1
   

When They say "I hate America", what do you think They mean?

 
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 11:14 am
caprice wrote:
I don't think there are any Canadians who hate Americans. (Unless it's a personal thing, but that's not the issue here.) There may be dislike of Americans by Canadians, there may be annoyances Canadians find in Americans, but I've never had a fellow Canadian tell me they hate Americans in the true sense of the word.


I was just about to say that, but you beat me to the punch.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 11:36 am
I really think we're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Hate? As Walter said, the language we use can be misleading in so many ways. The only thing I hate about Canada is that I can't visit there more often!
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 11:43 am
Agreed.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 12:33 pm
i think we have all heard kids or teenagers shout at their elders : "i hate you, i hate you !" - because they either were asked to eat broccoli or told that they had to go to school. what they probably meant was " i really don't like broccoli" and "i don't want to get up, the bed is warm but outside it's cold". seems to me that the spoken language has become sloppy over the years and expressions are used often even though they do not fit the situstion (i know, i've contributed my fair share to this over the years). i recall that celine dion(sp?) mentioned some time ago that the she worked hard to learn the english language(she neither spoke nor could read english until her singing (?) career got under way). she said that when she finally knew some english she greeted some other entertainer in english, and the reply by the other one was : "wass up momma ?" she thought that the had learned the wrong language. (not a fan of celin, but do think that was a funny remark). hbg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 12:36 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
OK, so no one here hates America or Americans, but some know or encounter many who do. The feelings that Canadians express so frequently on these threads are not hatred but merely dislike or annoyance.

Why is it that Canadians have, or at least express, these feelings towards Americans so much more frequently than do Americans towards Canada or Canadians?

Are we worse, or are you merely more irritable?.

Well, I'll brave this question, even though I've ne'r said a negative word about God's acre, nor regarding the much-loved inhabitants of the land.

First, let's acknowledge that the present period is unique - that the US is thought more poorly of, by most of the rest of the world, than has been the case at any period since I have started watching my dear dear neighbor to the south. What is contestable in this claim? Either some other period was worse. Or that the phrase 'most of the rest of the world' makes the claim false through exaggeration.

If true, then Canadians yakking is an instance of a rather broad and ubiquitous voice, but with the addition of particular or unique grudges based on real or imagined past events.

Now, as george has argued previously, whatever the US may actually be held by other nations to be guilty of, those other nations are (or have been) guilty too, thus nobody really has any valid complaint. Of course, it becomes a tad difficult to understand how anyone might make any claim about any nation's behavior using george's fomula. Still, it's george's question, and while visiting we should strive to be mannerly and avoid mentioning the plaster cracks.

Perhaps we can get some distance if I return george's hospitality. Not that I'm inviting him up here, but maybe I can give him a sense of the maples and the loons and the brisk northern air - in short, an environment with, as far as the eye can see, no Texans. Almost takes one's breath away, doesn't it?

We, george and I, and anyone else who wishes to come along, will head off on an imaginary voyage to a classy hotel room, filled with civic celebrities and newspaper owners, men with intimidatingly bushy eyebrows and an enviable familiarity with the Caymen Islands airport. We are in New York. We can tell by the sirens. There's a man up front, speaking. He's a short man with thick glasses, budget shoes, and an unusually high-pitched voice which, had it been an octave or so lower, wouldn't have prevented him from getting laid until he was 34. He's a Canadian. We can tell by everything.

He says, "The Canadian government has serious concerns regarding recent statements made by your government which suggests you may move towards legislation which will place your sons and daughters in jail for the insignificant and harmless act of smoking marijuana. We wonder where your moral compass is heading. We wonder what damage you are going to do to your children, the hope for your future. We are deeply, very deeply, concerned. It should not surprise anyone, given such legislation is further promoted, that our government may find it necessary to re-evaluate our relationship with your nation, and it is difficult to say what the consequences may be, to ongoing trade discussions, for example."

Wasn't that fun?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 12:44 pm
It was fun! I'm howling in laughter. Wink
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 12:47 pm
I agree walter, what does is mean? The initial question is blind hatred toward America rational? I think what this thread shows is that the word is used loosely. Yet almost everyone had a gripe and could identify with the word or the sentiment. What is it that inspires the bile?
Much of it is not based on much more than opinion, often skewed by bad data. (not a comment on the many great answers but a general observation after years of becoming aware of the problem.)
As people we are so much alike, we see many of the same movies, listen to similar music, read the same books, our lifestyles are not dissimilar. So why is it so easy to say, or is it commonly heard, "I hate the US".
I remember as a child learning about Nuclear Bombs. The USA had 'em and so did the Russians. We were smack dab in the middle. I could identify with both countries, Russia's cold and the US is a democracy.
Yet the news was filled with anti russian sentiment, commies were evil ect.
Propaganda played a huge part in the theme, but farmer's in Kansas stocked the bunkers just in case a ruskie got him.
Is hatred irrational or is it the understanding of the word?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 01:08 pm
Everytime I turn on the TV and see Bush making some kind of speech, I say outloud, "I hate that man." I have never met him and I don't wish him to die or to otherwise be harmed. So in actuality I do not really hate Bush. I think that is how some people from other parts of the world, some just ordinary people and others in position of some kind of authority for their countries feel about America. They simply don't like some of things we stand for and what some of our values are nor the way we present those values to other countries. Blatham is right though, this time period is unique.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 01:15 pm
I don't say "I hate that man," but the phrase "duplicitous piece of ****," does spring to mind. Confused
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 01:27 pm
blatham, you rock!
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 01:47 pm
Blatham

Bravo :-D
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 03:27 pm
revel wrote:
Blatham is right though, this time period is unique.


I don't think that is true. Why? Read the following statement, made almost 31 years ago by Canadian broadcast journalist Gordon Sinclair. It was the end of the Vietnam War era and Americans were not viewed so kindly by those around the world during this time.

The Americans

Quote:
"The Americans"

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the world.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Well, Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did, that's who.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there. I saw that.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan... the Truman Policy... all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or a women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are right here on our streets in Toronto, most of them... unless they are breaking Canadian laws... are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the bonds, let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of them are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters... with the year less than half-over... has taken it all and nobody... but nobody... has helped.


Edited for historical correction.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 03:34 pm
I remember hearing this as a kid, the music playing in the background was the battlehymn of the republic right?
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 03:45 pm
I finally found this. Several years ago, not long after I'd started working in the U.S.A., a co-worker of mine asked me why Americans were disliked. I couldn't really think of a way to explain it without sounding offensive. (When I have to think on my feet, diplomacy is often lacking. Wink) About 2 years later I read a little blurb in USA Today's weekend magazine that seemed a rather appropriate response to my friend's question. I found it online and here it is.

USA Today Weekend Magazine
Quote:
It's difficult to picture a more red-blooded American than Gulf War veteran Cmdr. Harmon "Harm" Rabb of CBS' JAG. But David James Elliott, the man who brings Rabb to life every week, isn't an American citizen. Elliott, 41, has lived in the USA about 10 years but felt no rush to become a citizen -- until Sept. 11. Now he wants to "become a full-fledged member of this fabulous place. Even when I was a kid, I wanted to move to America. There's something about this country that has always attracted me." "Will & Grace"'s Eric McCormack, 38 -- who, like Elliott, grew up in Toronto -- says he always felt as American as he did Canadian. But two years ago, after years of shuttling between the countries, he made it official and got dual citizenship. For McCormack, the events of Sept. 11 highlighted that allegiance: "Canada wept from one border to the next, the same as Americans." Patriotism, however, is more difficult to express. "That's one of the interesting areas where Canadians and Americans differ," McCormack says. "Canadians have the American influence, but they also have the British influence, which is not to wear anything on one's sleeve, not to be too outspoken. To be Canadian is not to express it. It's to be embarrassed by how outrageous the Americans are, always with the flags on their cars and the flags on their hats. They've got three national anthems, for God's sake! [Canadians] have one anthem, no one knows the words, and we're all embarrassed to sing it. I'm exaggerating, but it's a very different mentality."


(On the web site, scroll down near the bottom. The last entry before "Birthdays".)
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 03:47 pm
Ceili wrote:
I remember hearing this as a kid, the music playing in the background was the battlehymn of the republic right?


The only thing I recall about Gordon Sinclair was seeing him as a member of the panel on "Front Page Challenge". That was a good show!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 03:48 pm
ceili, if you go to snopes, they have a link of Gordon reading this.


(and yes, there's a version with Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 03:50 pm
Bush's "Leave no promises behind."
*****************************


Clarence Page
Bush leaves no promise behind


Published January 25, 2004


WASHINGTON -- There are people out there who "need our help," President Bush said in his State of the Union address last week, and he proceeded to promise it to them. In large bundles.

His promises seemed to open up the coffers of government like a pinata: $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean, a new option of retirement savings accounts under Social Security, a $1.2 billion research initiative to develop affordable non-polluting hydrogen-powered cars, ...

Oops! Sorry, folks. I'm reading from the wrong speech. The president made those promises in last year's State of the Union address.

This year's speech made little or absolutely no mention of those promises, among others, from last year. Bush had new promises to make.

This year's speech made no mention of last year's big surprise, the costly AIDS package. Maybe that's because none of the promised $15 billion over five years has been disbursed yet. For 2004, the president asked for $2 billion instead of the expected $3 billion, but Congress eventually settled on $2.4 billion.

Meanwhile, 2.3 million more HIV-infected patients died in sub-Sahara Africa over the past year and another 3 million people were infected, according to the World Health Organization. Yet the Bush administration is pushing for the third year in a row to reduce funding to the cash-strapped Global AIDS Fund. You have to pinch pennies someplace.

Instead, Bush brought up another surprising health issue this year, a cost-free challenge to the sports industry to "get rid of steroids now." Pass the word to your buddies at the gym, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Bush also called on everyone to oppose same-sex marriage, support the USA Patriot Act with all of its assaults on civil liberties, yet also love one another regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. That's the sort of red-meat rhetoric Bush's political base loves to hear and, unlike most of his other proposals, it doesn't deepen the deficit.

As for those nifty-sounding retirement savings accounts into which younger workers can set aside some of their Social Security money, Bush first pushed that golden oldie during the 2000 campaign. He formed a high-profile study commission to study it. But he has not pushed it toward legislation, maybe because the transition costs alone would deepen the deficit, now approaching a half-trillion dollars. Nevertheless, look for it to come up again in the next campaign, opening soon at a campaign stump near you.

And those cool-sounding hydrogen-powered cars? You'll find the $1.2 billion research proposal tucked away somewhere in the Senate Finance Committee. You did not find it or any other mention of the environment in this year's State of the Union address. Like President Bush's dramatic moon and Mars exploration initiatives, which he unveiled earlier in the month in an echo of John F. Kennedy's lunar ambitions, the hydrogen idea seems all but lost in the rhetorical ozone again.

But the biggest elephant missing from the room was the weapons of mass destruction that took up so much of last year's address, as Bush argued for an invasion of Iraq. Last year he charged former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with hoarding "38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... to produce germ warfare agents ... a design for a nuclear weapon" and, of course, the now-infamous CIA-discredited claim that Hussein had tried to get uranium from an African country.

This year? All of that fearful stuff was reduced to a claim that weapons inspectors have identified "dozens of weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities." That may rank as the longest hyphenated presidential phrase in American history, a masterpiece of obfuscation.

Sure, Bush's State of the Union address was a very political speech. Aren't they all? But the address served the president's purposes. On the night after the Iowa caucuses, he looked properly solemn in comparison to former Democratic front-runner Howard Dean's maniacal-looking televised outburst the night before.

Or maybe that was a look of quiet disappointment on Bush's face. Maybe he was saddened to see his best chance for a re-election landslide self-destruct on national TV. Of all the leading Democratic candidates, Dean was considered easiest to beat by Team Bush and its Amen Chorus of media conservatives. After Dean's Monday night error--his "I Have a Scream" speech, some called it--quite a few Democrats suddenly agreed with them.

Sure, as my friends in the Dean camp insist, Dean was just trying to rally his troops after coming in a surprising third in the Iowa caucuses before heading to New Hampshire. But, then, politics is 95 percent perceptions. Bush understands that. He'll promise us anything, as long as we have short memories.
----------

E-mail: [email protected]
********
And, boy, does Americans have short memories.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 06:52 pm
Blatham's colorful vignette seems to have struck a resonant chord. From it and the comments of others I get the impression that many Canadians disapprove of some of the political and cultural choices Americans have made - even, indeed particularly, in areas which do not directly affect them. If there is anything in this thread that strikes me as remarkable, it is this.

People of every country as well as different regions of large countries, have different manners of expression, different popular cultural manifestations and, different social habits. Laws and customs are somewhat different in most countries, reflecting the different choices people make for their governance and social interactions. In most cases people take a live and let live attitude - reserving criticism and action to those areas which involve a significant potential of direct effect on themselves. However here I see concern and criticism expressed in areas that not only don't affect Canada or Canadians, but are also often merely the garden variety of national or regional differences in behavior or expression. One could perhaps argue that because America is so influential and so unrivalled that, even aspects of life that are commonly regarded as beyond the proper concern of others, have become the appropriate concern of outsiders - in our case. I will accept this principle in some areas of our actions, but not in those that have been cited here.

I find this behavior more indicative of something remarkable in the critics than in those who are the objects of their undue concern. What motivates it? Again, one does not find such concern and disapproval in areas that don't directly affect us directed at Canada from Americans either in government, popular expressions or on these threads.

It might be worth noting that a decade or so ago when the separatist movement in Quebec appeared to offer potential for serious political discord, and perhaps worse, there was no scolding or unsolicited advice from either our government or popular media. This was your affair and our role was to attempt to be understanding and otherwise butt out. Seems like good advice for you now.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 07:52 pm
Dagnabbit! Back to vignette school for me.

george

I guess I was trying to get too damned fancy for my britches. Oh well...a man's reach should exceed and all that.

Actually, I wasn't trying to communicate Canadian advice to America for America's own internal cultural and social decisions.

But you see, that IS what happened, only in reverse, when your drug czar came visiting us. True, he didn't threaten trade sanctions, but your ambassador did.

And I do want to thank you on the FLQ matter, though I realize I'm a bit tardy.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 08:06 pm
Though he gives me ample reason, I find it difficult to get or stay sore at Blatham (or even Canada). I think it's the wit and the lightheartedness that finally breaks through the cant of secular evangelical judgementalism. (Great phrase - made it up myself.)

Alterantively it could be my own good nature and joi de vivre.

FLQ matter?? (f%#@ing little question?; flatulent laughing .... no; what?)
However, you are welcome, no mater what.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 08:08:47