Where's the outrage!

Thanks Adrian! Wonderfully interesting!

There are, as deb points out, some subtle and very interesting differences between the two prefixes. It does clarify things to note how the McCarthy period used the *un* prefix (a weird and repugnant totalitarian-style notion of proper nationalist sentiment/idea). I confess I was unaware of the history in Australia of such usage. I am pondering now what reflection of the same thing might be present in my country.

But again, as deb suggests, the *anti* prefix does a somewhat different, or additional, bit of work...implying some dangerous and threatening external agency. Deb uses the term *paranoid* and, in the case of the US, the term is not necessarily misplaced (see HERE)

The clearest analogy I can think of to this American hyper-sensitivity or misplaced sense of imminent victimhood would be Israel. But of course, the differences in actual threat are magnitudes greater for Israel.

Or take a comparison with Canada. Very likely, Canadianism (whatever the hell that might be conceived as representing) is threatened by our big neighbor and its cultural/political power far more than America might be threatened by anything real, simply as a consequence of scale. This is also the French-Canadian complaint...that English Canada (and the English US) pose threats to French-Canadian identity as a consequence of scale. But what sort of comparable threat exists for America? Well, everybody else! And that gets us to the wonderful satire in the Randy Newman song Political Fiction...no one likes us so lets drop the big one and see what happens (we will show them!).

So it seems that the frequent and passionate use of *anti-Americanism* is functioning in some manner quite different from what most users suppose.

0 Replies

deb said

Quote:

I just think some of our American friends here use perceived anti-Americanness as a way of dismissing valid criticisms of American policy, that are not anti-American at all.

Yes, indeed. And there is a clear comparison with Israel precisely on this point. Those of us who have watched Israel change over the last four decades or so have noticed the increasing tendency to mis-labeling of criticism of Israeli government policy as instances of *anti-semitism*. That term is often applied not just to external agents, but to Israeli citizens and organizations as well.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Blatham is talking about anti-Australian/American not un-Australian/American, Adrian.

"Un-Australian" is a heap of crap - on a par with nationalism, in my view - since it assumes that "Australian" = goodness and decency and manners and a fair go and such. Would that it were so.

But it is xenophobic, rather than paranoid.

Actually, I don't quibble too much with anti-American as a term - at least half the world would probably self-identify as hostile to aspects of Americanism - partly I think this is inevitable for a tall poppy, and has projected aspects - part of it is deserved, to some extent or another.

There are aspects of anti-Australianism in our region - some deserved, some not. C'est la vie.

I just think some of our American friends here use perceived anti-Americanness as a way of dismissing valid criticisms of American policy, that are not anti-American at all.

But of course you would, and it's quite possible that some of us do, but this hardly invalidates a contention that irrational and or malicious anti-American sentiments persist. As Blatham has suggested, Israel and its supporters will, on occassion, mislabel good faith (or simply stupid) criticism as anti-semitism, but, likewise, this hardly belies the reality of anti-semitism.

0 Replies

Quote:

As Blatham has suggested, Israel and its supporters will, on occassion, mislabel good faith (or simply stupid) criticism as anti-semitism, but, likewise, this hardly belies the reality of anti-semitism.

There is a profound difference, historically and in character, between anti-semitism and anti-American sentiment.

Ethnic/cultural groups who have suffered a diaspora (the gypsies being another instance) end up being minority communities wherever they might settle. Add to that initial disadvantage the Jewish problem of common religious conflict with the Christian faith (Jesus killers, not acknowledging the Messiah, therefore a false faith) and the result is a minority group who have been (and still are) pretty acutely targeted. Then toss in the twentieth century notions of genetic endowment/purity a la Adolf and the consequences have been as we all know. In the middle east the situation is different of course, with the sources of the jewish/muslim conflict going back a very long time and with obvious territorial factors.

But the American situation is nothing like that. Where anti-American sentiment has developed it has been almost always as a consequence of its policies.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
As Blatham has suggested, Israel and its supporters will, on occassion, mislabel good faith (or simply stupid) criticism as anti-semitism, but, likewise, this hardly belies the reality of anti-semitism.

There is a profound difference, historically and in character, between anti-semitism and anti-American sentiment.

Ethnic/cultural groups who have suffered a diaspora (the gypsies being another instance) end up being minority communities wherever they might settle.

But the American situation is nothing like that. Where anti-American sentiment has developed it has been almost always as a consequence of its policies.

Of course Bernie. Your prejudices are different from those of other close-minded and intolerant people. Your prejudices are the result of your superior insight and understanding. You enjoy a particular and far better understanding of these matters than the millions you so blithely condemn as stupid and fanatic. Where have we all heard this crap before?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There are, as deb points out, some subtle and very interesting differences between the two prefixes. It does clarify things to note how the McCarthy period used the *un* prefix (a weird and repugnant totalitarian-style notion of proper nationalist sentiment/idea). I confess I was unaware of the history in Australia of such usage. I am pondering now what reflection of the same thing might be present in my country.

But again, as deb suggests, the *anti* prefix does a somewhat different, or additional, bit of work...implying some dangerous and threatening external agency. Deb uses the term *paranoid* and, in the case of the US, the term is not necessarily misplaced

There is no mystery in the prefixes. "Anti-" refers to opposition from an external source, while "un-" refers to an interior source acting out of conformity to the domain in question. Whatever one feels about the opinions in question, the psycobabble about the "totalitarian" implications in the prefixes remains nonsense.

Quote:

The clearest analogy I can think of to this American hyper-sensitivity or misplaced sense of imminent victimhood would be Israel.

I don't think the American exceptionalism so often referred to here has arisen from any sense of victimhood. On the contrary it's bad aspects are more the result of a careless self-centeredness and relative indifference to the interests of others. Not praiseworthy to be sure, but not a sense of victimhood either. There are also some very good reasons for this exceptionalism, and Blatham is quite deceptive in his consistent omission of them.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

There is no mystery in the prefixes. "Anti-" refers to opposition from an external source, while "un-" refers to an interior source acting out of conformity to the domain in question.

Thanks. Now I understand the difference between anti-military and un-military.
But this example will be hard to understand for non-militaries.

(In any of my various personnel reviews in the navy, I good excellent to superior marks. However, unfortunately the main view of those there - funny, isn't it? - on the words "unmilitary appearance", which somehow was thought to be negative. Never understood that at all Laughing

)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(In any of my various personnel reviews in the navy, I good excellent to superior marks. However, unfortunately the main view of those there - funny, isn't it? - on the words "unmilitary appearance", which somehow was thought to be negative. Never understood that at all )

I was a bit rebellious and not so good at listening to advice and had some 'attitude' problems at the start of my Navy career. Finally I broke the code of the military (or the Navy at least). They didn't care what I thought or believed, only what I did. The requirement for conformity didn't go very deep at all - it was all on the surface. I learned there was a great deal of freedom in that.

Later I entered the academic world and discovered to my horror they didn't care what I did, but were very concerned about my thoughts and beliefs. That was quite oppressive.

Then I entered the business world and discovered they didn't care much about what I did or what I thought, but they did care a great deal about how much money I put on the bottom line.

Freedom is a strange, but precious thing.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
As Blatham has suggested, Israel and its supporters will, on occassion, mislabel good faith (or simply stupid) criticism as anti-semitism, but, likewise, this hardly belies the reality of anti-semitism.

There is a profound difference, historically and in character, between anti-semitism and anti-American sentiment.

Ethnic/cultural groups who have suffered a diaspora (the gypsies being another instance) end up being minority communities wherever they might settle. Add to that initial disadvantage the Jewish problem of common religious conflict with the Christian faith (Jesus killers, not acknowledging the Messiah, therefore a false faith) and the result is a minority group who have been (and still are) pretty acutely targeted. Then toss in the twentieth century notions of genetic endowment/purity a la Adolf and the consequences have been as we all know. In the middle east the situation is different of course, with the sources of the jewish/muslim conflict going back a very long time and with obvious territorial factors.

But the American situation is nothing like that. Where anti-American sentiment has developed it has been almost always as a consequence of its policies.

I agree that there are major differences between anti-Americanism and anti-semitism, but none come into play in terms of the comparison I made. Not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, and not all criticism of the US is anti-American, but anti-semitism and anti-Americanism as irrational adverse sentiments nevertheless exist in wide measure.

The form and effect of these adverse sentiments tend to be quite different as well, but it also doesn't mean that anti-Americanism is nothing more than paranoid smoke.

I would agree the use of anti-American sentiment by Americans to confer victimhood on themselves is, under almost all circumstances, fairly pathetic, but then I hardly ever see it used in such a manner.

0 Replies

Where's the outrage!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know