anti american sentiments

[mirrille]

Bleh...
Like I said, this topic tends to get people's blood up.
The Americans get all defensive, even in the cases they were the ones to originally ask the question.
The anti/non-Americans are criticising, (depending on how the thread is started, the criticism can be solicited or unsolicited. Unsolicited gets uglier.)
Everyone gets all snarly.
Not very constructive.

[afro-elf]

JD response was not at MOOTERS but to some responses at XENITE that were ... not so nice.

[BeardofPants]

JD response was not at MOOTERS but to some responses at XENITE that were ... not so nice.

I resent that! I was nice.

[afro-elf]

Yes you are nice

[Elvellon]

About JD post, it brings some interesting points, but not entirely unbiased, or so it seems to me. Perhaps it is the result of the “nastiness” of the other thread. (I think I’ll have to see it ).

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I think everyone hates the french...

Don't tell my french teacher that! We have and she gets real mad and stomps her feet and screems! Really!

[mirrille]

Who hates the French?
I don't quite understand. But they've never done anything to me.

Now, it's a different thing for me to say that I hate French . Always struggled with it in high school.

[Rána Eressëa]

Heh, interesting topic. Just read the whole thread.

I agree a lot with JD. America is out in the open, very big, very well known, and it's easy to put the blame on us. I think we do influence countries very heavily with our media, and a lot of the anger results from jealously of what some - I repeat SOME - of us have and the fact that we can't share it with everyone. It's understandable. There are lots of reasons, and many that I honestly couldn't name.

I'm American. I find it odd that lots of countries do think we're rich, because the majority of us aren't. This is probably a result of our media. If people do find us scary . . . well, okay, but I think everyone has their own side of scariness, to be honest.

[HOBBIT]

JD and BOP in that topic at MM's board

[Rána Eressëa]

And that has to do with this for what reason?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
JD and BOP in that topic at MM's board

HOBBIT, you trying to recruit more people to gang up on me?

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa
I'm American. I find it odd that lots of countries do think we're rich, because the majority of us aren't.

THe poorest americans have more than millions of people in third world countries. So even if a majority of americans are not "rich" by american standards, all americans are rich compared to other standards.

[afro-elf]

all americans are rich compared to other standards.

I think you overstate with the adj. ALL.


i i think you meant 3rd world standards as opposed to just other standards. cause the scandis whoop A$$ on the SOL

[Brokehorn4000]

America has its ups and downs. I think the number of ups and the number of downs are equal.

But don't get me wrong, I still love the USA!

[emplynx]

Originally posted by afro-elf
i i think you meant 3rd world standards as opposed to just other standards. cause the scandis whoop A$$ on the SOL

I meant to say, "some other standards"...

[Ben]

It's just plain jealousy in most cases, and politics in others.

Despots like to incite their people against the US (and Israel) because oppressed people are always looking for someone to blame. This way, the attention of the masses is diverted, and the dictators remain in power. I guess this is mostly the Muslim world where the sentiments are so violent, but even in more democratic regions, the anti-Americanism is troubling.

[mirrille]

Just had a very interesting conversation with a friend today on this topic. Consider this my report of the "man-on-the-street" perception of the USA and try to stay calm:

The US pisses alot of people off. More so than alot of other countries, just because it knows it is powerful and it knows it can get away with it. Knowing that that's why it thinks it can get away with it, kinda makes the resentment worse. (Note: I'd be inclined to agree. It's human nature to go as far as people will let you.)
Some other "grievances" that came up:
1. Interesting how all these countries threw in support to US after sept11, but then got hit by major tariffs. Examples - Canadian softwood lumber (yikes! be careful cuz this is a big source of anger in my province.) and European steel. The general sentiment..."Well, if this is how they treat their allies..."
2. The whole war on terrorism thing. Too tired to explain, cuz it opens up a whole other can of worms, but suffice it to say that certain tactics and rhetoric are...not looked on favourably. (There have been some things said that did make even me go, "Huh?")
3. Please see the thread on prolifers, UN family planning, and US support, or lack thereof. Realize that that might upset some people. I think the example my friend used was something I hadn't heard of, but had something to do with the US threatening to withdraw funding for peacekeeping missions unless they got something...I think he said immunity for US people who testify for...anyways, I can't remember, but it was a similar tactic. Maybe someone else has heard of this? (As I said, man-on-the-street. Doesn't have to be terribly accurate. It's the perception that counts.)
4. In a similar vein, how they like to force their system onto other countries. (Note that in Canada, we don't villify Castro the same way the US does. May not like him, but the general sentiment is that the Cubans have their system, and we can't very well go around telling them what to do because we think we have a better idea.)
5. The whole "Palestinians, we want you to get rid of Arafat" thing. (I'm surprised more people aren't upset by it.) Bastion of democracy indeed! Bush's own election was somewhat less than clean and tidy, which magnifies the perception of hypocrisy. Even if you don't like Arafat, which most people don't, it does sound fishy.

Those were some highlights. I can't remember the rest. All in all, we had a very interesting car ride, talking about these things. But I think the take home message is, for some people, they think the US knows it can get away with whatever it wants, so that's what it does, and screw everyone else.
Hopefully that explains a few things, to anyone who was curious.

[Earniel]

This is probably not a good idea of me, but you wanted to know why America isn't liked everywhere in the world. These are the reasons that I know of. Now don't go looking up my address in order to bash me up, these are not necessarily my views. I'm just hoping to offer an explanation in addition to that of Mirrille.

Some body once said 'America's two main export goods are it's culture and it's ego.' America's culture has a way of slipping into everything through movies, products, etc... Some people don't like that, they see it as an immoral culture, a threat to their own culture. Some feel that America is trying to press other countries into taking the american ideology. (See the thread that Mirrille refers to about the pro-livers stopping the US support) The power the NRA has in America is to some frightening.

Some see America as arrogant. America has grown to the largest country in the world and has very high standards of living compared to other parts of the world. Which might explain yhe jealousy for some part, but I believe jealousy is one of the lesser factors. To say jealousy is the main reason why people don't like America is seen by some as another example of the said arrogance. Jealousy is a petty emotion and by saying this, all other reasons for not liking America overmuch look insignifcant because the bottom line is: 'thery're all just jealous'. America is also involved in numerous political affairs in other countries. Often when America intervenes somewhere it gives the other countries involved the feeling that it does this 'because the others can't handle it'. Whether it is true or not in the situation, it doesn't do well for the pride of the other countries involved. And there is no wound as uncurable as wounded pride. Some Americans tend to talk about this interventions as strickly done to help other countries, but not mentioning America's own agenda therein. Some feel that what the americans are saying is that America is completely innocent while other countries have little history to be proud of. Some people find this rather hypocrit. America has become a worldplayer but some feel it acts as the world leader.

Some also feel that America thinks itself better than the rest. The American soldiers may not be judged by the international court in the Hague. Every one else has to. The current American President didn't really improve views on America either. His election was as Mirrille so politely put it 'less than clean and tidy'. Plus he wanted to go drilling for oil into a national reserve. Which to some shows that he is rather interested in helping his moneysuppliers than the rest. He also didn't want to ratify Kyoto, when he promised before the elections that he would. He also tried to delay any other mesures to curb the greenhouse gasses because it would cause damage to the industries supporting him. The alternatives he gave for Kyoto made the other participants speechless and not in impressing way. Bush immediatly annulled the decision of Clinton who had decided to protect several forests before he had to make place for the new president. Bush was on the brink of war with China before he was an entire month in office. And this next comment will probably enrage the americans but some say he ran like a coward into hiding on the 11th of September, only coming out when it was clear that the danger was over. It is also believed that he doesn't know anything about foreign politics and blunders in regardless of that. His sentence that 'You're either with America or against it' enraged quite a few people. The American involvement in the israeli-palestinian conflict is by many not seen as an attempt to create peace but a one-sided way to support Israel. He supports Sharons repeated attacks on palestinian camps because they're 'all terrorists'. Taking away Arafat's means to do anything and then declaring to the world that Arafat should stop the terrorist because otherwise 'there can be no peace'. Some think this is hypocrit. His definition of the axis of evil wasn't liked that much either. Some feel that Bush has no right to judge other countries that way, especially since Iran - also part of that axis- has been trying the last years to shake the control of the religious leaders. Many think that the pretzel incident was a cover-up for him falling out of the seat drunk as a shrimp. (don't ask me where the shrimp part comes from, it's apparantly a saying)

That about most of what I can remember. I'm not saying all the above is true but it is how some perceive it. And I have again to agree with Mirrille: it's the perception that counts.

[sun-star]

This is from a poll of 17-22-year-olds in a British newspaper today. It might help a little:

They were asked "what word or phrase most applies to the US?"

Arrogant: 83%
Humble: 9%

Outward-looking: 17%
Inward-looking: 71%

Fine example to the world: 24%
Example other countries should not follow: 50%

Concerned only with its own place in the world: 75%
Genuinely concerned about other people/countries: 18%

Aggressive: 79%
Cautious: 14%

Right to support Israel: 17%
Not right to support Israel: 45%

A good friend to Britain: 63%
Not a good friend to Britain:20%

[Ben]

I realize that most of what you said might not be your personal view, but I can't leave such things unanswered. I'm just addressing whoever holds these views.

In a similar vein, how they like to force their system onto other countries. (Note that in Canada, we don't villify Castro the same way the US does. May not like him, but the general sentiment is that the Cubans have their system, and we can't very well go around telling them what to do because we think we have a better idea.)

When another country is a repressive dictatorship which also threatens the safety of our nation/the free world, then I think it's ripe for a "regime change." Cuba, I'm not so sure about, and feelings here are hardly as unanimous as your press/folklore may say. In fact, I'd say the most highly publicized recent news regarding the U.S. and Cuba was Jimmy Carter's supportive visit there. Bush's stance is mostly a political tactic to keep the Miami Cubans in the Republican fold. (The Bushies apparently have no qualms about trading with human rights violator Communist China while simultaneously decrying trade in human rights violator Communist Cuba. Oh wait, there's no vocal political group for Chinese-Americans... )

But back to democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most or all of the world's most powerful and advanced countries use a variant of this system. Surely you do not believe that some other system is better. (absolute monarchy? dictatorship? how about theocracy?) In Afghanistan, after government-supported terrorists launched a strike against the US, we aided a rebel alliance in their quest to take down the repressive Taliban theocracy. I think you all are very familiar with what their human rights record was. If we had left the Taliban in place, they would've invited Al Qaeda back in the second our troops left. Without U.S. aid, the rebel alliance could not have succeeded. It was imperative for domestic and global security that a relatively friendly government was put in place.

Someone has to go after these rogue nations. If it's not us, who will do the dirty work? I think nearly everyone would breathe a sigh of relief if we took out Saddam Hussein, who is building weapons of mass destruction. Once those leaders are removed, it's only logical to recommend a government better suited to allow freedom and human rights.

America's culture has a way of slipping into everything through movies, products, etc...

No one is forcing anyone in other countries to watch our movies, eat in in restaurants, or play our games. If these people are so resentful, they should put their money where their mouth is and stop buying our products. Obviously, most people appreciate these cultural influences, or American companies wouldn't be there raking in the dough. All of the world's 100 all-time top-grossing movies are American-funded. And of those top ten, 8 earned more than half of their total grosses from countries outside America. (Source: Box Office Mojo)

The power the NRA has in America is to some frightening. His election was as Mirrille so politely put it 'less than clean and tidy'.

Agreed. In fact, most people probably would - Bush got fewer votes than the true winner of the election, Al Gore. But note that the election, though settled unfairly, was settled in a peaceful manner using constitutional procedures. Most other countries would've dissolved into civil war. Please remember that America is an extremely variegated nation - many of your "complaints" are shared by more than half of our own population. Luckily, we have the right to disagree with our government without penalty. Anyway, the person who benefited the most from the Sept. 11 attacks was George Bush - instantly, it became unpatriotic to question his foreign policy skills, intelligence, and legitimacy. I agree that urgent national crises are times to put aside political affiliations, yet I can't help feeling that his team is continously exploiting the political climate to their advantage. The acclaim and rise in popularity for his handling of the situation seems a bit silly, since I think any red-blooded American would've reacted to the attacks in a similar fashion. However, I fully support the general war aims of our nation.

Often when America intervenes somewhere it gives the other countries involved the feeling that it does this 'because the others can't handle it'. Whether it is true or not in the situation, it doesn't do well for the pride of the other countries involved. And there is no wound as uncurable as wounded pride.

Well then that's very petty. It's like a little kid who refuses a suggestion from his mother only to agree to the same thing when proposed by a peer. What we're doing usually is because the other countries can't handle it. It's a thankless job. Just because it's Big America doing something, you protest.

Some Americans tend to talk about this interventions as strickly done to help other countries, but not mentioning America's own agenda therein.

Yeah, that's just common sense, and politics. We can't help everyone in the world, so much of the decision-making on which countries to aid is based on our benefit. Obviously, a large factor in the Persian Gulf War was oil. On the other hand, what benefit did we get for going into Rwanda, or Bosnia? Some missions are clearly more humanitarian-oriented than others. We would be fools, though, to only do things based on selfless reasons, because no other country acts this way or is forced to act this way. We would quickly fall behind.

Naturally not all of the reasons for any given action are presented in a straightforward way. That's not the way politics work. The war for people's hearts and minds is almost as important as the war for lives. I'd give the award for most misleading propaganda to the Palestinians, though.

feel that what the americans are saying is that America is completely innocent while other countries have little history to be proud of.

All nations have black stains in their history. It just so happens that America has been around for less time, and more of its existence was spent in the modern, enlightened era. European nations were inflicting horrors upon their population for millennia. However, our current system, whatever its flaws, has been the most successful, most fair governmental system in modern times. Even now, no other country has our freedoms and guaranteed constitutional rights.

America has become a worldplayer but some feel it acts as the world leader.

It is the world leader. Europe can't get over its lost dominance.

some say he ran like a coward into hiding on the 11th of September, only coming out when it was clear that the danger was over

Many things were done wrong that day, but I can't fault the guy too much for that, despite my personal dislike. If he had stayed in the White House the entire time, and Al Qaeda's plan had entirely succeeded, then he would be dead. Thus, it was smart to be on Air Force One or in an "undisclosed location." The atmosphere that day was of confusion. No one knew what was going on; there were rumors for the rest of the day of more planes being hijacked and such. It wasn't at all clear that the danger was over. It's still not over.

The American involvement in the israeli-palestinian conflict is by many not seen as an attempt to create peace but a one-sided way to support Israel.

I hope it is. America is doing a decent job here of standing up for democratic ideals by supporting the democratic country against the autocratic, repressive entity. The only way to achieve peace is to pressure Palestine to become more democratic, with real elections where Arafat actually has some opposition. In fact, all repressive dictatorships, particularly those in the Arab world, need to be similarly pressured. It is my firm conviction that repression breeds discontent and extremism, leading to terrorism. If the average Muslim person had a decent life worth living, he wouldn't strap a bomb to himself and try to go blow up someone who did.

He supports Sharons repeated attacks on palestinian camps because they're 'all terrorists'.

Where did you get the "all terrorists" quote? Palestinian suicide bombers purposely set out to murder innocent civilians. The Israeli military, in contrast, targets military installations and government infrastructure, usually that was in some way involved with the bombing. Sometimes, tragically, civilians are accidental casualties of these justified operations. When this occurs, the world media blows it way out of proportion. The fact is, accidental innocent casualities are an unfortunate reality of any military operation. It happened all the time in the Afghanistan campaign, with another incident there happening just the other day.

Picture this: A group of terrorists, basically supported by their government, attacks the democracy for "political reasons." Civilians are specifically targeted. In return, the democracy goes into the terrorists' host country and attacks military installations and government buildings. Tragically, some civilians are killed, but they are NOT intended targets. Would you agree with the actions of the democracy? Insert "US" and "Afghanistan," and most people would say yes; insert "Israel" and "Palestine," and most would say no. I cannot see how someone can morally support the US's actions to defend itself (as nearly the entire free world professed to), while repudiating Israel's actions to defend itself (as nearly the entire free world did). I think the answer lies in age-old anti-Semitism. I don't accuse any of you of consciously holding this bias, but it so pervades much of the world's media that you can't help taking an anti-Israel stance.

Perhaps Sharon's military strikes look a bit harsh from your comfy vantage point, but the Israelis have to go through what the US did on one horrible day every day. They live with fear. Look what just one day of attacks did to the U.S., and you can begin to understand the mindset of the Israelis.

Iran - also part of that axis- has been trying the last years to shake the control of the religious leaders.

Trying, but not succeeding. The reactionary ayatollahs are still firmly in command. The election of reformer president Mohammed Khatami shows that the people are itching for democratic change, but it hasn't happened yet. Khatami has no real power. I used to like him, too, until I realized that his anti-Israel and US rants were just as vitriolic as that of other Muslim leaders. Russia is funding a nuclear power plant for them. Within a few years, Iran will have enough knowledge to create a nuclear bomb. Iran is run by extreme Muslim fundamentalists. Notice a deadly world security issue in the making?

I think patriotism is just as strong in your countries - in fact, stronger, if you feel such a need to passionately disparage America. The U.S. may have its flaws, but there is no nation on earth which has ever had so much liberty, equality, or displayed so much restraint. You complain about our interfering in other countries' affairs, but as jerseydevil pointed out, at least we're not conquering you, like all the previous dominant nations. How much is your country doing to promote harmony and democracy around the world? How much is your country doing to help the starving or trying to mediate an endless, nightmarish civil war? Why don't I see your country's leader on the news every night, leading a crusade against terror?

Bush has got a point: people are either in favor of democracy, human rights, and freedom, or they are not. Someone who sympathizes with the Palestinians and bashes America is probably not someone who values liberty, justice, and equality over their own personal benefits.

What possible gain except to one's ego can someone have by being against America? That's why I don't understand the US-bashing. We protect you, support you, supply you with entertainment and food (which you gladly lap up), and what thanks do we get? I really cannot fathom it. I think all of your reasons boil down to the jealousy issue, or else it doesn't make sense. I think most countries would like to keep their relative prosperity and peace, enforced by the U.S., right? Why bite the hand that feeds you?