Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Intro

Before edit war: "When used by Americans, these terms are perhaps mostly used by people who are labelling the views of their opponents, rather than by people who are describing their own position." (11:40, 30 May 2004 User:193.219.28.144)

After: "While the term implies an ideological tendency and racism (cf. anti-semitism), its use is often perceived as an attempt by Americans to defame and downplay legitimate criticism, particularly of US foreign policy." (16:34, 30 May 2004 User:Get-back-world-respect)

Less wordy suggestion: Those who disagree with the use of the term often perceive it as an attempt to dismiss criticism of the USA, and to hint at prejudice (c.f. anti-semitism). Andy G 17:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A prefer it as it is because the use of the term increased tremendously after the criticism of Bush's Iraq war, so it is noteworthy that foreign policy is the major issue. Also, anti-semitism implies much more than prejudice, and it is important that people try to label legitimate criticism with a term that implies racism. Get-back-world-respect 17:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article here?

This article seems to have a core of confusion. It's just a list of things that the US may have done to annoy people; which is okay, I guess, but what is the connection between groups that dogmatically hate the US and people who disagree with their foreign policy? I think that the fact that this article exists demonstrates the success of the American (hugely right-biased) media in confusing the issue of international disapproval of the actions of the American government (for an example, check out 'Hating America: the New World Sport', by some Fox News wacko). I mean, lots of Americans disapprove of their government for doing a lot of these things as well, don't they? Are they, like a Jewish person who disapproves of Israeli occupation, to be accused of self-loathing? I think the issues in this article needs to be separated. Dogmatic anti-Americanism shouldn't be mixed up with protests against concrete issues, which could maybe be moved to an article of their own, perhaps entitled 'Human Rights Abuses Perpetrated by the American Right'.Teefteef 01:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. The very first sentence "Anti-Americanism or anti-American sentiment is strong disapproval for the government, culture, history, and/or people of the United States of America" is so broad that it makes the whole article pretty meaningless. I mean, most people will agree that US history has been pretty bloody, like the history of all nations, and that has not necessarily anything to do with how they view American culture which is very diverse anyway. Quite objectively, the US government has little to do with the American people, half of which did not vote in 2000 and of those who did, the majority wanted a different government. To equate America=govmt+history+culture+people and then state boldly that anti-Americanism is the rejection of these is an incredibly distorted analysis. One could argue that to conflate all these different aspects is very strongly POV, in fact the extremist POV shared by both chauvinist Americans and chauvinist anti-Americans. Most people in the world are rather more discerning. IMHO, 'Anti-americanism' is not directly about the "government, culture, history, and people of the US" as a whole. Instead it is a reaction to the global dominance of US power, which expresses itself at times though these various aspects. pir 02:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree as well, albeit on a bit of a different basis. I definately think this page should be condensed by several hundred percent. To me, this page seems to be essientially of a long mockery of the term "Anti-Americanism." If there was a thesis, it would be something like "People throw around the term anti-Americanism a lot, but just look at all the bad things America did to Latin America in the 1970's! Who wouldn't be an anti-American!" There seems to be a strong desire among certain people on Wikipedia to just compile a long list of "bad" foreign policy things that the United States did in the 20th Century, as alleged by Noam Chomsky and left-wingers of his ilk. This page in its present from reminds me a lot of the History of American Imperialism page, and the conflicts that have gone on there.

I'm not trying to white-wash, or anything like that. It's just that in the grand scheme of things, in the 21st Century, what the Truman Administration did in Greece in the late 1940's would be near the bottom of the reasons anyone would cite for being passionately filled with America-hate. I know it is popular in left-wing circles to denounce the term "anti-Americanism" as being some sort of McCarthyist term to supress criticism, but I don't see why that in turn means that this whole page has to be a rampage against that obvious straw man argument. There is a modern anti-American phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with academic tut-tuting of US foreign policies.

A more concise page would move quickly to denounce the wrong, straw man, argument against the term "anti-Americanism." All that needs to be said would be a few sentences about how "within the United States itself, the term 'anti-American' is often used to denounce critics of past and present US foreign policy, especially those on the political left. Such critics denounce the allegation, citing that disagreement or dislike of the actions of the US government, or US politicians, does not amount to a total hatred of the nation of the United States or the American people." In my opinion, something like that would be sufficient. We don't need to revisit the entire 20th Century history of the United States Defense Deparment on this page. user:J.J.

Perhaps this should be split out back to how it was with two seperate pages: Anti-Americanism and perhaps Reasons for Anti-American sentiment or something like that. Gem 15:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have you guys had a look at the above discussion about the proper title for this article? Get-back-world-respect 22:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would be hard-pressed to title any article about prejudice (remembering that prejudicial opinions may include both accurate and false perceptions) as "Reasons for..." The question is always present: "Is that a reason or an excuse? Or both?" I have never in my life met a bigot with the honesty to consider that "I hate [blank] because I'm envious, or ethnocentric, or my parents did, or everyone else I know does so I go along, or because they're more powerful/more successful/richer than I am." It's always "I hate them because of the terrible things they've done." -- Cecropia | Talk 02:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to show us with this that you are one of those who are so obsessed with themselves that the only explanation they could think of why someone would not share it must be envy? Get-back-world-respect 20:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. What I'm saying is that any article of this nature has a chicken-and-egg quality to it. Do I hate a certain group of people because they're bad, or do I hate them for personal reasons I might not be really be aware of and then look for bad things about them to back up my prejudice? How can an article possibly be NPOV if the writers may not be able to acknowledge their own prejudice.

Compare this article with the one on anti-French attitudes in the US. That article cites supposed dislike toward France and concludes that the reason is that Americans are mean, stupid and bigoted. Then this article looks at why others dislike America and comes to the conclusion that Americans are mean, stupid and bigoted. Americans (excuse me, United Statesers ;-) must be really really bad people. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But Anti-Americanism is an important phenomenon, I cant see any reason put forward why the reasons as to why it exists should not be listed. what are you suggesting exactly?.G-Man 13:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article lacks proportion, so it is not useful to a person who might actually be studying anti-Americanism, or as GBWR would probably better put it, "attitudes towards the U.S." It mixes material reasons such as American hostility toward socialism with absolutely ridiculous ones as complaining that "In God we Trust" is on the currency.

Additionally, there are a number of complaints of the pot-kettle-black variety: for example, an entire heading is devoted "Relationship with Israel" and "America's Blind Support for Israel" without examining the concomitant international support for the Palestines. Especially considering Europe's centuries-long history toward Jews, this is especially curious. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I cannot follow you here on two points. First, why should a person who believes in secularism not complain about religious phrases on a state controlled object he has to use every day?

Presumably anti-Americanism has to do with non-US sentiment. I'm questioning why "In God We Trust" on a coin is important enough to anyone outside the US to fuel anti-US feeling. If I were to say I was anti-British because they have a monarch on their coinage, and I'm a (small r) republican, wouldn't you say that's weird? Might you not ask what business it is of mine what another country puts on its coins?

I personally think it is completely ridiculous to pay monarchs millions every year to keep up their pompous lifestyle. If someone else feels this so strongly that he makes it a point against the British I cannot follow him but I would not ignore if such feelings existed. Get-back-world-respect 09:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Second, because the holocaust happened in Europe now Europeans should accept that the U.S. block every attempt to protect Palestinian human rights?

A lot more than the holocaust happened to Jews in Europe. Jews were persecuted literally for centuries in Europe, culminating in the murders and expulsions of WWII. Today most of Europe's pre-war Jewish population is murdered or driven out, many to Israel. There are many, many horrors in the world (take Durfar right now), but the Israel-Palestine one seems to be the only one which consistently interests Europeans, even to the point where this article cites pro-Israel support in the US as a cause of anti-Americanism. Why? Europe does not have a historic connection to Palestinians, but it does to Jews. It was a negative one before WWII and a negative one after WWII. Why? Is this just a coincidence? Would you be surprised if a non-Jewish, non-European outsider wondered whether the antipathy to Jews in Europe before the super-pogrom of WWII transferred to the only Jewish country in the world? -- Cecropia | Talk 00:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, the article clearly states that America's support for Israel is a major cause of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, which it is. It doesn't say anything at all about Europeans. G-Man 13:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is overly covered in the media all over the world, not just in Europe. Claiming that Europeans are anti-semitic is as racist as saying that Americans are ignorant of international law just because they have a government that does it. And the fact that human rights were violated in Europe in the past should only make Europeans pay more attention that human rights are not violated again, regardless of where those whose rights are violated live. Get-back-world-respect 09:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, above you compared this article with Anti-French sentiment in the United States. If you do not like that article discuss it there. To what conclusions you come from an article is your choice, I cannot see either article making conclusions, that is not the job of an encyclopedia, especially not on such topics. Get-back-world-respect 17:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I too question the relevance of this page. I am confused as to whether this is an article ABOUT anti-American sentiment or an article OF anti-American sentiment. Everything below "Possible Causes of anti-American sentiment" is a thinly-veiled attack on everything from American movies to capital punishment that anyone would be hard-pressed to say was NPOV. I think the article is insulting both to Americans (are they all supposed to apologize for the "sins" of their entire country throughout its entire history?) and to people who have legitimate complaints about specific policies of its government and attitudes of its people (by lumping liberals, conservatives, and extremists like terrorists into one group of "anti-American sentiment"). The article leaves no room for discussion and the viewpoints stated as fact (represented by the repetitive "some people think ..." lines of argument) are extremely generalized and largely uncited. I love Wikipedia, but this article is far from being one of its brightest achievements. CES 08:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you read the introduction you see that the article strictly distinguishes between legitimate criticism and anti-Americanism. Since the legitimate parts occupy the better part of this article I think the title should be changed as soon as possible, which would allow to cover all attitudes toward the U.S., including gratefulness for the defeat of Nazism or protection during the Cold War. Get-back-world-respect 17:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Columbian paramilitaries

It is currently factually wrong to claim that it is "widely alleged" that the U.S.A. has any direct relationship with the paramilitaries in Colombia.

The UN doesn't do it, HRW, AI, and other recognizable NGOs that have experience in dealing with the subject and which have quite a history of making harsh criticisms of the U.S. and Colombia don't do it. The legal left in Colombia (opposition leftwing parties, sindicalists, etc.), which also expresses serious opposition to the government's and to the US policies as a whole in Colombia doesn't do it either (**legal** US policies and actions in Colombia by themselves can be considered a source of their Anti-Americanism).

Then to who or what is the author of that statement referring to? Online individuals or publications perhaps, but that doesn't really qualify as "widely alledged", at least not from a Neutral Point of View, I'd think.

What is quite "widely alleged", by **all of the above** and more, is that sectors of the Colombian military and police have been and continue to be involved in either direct collaboration with paramilitarism or passivity towards it. But that is a completely different matter, it cannot be equated with that statement.

In short, the situation cannot be considered an automatic equivalent of Nicaragua's, which is a much clearer and **widely accepted** example of "Anti-Americanism" stemming from such behavior and which would have been a better choice in the first place, as it has a substantially higher degree of evidence to back it up and is already mentioned in the article (within a slightly different context). I removed the text, because in its current condition and placement, it cannot be considered neither an accurate nor a neutral statement. Juancarlos2004 03:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trade disputes and domineering weapons

I think that the comment about the USA's trade dispute with Canada is too specific/short-term/small. There are tons of trade disputes that arise from the WTO agreements. It would be good to note if the USA has an unusally high number of these disputes relative to other countries.

Also, I think the US gets a lot of flack for continuing to develop domineering weapons (nukes and space based weapons [1] come to mind). Where should this be added? AdamRetchless 13:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vietnam invasion

The US did not invade Vietnam; its forces entered the country at the request of the recognized government of South Vietnam. However, it did launch raids into neighborhing countries. However, since their intent was to influence the conflict in South Vietnam (not establish control of those countries), they probably don't qualify as "invasions". AdamRetchless 02:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Amasing! You mean that if you invade a country to influence whatever political outcome in another country it is a lesser invasion than if you tried to assert territorial control? Invasion is invasion, i.e. unauthorized crossing of sovereign border by one state into another - regardless of what was the intent.

This seems to be a conflation of war with invasion. All wars involved moving through territory. Websters says: 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.