0
   

Europe's Anti-American Obsession

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 03:14 pm
George wrote-

Quote:
In all my travels I have repeatedly learned that, when one really connects with people in almost any country, our common humanity quickly comes to the fore and the different cultural expressions of it are usually quickly bridged.


That's a pretty way for an ex-sailor to describe his exploits on shore leave to his aunties.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 03:24 pm
I would replace the second "quickly" by "rapidly".
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 05:42 pm
From Shinola wrote:
I used to have a bunch of misconceptions about Europeans (i.e., the French are rude and snotty elitists) until I spent five years in Frankfurt, Germany. People in and around large cities like Frankfurt and Paris are rather cold and aloof but are nearly identical in that respect to those citizens of New York City or Atlanta. Folks living in rural areas were, for the most part, extremely hospitable and friendly.

But at the end of the day, European and American cultures are too different from one another to compare apples to apples.


And German and French cultures are so similar that you can judge Paris and its people by spending five years in Frankfurt?

Its something of a cliche to contend that urbanites are rude and aloof while the common folk in rural areas are down to earth and friendly. I have met very warm and friendly people in many cities around the world, and some scary SOBs out in the boonies.

In my experience, urbanites tend to be guarded and self-focused when dealing with the millions of people around them. This is a sensible surrvival strategy in places where one out of every 1000 people is likely to be crazy or crooked. Once you get past the shell they carry on the streets, they tend to be very open and genuine.

On the other hand, folks that live within more genteel settings are outwardly much friendlier; more welcoming, but the shell they erect against "strangers," is much thicker than anything worn by the average urbanite.

If you intend to spend only a few days in some place you will almost certainly feel more welcome in the sticks than in the city.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 05:47 pm
While anti-American foreigners irritate me in direct proportion to how much their nation's owe America, they're never more than an irritant.

What I find far more troubling are anti-American Americans.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 06:17 pm
george
Quote:
I am concerned that, as Europe is successfully subsuming its old tribal identities, and the historical troubles associated with them, in a new, larger identity, it may also be adopting with it a hostile or at least combatative posture towards us (two sides to this story - we have done our part too). We are entering a new historical age and the easy presumptions of the past may no longer hold.


When populations become mobile or when travel/communications systems come into being and ethnicities (customs, values, ideas) mix more than usual, there's inevitable social turmoil. That's the downside. The upside can be seen in, for example, the USA...a mongrelized creature top to bottom, but vital and with a greater capacity for change and challenge.

But Europe's 'combative' stance in relation to the US looks to me to be less a function of changes in Europe than it is a function of changes in how the US has recently come to conceive of its role vis a vis Europe and all else.

It IS the case that this administration has moved forward in its relations with Europe and the rest of the world openly determined to gain/maintain power over all other entities. It has worked to undermine or nullify international organizations and agreements from that theoretical or strategic framework. And it isn't a secret. What other individual could one even imagine being a more combative and arrogant representative of the US than John Bolton? See here... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21052
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 07:12 pm
Francis wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I have also travelled a lot as a civilian and haven't found the difference to be great.


Well, but you are not a homebody from the cozy suburbs of NYC, George...


I heard someone say NYC? The thing about being from NYC is in many cases, I believe, one's tastes may be jaded for many things that other people, from other places, find most interesting in urban environments.

The other people in the San Francisco tour bus were very impressed by the tour guide explaining the cost of the new condominiums. This was the early 1970's and the condominiums were $60,000. This does not impress most New Yorkers, but it did impress a number of people on the tour bus.

Some times only nature impresses many New Yorkers, in my opinion, since that is what is missing in NYC, other than Central Park, and that is all managed nature.

And then there is this thing about seeing other people, or meeting other people. As a New Yorker, I have too many people to see every day just to go shopping for food. And, from all over the world. I have this belief that the best and brightest from around the world make it to New York if they can. In effect, New Yorkers get to see the cream of humanity from around the world. And, I should want to travel?

I don't understand why some people have a wanderlust? I would have to be stupid, or an ingrate, to think that there are other parts of the world that are worth visiting, knowing my grandparents had to struggle to survive in the New World 125 years ago. My family therefore avoided the dementia of WWI, the dementia of WWII and both European post world war periods of unemployment. There were male family members in the military for both wars, but the women and children lived peacefully in the United States.

Actually, the entire United States is cozy, with a lot of elbow room to boot.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 08:46 pm
blatham wrote:

But Europe's 'combative' stance in relation to the US looks to me to be less a function of changes in Europe than it is a function of changes in how the US has recently come to conceive of its role vis a vis Europe and all else.

It IS the case that this administration has moved forward in its relations with Europe and the rest of the world openly determined to gain/maintain power over all other entities. It has worked to undermine or nullify international organizations and agreements from that theoretical or strategic framework. And it isn't a secret. What other individual could one even imagine being a more combative and arrogant representative of the US than John Bolton? See here... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21052


I think you have a point here, but that you also ignore (1) the lingering aftereffects, chiefly in Britain & France, of American anti colonialism during and after WWII; (2) other factors that were long present in Europe, but which were rendered largely inoperative by the threatening prospect of Soviet ambitions in the aftermath of WWII; (3) changes that have indeed occurred in Europe since the demise of the USSR and the ascent of the EU; (4) long-standing "Anti Americanism" on the part of European elites, of the type described (but probably over emphasized) by J.F. Revel, in his book of that name & other works.

I agree generally with your comments about the present administration, and of John Bolton as well. However what nation has not worked hard to get the best deal out of the cards it holds? Not all international organizations & treaties are good, either in themselves or for us - some deserve nullification. Considering the whole era from 1945 through the fall of the USSR, it would be hard indeed to make a case that the United States has based its policies only on its narrow self-interest.

All things considered, I believe we would be having more or less the same conversation now if there was no Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush or even John Bolton.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 07:02 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Considering the whole era from 1945 through the fall of the USSR, it would be hard indeed to make a case that the United States has based its policies only on its narrow self-interest.


Do you then mean to assert that the United States were motivated by disinterested altruism in its policies? Do you deny that opposition to the United States was based upon the threat of Soviet military adventurism and the attempt to spread Soviet hegemony? I'd be interested to know what policies you assert were not based on American self-interest.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 03:58 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
While anti-American foreigners irritate me in direct proportion to how much their nation's owe America, they're never more than an irritant.

What I find far more troubling are anti-American Americans.


User defined function. I'd like to hear you describe these American-anti-americans (AAAs).

You could just as easily be described as anti-american, so using proganda like this is a slippery slope.

Tread carefully.
K
O
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:06 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
While anti-American foreigners irritate me in direct proportion to how much their nation's owe America, they're never more than an irritant.

What I find far more troubling are anti-American Americans.


User defined function. I'd like to hear you describe these American-anti-americans (AAAs).

You could just as easily be described as anti-american, so using proganda like this is a slippery slope.

Tread carefully.
K
O


Well, I suppose Icould be "just as easily" described as anti-American because it doesn't take a lot of effort to do so. How it might make any sense is a whole other proposition.

Jean-Francois Revel has done a fair job in generally defining anti-American sentiments, so Americans that share many or all of such sentiments are anti-American Americans.

If one consistently interprets the actions of John Doe in a negative light, one can be safely defined as anti-John Doe.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:13 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
While anti-American foreigners irritate me in direct proportion to how much their nation's owe America, they're never more than an irritant.

What I find far more troubling are anti-American Americans.


User defined function. I'd like to hear you describe these American-anti-americans (AAAs).

You could just as easily be described as anti-american, so using proganda like this is a slippery slope.

Tread carefully.
K
O


Well, I suppose Icould be "just as easily" described as anti-American because it doesn't take a lot of effort to do so. How it might make any sense is a whole other proposition.

Jean-Francois Revel has done a fair job in generally defining anti-American sentiments, so Americans that share many or all of such sentiments are anti-American Americans.

If one consistently interprets the actions of John Doe in a negative light, one can be safely defined as anti-John Doe.


You didn't answer my question. I care not of Jean-Francois Revel's opinion. I asked YOU what your description of these AAAs is. use your own words.

I'd also like to hear what you think "american" is, so that you can' describe what anti-american is.

Direct question, direct answer please.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:21 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
While anti-American foreigners irritate me in direct proportion to how much their nation's owe America, they're never more than an irritant.

What I find far more troubling are anti-American Americans.


User defined function. I'd like to hear you describe these American-anti-americans (AAAs).

You could just as easily be described as anti-american, so using proganda like this is a slippery slope.

Tread carefully.
K
O


Well, I suppose Icould be "just as easily" described as anti-American because it doesn't take a lot of effort to do so. How it might make any sense is a whole other proposition.

Jean-Francois Revel has done a fair job in generally defining anti-American sentiments, so Americans that share many or all of such sentiments are anti-American Americans.

If one consistently interprets the actions of John Doe in a negative light, one can be safely defined as anti-John Doe.


You didn't answer my question. I care not of Jean-Francois Revel's opinion. I asked YOU what your description of these AAAs is. use your own words.

I'd also like to hear what you think "american" is, so that you can' describe what anti-american is.

Direct question, direct answer please.

T
K
O


Direct answer: Read the article McGentrix posted (It's by Jean-Francois Revel - so you don't need to do any research).

Note the sentiments he describes as anti-American.

Now imagine them being held by an American citizen

Bingo!

Anti-American American.

If that doesn't do it for you reread the final sentence of my post. Imagine that the person judging John Doe is an American citizen. Now substitute "America" for "John Doe."

Bingo!

Anti-American American.


If this doesn't satisfy your request, I'm afraid your just going to have to go to bed disappointed tonight.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:25 pm
You're incapable of thinking/answering for yourself. Gotcha. Loud and clear.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:41 pm
Setanta wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Considering the whole era from 1945 through the fall of the USSR, it would be hard indeed to make a case that the United States has based its policies only on its narrow self-interest.


Do you then mean to assert that the United States were motivated by disinterested altruism in its policies? Do you deny that opposition to the United States was based upon the threat of Soviet military adventurism and the attempt to spread Soviet hegemony? I'd be interested to know what policies you assert were not based on American self-interest.


Well I said "narrow self-interest". There is a fair amount of space between the historical standards of the modern era and "disinterested altruism". The Marshal plan was an unprecedented event in the modern era, but it was in our long-term self interest (though it flew in the face of some then conventional notions of self-interest). In 1945 we did have the physical ability to take out the Soviet Union and even seize much of the middle East. This sort of action wasn't seriously contemplated and probably wasn't even politically possible given popular attitudes in the country them. Nonetheless, by the prevailing standards of the states of the modern era (since 1500) it was a possible - even likely - action.

Our positive actions to speed the end of colonialism and to contain or resist the spread of the Soviet contagion, I believe, fall decidedly in the virtuous domain between the historical norms for nation states and your postulated "disinterested altruism".
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 05:45 pm
Diest TKO wrote:

You didn't answer my question. I care not of Jean-Francois Revel's opinion. I asked YOU what your description of these AAAs is. use your own words.

I'd also like to hear what you think "american" is, so that you can' describe what anti-american is.

Direct question, direct answer please.

T
K
O


Diest TKO wrote:
You're incapable of thinking/answering for yourself. Gotcha. Loud and clear.

T
K
O


I do enjoy the ignorant impertinence of self-appointed and self-important pipsqueak interrogators.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 06:32 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
You're incapable of thinking/answering for yourself. Gotcha. Loud and clear.

T
K
O


After all this time, someone has finally found me out: I am incapable of thinking for myself (the answering part sort of follows doesn't it?). I should have known it would be you young Jedhi.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 07:37 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

You didn't answer my question. I care not of Jean-Francois Revel's opinion. I asked YOU what your description of these AAAs is. use your own words.

I'd also like to hear what you think "american" is, so that you can' describe what anti-american is.

Direct question, direct answer please.

T
K
O


Diest TKO wrote:
You're incapable of thinking/answering for yourself. Gotcha. Loud and clear.

T
K
O


I do enjoy the ignorant impertinence of self-appointed and self-important pipsqueak interrogators.


Hey I'm not the one for torture, Finn is. If anyone is the interogator, it's not me.

If Finn isn't ready to stand on his own ideas, he's probably not qualified to speak on the matter. If he does have his own ideas, and is simply not willing to answer for himself, then he's just affraid of arguing himself into a corner. Either way, he's failing to identify who these AAAs are and what separates himself from them objectively.

It seems that he views himslef as being american despite many of the arguments he makes. I think his argument is pretty hypoocritical.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 07:32 pm
I was born in India.
And I live in a small Village( Germany)
I had never been to USA nor I wish
( after my death I will enjoy the bliss of unfulfilled AMERICAN DREAM)
No one wish to denigrade,/demage//degrade THE american culture.
But non of US wish to allow arrogance.
My name is Rama Fuchs
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 09:45 pm
Perusing quickly, I most agree with Francis, that is, I agree re my personal observations and his. Nod along with George and Walter too, and TKO's earlier posts, as I didn't dwell on the last ones between him and Finn.

I've thrown a fit or two at one or two australians and canadians on a2k lumping all of us u.s. americans in one bathtub, but I see how they can make that jump.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 10:07 pm
ossobuco wrote:
Perusing quickly, I most agree with Francis, that is, I agree re my personal observations and his. Nod along with George and Walter too, and TKO's earlier posts, as I didn't dwell on the last ones between him and Finn.

I've thrown a fit or two at one or two australians and canadians on a2k lumping all of us u.s. americans in one bathtub, but I see how they can make that jump.


Well that's perfectly clear. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2025 at 04:39:17