that is a style concern which I don't feel is sufficient to veto contributions. I added verifiable facts. If you don't like how specific they are/aren't or the conclusions they may lead to, feel free to add more facts. Al Qaeda has received both sympathy and protection in the Muslim world. This is a fact. Grotesque examples abound. The Taleban was one. All the children getting named Osama is another. I don't need to give every sympathizer's name, age, and blood type for it to be encyclopedic. I also did not make any innacurate or arguable assertions such as claims about prevalance. I want to keep it terse and broadly worded for the simple reason that it can refer to a wide range of instances without having to list them, not because I want to smear every middle easterner, assuming that is the basis of your concern here. I will add language to make that clearer. keith 11:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sympathy and support" in the absence of a counterpoint is a POV and there is a de facto indication of prevalance. We could just as easily write "relatively robust efforts on the part of Middle Eastern governments to track, capture, and kill terrorists reveal pro-American attitudes in the region." This would actually be more sourcable. What often gets forgotten is that with exception of Syria, Libya and Iran, every Middle Eastern country is a U.S. ally to one degree or another. I'm not asking for blood types; I'm just asking that the statement be properly qualified, which it is not at present. Marskell 12:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think counter-examples are needed add them and stop this uncollaborative behavior. Everything is pov to you it seems. I don't know what the true prevalance actually is that is why my addition makes no claim regarding except to refer to specific examples. keith 12:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And btw you are aware of the polls which claim a majority of young people in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported bin laden following 9/11? And who knows what we might find on polls elsewhere. We are talking about possibly tens of millions of people, but you only want the article to refer to a few hundred terrorists and be blind to the rest. That is a disservice to readers. keith 13:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about tens of millions. We're talking about 300 million (Arabs) or 1.2 billion (Muslims). This is a central reason why "sympathy and support" requires clarification/sourcing. We can't present a "support" viewpoint on behalf of a billion people without a counter-point. You "don't know what the true prevalance actually is". Right, so let's not present statemenets of fact until they are properly circumscribed or sourced. Marskell 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am indeed referring to tens of millions (perhaps even hundreds) in that statement I added. Please point me to the sentence or phrase which implies all arabs/muslims. Don't spin, wave your hands, squint, and repeat vague statements you've already made. Just quote the damn text. And while you're at it suggest an alternative yourself that does not pretend certain facts do not exist.


 * Your refusal to accept that even a few percent of middle easterners (i.e. tens of millions) support these terrorists is simply obtuse. Here's a taste of the kind of references you are apparently blind to:.
 * "A Saudi Arabian poll [in 2001] revealed that 95 percent of educated Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 support Osama bin Laden"
 * Here's a Norwegian poll claiming support for al qaeda among Palestinians at 65%.
 * Hey only 5% of Afghans have a positive view of bin Laden . Course that's over a million sympathisizers.
 * This one from 2004 claims his support in the region is going up ...
 * "What we're seeing now is a disturbing sympathy with al Qaeda coupled with resentment toward the United States, and we ought to be extremely troubled by that," said Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor who commissioned one of the surveys.
 * Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden tied for fourth place on a list of most admired world leaders. Jacques Chirac of France was first on that list, despite a ban on Muslim headscarves in French schools. Guess we should add something about Saddam.
 * But this one a year later has it going back down (yay.).
 * This poll even takes al qaeda's broad support for granted and measures Americans' awareness of the fact..


 * Thanks for making me waste an hour to provide you with verification for common knowledge. The best you can hope for to support your apolegetic aim is a zogby poll I recall seeing a while back that claimed support was only in the 10-20% range in the most radical countries and single digit percentages in more moderate countries, based on carefully phrasing of the questions. This easily still implies tens of millions. Sad but true. keith 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your sources. You didn't waste your time seeing as the point is now sharpened properly and we have plenty of info to work with. But please watch for attackish comments. I have no "apologetic aim" here. Look through the last half dozen archives and you'll see I've been attempting to neuter POV pushes from both sides of this subject. I very clearly did not suggest that Al Qaeda does not have support--It wouldn't exist if it didn't. My concern was presenting sympathy and support as a statement of fact when the truth is far more complicated.


 * Also, I'm going to drop the the Al Jazeera comment if you don't mind, as I think it tangential. Marskell 11:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I shook the info around to hopefully make the argument flow better. While the initial point that Bush hasn't caused A-A in the region is certainly valid, I've noted that policies have aggravated the phenomenon, which your stats seem to underscore. Marskell 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Those sources are not good for that purpose. They are from liberal organizations which I specifically chose because their political agenda would not support their pointing out anti-americanism which isn't Bush's fault. However their bias would definately support claiming an increase and blaming it on Bush, so they can't be trusted to make that claim. Further they were put there to counter the polemic claim that anchors the section and points the finger at Bush policy. If you want to keep pulling them away for other points off elsewhere then the claim should go also. keith 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Quickly:


 * Simply removing any claim against Bush, as you have done, is the best bet for now. I altered it because we had a straw man: "some people blame Bush, but this is wrong." I do think it fairly undeniable that recent policy has aggravated AA. I have Sam Huntington in my lap with some info to that affect which I'll try to incorporate later.
 * I think the difference b/w publics and gov's should remain. Marskell 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Pointing out facts that are not covered by a given theory is not a straw-man argument. I was not arguing that bush policy didn't aggravate AA. I was arguing that the most infamous examples of AA preceeded bush policy. If someone is trying to claim global warming has caused an increase in bad weather, it's certainly relevant to point out if the worst weather in recorded history preceeded global warming. The claims are mutually exclusive and there was no conclusion given. keith 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I feel we may be at that unfortunate point where in anything I say you'll look for something to disagree with. I did approve of your edit, you'll notice.

Re my argument: "It has often been argued" + "However..." did read as a subtle strawman I'm afraid, and still does on looking at it. However, my change did read as a subtle attack on Bush. So, thx for rm'ing.

I do think we need to mention the difference over the last four years in some form, while contextualizing it. One rule of market research is "don't present an explainable spike as a turning point". Bush had an 85% approval rating after 9/11, but this was no real turning point in his public stature. Maybe 95% of Saudis hated America after the Iraq invasion. Given two or three years both figures will almost necessarily drop.

Anyhow, if we vetted the entire article to this degree we'd have an FA! Marskell 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are much more concerned with subtle wording issues than me. I do math for a living... I just use prepositions to tie sentences together. And I put weasel words where a statement is controversial and unsourced.
 * As for an outright claim of causation I'm sure there are plenty of partisan sources you could just quote. The section could also use plenty more about Israel. keith 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That support seems to have dropped to around 30%. Oh my, Marskell. Now the Arabs will attack, won't they. So you are going to get out your shotgun, and put on your "I kill commies hat". The countries do not support terrorism. The groups that are INSIDE the countries however, do. Its like the KKK being in America. Think about that. Both are pretty religious, and both are violent/militant. Yet America won't show off it's problems, but it will show others'. Now many Americans would say that they hate the Middle East. Good job.

Now it's propaganda again...
"Anti-Americanism is a term used by some people to label opinions with connection to the United States that the speaker disagrees." This is utterly POV. A common POV, yes, which the intro and "use of the term" address. This has been beat to death in the archives. While it does get changed occasionally, the intro as it stands has been the most stable this page has seen in a year. Also, the Vietnam pic better suits supposed "un-Americanism" rather than "anti-Americanism." See the very last archive post. Marskell 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if i get the question, but Anti-americanism= a dislike to hate of America in my mind. It describes a POV, but is not a POV.

First sentence should include 'economic policies'
Hello. The first sentence of this article leaves out what around the world is known as the biggest generator of anti-Americanism, and that is the economic policies of the USA. This is verified in great detail in these academic books:

When Corporations Rule the World, Daniel Kortens (former Harvard business professor), Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2nd edition, 2001.

The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex, Revised and Updated Edition, Helen Caldicott, New Press, 2002 and 2004.

I can give plently of other books to be cited also, if anybody wants them. Given the information in these books (and I can give citations is anybody wants them), it seems that the article is incomplete without mention in the first sentence that in addition to culture, etc., economic policies are to blame. Americans often know this to be true anyway (ever heard Osama Bin Laden talk about his wrath that oil comes out of his country and into the USA? One of countless examples). So, given this information, I am wondering why this is not included in the first sentence. It was added the other day by another user but omitted and the only reason given was: 'unverified information.' But what I have just written verifies it, so it should go back on. If anybody wants, I would be happy to add into the article a well researched small paragraph that explains this issue.


 * The long-standing idea here was dislike of America/Americans regardless of policy. Note, for instance, the last sentence of use of term: "Finally, it is argued that a consistent anti-American ideology is defensible if based on an economic or political foundation rather than on hatred of American culture or American ethnic or racial composition." That is to be against some economic or political stance, is not necessarily to be Anti-American. I don't mind policy being mentioned in the first paragraph but this nuance needs to be kept in mind. Marskell 14:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be mention of George Bush on this page. A lot of us that could be labeled 'anti-american' are simply anti-bush and the america he stands for. There have been poles guestioning people about their views of America and they consistantly say that positive opinion of America has dwindled under Bush. Also it should be mentioned that these fealings are coming from places that are supposedly Americas best friends for instance I am Australian.


 * WADR, I think you missed the point of the article. Simply opposing Bush or his policies is not Anti-Americanism. --rehpotsirhc [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px| ]] 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, criticisms of Bush administration policies are often enough labelled anti-Americanism. Since the article cannot possibly establish what AA is - this would require original research - we have to rely on where and how the term is applied. Rkrichbaum 01:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

3.2.1 Islam
1. ... poll of 17 countries performed in 2005 finds a "sharp drop" from 2004 and even from 2002 levels of support for terrorism and Bin Laden in most countries surveyed ...

Interesting data, yet irrelevant in this article: "support for terrorism" or an alleged terrorist mastermind does not translate into "anti-Americanism" and vice versa.

2. ... BBC report in January 2002 about certain urban legends in Kano, Nigeria, in relation to the alleged support and admiration of terrorist activities etc.

see above

3. ... New York Times article in early 2002 ... revealed that 95 percent of educated Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 support Osama bin Laden ...

no link to NYT, instead to Harper's - as a regular reader I personally trust that Harper's quotes are correct, but in this case one would like to know a little more about the circumstances than is cited in this little entry. As it is, there is no apparent relation of this entry to "anti-Americanism".

4. The September 11 attacks and the subsequent celebrations ... earlier terrorist strikes against U.S. interests, provide extreme examples of Anti-American sentiment.

That is a conclusion, not a statement of proven fact. We do not even have valid convictions against perpetrators or supporters of the attacks, nor do we have confessions which would suggest the "anti-American" motivation.

Rkrichbaum 19:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)