Talk:The Ugly American

possible copyvio from meta
more likely just someone's book report, that they pasted in as an article back in March

The book “The Ugly American,” by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, has no main character. Instead it has multiple lead characters, whose stories all revolve around Indochina and U.S. involvement in the region. The book was written in 1958, a time when China had recently become a Communist dictatorship, and the significant U.S. foreign policy issues of the time related to fighting Communist influence in Indochina. Dwight D. Eisenhower was president at the time, and his “domino theory” was extremely popular in U.S. foreign policy circles. It theorized that a country that fell to communist imperialism would inevitably cause the fall of its neighboring countries to communist imperialism as well. With the division of Vietnam into communist North and free market South in 1954, the possibility of all of Indochina becoming communist was a cause for great concern among U.S foreign policy makers. The two authors of this book are both extremely devoted to writing about U.S foreign policy, particularly in Indochina, having written three books together and several more separately. The book’s central country is a fictitious one in Indochina named Sarkhan, which seems to be an amalgamation of the problems the U.S. faced battling Communist influence in real-life Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand.

Many of the scenarios presented in the book seem outlandish and implausible, so the authors included a factual epilogue at the end, showing the reader that, in fact, most of the book derives its inspiration from real-life events. For instance, one of the most seemingly unrealistic parts of the book comes in chapter two, when a Russian agent has bags of rice, which have been donated by the U.S. government, stenciled with the words “This rice is a gift from Russia.” Because it was written in Sarkhanese, and none of the Americans present could read Sarkhanese, the Russian deception worked. This scenario, which seems made up, was actually inspired by a U.S. shipment of tractors whose doors were painted with a hammer and sickle by the Communists, leading the recipients of the tractors to believe that they came from the U.S.S.R.

The main message the authors were attempting to get across is that The United States must win the ideological, political, economic and military battles against World Communism, and that in 1958 it was failing. The authors believed that the U.S. needed stricter requirements for Foreign Service, otherwise the best and the brightest would not see it as challenging enough and therefore would not be tempted to join, leaving only the mediocre as recruits. The top recommendation by the authors was language requirements. The Russians required in 1958 that any Foreign Service staff learn the language of the country that they are serving in prior to arriving in that country. In contrast, the United States had no such requirements and as a result the delegates and ambassadors of the U.S. usually did not speak the language of the country they were operating in. This left them dependent on translators, which left them open to espionage by the enemy. And during the Cold War, espionage was everything. It was also dangerous because those in the Foreign Service could not read local newspapers and rarely communicated with any locals except the elites who spoke English and were out of touch with common peoples’ needs.

That ties in with the authors’ second main point, which is that U.S. foreign policy was often grandiose and long-term in terms of aid, when in reality the needs of the people were practical and day-to-day. This point is illustrated well in Chapter 14 by Thomas Knox, a chicken farmer from the Midwest who goes to Cambodia to help the locals with their chicken production. He is so good that eventually every town in Cambodia knows of him and greets him with great fanfare when he arrives. He educates the locals, shows them what nutrients yield good chickens and good eggs and leaves behind pamphlets in the local language when he leaves. This is the sort of aid the U.S. should be giving Southeast Asia, the authors argue. Instead you get politicians like the one Tom Knox goes up against in the same chapter, arguing that what’s best for Cambodia are the U.S. plans for road-building and canal construction. While Tom agrees that those will have benefits for Cambodia, most of the people in Cambodia live off the land and a increase in chicken and egg production is much more important, and much cheaper. While Tom doesn’t say it in the chapter, the authors also argue that this type of approach to foreign policy would be much more effective, and cheaper, propaganda against the Russians.

The title of the book, The Ugly American, actually carries a double meaning. On the one hand it has come to be a metaphor for all that is wrong with heavy-handed U.S. foreign policy. On the other hand, it represents Homer Atkins, one of the lead characters. Homer Atkins is an engineer who travels to Sarkhan to supply the locals with a low-tech pump to help them irrigate their crops that are planted high above the water source. He is the authors’ example of what the U.S. should be doing in Southeast Asia, but isn’t. As the authors put it in the factual epilogue: “We pay for huge highways (…) where there is no transport except bicycle and foot. We finance dams where the greatest immediate need is a portable pump. (…) This is what we meant by the story of the ugly engineer, Homer Atkins.” The debate continues over whether or not this book is anti-American. This is problematic as how does one define anti-Americanism? The whole point of America is that you’re allowed to be against it. Regardless, it is clear that the authors did not have some blind hatred for America. They make themselves quite clear that they are cheering for the U.S; that they want the U.S. to beat World Communism. They disagree about how to beat the Soviets, but the desired end result is still the same. They are fully pro-American and they see improving America’s foreign relations as the best way to beat the Soviets.

The book “The Ugly American” is highly readable and still topical, even though it was written in 1958. The foreign policy of the U.S. was often as heavy-handed in other parts of the world, including most of the Third World. The U.S. continued and still continues to lose support for its causes because of its excessively violent and repressive foreign policy strategies, and its inability to administer effective aid programs. Loss of international support can even be shown as recently as 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. What goodwill the world community felt towards the U.S. after September 11th was squandered by America’s overtly bellicose policy towards Afghanistan and especially towards Iraq. As long as the United States continues to be pressured by powerful interests intent on exploiting the world for profit, United States foreign policy will continue to be advanced as a means of conquest, domination and exploitation. As long as this continues, “The Ugly American” will continue to define all the atrocities and blunders U.S. foreign policy has committed and continues to commit around the world, instead of a helpful Homer Atkins.

Cleaning Up/A Minor Edit
I removed this statement from the end of the article: ''Ironically, the "ugly American" of the book title actually referred to one -powered water pump. It is argued in the book that the communists were successful because they practiced tactics similar to Atkins'. It's poorly written, and makes little sense in the context of the current article (that is, Atkins'' is not described within the current version of the article). --(Mingus ah um 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))


 * A tip of the hat to Dpbsmith, who has cleaned up and restored the statement. --(Mingus ah um 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

It says that the fictionalized country represents Vietnam, but the "secret" unnamed country is actually Laos. Certainly, Sarkhan is an amalgamation of Laos and Vietnam, but it looks like Laos more than Vietnam. Laos isn't even mentioned in the article. Since Laos was "neutral" and the theatre of the "Secret War" it makes more sense why they wrote it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.156.24 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hardly a "double-entendre"
I removed
 * In other words, the title "Ugly American" is a double entendre. It refers both to Americans who behave badly when they go overseas (and may also refer to the behavior of the British when they settled in Southeast Asia); but also to those who, like the intelligent but unattractive Atkins, are perceptive and helpful to the indigenous peoples. Many people who have not read the book are unaware of this double meaning

for these reasons:

a) First, the phrase "ugly American" is not used to refer "those who, like the intelligent but unattractive Atkins, are perceptive and helpful to the indigenous peoples, and never has been. Outside of its use as a book title, "ugly American" means Americans who behave arrogantly overseas.

b) Second, even if the phrase had two different meanings, that would not make it a double entendre. A double entendre is not a phrase that can have more than one meaning; it is a phrase that is knowingly used with both an innocent and a risqué meaning at the same time. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Book, movie
Since books and movies are not the same thing, both the book and the movie based on the book need separate articles. both are notable. if the phrase gets a separate article... I see this a lot on WP, where books are given brief mention in an article dominated by the film. unless the book was truly obscure both before and after the film (rare), this problem should not exist. i may fix it (i have a copy of the paperback)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the book and film sections are separated into two articles or not, I am troubled by undue weight of the section about the film. The book was of major importance in igniting a debate in U.S. diplomatic circles in the Kennedy administration and beyond, which has had repercussions for six decades.  The failure of the FBI to hire appropriate Arabic translators in the wake of 9/11 (much less have them on hand before that) is due to the same failures identified by the book 43 years earlier.  The film version was a forgettable effort which got mixed reviews, did poorly at the box office, and garnered no awards.  It's notable chiefly for the presence of its star Marlon Brando (who was nominated, but did not receive, a Golden Globe that year).  The film was totally swamped by other films that year, and does not appear in the top 25 grossing films of 1963. This is not to say that the film is not notable enough for an article on WP, but having the article equally divided between the book and the movie seems grossly out of balance with respect to notability. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to redress this somewhat by beefing up the book section, adding several subsections (including "Background history" and "Impact") to give a sense of the Cold War context in which the book appeared, and the instant bestseller status and profound impact the book had both in popular, and diplomatic circles. More could be added, but this is a start. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciation to for much effective work developing the article, which is now quite respectable! It does seem, however, that most books that have been made into films have separate articles for the films. It easily meets the criteria in Notability (films), though a separate article is certainly not mandated. Any ideas? ch (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks and also for your efforts on the film side, including sources.  I think maybe you're right, and they should be two separate articles, because as the film side starts to grow I worry about WP:UNDUE--that is, the rough proportion of the space in the article devoted to the two parts giving undue weight to the film compared to the book.  And I do understand the ease, especially these days, of seeing a film online, but it's hard to overstate the importance and impact of the book; a "proper" distribution of relative weight would relegate the film to a footnote--or conversely, expand the book part of the article considerably.  Or split them into two, as you suggested.  Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Total agreement with Mathglot's well-put view that the book is more important than the film, as is often the case -- see Moby Dick (disambiguation), for an even more clear contrast! But the film still easily passes the Notability bar, so I would be happy to see the article split. ch (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the film is notable (based on coverage from reliable sources and film distribution and reviews) and if someone decides to create a Split proposal, I'm pre-registering my vote as Yes (support for content split) for those reasons as well as ones previously expressed. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone has since created The Ugle American (film) article in December 2015. I've moved most of the content about the film from the book article over to the new article, leaving a brief section here with a pointer to the film article. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary
The section headed "plot summary" does not summarise the plot. 27.33.12.65 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)