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

America is fanatical?

Setanta

Are you with me on the thrust of my question here? I'm not seeking to denigrate America, or to understand what others think of it, but to try and understand better a particular uniqueness, or apparent uniqueness, in how it looks on itself in relation to the rest of the world.

Phoenix

Yes, I think Europe has had that notion for a long time...damned uppity Americans.

If we think about the relationship, in America, between it's values and law regarding its self-referential symbols (eg flag, the Constituion) is there not a distinct and unique sense of 'sacred'?

Blatham- As far as the Constitution and the flag, I can't really say. I have absolutely no idea as to how other countries perceive THEIR symbols of their country. What about Canada, for starters?

littlek

No, I think that is the wrong sort of word to use, not just because it will get everyone's back up, but because I think it's not accurate. I'm not suggesting something so necessarily radical or nutty as that word implies.

There is nothing at all unique about nations being primarily concerned with their own self-interest and advancing their own agendas aggressively.

However, when you combine that widespread tendency with the unchallenged military superiority, and economic power of the US, you have the recipe for simmering resentment.

When you add to that resentment the perception of a growing US unilateralism,
( eg. US is about to defy most of world opinion and attack Iraq) and the perceived arrogance of the Bush administration, the 'recipe' may soon be at full boil.

I understand that, Boss, but my view of the "problem" hasn't changed. As i've written, until many are sick of it surely, i've read history all of my life. Everyone who is not brain-dead has an agenda. Those who criticize the US have an agenda, those in the US who sneer at the rest of the world have an agenda. To my mind, this "problem" does not go away until the rest of the world acknowledges that "we" are them, and, until the "America Firsters" recognize that "we" are them. Certainly many Americans are the rabid variety of "patriot"--by no means a majority, however, nor even a significantly large minority. As with so many issues, in the US, as it will be true anywhere, the majority of the population likely doesn't have an opinion. They will conjure up an opinion if asked, and the nature of their statement will in large measure be predicated upon the manner in which the question is phrased.

By the way, Boss, the flag is not sacred, and the courts have always found in cases regarding the "desecration" of the flag that this is the case. As for the Constitution, it can be, has been, and likely will again be ammended. As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in his crucial opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, a people would not write a constitution unless it were intended to be the supreme law of the land. To that extent, certainly the Constitution is held to be the highest institution of law in the US. I think your thread addresses the "hot button" response of "patriotic hotheads."

blatham
Americans calling other Americans anti-American is of recent vintage. IMO It is used almost exclusively by conservatives and hurled at people who disagree with the actions of the Bush administration.
.

AU, i'd agree with you, except that i think it dates from the isolationists of the 1930's.

Phoenix

Very differently indeed. Someone burning a flag here wouldn't gain much of a glance, other than to cause folks to wonder why someone was making such an American political statement here. I think most would find it not much more than odd and a bit intellectually drippy.

We have here a document called the Charter of ?Rights and Freedoms. This is a relatively recent document (some two decades plus old) which was brought it to replace the earlier British North American Act, a document from the 1860s which maintained sovereignty under the Crown. But the new Charter is seen as a utilitarian work, and quite differently regarded by us than is the US constitution by most Americans.

Setanta

I understand your points. But two caveats...the flag cases wouldn't even have arisen here for it to be established whether they were 'sacred'...see the difference? There seems to be enough sentiment in that direction to suggest the US is unique. Second, why then would you suppose there isn't a comparable notion such as 'anti-candianism' applied by some Canadians to others?

I've been trying to find earliest use of 'anti-Americanism', but so far am still researching.

The "patriotic hotheads" to whom i referred date back to the very earliest days of the Republic. You might look up The Society of the Cincinnati (yes, the city in Ohio is named for them) and the Know-nothings as prime examples. Here's a caveat right back at ya, Boss, what happens when i joke about the Queen in Canadia? Don't answer disingenuously, just because you don't share a prevailing sentiment. (By the way, when the "Maple Leaf" flag replaced the old flag with the "Union Jack" in the corner, a good many "patriotic hotheads" in Canadia were severly pissed off--that was as recently as 1967, n'est-ce pas?)

i do believe Setanta is correct in that the 1930's gave rise to very strong protests favoring isolationism, most likely exceeding anything seen during the Viet Nam era and certainly more than we see today.

The spreading of US values is not the REASON for US policies. Policy is largely shaped by (some might say purchased by) powerful interest groups, especially the corporate plutocrats who pay for the campaigns of our politicians.

The supposed spreading of US values is the camouflage, the excuse, that is provided for the consumption of the suckers (ie. the citizenry) to whip up support.

Bush can't seem to utter two consecutive sentences without extoling 'freedom', yet there are many in the third world and elsewhere, who see close up the US's continual support of repressive regimes.
Is that exporting our values?

Setanta

Yes, re the period of the flag change, there were folks up in arms that the connection WITH THE CROWN was being derogated. The two situations are surely not much comparable. Agreed?

Re dissing the Queen here...truly, I personally know absolutely no one still alive who would raise an eyebrow.

jjorge

I really don't want to get into a certain avenue of discussion on this thread - the America is bad avenue. What I'm looking to is a possible uniqueness about America's self regard.

Bookmarking in my ego search.

Setanta

Can I lean on your historical knowledge of trends and influences around the time of the revolution/

Years ago, I picked up a tidbit from Thomas Szasz in Manufacture of Madness where he traced back the term 'hysteria' to a clinical description (hysterical was in common use, but with the latinate ending modified to follow the scientific/medical model) of a female who supported the British during the revolution.

The term, certainly the concept of a resident being 'anti-American' with connotations of 'traitorous' must have existed at that time?

Craven

God, mine's much easier to find than yours, apparently.

Oh no, Boss, i see the situations as comparable--and the difference between our governmental system explains why it does not continue to be an issue in Canada. As you have yourself pointed out in these fora, once an administration is in power in Canada, their power is nearly absolute, and not subject to revision unless or until that administration changes. The flag issue comes up again here from time to time as politicians attempt a little demoguogery (is that a word? do i care?) to position themselves with the right-hand lunatic fringe--but as the courts have ruled consistently on this issue, it always comes to naught. Once the British North America Act has been voided, and the new flag hoisted, no one was going challenge Lester Pearson on the subject. From all i've read about Canadian history, you live in a much more plutocratic state than the US. In 1837-38, there were uprisings following by horridly bloody reprisal; in 1871, and again in 1885, Louis Riel lead insurrections in Manitoba which were repressed violently, and the builders of your transcontinental railway took the opportunity to get government funding by promptly delivering the troops to the railhead in the Red River valley. Come on, BLatham, Canada is a great country, and i've enjoyed my frequent visits--but don't try to feed me a line that things are more civilized, without dissent and harmony reigning everywhere. If i walk the streets of Toronto, i'll be a member of a white minority in view; if i walk the streets of Woodstock, about a 90 minute drive to the west, i'd stare at any brown face i saw, as being out of place, and so would the rest of the inhabitants--to acknowledge that fact of Canadian life is not to be a racist, it's just tellin' it like it is.

Setanta

What on earth are you thinking I'm thinking? That Canada is a better place or without conflict or that there is no rascism (there is) because brown skin is scarce or that there is less of an ethinic mix here (not much less)....geesh.

But you are being uncareful on the flag matter, surely. The debates that I've seen here and on abuzz which point to flag descecration as an act requiring moral condemnation do not have a counterpart in anything like the magnitude there. Surely this is so.