Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 8

the usage of accusations of anti-Americanism
The following sentence has been removed in the last day. Maybe it ought to be polished and re-inserted at an appropriate location?
 * It is controversial whether such perceptions are always correct, since it may be that "anti-American" is sometimes used to smear countries which are merely critical or unsupportive of the US. It could conversely (and again, controversially) be argued that some kind of anti-Americanism is usually the root cause of such criticism and lack of support.

--Ruhrjung 19:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you see in that sentence that is not already dealt with in the introduction? Get-back-world-respect 22:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I would put it the other way around. The introduction sumarizes the article. If this isn't considered important enough to be noted in the body of the article, then surely it will soon also be removed from the introduction.
 * --Ruhrjung 04:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4.228's paragraph about Canada
An anonymous user in the IP range 4.228 has been repeatedly trying to insert this paragraph for several days now:


 * It is worth noting in this connection that patriotism and nationalism exists all throughout the world. One particularly egregious example is the Canadian press, which often purports that Canada is more racially diverse than the United States. Many Canadians believe this, when in fact, 87% of Canada is white . Many Canadians are also unaware that slavery existed in Canada's history and that discrimination still exists.

But Get-back-world-respect and I have been removing it because this paragraph is purely about Canada, whereas this article is about what people think of America. Rather than discuss it here, he's been trying to sneak it in via various deceitful edit practices. I figured I might as well start off a discussion here myself, taking the moral high road as it were, and see if that gets him to follow along and actually talk about it here too. Bryan 21:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * He was discussing above (Death penalty and Canada), saw that what he wrote could not convince anyone and decided to engage in edit wars. Get-back-world-respect 22:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Never mind then. I was planning to stick to the three-revert rule and do everything "by the book" trying to get him to talk about this, but at this point he looks like a plain old troll to me. (I also notice that he hasn't touched the talk: page in ten days, so I can't really count the stuff above as being discussion of this particular edit.) Bryan 22:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Intro
Before edit war: "When used by Americans, these terms are perhaps mostly used by people who are labelling the views of their opponents, rather than by people who are describing their own position." (11:40, 30 May 2004 User:193.219.28.144)

After: "While the term implies an ideological tendency and racism (cf. anti-semitism), its use is often perceived as an attempt by Americans to defame and downplay legitimate criticism, particularly of US foreign policy." (16:34, 30 May 2004 User:Get-back-world-respect)

Less wordy suggestion: Those who disagree with the use of the term often perceive it as an attempt to dismiss criticism of the USA, and to hint at prejudice (c.f. anti-semitism). Andy G 17:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * A prefer it as it is because the use of the term increased tremendously after the criticism of Bush's Iraq war, so it is noteworthy that foreign policy is the major issue. Also, anti-semitism implies much more than prejudice, and it is important that people try to label legitimate criticism with a term that implies racism. Get-back-world-respect 17:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article here?
This article seems to have a core of confusion. It's just a list of things that the US may have done to annoy people; which is okay, I guess, but what is the connection between groups that dogmatically hate the US and people who disagree with their foreign policy? I think that the fact that this article exists demonstrates the success of the American (hugely right-biased) media in confusing the issue of international disapproval of the actions of the American government (for an example, check out 'Hating America: the New World Sport', by some Fox News wacko). I mean, lots of Americans disapprove of their government for doing a lot of these things as well, don't they? Are they, like a Jewish person who disapproves of Israeli occupation, to be accused of self-loathing? I think the issues in this article needs to be separated. Dogmatic anti-Americanism shouldn't be mixed up with protests against concrete issues, which could maybe be moved to an article of their own, perhaps entitled 'Human Rights Abuses Perpetrated by the American Right'.Teefteef 01:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you. The very first sentence "Anti-Americanism or anti-American sentiment is strong disapproval for the government, culture, history, and/or people of the United States of America" is so broad that it makes the whole article pretty meaningless. I mean, most people will agree that US history has been pretty bloody, like the history of all nations, and that has not necessarily anything to do with how they view American culture which is very diverse anyway. Quite objectively, the US government has little to do with the American people, half of which did not vote in 2000 and of those who did, the majority wanted a different government. To equate America=govmt+history+culture+people and then state boldly that anti-Americanism is the rejection of these is an incredibly distorted analysis. One could argue that to conflate all these different aspects is very strongly POV, in fact the extremist POV shared by both chauvinist Americans and chauvinist anti-Americans. Most people in the world are rather more discerning. IMHO, 'Anti-americanism' is not directly about the "government, culture, history, and people of the US" as a whole. Instead it is a reaction to the global dominance of US power, which expresses itself at times though these various aspects. pir 02:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, albeit on a bit of a different basis. I definately think this page should be condensed by several hundred percent. To me, this page seems to be essientially of a long mockery of the term "Anti-Americanism." If there was a thesis, it would be something like "People throw around the term anti-Americanism a lot, but just look at all the bad things America did to Latin America in the 1970's! Who wouldn't be an anti-American!" There seems to be a strong desire among certain people on Wikipedia to just compile a long list of "bad" foreign policy things that the United States did in the 20th Century, as alleged by Noam Chomsky and left-wingers of his ilk. This page in its present from reminds me a lot of the History of American Imperialism page, and the conflicts that have gone on there.


 * I'm not trying to white-wash, or anything like that. It's just that in the grand scheme of things, in the 21st Century, what the Truman Administration did in Greece in the late 1940's would be near the bottom of the reasons anyone would cite for being passionately filled with America-hate. I know it is popular in left-wing circles to denounce the term "anti-Americanism" as being some sort of McCarthyist term to supress criticism, but I don't see why that in turn means that this whole page has to be a rampage against that obvious straw man argument. There is a modern anti-American phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with academic tut-tuting of US foreign policies.


 * A more concise page would move quickly to denounce the wrong, straw man, argument against the term "anti-Americanism." All that needs to be said would be a few sentences about how "within the United States itself, the term 'anti-American' is often used to denounce critics of past and present US foreign policy, especially those on the political left. Such critics denounce the allegation, citing that disagreement or dislike of the actions of the US government, or US politicians, does not amount to a total hatred of the nation of the United States or the American people." In my opinion, something like that would be sufficient. We don't need to revisit the entire 20th Century history of the United States Defense Deparment on this page. user:J.J.

Perhaps this should be split out back to how it was with two seperate pages: Anti-Americanism and perhaps Reasons for Anti-American sentiment or something like that. Gem 15:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you guys had a look at the above discussion about the proper title for this article? Get-back-world-respect 22:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be hard-pressed to title any article about prejudice (remembering that prejudicial opinions may include both accurate and false perceptions) as "Reasons for..." The question is always present: "Is that a reason or an excuse? Or both?" I have never in my life met a bigot with the honesty to consider that "I hate [blank] because I'm envious, or ethnocentric, or my parents did, or everyone else I know does so I go along, or because they're more powerful/more successful/richer than I am." It's always "I hate them because of the terrible things they've done." -- Cecropia | Talk 02:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you want to show us with this that you are one of those who are so obsessed with themselves that the only explanation they could think of why someone would not share it must be envy? Get-back-world-respect 20:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. What I'm saying is that any article of this nature has a chicken-and-egg quality to it. Do I hate a certain group of people because they're bad, or do I hate them for personal reasons I might not be really be aware of and then look for bad things about them to back up my prejudice? How can an article possibly be NPOV if the writers may not be able to acknowledge their own prejudice.


 * Compare this article with the one on anti-French attitudes in the US. That article cites supposed dislike toward France and concludes that the reason is that Americans are mean, stupid and bigoted. Then this article looks at why others dislike America and comes to the conclusion that Americans are mean, stupid and bigoted. Americans (excuse me, United Statesers ;-) must be really really bad people. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But Anti-Americanism is an important phenomenon, I cant see any reason put forward why the reasons as to why it exists should not be listed. what are you suggesting exactly?.G-Man 13:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that the article lacks proportion, so it is not useful to a person who might actually be studying anti-Americanism, or as GBWR would probably better put it, "attitudes towards the U.S." It mixes material reasons such as American hostility toward socialism with absolutely ridiculous ones as complaining that "In God we Trust" is on the currency.


 * Additionally, there are a number of complaints of the pot-kettle-black variety: for example, an entire heading is devoted "Relationship with Israel" and "America's Blind Support for Israel" without examining the concomitant international support for the Palestines. Especially considering Europe's centuries-long history toward Jews, this is especially curious. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I cannot follow you here on two points. First, why should a person who believes in secularism not complain about religious phrases on a state controlled object he has to use every day?


 * Presumably anti-Americanism has to do with non-US sentiment. I'm questioning why "In God We Trust" on a coin is important enough to anyone outside the US to fuel anti-US feeling. If I were to say I was anti-British because they have a monarch on their coinage, and I'm a (small r) republican, wouldn't you say that's weird? Might you not ask what business it is of mine what another country puts on its coins?


 * I personally think it is completely ridiculous to pay monarchs millions every year to keep up their pompous lifestyle. If someone else feels this so strongly that he makes it a point against the British I cannot follow him but I would not ignore if such feelings existed. Get-back-world-respect 09:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Second, because the holocaust happened in Europe now Europeans should accept that the U.S. block every attempt to protect Palestinian human rights?


 * A lot more than the holocaust happened to Jews in Europe. Jews were persecuted literally for centuries in Europe, culminating in the murders and expulsions of WWII. Today most of Europe's pre-war Jewish population is murdered or driven out, many to Israel. There are many, many horrors in the world (take Durfar right now), but the Israel-Palestine one seems to be the only one which consistently interests Europeans, even to the point where this article cites pro-Israel support in the US as a cause of anti-Americanism. Why? Europe does not have a historic connection to Palestinians, but it does to Jews. It was a negative one before WWII and a negative one after WWII. Why? Is this just a coincidence? Would you be surprised if a non-Jewish, non-European outsider wondered whether the antipathy to Jews in Europe before the super-pogrom of WWII transferred to the only Jewish country in the world? -- Cecropia | Talk 00:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, the article clearly states that America's support for Israel is a major cause of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, which it is. It doesn't say anything at all about Europeans. G-Man 13:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is overly covered in the media all over the world, not just in Europe. Claiming that Europeans are anti-semitic is as racist as saying that Americans are ignorant of international law just because they have a government that does it. And the fact that human rights were violated in Europe in the past should only make Europeans pay more attention that human rights are not violated again, regardless of where those whose rights are violated live. Get-back-world-respect 09:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, above you compared this article with Anti-French sentiment in the United States. If you do not like that article discuss it there. To what conclusions you come from an article is your choice, I cannot see either article making conclusions, that is not the job of an encyclopedia, especially not on such topics. Get-back-world-respect 17:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I too question the relevance of this page. I am confused as to whether this is an article ABOUT anti-American sentiment or an article OF anti-American sentiment. Everything below "Possible Causes of anti-American sentiment" is a thinly-veiled attack on everything from American movies to capital punishment that anyone would be hard-pressed to say was NPOV. I think the article is insulting both to Americans (are they all supposed to apologize for the "sins" of their entire country throughout its entire history?) and to people who have legitimate complaints about specific policies of its government and attitudes of its people (by lumping liberals, conservatives, and extremists like terrorists into one group of "anti-American sentiment"). The article leaves no room for discussion and the viewpoints stated as fact (represented by the repetitive "some people think ..." lines of argument) are extremely generalized and largely uncited. I love Wikipedia, but this article is far from being one of its brightest achievements. CES 08:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If you read the introduction you see that the article strictly distinguishes between legitimate criticism and anti-Americanism. Since the legitimate parts occupy the better part of this article I think the title should be changed as soon as possible, which would allow to cover all attitudes toward the U.S., including gratefulness for the defeat of Nazism or protection during the Cold War. Get-back-world-respect 17:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

An Image
Do you all think that this East German propaganda poster would be a good addition to the article? I think it portrays America as many people in the world view her: a violent and wicked bully. DO'Neil 09:05, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but we'd have to be careful not to imply that all (or most) criticism of America is on the same level as East-German propaganda. Cadr 13:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Naturally. But, of course, some people do view America in this manner. It's like the "Fuck The American Way" graffiti image from Germany. Some critcism is this harsh, most not. DO'Neil 08:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess I was being unecessarily critical, sorry. Cadr 14:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was born right after WWII, and such stark and graphic criticism of another country for militarism auf Deutsch offends me. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, however, this article is in part about racism, so no wonder graphic documentation is unpleasant. On the other hand I think it is a shame to those who spread that kind of propaganda. That makes me think whether we have articles covering Nazi propaganda, anti-Nazi propaganda or anti-communist propaganda? Get-back-world-respect 17:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Surely "racism" is an inaccrate term. Americans are clearly not a race in the usual sense of the word. Cadr 13:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Please read the Racism article and agree with me that the term does not make sense at all if you strictly reduce it to being against a "race" as would be the proper use of the word. Neither jews nor arians as defined by the Nazis are a race, I however doubt very much that this would make you claim they were not racist. Get-back-world-respect 14:07, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe most scientists no longer believe that "race" is a scientific concept, better rather a social construct. I (and others) much prefer the term "enthnocentrism," which is both more accurate and not so politically charged. It also avoids ridiculous arguments like "the Rwanda genocide wasn't racist because both sides were the same race." They were certainly different ethnicities. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Racism is the term commonly used and most understandable. Ethnocentrist has a connotation of putting yourself in the center while racism is more about disrespecting the other. Furthermore, although according to Scientific classification there is only one species of human beings, the homo sapiens sapiens, to me Africans, Caucasians and Asians look as much different as Coal Tits and Great Tits. At least pygmies look quite different. The sick thing about racism is that people regard themselves superior because of different looks, traditions or whatever, usually while at the same time not knowing much about the others. Get-back-world-respect 22:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The point remains that Americans don't generally consider themselves to be a "race", whereas (quite a lot of) Jews do. In addition, Americans would not usually be regarded as belonging to a single race even by their detractors, so it is very odd (not to mention confusing) to term reactionary anti-Americanism "racist". And it's clearly POV, anyway (though to be fair I don't think you've edited "racist" into the article). I don't pretend that there's an objective definition of race, or that it's even a coherent concept, but that doesn't mean we can call any group of people a race on a whim. Surely if the word is essentially meaningless, we shouldn't use it. Cadr 20:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Jews do not generally consider themselves as a race either, as far as I know you become a jew when you have a jewish mother. Since "jews" names those who have a certain religion and there live followers of that religion pretty much all over the world and they did not emigrate there recently, jews are certainly not a race in any scientific way. I find the UN definition of racism rather convincing, essentially you are a racist when you judge people on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. That would mean anti-Americanism to be racist. As I already explained there is only one species of human beings and as any subdivisions are rather arbitrary using the term race for human beings is questionable. That however does not mean that the term racism is meaningless. You would not say that ufologists do not exist only because UFOs do not exist. Get-back-world-respect 22:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If you become a Jew when you have a Jewish mother, surely that implies an (admittedly non-scientific) racial definition of Jewishness? We seem to be making the same arguments but coming to different conclusions. I completely agree the idea of "race" has no scientific basis, but it is still the case that while some groups of people are commonly thought to constitute a race, others are not. You say yourself that although the term race has little or no scientific significance, it is somewhat meaningful because racists believe it to be so &mdash; I totally agree with you on this point. However, I do not think proponents of anti-Americanism ever describe Americans as a race, so it seems strange to label their views racist, when it is not clear that anyone involved (i.e. either Americans or anti-Americans) generally consider Americans to be a race. This contrasts with anti-Semitism, where many anti-Semites do consider Jews to be a race, and may give explicitly racist reasons for hating Jews (as the Nazis did, for example). Cadr 12:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * So, to get back on topic, shall we put the East German poster in the article? DO'Neil 10:46, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * So, to get back on topic, shall we put the East German poster in the article? DO'Neil 10:46, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * The poster is interesting because it's so "World-War-I-ish." But it is out of context if you don't mention that the government producing it was one which is now defunct and which shot its own citizens for the crime of wishing to leave. This is the problematic nature of an "anti-" article. Sometimes our negative expressions toward others reveals more about ourselves. The knowledgeable reader can pick this up on his own, but the reader actually looking for information may not know what to make of it. -- Cecropia | Talk 11:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another image
Perhaps this picture would be better? (and certainly more humourous - a bit of light relief is certainly needed around here...) -- ChrisO 21:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Without context the image is meaningless. Where was it taken? Before a reading of Michael Moore, a presentation of "50 first dates" or when Bush visited Italy? Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * London, near the Globe Theatre, about a week ago. I have no idea what the placard-waver was trying to say... -- ChrisO 22:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least he used the apostrophe correctly :-) --Phil | Talk 09:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I really cannot understand how you could include a photo of a guy about which you say yourself "I have no idea what the placard-waver was trying to say...". Get-back-world-respect 10:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trade disputes and domineering weapons
I think that the comment about the USA's trade dispute with Canada is too specific/short-term/small. There are tons of trade disputes that arise from the WTO agreements. It would be good to note if the USA has an unusally high number of these disputes relative to other countries.

Also, I think the US gets a lot of flack for continuing to develop domineering weapons (nukes and space based weapons come to mind). Where should this be added? AdamRetchless 13:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)