Where's the outrage!

Blatham,

I did NOT say the ONLY period of good U,S./Canadian relations was during the Mulroney era. Rather, that was the last such period. I don't happen to think Jimmy Carter is particularly representative of either this country or (certainly) my own views, and I would not regard his recommendations or affections as indicating anything beneficial. I believe you grossly exaggerate the quality of U.S. Canadian relations during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years, and well before that as well.
I cannot find that post, but will take your word on what you wrote. Still, you show a rather warped view of the matter. Your personal opinion of Carter, for example, is hardly relevant to the point, and you ignore the Ford era, and you claim I exaggerate but do not provide grounds to support the notion. And I havent even addressed the relationship from the point of view of citizens, rather than the governing body. The Mulroney/Reagan era is not a high point in that light. But right now it is the worst I have ever witnessed. Your claim is simply not valid. Please feel free to check with other Canadians here.

I'll confess that I know a bit more about California than Canada. However, in view of the facts that California's population and economy are larger than Canada's and growing faster, perhaps that is not as inappropriate as you suggest.
What species of argument is this? My daddy has a liver bigger than your daddy therefore, clearly, I have an impressive understanding of algebra?

The United States is very far from perfect. We have our own versions of most of the defects that afflict countries around the world and have operated throughout modern history. For good or ill our decisions, during the past century, to join in two basically European Wars, each of which spread across the globe, has left us, mostly by default, as the leading nation in the Western World. In that role we have come through a grave challenge from Soviet totalitarianism, and won it - without a major conflagration. In view of the history of the world since the 16th century, that is a remarkable achievement. We are still in that position of primacy, but history teaches us that all that is quite transient. The challenges continue, the most important of which arise from the earlier follies of European powers. We are trying to deal with them too: not perfectly, by any means, but so far rather effectively.

It is the fate of any leader in any enterprise to be the object of petty criticism, often motivated by envy, anger, or self-aggrandisement. Such criticism, even when based on fact, can be either beneficial or destructive depending on its relation to the primary challenges or struggles at hand. All too often the criticism is mere carping over insignificant detail and peripheral matters, and positively destructive to the resolution of the truly serious challenges faced by all. I have repeatedly experienced this in microcosim on Navy ships at sea, and I know the phenomenon, and its typical actors, quite well. (I recommend to you my good friend Herman Wouk's wonderful novel about this phenominon, "The Caine Mutiny")
A good book. I have often wondered whether you might have been the model for Queeg. Age seems right.

I believe that most of the niggling furor over the WMD matter in Iraq, the treatment of prisoners, and all the rest fits well into that category. It misses the main point and the very serious struggle in which we are engaged, focusing instead on peripheral and relatively inconsequential matters, all destructive to the main effort. Moreover most of it, coming from both "friendly" governments or "sage observers" appears to be motivated by the all-too-familiar set of self-serving factors.
That is your thesis. Criticism of US policy cannot be valid because it is US policy criticized. Torture? A mere niggle. Murder? It happens all the time. Many thousands of innocent Iraqis bombed into High Popeland? All the better for them there. All relatively inconsequential.

I recognize the merits in the point, made here rather well by dlowan, that it is the relative power and potential of the U.S. that gives importance to our errors and justifies the interest and criticism of others. No kidding. However on closer analysis one cannot escape the observation that the potential power of our European critics alone is nearly the equal of ours. The fact that they lack the reality of it is solely the result of their own choices and their inward-looking greed and timidity. They largely got a free ride during the Cold War and they have come to expect it as a more or less permanent thing. This is what is behind the disinterest of the U.S. government in their points of view.
Yes. If criticism then criticizer must be at fault somehow. The george theorem. Why should we listen to you if you won't get in the game? The fact is we pay a good deal of attention to Howard's government in Australia, while generally ignoring the Canadians - both for good reason.
george...can you imagine, it will be a stretch but try, that most Canadians are completely unimpressed by whether Bush or Rice decide to visit Canada or receive a Canadian politician? It is of almost zero importance. We understand your present political system is theatre, and is written by untalented and cliche-ridden authors.

An interesting illustration of all this can be found in the rather shrill, almost hysterical, criticism of Canadians beacuse we have banned the import of live cattle from them as a result of the undeniable fact that they have exported animals infected with BSE to us.
First, please quote such criticisms. You seem quite familiar with them so it ought to be little trouble to find shrill and hysterical. I will wait right here while you get them. Nowhere mentioned in all this furor really? Nowhere? is that, as a direct result of this action by Canada, American cattle and processed beef products can no longer be exported to Japan and a few other countries - and there is no proximate prospect of those restrictions being lifted, and most certainly not if we resume imports from Canada. In dollar terms U.S. producers have been injured far more than Canadians. However one wouldn't know that fact if all one listened to was the self-serving crap we get from our "friends" to the north. They want us to remove the sting from them, never mind the consequences on us. The word for this is HYPOCRISY.
Let me know if you really wish to get educated on this matter, because you arent presently.

WMD critique of the USA and UK and Oz "niggling"? - dear goddess almighty.

I see why there will never be any point to these conversations with such hyper nationalists.

Let's say I'm quite proud of my son/brother/relative. I've watched him grow up, I love him, yadda yadda.

And then my son/whatever starts doing a whole sh*t ton of things that I'm not proud of; or maybe I just start finding out about it more, it's hard to tell. Even though you care, it's hard to be proud of that.

And you would try to help if you could, for both their sake and yours.

Cycloptichorn

dlowan wrote:

WMD critique of the USA and UK and Oz "niggling"? - dear goddess almighty.

I see why there will never be any point to these conversations with such hyper nationalists.

Why is it that when people like you use the term "nationalist" you make it sound like a dirty word? Is there anything wrong with being nationalistic? I don't know how someone who has the freedoms we have here in the US or any other free nation wouldn't be nationalistic. It would seem that if you don't love your country then you should maybe find one that you do love and live there. I'm not saying love it or leave it, but I am saying show some pride in the nation that allows you to do just about anything you want as long as you don't effect others.

Why is it that when people like you use the term "nationalist" you make it sound like a dirty word? Is there anything wrong with being nationalistic?

Baldimo wrote:

Why is it that when people like you use the term "nationalist" you make it sound like a dirty word? Is there anything wrong with being nationalistic?

Some take lessons from history and answer "yes".

Others see it different.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:

finn

Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?

I don't know what phrases might be used to identify French Canadian resentment of English Canada, or English Canadian resentment of French Canadian resentment, but I have personally seen and heard the expression of both sentiments. I also know that there is a belief in Canada, that most Americans feel superior to their neighbors to the north. Whether or not they call such an attitude anti-Canadian is unknown to me, but I do know that they are not fond of it.
That is a quite different phenomena from what I am speaking of. Internal discord between differening language/culture groups is the rule of things. Evidence New York City history, for one example of many I could choose. So you are left with the need for some accounting as to why anti-americanism is a class of expression/notion not found in Canada, Australia, Belgium, etc etc.

Huh?

Forgive me, but I don't believe that it is quite a different phenomena from what you are speaking or else I doubt I would have asserted it. I assert that there is, very definitely, some, uniquely, form of anti-Americanism in Canada, Australia, Belgium etc.

Is America the only nation capable of self-examination that might be construed as an "anti" position, or are all of these other nations so perfect that they do not even invite criticism?

When Romans ruled the world, there was anti-Roman sentiment, when Britannia ruled the waves there was anti-British sentiment, and now that the US is the single most powerful nation on earth, there is anti-American sentiment. Do you mean to suggest that this is not the case?

Better. This is certainly part of the story. Where a nation involves itself in the affairs of other states it may (justifiably) come under criticism where such involvement has negative consequences for the populations of the lesser states. Obviously, such critical sentiment will be more severe where certain conditions prevail: serious deleterious consequences for those states, arbitrary and selfish policies in place, cronyism the a few locals winning and 99% of population losing, etc. Much of the disfavor the US is held in by many in the world has been gained in these traditional ways. You might (some do) maintain that the negative considerations are actually born merely from envy. America is welcome to this insulated and comfortable mindset but I would suggest that you increase your air and seaport security, further concretize entries to all foreign diplomat residences, and drop down from the status of world #1 arms trader because those armaments are likely to be pointed right back at you.

But you avoid the other component here. Namely the common use of the term anti-American to refer to a significant portion of your own citizenry. Again, that is not a usage to be found in Canada, and likely not in Australia, Belgium, etc. (check with deb and nim). Where does one find such precedent usage? In extreme nationalisms. In Israel, in pre-world war two germany, in the USSR, etc. It is a dangerous game to play.

Blatham, Iamb sure you cannot imagine the validating thrill that courses through my being when you express some small approval for my arguments. "Better," alone keeps me from the precipice of suicide.

It seems abundantly clear that you belive that American influence in the world is of a negative nature - can there be a better definition of anti-Americanism? You may be right, but please stop trying to cloak your sentiment with some sort of scholarly objectivity.

Overreaction is as great a danger as lack of reaction. They are merely opposite sides of the same coin. There are factions within America whose reflexive response is to blame America. Identifying and calling to task such factions is hardly synonymous with German Fascism. What does it matter that opposing forces within Canada, Belgium et al do not ascribe one another in terms of being "anti" the motherland? Perhaps they lose (or do not take full advantage of) a visceral response, but the gist remain the same.

Someone in the Netherlands killed Pym Fortune. Does it really matter whether the term "anti-Dutch" was ever used?

If it were not, why would so many American Liberals be gnashing their teeth over the loss in prestige they believe to be the responsibility of the Bush Administration, and why would John Kerry have made it a major issue in his election bid?
Are you bragging about US power? A few decades back, Hollywood made an under-acclaimed movie based on the Popeye cartoon. Olive Oil, in talking to a girlfriend about her burgeoning romance with Bluto, was put in the position of explaining what she saw in the fellow. The only positive she could come up with was...he is large. In twenty years, certainly not much more, China will likely be more powerful than the US. That tells us what about value to the world?

As to loss of prestige, it is simply factually false to suggest that this is a complaint which arises only from liberals or democrats. This is a pragmatic matter. Ignoring it seems more than a little childish. I recommend a review of the Randy Newman song Political Science.

Bragging? Perhaps, but certainly stating the obvious.

When I look to Hollywood (and more specifically Robert Altman) for a moral compass, perhaps I will give a flying f*ck about what Olive Oyle thought of Brutus, in the meantime, I'm afraid that I will dismiss those who view America only as "large."

Since you are so certain that the argument of loss of prestige extends beyond Democrats is specious, perhaps you can offer supporting evidence beyond the lyrics of a (Democratic) Randy Newman song.

Interestingly enough, I love "Political Science," but as much for its truth as its irony. This is the brilliance of Newman.

In the run up to the Iraq war, cyber-Liberals (in this and other forums) gleefully reported the news of massive anti-War and anti-American demonstrations throughout the world. Now you would have us believe that anti-Americanism is merely a paranoid delusion?
The usage of the term long pre-dates this war, so the point has no particular merit or explanatory power. And you make a dangerously foolish identification between America and a specific administration together with its policies. There were aspects of German culture and history and self-regard which allowed Bismark and Hitler to gain power and play out certain policies and to do so with fairly broad citizen support. Likewise, there are aspects of American history and culture which have permitted the Bush administration to introduce certain policies with fairly broad citizen support. Neither case tells us anything like the whole story of either Germany or America, but both tell us something important. There is anti-American sentiment in the world, as I have said and as is too obvious for words. Whether it is rational and whether is is morally well-founded sentiment is the question. But it is the question you and george cannot address because it violates (almost always) your primary presumption of American innocence and goodness.

This is, for Blatham, an unusual load of excrement, unless, of course, I am remiss in suggesting that you believe the concept of "anti-Americanism" to be a paranoid delusion. The Left (of which I dare you to claim you are not a member) trumpets anti-Americanism as a check against American Imperialism. This being the case it is , at best, disingenuous, for the same Left to assert that anti-Americanism is a convenient fiction of the Right.

I am not of the mind that anti-American sentiment equates to attacks or even threats. Clearly one must assume that those who have actually threatened or attacked America must be anti-American, but they are, overwhelmingly, the exceptions and not the rule.

Anti-American sentiment is, to an American such as me, insulting and annoying. I make no apologies for taking some offense to it. I am not about to engage in or endorse a violent (or even particularly energetic) response, but will call it when I see it. If this offends your sensibilities (as it must) you can call me on it (as you have).
The point is...why find yourself insulted or annoyed at all? I can understand annoyance when someone speaks who doesnt have the foggiest what he speaks of (eg an earlier thread here where JW and Foxfyre began speaking about Canada) but that is an intellectual matter...why bother talking with people who have so few facts to hand? If someone derides Canada (or my home town, or my old swimming hole, or my school basketball team) why on earth should I feel some insult to myself? If someone pisses on the flag of Canada, so what? Someone just pissed on a piece of rayon and a symbol. The harm is what? Is Canada so fragile an organization that a half cup of urine will quite undo it? Is the US so fragile that it risks coming apart at such slight provocations? At criticism? At internal division?

Feeling insulted and or annoyed doesn't irrevocably upset my equilibrium, and so I am not all that concerned with an occassional sense of of either. Since I do not allow such umbrage to fester and, ultimately, destroy, I have no problem with its temporary expression. A2K is a forum, at least for me, for temporary and permanent expressions. If you should confuse the former with the latter, of what real import is it to me?

Let's remember that the original premise for this thread was the conduct of the UN, not the US. US conduct was brought in with what I consider to be a fairly gratuitous gesture of anti-American sentiment. Even so, the primary thrust of my response was that comparisons between the prolonged UN sex scandal and incidents at Abu Ghraib are not reasonably drawn.
I actually didnt read the original post (nor much subsequent postings ) as I have zero respect for its author. So I cannot really comment here.

So be it, but we should not blithely ignore the fact that the issue of anti-Americanism was introduced by the detractors, not the supporters, of America.

Considering that we are so powerful, I guess it would be a bit disturbing to think that we might be seeing enemies behind every tree. Of course that isn't the case, but the belief that it is, is another expression of anti-American sentiment.
But note what you do here. Any/all criticism must be an instance of anti-Americanism. In one sense of course, criticism is always anti-something. But the term anti-Americanism suggests inappropriate criticism. That is really the way you use it. So no criticism of the valid sort is allowable under this formula.

Nonsense. What I did there was to contend that the assertion of American paranoia for criticism was an expression of anti-Americanism.

But yes, I do perceive "anti-Americanism" as involving inappropriate criticism of America. This, in no way, invalidates criticism of America. I have tried to be clear that I do not find a basic fault in criticism of American policy or actions. "Anti-Americanism" very definitely suggests a gratuitious or mindless criticism of all things American, and yes, I object to it.

Barking at the Big Dog is helpful when the Big Dog cares how the rest of the pack feels about it. It's a good way to help keep a Big Dog who does care, mindful of the impact of its actions.

This administration is particularly uncaring and quite pleased to declare (and demonstrate) that is uncaring. That has not always been so, the US being a founding force behind the UN for example. Imperial hubris can have advantages, but the disadvantages will attend as well. Those of us who think America has the potential for great good and the potential for equally great harm would wish America to better comprehend its own failings, because they are not small failings. How could that not be so? Why would the US be unique in goodness?

The great Liberal sin: Hubris. How dare anyone think that they might be better than someone else?

The simple fact is that there is a recognizable relative goodness in persons and groups and some are better than others. That they may or may not take pride in such a difference doesn't invalidate it.

The question should be why is it more important to the critics of America how America feels about its good deeds than the value of those deeds?

Criticism of American policy and actions is not necessarily anti-Americanism. Ones friends should always be welcome to offer one constructive criticism, but one doesn't expect smug carping from one's friends.
America, like any individual or group puffed up with a sense of self-righteousness and superior goodness doesnt really need a lot of backslapping or asskissing. That part of the equation is already in place. The carping thing arises where ears are untuned to hearing anything but the happy smack of the asskiss.[/[/color]quote]

Again, is it more important to one's friends that they be recognized for their own self-righteousness and superior goodness rather than the positive effect they might have on one's actions?

From what I have been able to gather you are from Germany am I correct?

It seems to be down played there in a way that makes it seem like a dirty word or even a dirty thought. I don't know what it is with Germans, but it seems that none of you want to repeat the past and therefore down play any type of national pride. I happen to think that is sad. If you can't have a pride in your own country, then what is left to have pride in, the UN? If that is so, that makes it even sadder to have faith in a powerless institution. After all if the UN can't do anything of any real significance then what is the point?

I have a friend who is in Kosovo for the 2nd time and he has told me they are under UN rules. Will they be punished by the UN? I doubt it.

Baldimo wrote:

From what I have been able to gather you are from Germany am I correct?

Yes, I never made a secret out of that, and told so from the earliest days here (and before on ABUZZ).

Baldimo wrote:

It seems to be down played there in a way that makes it seem like a dirty word or even a dirty thought. I don't know what it is with Germans, but it seems that none of you want to repeat the past and therefore down play any type of national pride. I happen to think that is sad. If you can't have a pride in your own country, then what is left to have pride in, the UN? If that is so, that makes it even sadder to have faith in a powerless institution. After all if the UN can't do anything of any real significance then what is the point?

I don't think it is downplayed - we have a lot too deal with the nationalistic (criminal) right wings.

Certainly none of us should ever want to repeat the past.
Some, however, haven't learnt. (See above.)

I am - like others - pride about German history, its culture, its political and economical system, the government's institutions, the whole enchilada.
And with others, I'm pride of my local and regional history as well as of the European ...

To be pride of something differs, in my opinion as well as in that of others (including the various dictionary and encyclopedia definitions) , a lot from being nationalistic.

At best, it is considered to be in bad taste to claim that one is proud to be a German.

I don't get your reference re the UN - but either France or the UN, it's always good to have something to bash on, I think.

Blatham.
Your comments above rather perfectly illustrate my point about the criticisms of U.S. policy. Nowhere did you address the central thread of my argument. All you offered was niggling criticisms of non-essential detail, demands for proof of well-reported recent events, and crude attempts to discredit me and my intent in the post. All things considered, a quite remarkable parallelism.

To illustrate another element -- you earlier offered the opinion that relations between our governments were very good during the Clinton Cretein era and earlier during Bush sr's term. No proof was offered, or demanded by me. I suggested your assessment was an exaggeration, also without proof. Now you demand proof of the basis for my skepticism of an opinion you offered without substantiation.

Nice shot about Caine Mutiny - I was six when the book was published in 1949. Besides I am taller & better looking than Bogart, I don't have a lisp, and I didn't tolerate any **** from Lieutenants. I think my basic point there is both relevant and insightful. It is a pity you didn't respond to it at all.

As to the California bit, I was expressing an indifference towards Canada that was quite mild compared to what you now assert they feel towards us. OK by me.

I am disappointed that you feel compelled to deny the evident hypocrisy in the beef exports matter. I thought that a rather devastating point, and I am still pleased with it.

I have been rather pointed in this (as have you). My intent was more to provoke than offend. You are a good guy (for a Canadian), and no matter what you say here, I still like you.

Correction for that above link:

it's http://www.lowyinstitute.org/

(I suppose, Lowy has worked different to Lowry :wink: )


Interesting article as well: To Australians, U.S. World Policy a Threat