Anti-Americanism
Charles Riggs
and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
large enough sample to make it noticeable.
Why is this?
Xenophobia? Jealousy? A rational reason for disliking either the
American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
Comments?
Charles Riggs
hot-dogger
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:s9d2etsv89dflbbvt...@4ax.com...
Mike Oliver
Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed.
You mean an *Irish* individual? I don't really know who that
would be. I find Brian and Padraig both rather pleasant; they
might have an anti-Yank attitude lying around somewhere, but
I could easily believe that some of their best friends are
American.
There are certainly others (non-Irish). Ferg is so over-the-top
that he doesn't really get to me--I don't think he really believes
what he writes so why should I care? The same applies to some
extent to KHann (oh wait, is he Irish?). Others who are less dogmatic,
such as Paul Pfalzner, bother me more. I won't even mention
M*** W*******, who I find so infuriating that it's better just
to leave him be.
By the way, though the afore-unmentioned W****** may not believe
it, I am *not* an American nationalist. I happen to think
the Chinese Communist Party is evil, and am in favor of opposing
it at nearly every turn. But I'm not anti-Chinese either, just
anti-Communist.
ref
> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
>
> Why is this?
>
> Xenophobia? Jealousy? A rational reason for disliking either the
> American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
> American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
It's not too difficult to come up with plausible explanations, if indeed
the phenomenon is real:
(1) It is probably natural to resent, fear, and dislike powerful
nation-states; in the 20th century the US achieved military, economic and
cultural supremacy, and, to some degree, ideological supremacy. By
"supremacy" I don't mean that it's good; just that it was powerful and
influential. You can place politically rational dislikes of aspects of
American foreign policy in here too.
(2) Some of it is fear of modernism and change disguised as
anti-Americanism (America having come to represent things like modernism,
technological progress, etc.). Similarly, I'm an American and I often
irrationally blame bad things on California, like the spread of the
cot/caught merger (probably groundless, in that case).
(3) The domestic mainstream political ideology of the US seems to be in
deep conflict with important aspects of mainstream domestic politics in
Europe (this includes Canada and Australia, of course), in a way which
both sides seem to find somewhat culturally threatening.
(4) A rational reason for disliking the American personality? Yes,
probably. I find that (and I'm putting this mildly because I
don't want to offend anyone) Americans can be very annoying people, and in
a world without barriers to freedom of movement I don't know that I'd
still be here (in the US, that is). I mean, I don't see *you* living here
anymore.
> Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
> American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
I have observed that Americans tend to be hypersensitive about this sort
of thing, but only when it comes from Europeans. I believe this is
because Americans have an inferiority complex with respect to Europe.
This is a key element of the American national identity, and has been
there from the beginning.
The answer, anyway, is to promote great mutual understanding.
Martin Ambuhl
>
> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
>
> Why is this?
Perhaps because the US has done some very nasty things.
Perhaps because
people see their local economies becoming "integrated" into an economic
sphere dominated by the US or by US-based companies, with disruption in
their lives having US fingerprints on it.
Perhaps because so many of us
act in foreign countries as if we have every right to put our muddy
shoes on their antiques and make stupid jokes about our superiority
because we have not been burdened by culture.
Perhaps because people from all over the world have felt at times that
they could be "on the beach" at any time that American caprice reached
over the brink on which some US leaders have liked to play.
I wish that anti-Americanism had no basis in reality and would
disappear. Such a happening might abate some of the anger and
frustration that many in the US seem to feel; it might make life
somewhat easier for those of us who live in the US. Unfortunately,
there are historical bases for anger toward the US. Unfortunately,
some US leaders -- both political and economic -- still feel that
their arrogance toward the rest of the world is warranted and that
their right of despoiling the rest of the world was one of the laws
handed down on Sinai.
>
> Xenophobia? Jealousy?
You bet. Blame others for reasonable responses to American transgressions.
> A rational reason for disliking either the
> American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
> American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
I find your self-righteousness most tiresome.
> Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
> American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
Oh yes, tell the rest of the world they should smile as we rape them.
Mark Wallace
Ok, this is a seriously asked question, so I'll answer it seriously.
Before I start, note two things:
1) That little of the below applies to subscribers of this newsgroup; who,
on the whole, are educated to above average standards, and are more worldly
than 'the average man'.
2) That none of the below is 'personal'. I am simply stating facts, as the
rest of the world sees them. I do, however, fully expect to be personally
attacked in reply.
What don't people like about the US?
** That the average US citizen considers the United States to be the be-all
and end-all of everything.
** That the average US citizen thinks that there is no country which can
rival the US in any way, shape, or form.
** That the average US citizen, when outside the US, spends all his time
trying to tell people how much better [insert any noun or verb, whether
concrete or abstract] is, "back home".
I appreciate that the average US citizen actually believes all of the above,
but it is all patently untrue; so the average US citizen, with such
declarations as he makes, comes across as a naive idiot. Correction: he
comes across as an arrogant, mouthy, naive idiot; no matter how sage or
rational he may be on other matters.
Go to any newsgroup and casually, in friendly manner, mention that a USese
runner came second in an international field event, and you will be
festooned with replies about how great the US is at sport -- which will
inevitably culminate with statements like: "Yeah, well we can kick your ass,
any day!". You won't even need to make a second comment. They will be off
and running on their own.
Do you think that people like the fact that no ill word may be said about
your country, without being paranoiacally deluged with disclaimers, insults,
and denigrations? Even I choose my words carefully, and you may have
noticed that I'm not afraid of a barney. Do you think I like having to do
that? Do you think that it can't brew into resentment and annoyance?
If you do, you think wrong.
The US is a shithole; just like the UK is a shithole; just like Japan is a
shithole.
It is also a wonderful country; just like the UK is a wonderful country;
just like Japan is a wonderful country.
If you love your country, great. I would encourage that.
Just don't expect everyone else to love it in the same way. We each have
our own life-long loves.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE13FFF...@math.ucla.edu...
>
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> >
> > All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> > and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> > Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> > Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed.
>
> You mean an *Irish* individual? I don't really know who that
> would be. I find Brian and Padraig both rather pleasant; they
> might have an anti-Yank attitude lying around somewhere, but
> I could easily believe that some of their best friends are
> American.
>
> There are certainly others (non-Irish). Ferg is so over-the-top
> that he doesn't really get to me--I don't think he really believes
> what he writes so why should I care? The same applies to some
> extent to KHann (oh wait, is he Irish?). Others who are less dogmatic,
> such as Paul Pfalzner, bother me more. I won't even mention
> M*** W*******, who I find so infuriating that it's better just
> to leave him be.
Intentionally infuriating. If you set yourself up for it, I'll happily
knock you down.
> By the way, though the afore-unmentioned W****** may not believe
> it, I am *not* an American nationalist. I happen to think
> the Chinese Communist Party is evil, and am in favor of opposing
> it at nearly every turn. But I'm not anti-Chinese either, just
> anti-Communist.
Your statements came across as the typical: 'Thay don't do thangs thu
'Muricum way, so they's evil'.
It's a ridiculous POV, anyway. The Chinese are people -- even the ones at
the top of the ladder. Do you honestly think that your 'great leaders' are
better men than they?
Perhaps that's an unfair question, considering your current president, who
displays many indicators of evil intent.
Mike Oliver
> Your statements came across as the typical: 'Thay don't do thangs thu
> 'Muricum way, so they's evil'.
Not at all. The Chinese Communist leaders are not evil because they
don't do things the American way. They're evil because they oppose
the natural right to individual liberty. That has nothing to do
with any particular country, including the United States. It's an
immutable part of what it means to be human.
> It's a ridiculous POV, anyway. The Chinese are people -- even the ones at
> the top of the ladder.
You're just *trying* to goad me into mentioning the H-word, aren't you?
The one who was nice to his dog? I won't do it; I know the law.
> Do you honestly think that your 'great leaders' are
> better men than they?
> Perhaps that's an unfair question, considering your current president, who
> displays many indicators of evil intent.
I have plenty of disagreements with US leaders past and present. But
the last one I can think of who was *that* bad was Andrew Jackson.
Franke
Charles Riggs wrote:
> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
You've been living in the wrong part of the world. Over here in Far East
Asia there is an excess of pro-Americanism. People here go out of their
way to be friendly and nice and generous to Americans, to the point of
embarrassment sometimes (often).
They certainly dislike all the detestable sides of America: the hypocrisy
and moralism of Americans and the American government; the arrogance of
the American government and so many Americans (and so many other
Westerners) who travel through the East; the sexual predation practised by
so many American men (and so many other Western men).
> Why is this?
Probably because the American government treats the rest of the world like
early imperial powers treated their colonies.
> Xenophobia? Jealousy? A rational reason for disliking either the
> American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
> American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
Maybe it has to do with the crybaby attitude of the citizens of the
richest country in the world, the 6% that gobble up 45% of the world's
resources and bitch about having to pay half of what the rest of us have
to pay for gasoline (petrol) to power their gas hogs. Maybe it has to do
with the desire by so many Americans to tell the rest of the world that
they live in lesser countries and have developed lesser cultures because
they aren't Christian (here in Asia) or as wasteful as Americans are.
Let's face it, Americans are not a humble people and generally cannot keep
their fast-draw shoot-from-the-hip opinions to themselves. They love
confrontation
>Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
> American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
I have to say that I personally never encountered any anti-Americanism
when I was in France back in 1975--oh, except from one Trotskyite
university student who harangued me for about two hours in French that was
just a tad above my threshhold of understanding. Otherwise, everyone went
out of their way to help me and treat me well despite my very rudimentary
French.
> Comments?
The longer I live out of the country, the less comfortable I feel about
the US of A--well, I'm a permanent expat, to be totally honest. I wouldn't
go back unless I could not go somewhere other than Afghanistan to live and
work. What kind of people can elect Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Dan Mr Potatoe
Brain Quayle, Jesse Helms, Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bill Clinton, and a
host of other bungholes into high office time and again and still claim
moral leadership of the world? Arrogance based on stupidity--is there
anything worse? "Freeze!"
ref
> The longer I live out of the country, the less comfortable I feel about
> the US of A--well, I'm a permanent expat, to be totally honest. I wouldn't
> go back unless I could not go somewhere other than Afghanistan to live and
> work. What kind of people can elect Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Dan Mr Potatoe
> Brain Quayle, Jesse Helms, Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bill Clinton, and a
> host of other bungholes into high office time and again and still claim
> moral leadership of the world? Arrogance based on stupidity--is there
> anything worse? "Freeze!"
What's particularly bad about Grassley? The others are obvious.
Iannis Kyris
>
> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
> Why is this?
Well, I can tell you about Greece. Anti-Americanism here really flourished
only after the US government had encouraged the 1967 military coup and
supported to the full the fascist dictatorship that followed (1967-1974). I
don't think the US will ever be forgiven.
(A very good friend of mine comes for Hungary; she is anti-Russian for more
or less the same reasons.)
Regards
Iannis Kyris
Athens, Greece
(Please remove z and 57 from email address)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I record everything
with the doggedness of the tamarisk tree,
with the memory of the heavy stone,
to keep what is left
from blowing away
in this endless, anonymous wind.
Stephen Toogood
<mam...@earthlink.net> writes
find helpful. I have just a small quantity to add.
We all need to remember that the USA as experienced in the USA is not
the same as the USA experienced elsewhere. When we talk of 'anti-
Americanism' what we mean is an unwarranted generalisation on the basis
of what we see here. Most people are not terribly good at seeing
themselves the way others see them, (pace R Burns) and are in any case
apt to mis-interpret. The very same people who are so charming and
hospitable at home in Drainsville Colorado can come over as brash and
arrogant in Conduit St.Peter.
Our own national characteristics, such as they are, also come into play.
In a culture that traditionally sets much store in thinking about the
effect that ones actions will have on others, the overwhelming self-
confidence of many in the US tends to grate somewhat, and there is, I
admit, some resentment that that very self-confidence seems to achieve
so much for them. We are in effect asking: 'why should we be continually
disadvantaged by our good manners?'
Then of course there's the arrogance of government. You've dealt with
this in some detail, and I need only to point out that the capacity of
successive Presidents (Reagan was most adept at it) to wrap themselves
in the flag has encouraged some to regard any criticism of US policy to
be 'anti-American'. Logically we accept that it aint so, just as we
resent some suggestions from the Right in Israel that any criticism of
Israeli government policy is tantamount to anti-Semitism.
There's more, of course, but I'd better leave that to others.
--
Stephen Toogood
ref
> ** That the average US citizen, when outside the US, spends all his time
> trying to tell people how much better [insert any noun or verb, whether
> concrete or abstract] is, "back home".
Is the expression "back home" (meaning "in my place of origin") regarded
as an Americanism? Thinking about it, I guess I find it familiar from
its use in cultural materials but I don't think I use it
myself. Is it perhaps a regionalism within the US -- Midwestern, perhaps?
Iannis Kyris
>
> We are in effect asking: 'why should we be continually
> disadvantaged by our good manners?'
*Too* good manners, I would say.
Regards
Iannis K.
Murray Arnow
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
>> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
>> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
>> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
>> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
>> Why is this?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Well, I can tell you about Greece. Anti-Americanism here really flourished
>only after the US government had encouraged the 1967 military coup and
>supported to the full the fascist dictatorship that followed (1967-1974). I
>don't think the US will ever be forgiven.
>(A very good friend of mine comes for Hungary; she is anti-Russian for more
>or less the same reasons.)
>
What is truly despicable is the way these overbearing Americans force all
these countries to take American money.
Tom Tobin
news:9brt16$7r1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
...and to ask nothing in return.
Amen.
Franke
ref wrote:
I was at The U of IA graduate school when he first ran for the Senate. He was a
right-winger and about as sharp as a cob of Iowa corn back then. He stumped on a
platform of right-wing rhetoric, advocated everything I loathe about American
politics, and voted for every retrogressive piece of legislation the GOPs
attempted to foist on Americans back then, but, I have to admit, he represented
a substantial segment of Iowa's population. The Iowans I had the pleasure to
know around Iowa City were not his constituents.
Murray Arnow
>
> The Iowans I had the pleasure to know around Iowa City were not his
> constituents.
>
I see you met my family.
Franke
ref wrote:
Not that the ACLU is my cultural or moral bellwether, but I notice that Grassley
and D'Amato got 17% ratings and Helms an 18% rating by voting for and against
the same legislation in the 104th Congress. All the senators I think more highly
of get at least a 35%.
Franke
Murray Arnow wrote:
Could be, but if I did, I doubt that they remember me.
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>
> > Your statements came across as the typical: 'Thay don't do thangs thu
> > 'Muricum way, so they's evil'.
>
> Not at all. The Chinese Communist leaders are not evil because they
> don't do things the American way. They're evil because they oppose
> the natural right to individual liberty. That has nothing to do
> with any particular country, including the United States. It's an
> immutable part of what it means to be human.
You contradict yourself. The 'natural right to individual liberty' is a
western concept, which came to the fore in England in the middle ages (I'm
not going for historical detail or total accuracy, here. That would be a
different discussion). It is not the natural state of affairs. The
condition where a large percentage of a country's population is subjucated
to the whims of a minoity is the norm.
That makes the Chinese government no more or less evil than any other --
including the current British and United States regimes.
Besides, as I mentioned in the earlier thread, how the hell would you manage
a population that large?
A democratic government, based on those of Western Europe and North America,
would bankrupt itself within few years; leaving millions to starve.
You can't run the country from your armchair in the US, so don't make the
mistake of thinking you know best.
> > It's a ridiculous POV, anyway. The Chinese are people -- even the ones
at
> > the top of the ladder.
>
> You're just *trying* to goad me into mentioning the H-word, aren't you?
> The one who was nice to his dog? I won't do it; I know the law.
heh.
I wasn't, but I wish I had been.
> > Do you honestly think that your 'great leaders' are
> > better men than they?
> > Perhaps that's an unfair question, considering your current president,
who
> > displays many indicators of evil intent.
>
> I have plenty of disagreements with US leaders past and present. But
> the last one I can think of who was *that* bad was Andrew Jackson.
Ask those close to him how well-intentioned he was.
Mark Wallace
"ref" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.101042...@mail.wesleyan.edu...
Probably. I always think it with a Midwestern or Illinois accent, and don't
recall its being used in phrases like: "Back home, we've got ~~" by anyone
with any other accent. A Briton would be more likely to say "At home, we've
got ~~".
Mark Wallace
If it's that obvious, then WHY DID YOU ELECT THEM?
I mean, Jesus.
Mark Wallace
"Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AE1F36C...@earthlink.net...
<snipped, although there were some good points made>
Your reply was a bit aggressive, Martin. Can we try to keep this friendly?
It is a topic which merits discussion; but which has dissolved into slanging
matches, every time I have seen people try to discuss it.
I'd like to think we could do a little better than that, in here.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> Perhaps because so many of us
> act in foreign countries as if we have every right to put our muddy
> shoes on their antiques and make stupid jokes about our superiority
> because we have not been burdened by culture.
I'm well-traveled. My city hosted 38.4 million tourists from around the
world last year, most of whom felt compelled to block my way as I tried
to get to work in Times Square. Are American tourists, in general,
really more prone to misbehavior than German tourists, Australian
tourists, Japanese tourists, or English tourists are? Not as far as I've
witnessed.
--
SML
Queens, New York
hot-dogger
"Mark Wallace" <NOSPAMIN...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:9brj1i$aq01l$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de......
>
> What don't people like about the US?
>
> ** That the average US citizen considers the United States to be the
be-all
> and end-all of everything.
Excessive nationalism? If so, we know that it can be found outside the
borders of the US.
>
> ** That the average US citizen thinks that there is no country which can
> rival the US in any way, shape, or form.
In some ways, they would be right. Few if any countries have a space
program, a IT industry, or an entertainment industry of the magnitude and
scale that exists in the US.
>
> ** That the average US citizen, when outside the US, spends all his time
> trying to tell people how much better [insert any noun or verb, whether
> concrete or abstract] is, "back home".
Hmm, I know that's probably "the" stereotype, sort of a part of the "loud",
"ugly" American belief, but is it really justified? I feel this type of
thinking ranks up there with comments like "Eurotrash", "rude French
people", "macho, womanizing Italians", "British have bad teeth", etc, etc.
>
> I appreciate that the average US citizen actually believes all of the
above,
> but it is all patently untrue; so the average US citizen, with such
> declarations as he makes, comes across as a naive idiot. Correction: he
> comes across as an arrogant, mouthy, naive idiot; no matter how sage or
> rational he may be on other matters.
conjecture, speculation...
>
> Go to any newsgroup and casually, in friendly manner, mention that a USese
> runner came second in an international field event, and you will be
> festooned with replies about how great the US is at sport -- which will
> inevitably culminate with statements like: "Yeah, well we can kick your
ass,
> any day!". You won't even need to make a second comment. They will be
off
> and running on their own.
Trolls and other assorted usenet goons are hardly representative of the
"average" American.
>
> Do you think that people like the fact that no ill word may be said about
> your country, without being paranoiacally deluged with disclaimers,
insults,
> and denigrations? Even I choose my words carefully, and you may have
> noticed that I'm not afraid of a barney. Do you think I like having to do
> that? Do you think that it can't brew into resentment and annoyance?
> If you do, you think wrong.
>
> The US is a shithole; just like the UK is a shithole; just like Japan is a
> shithole.
> It is also a wonderful country; just like the UK is a wonderful country;
> just like Japan is a wonderful country.
I'd say the US is the *best* shit hole. Please don't take it personally.
;)
>
> If you love your country, great. I would encourage that.
> Just don't expect everyone else to love it in the same way. We each have
> our own life-long loves.
The US is such a melting pot, especially now, that generalizing the
expressed views of all "Americans" as it applies to other countries is
laughable.
Maria Conlon
Mark Wallace wrote in message
>"Mike Oliver wrote in message
[...]
>> I have plenty of disagreements with US leaders past and present. But
>> the last one I can think of who was *that* bad was Andrew Jackson.
>Ask those close to him how well-intentioned he was.
"Old Hickory" died in 1845. Those close to him are rather thin on the
ground these days. Asking them anything would be difficult, don't you
think?
Maria
ref
>
> "ref" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.3.95.101042...@mail.wesleyan.edu...
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> > > ** That the average US citizen, when outside the US, spends all his time
> > > trying to tell people how much better [insert any noun or verb, whether
> > > concrete or abstract] is, "back home".
> >
> > Is the expression "back home" (meaning "in my place of origin") regarded
> > as an Americanism? Thinking about it, I guess I find it familiar from
> > its use in cultural materials but I don't think I use it
> > myself. Is it perhaps a regionalism within the US -- Midwestern, perhaps?
>
> Probably. I always think it with a Midwestern or Illinois accent, and don't
> recall its being used in phrases like: "Back home, we've got ~~" by anyone
> with any other accent. A Briton would be more likely to say "At home, we've
> got ~~".
In Martin Scorsese's _Casino_ Joe Pesci casts aside his usual New
York-area accent in favor of a Northern Cities Vowel Shift-inspired
accent, vaguely Chicago-ish: he plays a Las Vegas mobster who is I think
supposed to be originally from Kansas City (where I don't think the NCVS
holds sway). Anyway, Pesci uses "back [bI@k] home" to mean Kansas City,
almost as a sort of official euphemism. There's one funny part in the
movie where the action shifts to Kansas City and you see the title "BACK
HOME" on the screen.
ref
Ah, that's an understandable policy. I do recall that Grassley took some
important stands against certain aspects of "corporate welfare" (i.e.,
American governmental policies of insanely propping up
particular industries or companies with subsidies) a few years back.
Michael Cargal
>Not at all. The Chinese Communist leaders are not evil because they
>don't do things the American way. They're evil because they oppose
>the natural right to individual liberty.
What is the source of this "natural right"? Does it come from God? Is
it hard-wired in the human brain?
>That has nothing to do
>with any particular country, including the United States. It's an
>immutable part of what it means to be human.
If it is immutable, one wonders why so few cultures with more than a
few tens of thousands of inhabitants have noticed it.
--
Michael Cargal
mhca...@home.com
Rowan Dingle
[...]
>I feel this type of
>thinking ranks up there with comments like "Eurotrash", "rude French
>people", "macho, womanizing Italians", "British have bad teeth", etc, etc.
But the British do have bad teeth. I should know.
--
Rowan Dingle
Maria Conlon
Sara Moffat Lorimer wrote:
>I'm well-traveled. My city hosted 38.4 million tourists from around the
>world last year, most of whom felt compelled to block my way as I tried
>to get to work in Times Square. Are American tourists, in general,
>really more prone to misbehavior than German tourists, Australian
>tourists, Japanese tourists, or English tourists are? Not as far as
I've
>witnessed.
Good point, Sara. I would add that the behavior of tourists -- from any
country, to any country -- does not necessarily represent the behavior
of their compatriots. And television and newspaper reports of foreign
lands do not necessarily tell the real, full story in terms that are
properly used and properly interpreted.
It may be that the Internet will bring people to a greater understanding
of each other. If nothing else, we all can see that there are many, many
nice, decent, intelligent people out there though we may have thought
otherwise before.
One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from Americans,
I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
would be satisfied anywhere.
Maria
John O'Flaherty
Of course, as you are probably saying, rights are agreements. There is no
rightspace where these things are inscribed except the collective
consciousness of some subset of human beings. Those who say that a
natural right exists are trying to get away with something- not examining
who agrees that such a right should exist.
john
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from Americans,
> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
> would be satisfied anywhere.
I don't think of myself as a malcontent, but anti-American sentiment is
something you'll hear fairly often from me. That may be in regard to the
government (points already made by others), but mostly with respect to
Americans' deep-seated resentment of "products of the mind." I use
"product" because that is precisely what everything must be transformed
into in order to have respect here.
I find myself in utter despair over it. As a composer, I face (where
it's not derision, dismissal, or combative disagreement) largely blank
looks. I can travel deep into the European countryside, and being a
composer marks me as a valid member of society. But in America I am
insignificant by choice of vocation.
Indeed, Americans tend to dislike any artform that is not primarily
entertainment, and it must ultimately be exchanged in dollars (Top 40,
box office, 'going platinum'..). Oddly, this is combined with a
Puritan-heritage distaste for art as peripheral, wasteful, inefficient,
and even sinful.
Such distaste engenders a deep distrust of the very tools of art,
including (again in my own field) the ability to read or write even the
a few musical notes. The musical equivalent of adding two numbers,
scribbling a post-it note, dialing a long-distance call, or the snapping
of a photograph is terrifyingly opaque to graduates of high school or
college.
We are the most musically illiterate society among the developed
nations, we have chosen to be so, and we are defiantly proud of our
ignorance. A composer who is now an expatriate in Belgium calls the U.S.
an artistic third-world nation at best.
This distaste, ignorance, and defiance reaches into the visual arts,
literature, languages, and even history. There is a pride in
shallowness, where exceptions are made only for the hard specialties,
money fields, and, of course, for the sports-entertainment industry
where a wealth of statistical and personal information is required to be
a functional part of American culture.
As a technologist or economist or engineer or contractor, one may be
pro-American. As an artist, I have been taught, over time, that I cannot
be.
Dennis
Murray Arnow
>
>Indeed, Americans tend to dislike any artform that is not primarily
>entertainment, and it must ultimately be exchanged in dollars (Top 40,
>box office, 'going platinum'..). Oddly, this is combined with a
>Puritan-heritage distaste for art as peripheral, wasteful, inefficient,
>and even sinful.
>
Where did you find such a broad brush?
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> We are the most musically illiterate society among the developed
> nations, we have chosen to be so, and we are defiantly proud of our
> ignorance.
--
SML
Queens, New York
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
In the toolkit provided to all American artists, where else?
Dennis
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> We are the most musically illiterate society among the developed
> nations, we have chosen to be so, and we are defiantly proud of our
> ignorance.
How has this been quantified?
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>What is truly despicable is the way these overbearing Americans force all
>these countries to take American money.
Well, it depends on which bits of those countries you're talking
about.
bjg
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote, in part:
>
> > We are the most musically illiterate society among the developed
> > nations, we have chosen to be so, and we are defiantly proud of our
> > ignorance.
>
> How has this been quantified?
Quantified?
The musical illiteracy is found through a comparison of the musical
curricula of the developed nations, the number of readers, the
audiences, and the participants. I have no idea if these studies are
on-line, but it has been the subject of music educators' struggle since
long before I was in college, and there are thousands of articles that
document that illiteracy, starting with the MENC Journal 40 or more
years ago.
The choice to be musically illiterate is incontrovertibly marked out in
our education budgets.
The pride in being musically illiterate is evidenced by the dismissal of
'reading music' as an undesirable state. Some jazz musicians who were
readers, for example, denied it in order to play (I can't reference the
biographies in my collection, but if you're interested, you can easily
find them as this tale is so frequent). Lukas Foss outlined the
anti-literacy aggression in a prescient article in the now-defunct
American Music Journal (that might be the wrong name; I do have it in my
library somewhere) from about 1970.
There is no evidence that this has changed over my musical lifetime. And
as the co-host of a radio show over the past seven years, I have a great
deal of correspondence with an small, interested, yet *still* illiterate
audience.
Are you surprised?
Dennis
...who's off right now to do that show, which you can hear at
http://kalvos.org/
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> Are you surprised?
>
Nope. I really was curious how this could be measured -- I wasn't
disagreeing with you. Thanks for the information.
Brian J Goggin
> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from Americans,
> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
> would be satisfied anywhere.
I saw Maria's paragraph only as quoted by Dennis.
Maria, what do you mean by "Anti-American sentiment" (at least as
manifested by Americans)? And what by "malcontents"?
bjg
Mike Oliver
Michael Cargal wrote:
>
> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in
> <3AE1522B...@math.ucla.edu>:
>
> >Not at all. The Chinese Communist leaders are not evil because they
> >don't do things the American way. They're evil because they oppose
> >the natural right to individual liberty.
>
> What is the source of this "natural right"? Does it come from God? Is
> it hard-wired in the human brain?
One or both. I don't know which.
> >That has nothing to do
> >with any particular country, including the United States. It's an
> >immutable part of what it means to be human.
>
> If it is immutable, one wonders why so few cultures with more than a
> few tens of thousands of inhabitants have noticed it.
Quite simple. Tyrants have a built-in incentive not to notice
it.
Mike Oliver
Mark Wallace wrote:
>
> "Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AE1522B...@math.ucla.edu...
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> > > Your statements came across as the typical: 'Thay don't do thangs thu
> > > 'Muricum way, so they's evil'.
> >
> > Not at all. The Chinese Communist leaders are not evil because they
> > don't do things the American way. They're evil because they oppose
> > the natural right to individual liberty. That has nothing to do
> > with any particular country, including the United States. It's an
> > immutable part of what it means to be human.
>
> You contradict yourself.
Where?
Padraig Breathnach
>You mean an *Irish* individual? I don't really know who that
>would be. I find Brian and Padraig both rather pleasant; they
>might have an anti-Yank attitude lying around somewhere, but
>I could easily believe that some of their best friends are
>American.
>
Nice words, thank you. Brian is indeed a nice chap, and I am quite
good at fooling people.
PB
Padraig Breathnach
>All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>and to one degree or another. ...
>Comments?
>
I thought at first that you were masquerading as Rushtown.
Personally, I operate on the guideline that I am not anti- any group.
On an individual level, it may be different.
I have found, however, that people are often too quick to generalise:
if I am anti-a-particular-American, it is taken as indicating that I
am anti-American. In similar vein, if I express disagreement with some
aspect of US foreign policy (and there is much there with which I
disagree) that is sometimes taken for anti-Americanism.
Some of my best friends are, indeed, American.
PB
Mike Barnes
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mark Wallace wrote:
>
>> ** That the average US citizen, when outside the US, spends all his time
>> trying to tell people how much better [insert any noun or verb, whether
>> concrete or abstract] is, "back home".
>
>Is the expression "back home" (meaning "in my place of origin") regarded
>as an Americanism?
I've heard it frequently from Irish (Northern and southern) living in
England. So it seems to be an Irishism as well.
--
Mike Barnes
Mark Barratt
>All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
>Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
>Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
>not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
>large enough sample to make it noticeable.
>
>Why is this?
>
>Xenophobia? Jealousy? A rational reason for disliking either the
>American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
>American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
>
>Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
>American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
>exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
>French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
>
>Comments?
I'm not otherwise tempted to contribute to a thread in which most
posters seem to be just airing their personal prejudices, but I can't
resist commenting upon the hypocrisy of the question.
Charles Riggs has often been known to post insulting generalisations
about nationalities here. On one occasion that I remember well, he
sought to attack me by being offensive about Belgians (I'm not Belgian,
but I have Belgian friends, so I was offended). He has also posted
disparaging things about (IIRC) the Spanish, the Italians and even about
black people as a class.
Now, it's a sad fact that most people do think in such irrational terms,
no matter what their language or nationality, and it's really rather
pointless to look for "reasons". In Charles' case, however, an
explanation for anti-Americanism in his acquaintances springs rather
easily to mind.
Percy Picacity
>Michael Cargal wrote:
>>
>> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in
>> <3AE1522B...@math.ucla.edu>:
>>
snip
>>> That has nothing to do
>>> with any particular country, including the United States. It's an
>>> immutable part of what it means to be human.
>>
>> If it is immutable, one wonders why so few cultures with more than a
>> few tens of thousands of inhabitants have noticed it.
>
>Quite simple. Tyrants have a built-in incentive not to notice
>it.
>
It is culturally interesting that a country with an awful health and
education record for a quarter of its population, and which incarcerates
more than 5% of its population at a given time, often for a significant
fraction of their adult life, and which is prepared to starve a whole
foreign country in pursuit of cheap petroleum should actually believe
its human rights record is better than that of the Chinese. While quite
attractive for those who benefit from it, the respect for human rights of
America is notable for the narrowness of its scope; and the profound lack
of insight into this by Americans makes one wonder what would happen if a
significant number of Americans were to acquire even a moderately
objective understanding of their own society. Suffice it to say, not
many Chinese would be pleased if Peking became indistinguishable from
Washingon.
--
Percy Picacity
Mike Oliver
> It is culturally interesting that a country with an awful health and
> education record for a quarter of its population,
Only negative rights exist, not positive ones. There is no
right to health care or education, because these are things that
someone else would have to provide. But there *is* a right
to liberty, because this is essentially just the right to
be let alone.
Simon R. Hughes
> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> and to one degree or another.
[...]
> Why is this?
[...]
> people of other nationalities encounter
> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
>
> Comments?
I think you have answered your own question.
You troll, you.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Percy Picacity
I am not going to continue this discussion here, because it is the wrong
place. But I can't help noting that you illustrate my point. This
ideological belief that individual freedom is both universally accepted as
paramount, and is a sufficient ideology for a human society, is simply not
widely accepted outside America. Its also self-deluding, because the
continued existence of America depends on a vast and expensive machinery
for internal and external oppression of opposition, and the taxes and
government apparatus to keep this in being, and thus maintain the semblance
of this individual liberty for the minority (or possibly small majority) of
American citizens who actually derive any benefit from it.
--
Percy Picacity
Mike Oliver
> I am not going to continue this discussion here, because it is the wrong
> place. But I can't help noting that you illustrate my point. This
> ideological belief that individual freedom is both universally accepted as
> paramount, and is a sufficient ideology for a human society, is simply not
> widely accepted outside America.
I wasn't telling you what people believe, in or out of America.
I was telling you what's true.
Percy Picacity
Marvellous: back on topic. What is your understanding of the difference
between "I believe that only negative rights exist" and "It is true that
only negative rights exist"? Is one a stronger statement? Does one allow
more scope for debate? I would have thought they were synonymous. But
then I am quite sure that everything I believe is true. There is, however,
a usage of "I believe ..." to mean "I think it might well be the case that
...". I don't think this can be used when describing other people's
beliefs though. Comments?
--
Percy Picacity
Maria Conlon
Brian J Goggin wrote in message ...
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
>> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from
Americans,
>> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
>> would be satisfied anywhere.
>I saw Maria's paragraph only as quoted by Dennis.
(Are my posts not making it through to you? If they're not, I must tell
you, Brian, that I have written scores of intelligent, interesting,
on-topic posts just in the last day or two. ;-) Sorry you missed them.)
>Maria, what do you mean by "Anti-American sentiment" (at least as
>manifested by Americans)? And what by "malcontents"?
Anti-American sentiment from Americans would be (to me) those statements
made by Americans that indicate that there is little good in this
country. Anti-American Americans (whom I see as malcontents for the most
part) find fault with just about everything American, and apologize for
being American, and talk about how superior other countries are, and
complain about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
course)...
...BUT they stay here nonetheless. Apparently, they do not have the
courage to put their money where their mouth is. Or -- they realize that
in many of those other places they say are superior, they would not have
the freedom to speak out as they do here.
There are other aspects of anti-Americanism among Americans, but I think
I have said enough to get the point across. And I have no problem with
people from other countries feeling exactly the same way about their own
country as I do about mine.
(I will email you my earlier post.)
Maria
Franke
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> [snip]
> I find myself in utter despair over it. As a composer, I face (where
> it's not derision, dismissal, or combative disagreement) largely blank
> looks. I can travel deep into the European countryside, and being a
> composer marks me as a valid member of society. But in America I am
> insignificant by choice of vocation.
You should become a teacher if you want to feel really insignificant in the
USA, land of the believers in "Them what can, do, and them what cain't,
teach".
> Indeed, Americans tend to dislike any artform that is not primarily
> entertainment,
If art is not entertaining at some level, then it truly is useless, isn't it.
But cheer up. Most of the students here in Taiwan and in Japan are interested
only in being entertained, just like most Americans. That's what TV, the
cinema, and ubiquitous electronic sound-without-end (some people call it
music) does to people. This is not just an American problem. We and the
Japanese (SONY Walkman) have exported it to the rest of the world.
> and it must ultimately be exchanged in dollars (Top 40,
> box office, 'going platinum'..). Oddly, this is combined with a
> Puritan-heritage distaste for art as peripheral, wasteful, inefficient,
> and even sinful.
You must understand that God wants you to be rich because that is the only
way we can tell whether we are saved or damned. Spend a little more time with
John Calvin and a little less with Chopin and learn the good news.
> Such distaste engenders a deep distrust of the very tools of art,
> including (again in my own field) the ability to read or write even the
> a few musical notes. The musical equivalent of adding two numbers,
> scribbling a post-it note, dialing a long-distance call, or the snapping
> of a photograph is terrifyingly opaque to graduates of high school or
> college.
>
> We are the most musically illiterate society among the developed
> nations, we have chosen to be so, and we are defiantly proud of our
> ignorance. A composer who is now an expatriate in Belgium calls the U.S.
> an artistic third-world nation at best.
>
> This distaste, ignorance, and defiance reaches into the visual arts,
> literature, languages, and even history. There is a pride in
> shallowness, where exceptions are made only for the hard specialties,
> money fields, and, of course, for the sports-entertainment industry
> where a wealth of statistical and personal information is required to be
> a functional part of American culture.
>
> As a technologist or economist or engineer or contractor, one may be
> pro-American. As an artist, I have been taught, over time, that I cannot
> be.
As I said above, if you can show that you're making money, then you can
demonstrate that God has chosen you for salvation. If you are involved in
pursuits that do not demonstrate your piety, then you must be a tool of the
devil. That's Calvinism for ya.
Mike Oliver
> Anti-American sentiment from Americans would be (to me) those statements
> made by Americans that indicate that there is little good in this
> country. Anti-American Americans (whom I see as malcontents for the most
> part) find fault with just about everything American, and apologize for
> being American, and talk about how superior other countries are, and
> complain about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
> course)...
...and the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone
all centuries but this, and every country but his own
And all third persons who on spoiling tête-à-têtes insist
They'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.
> ...BUT they stay here nonetheless. Apparently, they do not have the
> courage to put their money where their mouth is.
Paging Alec Baldwin?
Franke
Maria Conlon wrote:
> [snip]
>
> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from Americans,
> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
> would be satisfied anywhere.
Malcontents by their very nature are not satisfied anywhere, so you are
wondering in vain. Just check your dictionary. And while you are at it,
please justify your application of the negative term "malcontent" to those
of us Americans who find it easier to see what America looks like to the
rest of the world because we live there instead of in the States.
Criticising the USA is not the same as calling it what Iran's clerics like
to characterize it as.
I you are content with America, more power to you. But don't forget about
the First Amendment's meaning that "the speech you love to hate" (Henry
Hyde, R-Ill) is also protected.
>
> Maria
Mike Oliver
> Marvellous: back on topic. What is your understanding of the difference
> between "I believe that only negative rights exist" and "It is true that
> only negative rights exist"? Is one a stronger statement?
They are claims about different things. One is a claim about my
belief system; it can be false basically only if I am lying, because
I certainly know what I believe. The other is a claim about the
state of the world ("world" in a philosophical sense, not specifically
this planet).
> Does one allow more scope for debate?
You can debate anything you like. However this is very close to
a basic axiom for me, and I don't know what sort of argument you might
use that I would consider evidence against it. We all have to
start *somewhere*; it can't be turtles all the way down. But that
doesn't exclude a priori the possibility of an argument I might
consider evidence, it just says I can't think of one, so you are
certainly at liberty to try.
> I would have thought they were synonymous. But
> then I am quite sure that everything I believe is true.
I certainly don't have that sort of confidence. Of course, each
*individual* thing that I believe, I believe to be true. But I
am quite certain that I believe some false things. I just don't
know which ones they are; if I did, presumably I wouldn't believe
them anymore, though you never know.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> You should become a teacher if you want to feel really insignificant in the
> USA, land of the believers in "Them what can, do, and them what cain't,
> teach".
Teacher, 1985-91*
> If art is not entertaining at some level, then it truly is useless, isn't it.
The issue of usefulness has little to do with art, but the more useless
an artwork is, the more interesting (and perhaps entertaining) it
becomes for me to discover why it works. One artistic conundrum among
many.
> That's Calvinism for ya.
Yuh. My Daddy was a Calvinist, but gave it up many years ago. Good for
him. Phew.
Dennis
*Summary of hopelessness: http://maltedmedia.com/bathory/bathres.html
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> ...BUT they stay here nonetheless. Apparently, they do not have the
> courage to put their money where their mouth is. Or -- they realize that
> in many of those other places they say are superior, they would not have
> the freedom to speak out as they do here.
This is not necessarily the case. It is no easy task to emigrate, and
yes, it does take courage and money.
Many of our artist and composer friends have moved to France, Belgium,
Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Japan. All are
permanent residents, some are even citizens.
Indeed, we ourselves moved to the Netherlands in 1991 in hopes of
staying, but it was badly planned and we came back to the U.S. broke.
It's taken us 10 years to recover (a home, our only equity, was here in
Vermont) but we expect to try this again in 2002 -- with better
planning, more skill in Dutch, friends ready to help us, and a knowledge
of a bureaucracy that welcomes refugees but discourages less
extraordinary immigrants like a pair of American fiftysomethings.
Keep in mind also that people leave family and friends behind. We have
parents, children, and grandchildren, so we must balance the prospect of
a more rewarding life with the loss of close family.
Dennis
Maria Conlon
Franke wrote in message
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>> [snip]
>> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
>> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from
Americans,
>> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
>> would be satisfied anywhere.
>Malcontents by their very nature are not satisfied anywhere, so you are
>wondering in vain. Just check your dictionary.
Gee, thanks, Franke. I never thought of that. [Looks in dictionary.] It
doesn't say anything about malcontents never changing, never finding
satisfaction. If they do find satisfaction, we would, of course, cease
calling them malcontents. So I see your point.
>And while you are at it,
>please justify your application of the negative term "malcontent" to
those
>of us Americans who find it easier to see what America looks like to
the
>rest of the world because we live there instead of in the States.
I didn't really have Americans living abroad in mind at all. I should
have made it clear that I was talking about the ones who live in the US.
(I think I might have done so in a later post.)
Living outside the US, as apparently you do, probably does make it
easier to see what America looks like to the rest of the world. However,
I would think you lose some perspective in the bargain, and end up not
knowing whether what we look like is what we actually are.
>Criticising the USA is not the same as calling it what Iran's clerics
like
>to characterize it as.
That depends on the extent of the criticism, doesn't it? I haven't read
(or, more likely, because of a terrible memory, can't remember) enough
of your posts to know if you criticize the USA or not, and if you do, to
what extent.
>I you are content with America, more power to you. But don't forget
about
>the First Amendment's meaning that "the speech you love to hate" (Henry
>Hyde, R-Ill) is also protected.
In another post, I did comment about free speech. Perhaps I should put
everything into one post...? Nah. It would be too long.
By the way, I hardly need your admonition to remember the First
Amendment. You seem to have perceptions about me that do not fit.
Maria
Brian J Goggin
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
[...]
>(Are my posts not making it through to you? If they're not, I must tell
>you, Brian, that I have written scores of intelligent, interesting,
>on-topic posts just in the last day or two. ;-) Sorry you missed them.)
I saw (and indeed marvelled at) many such postings, but the one in
question escaped me, and I haven't worked out this dejagoogle stuff.
>>Maria, what do you mean by "Anti-American sentiment" (at least as
>>manifested by Americans)? And what by "malcontents"?
>
>Anti-American sentiment from Americans would be (to me) those statements
>made by Americans that indicate that there is little good in this
>country. Anti-American Americans (whom I see as malcontents for the most
>part) find fault with just about everything American, and apologize for
>being American, and talk about how superior other countries are, and
>complain about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
>course)...
>
>...BUT they stay here nonetheless. Apparently, they do not have the
>courage to put their money where their mouth is. Or -- they realize that
>in many of those other places they say are superior, they would not have
>the freedom to speak out as they do here.
But do they find fault with (just about) everything, or just with
certain things you happen to be talking about? Is it possible that
(for example) they might disllike McDonald's but like (say) American
washing-powder, and that you don't notice because washing-powder is
not often the subject of discussion? Or that washing-powder is not
very interesting? Or that it doesn't come up in conversation simply
because it is agreed upon, and therefore less deserving of discussion?
I was reading today about an interesting American chap called John
Zerzan who dislikes art, language, number, technology, the left, the
right, business, government, credit cards, social welfare, the World
Trade Organisation, [ObAUE] Noam Chomsky, windows and several other
things. He likes (I think) primitivism, the palaeolithic era, housing
cooperatives, babysitting, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) and the Earth
Liberation Front, all of which are (or parts of all of which are (or
were)) American. So I wouldn't call him anti-American, even though he
is against some few things that some Americans are in favour of, and
in favour of some things that some Americans are against.
It's also quite likely that he likes American trees, flowers and so
on: a veritable Fotherington-Thomas de nos jours.
But there is a further oddity in your post: the presumption that
finding fault is a bad thing, rather than a stimulus to constant
improvement. Where would we be if those Irish chaps, back in July
1776, had been content with life under King George? They mightn't have
rounded up those few others to sign your Declaration of Independence
and you would still be using pounds, shillings and pence.
Or what about Thomas Edison? Suppose he'd been content with player
pianos and gas lighting? Or Orville and Wilbur had been content with
bicycles and gliders? Or Bill Gates had been content with CP/M? Why,
.... No, scrub that last one.
Finding fault is good, and the few oddballs who stand out against the
prevailing consensus are to be valued. If nothing else, they give you
something to argue about. And finding fault is a very American trait:
you should hear what they say about hotel bathrooms in Europe .... No,
forget I said that.
I suggest that it is possible that you are focusing on a narrowish
range of things about which these fault-finders comment. But I further
suggest that some at least of those things are human artefacts, just
as the Declaration of Independence, the electric lightbulb and the
aeroplane are. (Windows I'm not sure about. Could there be satanic
powers at work?) And I suggest that comment, complaint, criticism may
lead eventually to improvement ....
After all, where would we be without Rosa Parks, Linda Brown, Joseph
Hillstrom or Cesar Chavez, malcontents all?
bjg
Murray Arnow
[...]
>But there is a further oddity in your post: the presumption that
>finding fault is a bad thing, rather than a stimulus to constant
>improvement. Where would we be if those Irish chaps, back in July
>1776, had been content with life under King George? They mightn't have
>rounded up those few others to sign your Declaration of Independence
>and you would still be using pounds, shillings and pence.
>
quarts, gallons, inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles, acres, etc.
[...]
>After all, where would we be without Rosa Parks, Linda Brown, Joseph
>Hillstrom or Cesar Chavez, malcontents all?
>
Seriously Brian, how have these people influenced the Irish?
K1912
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>>
>> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
>> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from Americans,
>> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
>> would be satisfied anywhere.
>
>I don't think of myself as a malcontent, but anti-American sentiment is
>something you'll hear fairly often from me. That may be in regard to the
>government (points already made by others), but mostly with respect to
>Americans' deep-seated resentment of "products of the mind." I use
>"product" because that is precisely what everything must be transformed
>into in order to have respect here.
>
>I find myself in utter despair over it. As a composer, I face (where
>it's not derision, dismissal, or combative disagreement) largely blank
>looks. I can travel deep into the European countryside, and being a
>composer marks me as a valid member of society. But in America I am
>insignificant by choice of vocation.
>
>Indeed, Americans tend to dislike any artform that is not primarily
>entertainment, and it must ultimately be exchanged in dollars (Top 40,
>box office, 'going platinum'..). Oddly, this is combined with a
>Puritan-heritage distaste for art as peripheral, wasteful, inefficient,
>and even sinful.
>
>Such distaste engenders a deep distrust of the very tools of art,
>including (again in my own field) the ability to read or write even the
>a few musical notes. The musical equivalent of adding two numbers,
>scribbling a post-it note, dialing a long-distance call, or the snapping
>of a photograph is terrifyingly opaque to graduates of high school or
>college.
>
>We are the most musically illiterate society among the developed
>nations, we have chosen to be so, and we are defiantly proud of our
>ignorance. A composer who is now an expatriate in Belgium calls the U.S.
>an artistic third-world nation at best.
>
>This distaste, ignorance, and defiance reaches into the visual arts,
>literature, languages, and even history. There is a pride in
>shallowness, where exceptions are made only for the hard specialties,
>money fields, and, of course, for the sports-entertainment industry
>where a wealth of statistical and personal information is required to be
>a functional part of American culture.
>
>As a technologist or economist or engineer or contractor, one may be
>pro-American. As an artist, I have been taught, over time, that I cannot
>be.
>
It is almost safe to assume that an artist of any dignity is against his
country, _i.e._ against the environment in which God hath placed him, as it it
is to assume that his country is against the artist. The special quality which
makes an artist of him might almost be defined, indeed, as an extraordinary
capacity for irritation, a pathological sensitiveness to environmental pricks
and stings. He differs from the rest of us mainly because he reacts sharply and
in an uncommon manner to phenomena which leave the rest of us unmoved, or, at
most, merely annoy us vagely.... Dante to Tolstoy and from Shakespeare to Mark
Twain the story is ever the same. Names suggest themselves instantly: Goethe,
Heine, Shelley, Byron, Thackery, Balzac, Rabelais, Cervantes, Swift,
Doestoevsky, Carlyle, Moliere, Pope--all bitter critics of their time and
nation, most of them piously hated by the contemporary 100 percenters, some of
them actually fugitives from rage and reprisal.--"The Artist," H.L.Mencken
(From the Baltimore _Evening Sun_, April 7, 1924)
George
Arya Raychaudhuri
the anti-americanism arises because of a few factors:
1. America is often seen as a store-house of the weapons of mass
destruction.
Scaring other countries to get the job done, and not by winning their
hearts.
2. Global watchmanship. Using the modern technologies to monitor and control
other/own people's personal lives.
Actually, a very low fraction of americans may be
really doing that, but, since the many that are aware of that do not
stand up
and protest, they may be viewed as lacking the ability to put
themselves in
other people's shoes and find out how it pinches. Or backboneless.
3. Most americans don't give a damn about any other language. Either speak
english
(americanese) or go to hell. Not knowing any other language, nor about
other parts of the world is often seen as arrogance.
4. People of many other countries are jealous of the material success in
America.
Arjoe
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:
> In article <s9d2etsv89dflbbvt...@4ax.com>,
> chr...@gofree.indigo.ie posted:
> > All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> > and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> > Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> > Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
> > not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
> > large enough sample to make it noticeable.
> >
> > Why is this?
> >
> > Xenophobia? Jealousy? A rational reason for disliking either the
> > American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
> > American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
> >
> > Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
> > American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
> > exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
> > French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Charles Riggs
>
> Since you posted the article in alt.usage.english, my
> comment addresses the difference in language as the cause
> for anti-American feelings. I am the founder of an ESL
> school in the US. We have both American and non-American
> teachers; the latter are critical of their American
> counterparts because they do not teach English "as it
> used to be". Most of the students are from Bharat (aka
> India) and other Asian countries, and the school's main
> purpose is to teach English, or Americanese "as it is".
> This is the practical approach, I feel. While all members
> of the faculty are committed to the approach, the anti-
> American sentiment continues to plant seeds of division.
> So, no you are not overly sensitive about the issue. The
> problem exists and is rooted in many areas of life,
> language being one of them.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> A native Sanskrit and Hindi speaker
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
Manish Patel
it ... I think in last two issues). Yes ... a part of that anti-americanism
can be because of jealousy, etc. However the article clearly summarizes this
sentiment ... in one single sentence.
Most of anti-americanism is not because of 'what america does' , but mostly
because of 'what america is' !!
Manish
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:English-107...@news.mantra.com...
Maria Conlon
Brian J Goggin wrote in message ...
>Maria Conlon wrote:
[...]
>>>Maria, what do you mean by "Anti-American sentiment" (at least as
>>>manifested by Americans)? And what by "malcontents"?
>>Anti-American sentiment from Americans would be (to me) those
statements
>>made by Americans that indicate that there is little good in this
>>country. Anti-American Americans (whom I see as malcontents for the
most
>>part) find fault with just about everything American, and apologize
for
>>being American, and talk about how superior other countries are, and
>>complain about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
>>course)...
>>
>>...BUT they stay here nonetheless. Apparently, they do not have the
>>courage to put their money where their mouth is. Or -- they realize
that
>>in many of those other places they say are superior, they would not
have
>>the freedom to speak out as they do here.
>But do they find fault with (just about) everything, or just with
>certain things you happen to be talking about?
If they find fault -- or not -- with something we haven't talked about,
I probably wouldn't know it.
>........Is it possible that
>(for example) they might disllike McDonald's but like (say) American
>washing-powder, and that you don't notice because washing-powder is
>not often the subject of discussion? Or that washing-powder is not
>very interesting? Or that it doesn't come up in conversation simply
>because it is agreed upon, and therefore less deserving of discussion?
I wouldn't consider criticism of McDonald's or a washing powder to be
anti-American. Those things usually do not come up in conversation
anyway. They may be mentioned in passing, but that's all.
>I was reading today about an interesting American chap called John
>Zerzan who dislikes art, language, number, technology, the left, the
>right, business, government, credit cards, social welfare, the World
>Trade Organisation, [ObAUE] Noam Chomsky, windows and several other
>things. He likes (I think) primitivism, the palaeolithic era, housing
>cooperatives, babysitting, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) and the Earth
>Liberation Front, all of which are (or parts of all of which are (or
>were)) American. So I wouldn't call him anti-American, even though he
>is against some few things that some Americans are in favour of, and
>in favour of some things that some Americans are against.
>
>It's also quite likely that he likes American trees, flowers and so
>on: a veritable Fotherington-Thomas de nos jours.
I have not read (yet) any of Zerzan's works. Had you asked for a
comment, I would not have been able to supply one.
>But there is a further oddity in your post: the presumption that
>finding fault is a bad thing,
Finding fault is not necessarily bad. To limit this to the topic at
hand, I will say that an American constantly finding fault with things
American and -- to repeat what I said before -- apologizing for being
American, and talking about how superior other countries are, and
complaining about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
course) will irritate me every time.
I do not deny that *constructive* criticism is good. What I was talking
about, however, is not *constructive* criticism. It's just bitching and
whining.
>......rather than a stimulus to constant
>improvement. Where would we be if those Irish chaps, back in July
>1776, had been content with life under King George? They mightn't have
>rounded up those few others to sign your Declaration of Independence
>and you would still be using pounds, shillings and pence.
<smile> Well, I'm glad those Irish chaps (and the other chaps, too)
weren't the kind to stand around and complain, apologize, etc. Had they
been just bitchers and whiners, things would be very different now. We
probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
>Or what about Thomas Edison? Suppose he'd been content with player
>pianos and gas lighting? Or Orville and Wilbur had been content with
>bicycles and gliders? Or Bill Gates had been content with CP/M? Why,
>.... No, scrub that last one.
We can all be grateful for every last "thinker" and "doer" who has
improved the lot of mankind. But as I'm sure you know, they are not the
people I'm talking about.
>Finding fault is good, and the few oddballs who stand out against the
>prevailing consensus are to be valued.
Yes and no, Brian.
>...If nothing else, they give you something to argue about.
Okay, I'll give you that.
>And finding fault is a very American trait:
>you should hear what they say about hotel bathrooms in Europe .... No,
>forget I said that.
Forgotten.
>I suggest that it is possible that you are focusing on a narrowish
>range of things about which these fault-finders comment. But I further
>suggest that some at least of those things are human artefacts, just
>as the Declaration of Independence, the electric lightbulb and the
>aeroplane are. (Windows I'm not sure about. Could there be satanic
>powers at work?) And I suggest that comment, complaint, criticism may
>lead eventually to improvement ....
I'm not suggesting that anti-American Americans be forced to shut up,
you know. They are free to say what they want to say (except yell
"fire!" in a crowded theater, of course). But I am free, as well -- to
criticize the whiners and complainers who are doing only that instead of
trying to improve things.
Why do I get the feeling that it's okay to be anti-American, but it's
somehow not okay -- not sporting, not really fair -- for me to exerecise
my rights and criticize them? That's certainly the feeling I'm getting.
>After all, where would we be without Rosa Parks, Linda Brown, Joseph
>Hillstrom or Cesar Chavez, malcontents all?
There's a world of difference between the people you name and the people
I've been talking about.
Maria
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
>Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
>Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
>not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
>large enough sample to make it noticeable.
>
>Why is this?
>
>Xenophobia? Jealousy? A rational reason for disliking either the
>American personality, if such a gross generality can be made, or
>American traditions or foreign policy? I find it most tiresome.
I don't think there's a simple answer.
There can be xenophobia, but it can also be selective, depending on how much
of a threat people see in foreigners. In South Africa, for example, there is
rising xenophobia against people from neighbouring countries, for much the
same reason as in the US there is some xenophobia against Mexicans. They are
seen as a threat to people's jobs. Americans don't generally fall into that
category. American tourists may be mugged for the same reason tourists are
mugged in other countries - they are seen as having something worth stealing.
They are not mugged because they are American. But people from Zimbabwe,
Mocambique and Malawi have been thrown off moving trains and attacked in other
circumstances out of pure xenophobia.
People's perceptions of Americans depends on what kinds of Americans they have
met, and whether they have ever been to America. I was 54 before I ever
visited America, and so all the Americans I had met until then I met when they
were away from home. So my view of Americans was shaped by two things: meeting
a few Americans who had travelled abroad, and, from about 1988 onwards,
encountering Americans who had never travelled abroad through electronic
discussion forums like this one.
My experience was that Americans I met in South Africa, and in other places
out of America fell into two broad categories: (a) very nice people to know;
and (b) obnoxious. There were very few in between. I know it's a horrible
over-generalisation, but that was my experience.
The nice ones were often missionaries, teachers or people working with NGOs.
They were open to people from different cultures and knew they had a lot to
learn, and as a result they also had a lot to teach. I found their company
stimulating and enjoyable. They were like the eponymous ugly American in the
book of that name. They came from a different background and had new ideas and
new ways of seeing things. They made America seem like an exciting and
interesting place, because it had produced such people.
The obnoxious ones were often tourists or people in business, and some of them
were missionaries of a different stripe to the first group. I don't need to
describe them - you can also read about them in "The ugly American" but they
bear no resemblance to the eponymous character, in spite of what people who
haven't read the book say. So if you really want to know why some people are
sometimes anti-American, I would say read that book.
After 1988, when electronic networking made it possible to have discussions
with people one had never met, who lived in different countries, I also had
discussions with Americans who had never been outside America. Many seemed to
be chauvinist and quite aggressive, but perhaps that was just a feature of
electronic conversations, and I got that impression of Americans just become
most of the people on line were Americans, simply because more Americans could
afford modems.
American foreign policy can also have something to do with it at times. I was
an undergraduate student the year after the Cuban missile crisis, and there
was an American student in the same residence, whose father was in the
diplomatic corps. Many of the South African students were struck by his
arrogance, which reflected the arrogance of US foreign policy. Why should the
US object to the USSR sending missiles to Cuba, when the US had missiles in
Turkey aimed at the USSR? And the American student would get very annoyed when
we said that we thought Krushchev came out of the encounter better, because he
at least had the humility and good sense to back down and save the world from
a nuclear conflagration.
More recently Madeleine Albright's saying, of the balancing of the lives of
half a million kids in Iraq against the maintenance of American hegemony in
the Middle East, "we think the price is worth it", strikes many non-Americans
as appallingly arrogant.
So US foreign policy can lead to anti-American feeling, but it would fluctuate
according to the particular policies being pursued at the time. I think most
people would distinguish between individuals and their government, and would
not necessarily be hostile to invidvudual Americans. They might, however, seem
*very* anti-American to those who defended such US policies.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Gene Wirchenko
>
>"Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3AE1F36C...@earthlink.net...
>
><snipped, although there were some good points made>
>
>Your reply was a bit aggressive, Martin. Can we try to keep this friendly?
No, it wasn't. But it was.
>It is a topic which merits discussion; but which has dissolved into slanging
>matches, every time I have seen people try to discuss it.
>I'd like to think we could do a little better than that, in here.
You have some work yet then.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ae26511...@news.saix.net...
> >
> More recently Madeleine Albright's saying, of the balancing of the
lives of
> half a million kids in Iraq against the maintenance of American
hegemony in
> the Middle East, "we think the price is worth it", strikes many
non-Americans
> as appallingly arrogant.
>
or Hitler would make.
--
"Good morning star shine" [Oliver] - Did he really know that the sun is
a star or
don't space cadets know the stars come out at night?
Charles Riggs
>It's not too difficult to come up with plausible explanations, if indeed
>the phenomenon is real:
>
>(1) It is probably natural to resent, fear, and dislike powerful
>nation-states; in the 20th century the US achieved military, economic and
>cultural supremacy, and, to some degree, ideological supremacy. By
>"supremacy" I don't mean that it's good; just that it was powerful and
>influential. You can place politically rational dislikes of aspects of
>American foreign policy in here too.
I'm sure that's a good part of it. To what extent, I wonder, were the
British disliked during the glory days of their empire?
>(2) Some of it is fear of modernism and change disguised as
>anti-Americanism (America having come to represent things like modernism,
>technological progress, etc.). Similarly, I'm an American and I often
>irrationally blame bad things on California, like the spread of the
>cot/caught merger (probably groundless, in that case).
>
>(3) The domestic mainstream political ideology of the US seems to be in
>deep conflict with important aspects of mainstream domestic politics in
>Europe (this includes Canada and Australia, of course), in a way which
>both sides seem to find somewhat culturally threatening.
Yes. The current US position on air pollution control, for example,
isn't winning it any new friends in Europe.
>(4) A rational reason for disliking the American personality? Yes,
>probably. I find that (and I'm putting this mildly because I
>don't want to offend anyone) Americans can be very annoying people,
How so? They're generally friendly and out-going people. They can be
overly inquisitive at times, I'm told, and they're often loud compared
with Europeans and Asians -- is that what you meant?
>and in
>a world without barriers to freedom of movement I don't know that I'd
>still be here (in the US, that is).
Barriers? You have a passport, don't you?
> I mean, I don't see *you* living here
>anymore.
But that's not because I harbour any ill will towards the place or the
people -- no more than a reasonable amount anyway. From an early age I
knew I wanted to live in Europe permanently; my retirement finally
allowed me to get away with it.
>> Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
>> American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
>> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
>> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
>
>I have observed that Americans tend to be hypersensitive about this sort
>of thing, but only when it comes from Europeans.
Americans have respect for what Europeans think; what South Americans
or Africans or Asians think of us is of less concern to most
Americans, I'd say.
> I believe this is
>because Americans have an inferiority complex with respect to Europe.
That too.
>This is a key element of the American national identity, and has been
>there from the beginning.
>
>The answer, anyway, is to promote great mutual understanding.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>What is truly despicable is the way these overbearing Americans force all
>these countries to take American money.
There is much to be said for a universal currency -- the US dollar is
not there yet but the Euro soon will be, at least in Europe. No-one
had to force dollars on the Europeans in the years following WWII;
most people were only too happy to get their hands on some. Russians
today, I'm told, are glad to accept dollars.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>I'm not otherwise tempted to contribute to a thread in which most
>posters seem to be just airing their personal prejudices, but I can't
>resist commenting upon the hypocrisy of the question.
>
>Charles Riggs has often been known to post insulting generalisations
>about nationalities here. On one occasion that I remember well, he
>sought to attack me by being offensive about Belgians (I'm not Belgian,
>but I have Belgian friends, so I was offended).
As I explained to you before (you need to read Myles na Gopaleen for a
fuller explanation), you have been eating vegetables grown in Belgian
soil and you have been breathing Belgian air for a year now so you are
part Belgian. Besides, it was you personally I meant to insult -- not
the Belgians I've met. Though, to tell the truth, based on the four
Belgians I have met, their reputation is deserved.
>He has also posted
>disparaging things about (IIRC) the Spanish, the Italians and even about
>black people as a class.
I like the Spanish and the Italians just fine and I've said so a
number of times; I don't know where you're getting this from. Wasn't
my favourite composer an Italian?
I've known many many Blacks, having lived for twenty odd years in
Washington, D.C. My opinions on them and on their condition are based
on facts and not prejudice. Didn't I have a black girlfriend for a
while and have any number of black friends? As usual, sir, you are
full of shit.
>Now, it's a sad fact that most people do think in such irrational terms,
>no matter what their language or nationality, and it's really rather
>pointless to look for "reasons". In Charles' case, however, an
>explanation for anti-Americanism in his acquaintances springs rather
>easily to mind.
No, that is not true in even a single case. I was referring to the
people who dislike all Americans and all things American and not to
people who dislike me as an individual.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
>> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>> and to one degree or another.
>
>[...]
>
>> Why is this?
>
>[...]
>
>> people of other nationalities encounter
>> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
>> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
>>
>> Comments?
>
>I think you have answered your own question.
That last sentence was meant as a joke `ya know.
>You troll, you.
Perhaps, but it seemed to have worked very well.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>>and to one degree or another. ...
>
>>Comments?
>>
>I thought at first that you were masquerading as Rushtown.
>
>Personally, I operate on the guideline that I am not anti- any group.
>On an individual level, it may be different.
>
>I have found, however, that people are often too quick to generalise:
>if I am anti-a-particular-American, it is taken as indicating that I
>am anti-American.
I wouldn't interpret it as so. I have run across people, even here in
the fine town of Westport, who make statements along the lines of "I
hate Americans". I have difficulty having a discussion with such
sorts.
>In similar vein, if I express disagreement with some
>aspect of US foreign policy (and there is much there with which I
>disagree) that is sometimes taken for anti-Americanism.
No problem there. Many Americans find fault with aspects of both our
national policy and foreign policy. I demonstrated in front of the
White House against the Vietnam War, for example.
>Some of my best friends are, indeed, American.
Good on `ya.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<izk...@altavista.com> wrote:
>Well, I can tell you about Greece. Anti-Americanism here really flourished
>only after the US government had encouraged the 1967 military coup and
>supported to the full the fascist dictatorship that followed (1967-1974). I
>don't think the US will ever be forgiven.
>(A very good friend of mine comes for Hungary; she is anti-Russian for more
>or less the same reasons.)
>
>
>Regards
>
>Iannis Kyris
>Athens, Greece
How do the Greeks, in general, feel about Americans today? Are they
still resented? I've always wanted to get to the islands.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
>> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
>> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
>> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
>> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
>> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
>
>You've been living in the wrong part of the world. Over here in Far East
>Asia there is an excess of pro-Americanism. People here go out of their
>way to be friendly and nice and generous to Americans, to the point of
>embarrassment sometimes (often).
For the most part, I found the Japanese to be very friendly towards
Americans. I suspect though that they are polite and friendly towards
most everyone.
>They certainly dislike all the detestable sides of America: the hypocrisy
>and moralism of Americans and the American government; the arrogance of
>the American government and so many Americans (and so many other
>Westerners) who travel through the East; the sexual predation practised by
>so many American men (and so many other Western men).
Perhaps that explains the signs I observed posted outside a number of
Tokyo nightclubs: "Japanese only -- no Caucasians" or words to that
effect.
>> Why is this?
>
>Probably because the American government treats the rest of the world like
>early imperial powers treated their colonies.
Not quite. We don't try to suppress countries, tax them, or otherwise
take advantage of them as some of the colonizing nations have done.
>>Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
>
>> American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
>> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
>> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
>
>I have to say that I personally never encountered any anti-Americanism
>when I was in France back in 1975--oh, except from one Trotskyite
>university student who harangued me for about two hours in French that was
>just a tad above my threshhold of understanding. Otherwise, everyone went
>out of their way to help me and treat me well despite my very rudimentary
>French.
I didn't find the French to be anti-American at all in the little time
I spent in Paris. Though I like the French, what I was implying was
that they don't have the best reputation either as tourists or when at
home, probably because of their bluntness and sometimes rude approach
to others. I'm speaking primarily of Parisians.
Charles Riggs
Padraig Breathnach
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:34:48 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>>Probably because the American government treats the rest of the world like
>>early imperial powers treated their colonies.
>
>Not quite. We don't try to suppress countries, tax them, or otherwise
>take advantage of them as some of the colonizing nations have done.
>
Cuba? El Salvador? Chile in the time of Allende?
PB
Fabian
"Mike Barnes" <mi...@senrab.com> wrote in message
news:M4vm7XA2...@senrab.com...
> In alt.usage.english, ref <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote
> >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> >> ** That the average US citizen, when outside the US, spends all his
time
> >> trying to tell people how much better [insert any noun or verb, whether
> >> concrete or abstract] is, "back home".
> >
> >Is the expression "back home" (meaning "in my place of origin") regarded
> >as an Americanism?
>
> I've heard it frequently from Irish (Northern and southern) living in
> England. So it seems to be an Irishism as well.
I'd go further and say that it is completely unremarkable when coming from
the mouths of immigrants in Britain, even 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants.
--
--
Fabian
The human didn't notice. Did other cats have this problem with their pets?
Percy Picacity
<3AE22335...@math.ucla.edu>:
>Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>> Marvellous: back on topic. What is your understanding of the
>> difference between "I believe that only negative rights exist" and
>> "It is true that only negative rights exist"? Is one a stronger
>> statement?
>
>They are claims about different things. One is a claim about my
>belief system; it can be false basically only if I am lying, because
>I certainly know what I believe. The other is a claim about the
>state of the world ("world" in a philosophical sense, not specifically
>this planet).
>
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't do philosophy. I was
trying to contrive a usage point.
--
Percy Picacity
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Americans still pay homage to their roots; e.g., ounces, pounds, pints,
>quarts, gallons, inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles, acres, etc.
Yes, but you measure 'em all wrong.
>>After all, where would we be without Rosa Parks, Linda Brown, Joseph
>>Hillstrom or Cesar Chavez, malcontents all?
>Seriously Brian, how have these people influenced the Irish?
The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association of the late 1960s took
much of its inspiration from the struggles of Americans, and in
particular black Americans, for civil rights. That manifested itself
especially in the use of peaceful protests, marches and sit-downs and
in the adoption of songs like "We shall overcome". It was only when
that movement failed that (serious) violence began.
The use of the courts in the struggle for justice, and in particular
the case of Brown -v- Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, was hugely
influential for a whole generation of lawyers, not just in Ireland
but, I suggest, around the world. The notion --- however illusory ---
that a people's liberation could be peaceful is an immensely powerful
one.
Joe Hill is remembered whenever songs are sung: the details of the
court case are not known to most people but he is remembered, and
honoured, as a symbol of the workers' struggle against the boss class.
Cesar Chavez is probably less well known.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
[snipped much good stuff]
>Finding fault is not necessarily bad. To limit this to the topic at
>hand, I will say that an American constantly finding fault with things
>American and -- to repeat what I said before -- apologizing for being
>American, and talking about how superior other countries are, and
>complaining about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
>course) will irritate me every time.
[...]
>Why do I get the feeling that it's okay to be anti-American, but it's
>somehow not okay -- not sporting, not really fair -- for me to exerecise
>my rights and criticize them? That's certainly the feeling I'm getting.
I'm still struggling to put my finger on the kinds of things that
you're talking about: the ones that you feel are sufficiently serious
to constitute "anti-Americanism". Are those you criticise talking
about American business, political institutions, support for music,
education, wine, beer, fast food, armaments ...?
I'm trying to suggest --- and I think you confirm --- that it is
unlikely that these anti-Americans criticise absolutely everything
American. So what subset of American things are you sensitive about?
What American things constitute Americanism? Opposition to, or
criticism of, those things might constitute anti-Americanism, but you
haven't actually said what they are, so I can't appreciate your
feelings about the matter.
I might also suggest that those who complain and criticise are
performing an educational role, the preliminary to reform and
improvement.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:34:48 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>>Probably because the American government treats the rest of the world like
>>early imperial powers treated their colonies.
>
>Not quite. We don't try to suppress countries, tax them, or otherwise
>take advantage of them as some of the colonizing nations have done.
That depends on how you define "suppress", "tax" and "take advantage
of" (in English usage).
bjg
Cheryl L. Perkins
: I'd go further and say that it is completely unremarkable when coming from
: the mouths of immigrants in Britain, even 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants.
I thought it was an invented idiom by British authors of books set in
former colonies, except when its used by people who immigrated to said
former colonies as adults.
I have been told that in Australia, it is common usage, even by
descendents of immigrants. I haven't even heard children of immigrants
call anything but their Canadian home 'back home', and certainly haven't
heard it used by later generations.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
Armond Perretta
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote ...
>
> Some of my best friends are, indeed, American.
As, indeed, are some of my worst. On an _individual_ basis, of course.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://members.tripod.com/kerrydeare
(site recently revised)
Franke
Maria Conlon wrote:
> Franke wrote in message
> >Maria Conlon wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
> >> One last point, which I cannot resist making: Anti-American sentiment
> >> from non-Americans is at least somewhat understandable; from
> Americans,
> >> I personally find it disheartening. I sometimes wonder if malcontents
> >> would be satisfied anywhere.
>
> >Malcontents by their very nature are not satisfied anywhere, so you are
> >wondering in vain. Just check your dictionary.
>
> Gee, thanks, Franke. I never thought of that. [Looks in dictionary.] It
> doesn't say anything about malcontents never changing, never finding
> satisfaction. If they do find satisfaction, we would, of course, cease
> calling them malcontents. So I see your point.
>
> >And while you are at it,
> >please justify your application of the negative term "malcontent" to
> those
> >of us Americans who find it easier to see what America looks like to
> the
> >rest of the world because we live there instead of in the States.
>
> I didn't really have Americans living abroad in mind at all. I should
> have made it clear that I was talking about the ones who live in the US.
> (I think I might have done so in a later post.)
You did, and I agree with you on that point. There are in Japan and Taiwan a
lot of foreign malcontents (Americans and Europeans that I know for sure,
and folks from the rest of the world) who constantly bitch and moan about
how bad things are here compared with their own country. I guess I was
seriously disappointed with the direction US politics and culture took once
I was in a position to understand it a bit better from an academic as well
as an experiential standpoint. But it was the election of Ronnie Reagan that
pushed me out of the USA for good. I did my bit to help change the unplesant
realities of American culture down in Georgia in the late 60s, when Lester
Maddox was elected governor and ML King Jr and Bobby Kennedy were murdered.
My experience with the discontented left wing during those years was
enlightening: Most were simply spoiled brats who wanted to destroy "the
system" but had no idea what to replace it with beyond some infantile
Marxist idea about communal camaraderie, peace, and brotherly love. Pure
hogwash. And look how far the American people have come in the past 20 years
since Reagan's assumption of the American throne: George W Jesus is the most
important person in life Bush.
> Living outside the US, as apparently you do, probably does make it
> easier to see what America looks like to the rest of the world. However,
> I would think you lose some perspective in the bargain, and end up not
> knowing whether what we look like is what we actually are.
Why would I want to go back to see what Americans are really like now? The
American government tells me all I need to know. The chimpanzees are losing
to the gorillas.
> >Criticising the USA is not the same as calling it what Iran's clerics
> like
> >to characterize it as.
>
> That depends on the extent of the criticism, doesn't it? I haven't read
> (or, more likely, because of a terrible memory, can't remember) enough
> of your posts to know if you criticize the USA or not, and if you do, to
> what extent.
I certainly do not believe that the USA is the great Satan, just a misguided
giant with two left feet and eleven thumbs. I don't hurl epithets.
> >I you are content with America, more power to you. But don't forget
> about
> >the First Amendment's meaning that "the speech you love to hate" (Henry
> >Hyde, R-Ill) is also protected.
>
> In another post, I did comment about free speech. Perhaps I should put
> everything into one post...? Nah. It would be too long.
>
> By the way, I hardly need your admonition to remember the First
> Amendment. You seem to have perceptions about me that do not fit.
Your statement about malcontents reminded me of another poster in a
different group who was offended that I and others had the temerity to
criticize his (our) homeland. We became anti-Americans just for offering
negative observations. But I see now that you were not making the same sort
of observation. I withdraw my admonition.
Franke
Charles Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:34:48 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> >
> >Charles Riggs wrote:
> >
> >> All my life I've encountered anti-Americanism at one time or another
> >> and to one degree or another. When I lived, as a child, in Germany. In
> >> Sweden, especially in the Vietnam days. In Denmark. Now, in Ireland.
> >> Even here in this newsgroup from an individual I'll leave unnamed. I'm
> >> not talking about people in general from these countries, but about a
> >> large enough sample to make it noticeable.
> >
> >You've been living in the wrong part of the world. Over here in Far East
> >Asia there is an excess of pro-Americanism. People here go out of their
> >way to be friendly and nice and generous to Americans, to the point of
> >embarrassment sometimes (often).
>
> For the most part, I found the Japanese to be very friendly towards
> Americans. I suspect though that they are polite and friendly towards
> most everyone.
>
> >They certainly dislike all the detestable sides of America: the hypocrisy
> >and moralism of Americans and the American government; the arrogance of
> >the American government and so many Americans (and so many other
> >Westerners) who travel through the East; the sexual predation practised by
> >so many American men (and so many other Western men).
>
> Perhaps that explains the signs I observed posted outside a number of
> Tokyo nightclubs: "Japanese only -- no Caucasians" or words to that
> effect.
Well, the Japanese are not a perfect people, you know. They do have their
little prejudices, especially when it comes to sex clubs, nightclubs, and bars.
I was turned away from such a bar in Roppongi, the major night spot for
international businessmen and diplomats in Tokyo. Japanese only, the sign said.
There was certainly a time when an astounding number of Japanese believed that
only gaijin (foreigners) got and gave AIDS. That's one of the reasons they kept
us out. And the landlords just don't want to deal with anyone who cannot speak
fluent Japanese or who might stink up the hallways by cooking with garlic. But
the only reason this doesn't happen more in the USA is because it's expensive
to be taken to court for violating the civil rights of potential renters.
> >> Why is this?
> >
> >Probably because the American government treats the rest of the world like
> >early imperial powers treated their colonies.
>
> Not quite. We don't try to suppress countries, tax them, or otherwise
> take advantage of them as some of the colonizing nations have done.
The CIA admitted to shooting Allende in Chile on Nixon's orders, Reza Palavi
was installed as Shah of Iran by the USA, Bush invaded Panama, Reagan invaded
Grenada, Vietnam was devastated thanks to Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and
Nixon . . . well there are just too many more horror stories in Monroe Doctrine
countries, too many sons of bitches that the USA was proud to say were "ours".
> >>Or could it be that I'm overly sensitive to these feelings, being an
> >
> >> American myself, and that people of other nationalities encounter
> >> exactly the same prejudices against their own countries? I'm sure the
> >> French do, for example, but we all know how there are.
> >
> >I have to say that I personally never encountered any anti-Americanism
> >when I was in France back in 1975--oh, except from one Trotskyite
> >university student who harangued me for about two hours in French that was
> >just a tad above my threshhold of understanding. Otherwise, everyone went
> >out of their way to help me and treat me well despite my very rudimentary
> >French.
>
> I didn't find the French to be anti-American at all in the little time
> I spent in Paris. Though I like the French, what I was implying was
> that they don't have the best reputation either as tourists or when at
> home, probably because of their bluntness and sometimes rude approach
> to others. I'm speaking primarily of Parisians.
One of my French friends told me that when her boyfriend visited Iowa city, he
was so frustrated because he couldn't speak English and almost no one there
could speak French. "Why don't they speak French?!" he finally exclaimed. She
had to explain to him that he was in the heartland of America and that the
national language was English. Except for that, he was a sweet guy.
Murray Arnow
>Joe Hill is remembered whenever songs are sung: the details of the
>court case are not known to most people but he is remembered, and
>honoured, as a symbol of the workers' struggle against the boss class.
I don't think there was much of a court case: he was lynched.
ref
> How do the Greeks, in general, feel about Americans today? Are they
> still resented? I've always wanted to get to the islands.
Just tell them you're Canadian, and don't use words like "about".
Murray Arnow
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:04:52 GMT, ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
>wrote:
>
>>What is truly despicable is the way these overbearing Americans force all
>>these countries to take American money.
>
>most people were only too happy to get their hands on some. Russians
>today, I'm told, are glad to accept dollars.
>
Charles, James Follett hated analogies and I often ain't thrilled by
generalizations, but the chap who said "Americans don't understand irony" may
have been on to something.
Peter Moylan
>After 1988, when electronic networking made it possible to have discussions
>with people one had never met, who lived in different countries, I also had
>discussions with Americans who had never been outside America. Many seemed to
>be chauvinist and quite aggressive, but perhaps that was just a feature of
>electronic conversations, and I got that impression of Americans just become
>most of the people on line were Americans, simply because more Americans could
>afford modems.
That's a problem that won't go away, at least in the short term. One
meets some highly obnoxious people on Usenet -- many more, for some
reason, than one ever meets in "real life" -- and it just so happens
that almost all of them are American. Naturally this tends to damage
the reputations of Americans.
A similar factor accounts for the oft-made observation that American
tourists are much more repulsive than the Americans one meets inside
the USA. The simple fact is that you need to be moderately wealthy
to be a tourist. In my experience there's a tendency for wealthy
Americans to be arrogant -- they seem to think that wealth is a measure
of value -- while poor Americans often turn out to be the nicest
people that one could meet. The result is that the Americans that one
meets outside the USA are the worst possible ambassadors for their
country.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Peter Moylan
>Brian J Goggin wrote in message ...
>>Or what about Thomas Edison? Suppose he'd been content with player
>>pianos and gas lighting? Or Orville and Wilbur had been content with
>>bicycles and gliders? Or Bill Gates had been content with CP/M? Why,
>>.... No, scrub that last one.
>
>We can all be grateful for every last "thinker" and "doer" who has
>improved the lot of mankind. But as I'm sure you know, they are not the
>people I'm talking about.
Thinkers and doers are largely irrelevant to the present discussion,
because for the most part they're not appreciated in their own lifetime.
We need a bit of hindsight to discover which boat-rockers have
actually been good for us.
Americans have been spared the full consequences of that observation,
because they've picked up so many of the rejects from other societies.
I'd go as far as to say that America's dominance in 20th century
technology, and consequently its economic dominance, depends very
heavily on a few thousand highly talented people who were born and
educated outside the USA and who reached the USA as a consequence
of being unwelcome in their own country. It's been an ideal combination:
a non-American education, followed by the American willingness (in
the past, although possibly not now) to let brilliant people work on
projects whose value is not immediately obvious to their less talented
superiors.
I'm not sure what country is going to play that role in the future.
America used to be attractive to immigrants because of combination
of material wealth and political freedom. The first factor is at risk
now that non-productive enterprises are valued over productive ones,
and the second might not survive the growing tide of political
movements based on individual greed, coupled with the also-growing
strength of religious fundamentalism. I suspect that it will be only
another generation or two before there's a mass exodus of the American
intellectuals, followed ten or so years later by a collapse of the
economy.
Michael Cargal
<2je5etgr4gkrb65q4...@4ax.com>:
To make Riggs's statement true in the case of Hawaii, we thus define
"take advantage of" as not including conquering, overthrowing the
monarchy, and assimilating the land as a state. Similar adjustments of
the definition will have to be made for the annexation of California
after our invasion of Mexico.
--
Michael Cargal
mhca...@home.com
Maria Conlon
Brian J Goggin wrote in message ...
>
>[snipped much good stuff]
>
>>Finding fault is not necessarily bad. To limit this to the topic at
>>hand, I will say that an American constantly finding fault with things
>>American and -- to repeat what I said before -- apologizing for being
>>American, and talking about how superior other countries are, and
>>complaining about how stupid Americans are (themselves excluded, of
>>course) will irritate me every time.
>
>[...]
>
>>Why do I get the feeling that it's okay to be anti-American, but it's
>>somehow not okay -- not sporting, not really fair -- for me to
exerecise
>>my rights and criticize them? That's certainly the feeling I'm
getting.
>I'm still struggling to put my finger on the kinds of things that
>you're talking about: the ones that you feel are sufficiently serious
>to constitute "anti-Americanism". Are those you criticise talking
>about American business, political institutions, support for music,
>education, wine, beer, fast food, armaments ...?
Business and politics would be two biggies for me. That's a pretty
general statement, to be sure, but I don't wish to get too specific for
two reasons: (1) It would only further fan the flames here and (2) it
would not accomplish anything.
This is one of those times when I wish I had just stayed out of the
thread. My comments, heartfelt though they are, serve no real purpose.
[...]
>I might also suggest that those who complain and criticise are
>performing an educational role, the preliminary to reform and
>improvement.
I would not deny that that is true to some degree. I would deny that
it's always the case.
Maria
Iannis Kyris
>
> How do the Greeks, in general, feel about Americans today? Are they
> still resented? I've always wanted to get to the islands.
Yes they are, but an American tourist would probably not notice. It is
advisable, though, to avoid talking about politics.
For more on the anti-Western attitude of the Greeks read the very
informative 'Apology of an Anti-Hellene' by Nikos Dimou, available online.
Not many Greeks share his views, but I do.
http://www.ndimou.gr/e-anti.html
Best regards
--
Iannis Kyris
Athens, Greece
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'There are no answers, only cross-references'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please remove z and 57 from email address
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Brian J Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote:
I have read that there was a trial and that Joe Hill did not testify
in his own defence. The *Chambers Biographical Dictionary* (which I
happen to have to hand) says that he was convicted on circumstantial
evidence and, despite requests for a retrial, executed.
bjg
Donna Richoux
Are we talking about the same Joe Hill? There's only one in the
Biographical Dictionary:
Hill, Joe (orig. Joel Emmanuel Hoagland, also Joel Hagglund, Joel
Hagglung; later Joe Hillstrom) US (Swedish-born) labor agitator, martyr,
and songwriter; immigrated to US 1902; joined Industrial Workers of the
World 1910?; wrote and composed song "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911;
convicted of murder-robbery 1914, despite lack of direct evidence, and
sentenced to death; in famous telegram to Bill Haywood on night before
execution, urged "Don't waste any time in mourning. Organize!"; executed
by firing squad _1879-1915
---
Perhaps you are being figurative in your use of "much of" and "lynched".
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Murray Arnow
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:23:55 GMT, ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
>wrote:
>
>>Brian J Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Hill is remembered whenever songs are sung: the details of the
>>>court case are not known to most people but he is remembered, and
>>>honoured, as a symbol of the workers' struggle against the boss class.
>>
>>I don't think there was much of a court case: he was lynched.
>
>I have read that there was a trial and that Joe Hill did not testify
>in his own defence. The *Chambers Biographical Dictionary* (which I
>happen to have to hand) says that he was convicted on circumstantial
>evidence and, despite requests for a retrial, executed.
>
Brian you're right. As soon as I posted the reply, a big oops came from mouth.
I guess I can save face by saying it is a poetic usage of lynching, but I
won't.
Circumstantial evidence isn't bad. What is bad is being framed for murder.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:04:52 GMT, ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
>wrote:
>
>>What is truly despicable is the way these overbearing Americans force all
>>these countries to take American money.
>
>There is much to be said for a universal currency -- the US dollar is
>not there yet but the Euro soon will be, at least in Europe. No-one
>had to force dollars on the Europeans in the years following WWII;
>most people were only too happy to get their hands on some. Russians
>today, I'm told, are glad to accept dollars.
The Russians like them so much they even print their own.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius