"Anti-Americanism"...what is this critter?

Anti-Americanism. Run the cursor across the picture.

http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=e67d8ca2346d36e42fbf5de218b30a07&lat=1045806139&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2etoilet%2dhumor%2enet%2fcartoon%2ehtml

Blatham-

Greetings. Just joined up, HofT invited me.

"Anti-American" exists I suppose since America isn't so much a physically-distinct group as a group held together by an idea. Anti-American is perceived as going against this idea or rather the ideal of this idea. Very subjective to be sure since we have freedom of speech ect. . . America has very much a civil religion, and being an iconoclast in regards to this civil religion is for many being "anti-American.

I would add that most of what is going on today in Europe is not so much Anti-American at all, but Anti-Bush. There is a very significant distinction here imo.

seydlitz

Well...I am most happy to see you here! Welcome. The world has changed a few degrees in it's direction of travel since we last talked, has it not.

I brought this topic up because I wanted to point to two curiosities: the present broad and pervasive labelling of criticism against this administration (and it's push to war) as 'anti-American' (which I think reminiscent of the Nixon/Meese and McCarthy periods); and also because I wanted to point towards those elements in American culture which seem to so easily facilitate such simplistic good/evil dichotomizations as 'you're with us or against us', and for which there seems to be lots of cheering volunteers within the population.

I suppose I could word this as:
Why is the US so acutely nationalistic?
Why does its nationalism take the forms it does?

I believe Seydilitz makes a very good point and one that addresses most of what is being discussed ere.

With regard to Baltham's reference to "the present broad and pervasive labelling of criticism of this administration as 'Anti-American' .... reminiscent of the Nixon/Meese and McCarthy periods" - I suggest that that one isn't so simplistic either. Such reactions were also characteristic of the Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, Truman, Eisenhower, and many other eras as well, and largely for the reasons Seydilitz has indicated.

The notion that 'you're either with us or against us' can be either represent either a simplistic absurdity or an apt and penetrating focus on the defining issue, depending on one's view of the underlying issues. I believe that is the real issue here. It is likely this that separates the viewpoints of Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria from those of France & Germany on currently prominent matters in the political arena.

Blatham-

Greetings friend. I was heartened to see that you too have made this jump. I'm a bit unsure yet, will have to feel my legs. Great thread. . . my answer to your questions . . . basic fear alongside a cultural panic. Have you read Collateral Language?

georgeob-

Greetings. I do have a fond recollection of our last discussion. Ended as it should have. I recently responded to one of your comments on abuzz. Great to see that you too are here to participate in this . . . what is it? What does discussing political matters in this forum include? Lots of fancy stuff and what?

As to Eastern Europe, how much is their current pro-Bush policy more their basic instinct after centuries to bow low before the strongest power? Is this democracy or is it something else? Why the move to seemingly divide Europe now?

Seydlitz

I think you'll find the place quite easy to maneuver around in. I'm particularly fond of a number of features, most particularly the Private Message option and the edit functions.

Haven't read the book, in fact hadn't heard of it until your mention. I can't promise I'll get to it immediately as I am presently about five promises in arrears, but it is my cup of tea for sure. I have a copy of Orwell's great essay on my bedstand right now, as it happens.

This present administration is an incredibly interesting study in abuse of language and manipulation of information. If I weren't so concerned that they are going to make things much worse for everyone who doesn't live in a gated community, I'd probably be quite happy to just watch them.

We must never forget "axis of evil." Makes me wonder who they're talking about - most of the time. c.i.

And the phrase was penned by a Canadian...I want to apologize in the name of everyone in my country for this jerk. He is quite a jerk too. He abruptly left the inner circle and headed back north when his wife bragged he'd penned it, and the press got hold of this tidbit. Now he's again writing for the National Post, an Izzy Asper paper that doesn't much hold with criticism of America, Israel, or the wonderful benefits of corporatization and figures the earth is really getting cooler (a set of notions I consider vaguely troubling as this family owns some 70% of Canada's dailies now).

Blatham-

Very stange times indeed. Difficult to keep any type of long-term view, so much is fluid. . . and can understand full well the difficulty with finding enough time for reading. . . I too am far behind.

The concept of cultural panic is from the first essay, "Anthrax".

Once in Tokyo, Japan, in the 70s I had to walk though an anti-American demonstration at the US Embassy. It was a weird other worldly experience and not because I was in Japan it was just that being rather tall 5'8" with my young daughter of 5 years, we sort of stood out in the crowd. But we held our heads high and walked proudly inside. Of course there were more Japanese riot police present than demonstrators and needless to say in Japan they do not tolerate unruly crowds. They, the Japanese riot police just kick butt and do not take names.

Good to encounter you again Seydlitz. I suspect you will find A2K a good deal more civilized and less infected with the "loonies" of Abuzz. Much of the content is more thoughtful than that in Abuzz, but no less sectarian. Otherwise the lines are drawn in a fairly similar way. Here too the independent thinking conservative good guys are a bit outnumbered by the slavish adherents of the contemporary liberal creed.

Interesting point about the possibility that the former Soviet satellites are infected with a lingering dread of power and authority. I had not considered that, but, after contemplating the Hungarian and Polish resistance to Soviet power, then at its prime, and the many counterexamples of the often prickly behavior of nations recently liberated from long term domination (Ireland during WWII comes to mind), I am inclined to discount the proposition. Even granting it some effect, it seems to me that the immediate prospect of negotiating the economic and some political terms of their entry in the EU would make France and Germany much more proximate fear figures to these nations than a relatively distant United States.

With the position of these countries in mind it is not clear to me that it is the US that is dividing Europe. It may well be that the prospect of excess domination by a combination of France and Germany seeking to regain lost leverage in the world through control of an expanded EU is a more or less equivalent factor in their considerations.

georgeob-

Good point as to resistance to Stalinism, but we are talking about the governments involved, not the people. The people don't support war. I live in Portugal which isn't in Eastern Europe of course but is part of the designated "new Europe". The government's stand is very unpopular. In Lisbon, over 80,000 marched on 15 February, as well as smaller demos across the country. There have also been many calls here for the UN to start disarming Israel of WMD after they finish with Iraq. If there is a new and old Europe, I think it is rather the old Europe that is following Bush, while it is the new Europe (Germany and France and those who support their stand, a clear majority) that Bush is helping to create by way of his policies.

George... that's a wonderful sentence. But I think I ought to warn folks out there that when it is read backwards, one can faintly make out "Satan"

There's a lovely piece titled Anti-Anti-Americanism in the NY Times magazine this morning... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/magazine/23WWLN.html

seydlitz

The Israeli/Palestine issue is now almost entirely absent from discussion both on site and in media coverage here in North America. The more thoughtful analyses include it in discussions on the present middle east and the Bush agenda, but major media...close to nothing. When the going gets tough, the tough get going in any direction but towards a client state.

I have an excellent piece for you (more to read) from London Review of Books by Anatol Lieven on the Wofowitz/Perle/Rumsfeld/et al influence on the Bush Doctrine and their notions (published in 1992) regarding taking out Iraq. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n19/liev01_.html

Frontline is also running a documentary on this presently, available for downloading as of the 25th. I've seen part of it and it is excellent.

seydlitz,

We could easily get ourselves confused as to what constitutes the new and what the old Europe. Clearly there are many distinctions to be made -- between western Europe and the former Soviet bloc; between the richer nations and the ones that are now or aspire to become recipients of EU economic subsidies; between demographically younger and older nations and those with plummeting native populations (fertility below, say, 1.5/woman) vs those with merely declining ones; between nations experiencing net emigration of their populations and those with very large (and often stressful) immigration, often from outside Europe; between the current members of the EU and those who aspire to it; and so on. A problem is that application of these and other meaningful distinctions doesn't neatly divide Europe into two camps. There are multiple combinations and permutations which can muddy the water.

Do France and Germany represent the "new" or the "old" Europe? Certainly they aspire to lead a "new" economically and politically united Europe to a new place of prominence and power in the world. The question is are they fit (in an historical sense) for that undertaking, and will the rest of Europe accept such an outcome? I believe the answers to these questions are much in doubt. Both countries have ageing populations, falling fertility, stagnant economies unable (so far) to overcome the effects of excess socialist rigidity in labor and capital markets, and an unwillingness to act on situations (such as Bosnia) that demand it. I believe the world views of the Baltic states, Poland, and other resurgent central European states are quite different from those of France & Germany. Moreover they have few historical reasons to prefer them to Russia or other proximate, potentially dominant powers. Even in western Europe there are differences, less profound, but differences nonetheless. Italy, Spain and Denmark come to mind here.

Virtually all of Europe has democratic governments. Hard for me to accept the proposition that the governments of the great majority of these nations would oppose the views of the overwhelming majority of their populations on such a matter. Much of this appears to be reminiscent of the demonstrations in opposition to the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe 19 years ago. The furor came and passed - and the verdict of history is now fairly clear on that one.

I too hope that a redefinition of the situation in the Middle East emerges after the current crisis. I hope that Bush meant what he said when he declared his support for two politically equal and independent states in the former Palestine. I know some of the figures in the administration and i know they consider the Clinton-Barak deal a sham that would have led to the creation of Palestinian 'Bantustands' in a greater Israel that would have increasingly resembled apartheid South Africa. The most remarkable event surrounding that was Arafat's incompetence in explaining his position to the world (not to mention his failure to develop the institutional foundations for a future government).

Hey, seydlitz, very glad you found A2K ... good to have you aboard.

I see a few salient points in georgeob1's recent reply. First, I agree that there is a developing, as yet not fully-formed, new dynamic for Europe, and that France and Germany are jockeying frantically to attempt to gain positions of prominence and influence. I suspect both have misread the new paradigm, and I predict the result will be unpropitious for their near term economic recovery and for their continued economic development.

Additionally, I see a very strong parallel between the Pershing/Cruise Missle situation and the present contretemps, and I am ever perplexed by Europe's ability to ignore conflict and human tragedy. I also sincerely hope, and fully expect, substantive progress to be made in the Palestinian Question once the current crisis is resolved.



timber

Hi to Seydlitz, and welcome!

There's one fundamental distinction between the Pershing missiles deployment and today's situation: the Soviet SS-20s had already been deployed at the time in forward positions reaching almost to the then West German border, and constituted a clear and present danger to Western Europe as a whole.
Both Kohl and Mitterand saw this at the time and acted accordingly in spite of opposition in both countries. Their present-day successors, Schroeder and Chirac, detect no danger, present, clear, or otherwise, directed at them from Saddam's Iraq.

Unless someone can demonstrate to them that just such a danger exists - and that's not going to be Tony Blair, with his top-secret "intel" reports plagiarized from 15-year old students' theses! - the position of France and Germany isn't likely to change.

HofT,

Evidently then you acknowledge that the governments of the UK, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, the Czech & Slovac Republics, Hungary, Slovenia, Rumania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic Republics do see a 'clear and present danger' in Iraq.

HofT, true, there are no forward-deployed SS-20s in the current situation. As for perception of danger, I feel that those not directly under Saddam's guns seem to think that since he is not directly threatining them at the moment, everything is cool. In that regard, I mention again my dismay at Europe's ability to ignore human misery and dictatorial excess not occuring within traditional Post-War Western Europe. I see that as hypocritical, and cynical, in the extreme.



timber

So many interesting comments. Hard to know where to begin.

Helen-

Greetings friend. As you see I've taken your advice. Nice to be here.

timberlandko-

Greetings. Good to see you here as well.

I agree with Helen as to this being very different from the SS-20 controversy. There is no clear and present danger from the European perspective. I would remind all the UN SCR 1284 of December 1999 painted a very different picture of Iraqi WMD, the impression being that the job was mostly done and that the situation of the Iraqi population needed to be improved with the idea of eventually lifting the UN sanctions. I wonder exactly what changed between December 1999 and November 2002 when Bush pushed 1441 through the UN. None of this has been explained.

The Europeans are worried about what is supposed to happen after Saddam falls. There are very ominous indications that the Turks will be allowed in to the Iraqi Kurdish areas as a sort of occupation force. The Europeans know of course the history of Turkish actions against the Kurds. I would mention here that to the Turks, there is no Kurdish ethnic group at all, they are referred to as "Mountain Turks". In all this seems a half-baked sceme of knocking off the bad guys, making lots of promises as to aide and then backsliding. The Europeans have already experienced this in Afghanistan, where the German Defense Minister spend several hours in a bunker two weeks ago due to rocker fire in Kabul. Europe has a long history with failed colonial ventures, perhaps it would be a good idea for the Bush administration to listen for once, keeping someone from making a serious mistake is what friends are for. . .

As to "new" and "old" Europe I agree as to the rather useless nature of that term in explaining anything, but then it comes from Rumsfeld, who seems to be rather confused on quite a few things.

There are massive demonstrations going on in Spain as I type, the polls say that 85% of the Spanish oppose a war under any conditions. I would add that Portugal and Italy, also part of the "Gang of Eight" have very significant majorities against war in Iraq. The various heads of state have hoped that this would blow over, but it has not. . .

There is also a fear that Sharon will use the Iraq war as a cover for a radical solution to the Palestinian question. Martin van Creveld, hardly your whilting liberal, wrote an interesting piece in the Sunday Telegraph on how the Israeli Army could "transfer" the Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan, that is use artillery and infantry with tank support to simply drive the people out. This has been commented on in the Israeli press as well. Nobody wants to mention this, but Likud hardliners have been pushing for such a "solution" for some time . . . should this happen, I would say that any sort of peace agreement between the Arabs and Israel would be impossible, not to mention our actions would be seen as having set the stage for the Israeli offensive.