0
   

Anti anti-Americanism

 
 
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 01:39 pm
Anti anti-Americanism

An entire industry has arisen to account for the recent anti-Americanism. In the case of the Europeans, the end of the Cold War lessened the need for subsidized American protection, emboldening them to caricature Americans as fat and materialistic.

Did envy arise because the world's sole superpower ignored weaker Europeans' efforts to tie up the U.S. with multilateral strings? Did the Cold War make us forget that we were always different peoples--Americans the freer, richer, more religious, fertile, and optimistic? Perhaps George W. Bush--drawling, Christian, and Texan--earned us their fury, so unlike French-speaking John Kerry or obsequious Bill Clinton?

The Middle East was spoon-fed this European anti-Americanism. Twenty-one autocratic governments also deflected popular outrage onto us through state-run media. The bogeymen Israel and America were responsible for everything from stealing oil, even when it was sold to us at sky-high prices, to killing a few hundred Palestinian terrorists, when hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians were butchered by the Husseins and Assads.

But mostly anti-Americanism was a boutique enterprise, revealed as such when the U.S. was the most desirable destination of the world's migrating poor and its popular culture had swept the globe. It is always surreal to read Mexico City elites slurring the United States as millions of illegal aliens risk their lives to cross our borders and escape the corruption and racism of their home country.

Things are changing, however, both here and abroad. Thousands of American troops have left Europe. Its denizens now sense that the American people no longer wish to subsidize their defense only to earn ingratitude. The E.U. dream of heaven on earth may be mired in high taxes, low growth, high unemployment, and demographic and entitlement time bombs--not the sort of platform from which to hector a supposedly sinking U.S.

Things are even more evolutionary in the Middle East. Dissidents in Egypt or Beirut are not singing the praises of the E.U. or U.N. Nor are the new democrats in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still too early to appreciate much of this shifting, but historical forces are now in play which are not conducive to vaunted European "soft power," so often a mask for crass profiteering.

Soon, freed Middle Easterners are going to make a few simple deductions: France profited mightily from Saddam; America removed him. The E.U. wanted nothing to do with the new democracy in Baghdad; Americans from places like San Antonio and Tulsa died to preserve it. An Iranian knows that the U.S., not Germany or Belgium, wishes him to be free and is more likely to take the risks to see it happen. An Afghan could assure him of that.

The muscle-flexing of China has given Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan second thoughts. They worry not that the United States invites them into partnerships, but that we might not. The Americans allow outsourcing to India, buy thousands of Hondas, and send young men to the Korean DMZ. Europe sells China new bombs, the French fleet goes on maneuvers with the communists, and the E.U. keeps it tariffs and subsidies high. A once-caricatured America starts to look very good again.

There is another wild card at play that explains the decrease in anti-Americanism. After September 11, the American people are in a much less apologetic mood--more likely to pull troops or cut off aid than to ask forgiveness for imaginary grievances. No one here laments that we left the Philippines or are departing Germany. We took out Saddam without Belgians and Frenchmen, without bases in Turkey, and despite, not because of, the U.N. or Arab league.

America runs high trade deficits with Asia and Europe. It lets 20 million illegal aliens cross our borders. It spends liberally on defense, patrolling sea-lanes and protecting commerce rather than setting up autocracies and stealing oil.

Americans are finally beginning to wonder whether all these ungrateful folks are worth the toil and treasure. In response, critics abroad are beginning to sense that their cheap rhetoric may have real consequences, that maybe the U.S. was a good deal for the world, after all.

George W. Bush did not cause this new round of anti-Americanism. But he may well have done more than anyone to end it.

source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,611 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 02:25 pm
Do you think that this is how the world sees it? Shocked
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 02:26 pm
McG

This probably won't get much play here because most of the participants , who are very young, would rather criticize the author's sentence structure than the message. I almost cheered when I read this little gem:

"But mostly anti-Americanism was a boutique enterprise, revealed as such when the U.S. was the most desirable destination of the world's migrating poor and its popular culture had swept the globe. It is always surreal to read Mexico City elites slurring the United States as millions of illegal aliens risk their lives to cross our borders and escape the corruption and racism of their home country."
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 02:34 pm
Quote:
George W. Bush did not cause this new round of anti-Americanism. But he may well have done more than anyone to end it.


You're kidding right McG?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 02:36 pm
McG never kids when he does a cut-and-paste job. He's found someone else to do his thinking for him, and he'll stand by his guns to the last drop of your blood . . .
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 02:37 pm
Re: Anti anti-Americanism
Quote:
George W. Bush did not cause this new round of anti-Americanism. But he may well have done more than anyone to end it.


certainly.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 02:37 pm
I see similar reactions....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 03:04 pm
Quote:
An entire industry has arisen to account for the recent anti-Americanism. In the case of the Europeans, the end of the Cold War lessened the need for subsidized American protection, emboldening them to caricature Americans as fat and materialistic.


Thank god there is no truth to those reports that US consumes the most per capita. It that was true we might actually be materialistic.

Then we should thank god that there are no reports on obesity in the world either. If it was actually true that the US was one of the most obese nations in the world then we might be considered fat. (31% of US is considered obese. In 2001, 61% of Americans were overweight or obese.)

Lets assume for a moment that Americans are not fat or materialistic then we can make a logical argument based on that false assumption. Yep, works for me. Leads right to the conclusion the writer expected to get to.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 03:11 pm
Whoa! It is not a characature. Americans are fat and materialistic.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 03:37 pm
Yep.....the only country in the world where all the people in "poverty" are fat.......actually in a high percentage of the cases they are the most obese because they can't move off the couch in front of the TV except when it's time to venture to the mail box to get their welfare check.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 03:52 pm
Tell us about your travels abroad, McGentrix.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 03:55 pm
Atkins wrote:
Tell us about your travels abroad, McGentrix.


Actually, that'd be really interesting indeed.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:55 pm
Setanta wrote:
McG never kids when he does a cut-and-paste job. He's found someone else to do his thinking for him, and he'll stand by his guns to the last drop of your blood . . .


Oh good. Yet another thread you have nothing to add to.

I post these articles because I know Salon.com won't and if I don't post them, people like you would never be exposed to the bits of truth that can be gleaned from them. Instead, you would remain in your comfy coccoon of neo-liberalism thinking the truth is what Air America tells you it is.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:03 pm
What bits of truth, McG? I didn't find a lot of facts in the article you posted. I did find a lot of opinion, but not a lot of facts.

That's meant to be a serious question: What do you think this article tells us? That there is a lot less anti-Americanism around the world because of GW? Is that what you're getting out of it, and do you concur with that opinion?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:12 pm
I will allow you to read the article and make your own opinions about it. My giving you an opinion on it doesn't really help you.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:15 pm
I am sifting and gleaning and gleaning and sifting and find that you, McG are right. There is a wee, tiny, itsy, bitsy grain of truth in there. Trouble is, I spent so much time looking for it that I forgot where it is and I will have to do it all over again.

Um, I just noticed that you responded to Setanta's comment. Must mean he had something to add. Otherwise, you in your wisdom would not have responded to him.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:35 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I will allow you to read the article and make your own opinions about it. My giving you an opinion on it doesn't really help you.


Seems to me, that is what we have been doing :-D
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:36 pm
yep.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:36 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Oh good. Yet another thread you have nothing to add to.

I post these articles because I know Salon.com won't and if I don't post them, people like you would never be exposed to the bits of truth that can be gleaned from them. Instead, you would remain in your comfy coccoon of neo-liberalism thinking the truth is what Air America tells you it is.


I rather enjoyed Intrepid's observation on your nonsense.

I wouldn't know Salon whatever if it came up and bit me on the ass--i've never in my life listened to Air America. You see, what i do is read: newspapers, online articles from newspapers, history, biography, policy studies--and then i form my opinions based upon what i've read. I never read op-ed pieces, as i don't wish to have my thinking muddled by someone else's clever rhetoric, or attempt to produce clever rhetoric. I am only ever exposed to such things when i come here.

But if it makes the cockles of your heart toasty warm to think otherwise, by all means, i encourage you to add that to your growing list of illusions.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:47 pm
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Oh good. Yet another thread you have nothing to add to.

I post these articles because I know Salon.com won't and if I don't post them, people like you would never be exposed to the bits of truth that can be gleaned from them. Instead, you would remain in your comfy coccoon of neo-liberalism thinking the truth is what Air America tells you it is.


I rather enjoyed Intrepid's observation on your nonsense.

I wouldn't know Salon whatever if it came up and bit me on the ass--i've never in my life listened to Air America. You see, what i do is read: newspapers, online articles from newspapers, history, biography, policy studies--and then i form my opinions based upon what i've read. I never read op-ed pieces, as i don't wish to have my thinking muddled by someone else's clever rhetoric, or attempt to produce clever rhetoric. I am only ever exposed to such things when i come here.

But if it makes the cockles of your heart toasty warm to think otherwise, by all means, i encourage you to add that to your growing list of illusions.


See the bolded part for why I post C&P articles.

Is it Blatham that always posts the Salon articles? Could be. You have admited to not being exposed to this material, and were it not for my informative posts, you would easlily make it through life unaware of such interesting material.

There is very little to the opinion leading this thread that does not have truth behind it.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Anti anti-Americanism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 11:03:50