America Envy/Anti-Americanism - Whence it Came

[jbg]

I started this as a response to a post by BC 2004, but decided it warranted its own thread, since the bottom tw paragraphs were off-topic.

No doubt about that...the center of gravity has shifted...and it is not temporary. Like the Europeans who learned the hard way, better finish what you start, or the Americans will do it for you. The meter is still running.

Actually what the Europeans learned the hard way was that if they don't keep their mitts off each other, the Americans will do it for them.

I have very strong thoughts on anti-American, or better described, America envy. In the 1700's America was at most a bunch of cities and farms clinging to the coastline, beset by hostile Indians to the West, Brits to the North and Spanish and, in alternation French to the South. During the 1800's, little noticed, the US stretched from coast to coast, and both the US and Canada spanned the Continent with the iron rail, creating a level of prosperity for the common man never before known. Europe began hemorhaging (sp) its better people in the late 1880's on, in a crescendo through 1914. Still, the US didn't figure in Europe's eternal wrangling and battling for control of Europe and thus, in their view, the civilized world.

Suddenly, all of that changed. Britain, the guarantor of Pax Brittanica, summoned first their dominions Australia and Canada for help in WW I and then, when it became a near-death experience, summoning their remaining "child", the US to help. This was repeated in the early 1940's. With Britain and Europe emerging from WW II bankrupt (and in the case of the Continent also wrecked physically), the US became the Alpha male. So for all of that battling, over 1000 years, to govern Europe and thus the civilized world, the winner was "none of the above", i.e. the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Suddenly, all of that changed. Britain, the guarantor of Pax Brittanica, summoned first their dominions Australia and Canada for help in WW I and then, when it became a near-death experience, summoning their remaining "child", the US to help. This was repeated in the early 1940's. With Britain and Europe emerging from WW II bankrupt (and in the case of the Continent also wrecked physically), the US became the Alpha male. So for all of that battling, over 1000 years, to govern Europe and thus the civilized world, the winner was "none of the above", i.e. the United States.

Others agree with your assessment, including Russell Berman ("Anti-Americanism in Europe") and more simply..."Anti-Americanism" by Jean-Francois Revel, with an expert focus on France's loathing for the American brand of liberalism, expressed in Le Monde in the same year as the Normandy landings. A Canadian (from CBC forums or Politics Canada) recommended these books to me.

They can hate America with all their might, but be certain in knowing that the mongrel bastards that came from all over the world to build a nation know the price to be paid...again and again.

[Brain Candy]

This is probably the second most distracting and useless Canadian pastime next to television. Being constructively critical of the US is fine but Canadians seem to use it as a source of foundationless pride. People get so smug about it they ignore our own problems (ie the ones we have some power to fix), "Man the USA has so many problems, unlike us!". How to avoid this? maybe pass a law preventing CNN from broadcasting in Canada?

[jbg]

This is probably the second most distracting and useless Canadian pastime next to television. Being constructively critical of the US is fine but Canadians seem to use it as a source of foundationless pride.

True. I visited Toronto in April 1973 as part of a band-exchange program. The hosts, while quite hospitable, explained that Yanks weren't warmly received in Canada, contrary to Nixon's April 1972 speech in Parliament (I had asked about its accuracy so the diatribe was not unsolicited). I met a Jewish Montrealer (Anglophone) while skiing at Smuggler's Notch in Vermont (formerly Madonna) in 1979 who had much the same thing to say, mixed with derision for the US's lack of "free" health care.

I suspect, though, that since Canada's original raison d'etre was being a continuation of "British North America" for Tories, the rift will never totally heal.

[jbg]

A Canadian (from CBC forums or Politics Canada) recommended these books to me.

What was his posting name? You can e-mail or PM me that answer if you would like.¹

¹I cannot PM you. Your settings don't allow it.

[bush_cheney2004]

What was his posting name? You can e-mail or PM me that answer if you would like.

Sorry, I don't recall his member name. As you know, we've met a lot of people since those CBC forums days!

Edited December 10, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[margrace]

Americans are just the same as Canadians, we are all really related, our families have more cousins in the US than in Canada.

But statements like this don't help their image in Canada

Standing outside one of our doctors health centres, an American, driving a big cadillac with Texas liscence plated proclaimed at the top of his voice "If this is socialized Medicine then I want nothing to do with it" Evidently he had to wait his turn and then had to pay. Tought aye.

Another example is a line up in a grocery store in our area. One of our local doctors was black, heard from the back of the line in a strong southern drawl, "Where ah come from nigers get to the back of the line"

Nice aye but the majority of Americans with cottages in our area are great visitors and we like them.

[jbg]

But statements like this don't help their image in Canada

Standing outside one of our doctors health centres, an American, driving a big cadillac with Texas liscence plated proclaimed at the top of his voice "If this is socialized Medicine then I want nothing to do with it" Evidently he had to wait his turn and then had to pay. Tought aye.

Another example is a line up in a grocery store in our area. One of our local doctors was black, heard from the back of the line in a strong southern drawl, "Where ah come from nigers get to the back of the line"

Nice aye but the majority of Americans with cottages in our area are great visitors and we like them.

As you say, most Americans do have manners. 'Nuff said.

[M.Dancer]

What a fervant imagination.....Imagine, standing in line with a cadillac and texas licence plates.....hope he used the freight elevator.....

[Moxie]

There are Canadians that blame everything that ails this planet on the US, sad sacks. For some the US has become the Devil, I generally shrug off these sad sacks as pityful greenfaced fools.

[bush_cheney2004]

But statements like this don't help their image in Canada.....

I was about to respond that such images from a few Canadians in the USA can also be had, just pick the offending "visible minority" of choice. But that really isn't the point of geopolitical analysis of anti-Americanism. There are boorish sphincters in every nation.

Washington vs. Ottawa is not a partnership or confrontation between individuals or "neighbours".

[Guest American Woman]

As you say, most Americans do have manners. 'Nuff said.

So do most Canadians. So what's your problem?

P.S. Do you have any more recent anecdotes than the 70's?

Edited December 11, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I spend a lot of time in Canada, and I've always been treated very warmly by 99.99% of the people I've come across. There's been a snarky customs agent here and there, but for the most part they're all friendly too. That's why alot of the comments on this board have been a bit of a surprise to me. I really don't understand it. It's like Margrace said, we are basically the same. I've always thought the U.S. and Canada had a unique and special relationship.

[Topaz]

I spend a lot of time in Canada, and I've always been treated very warmly by 99.99% of the people I've come across. There's been a snarky customs agent here and there, but for the most part they're all friendly too. That's why alot of the comments on this board have been a bit of a surprise to me. I really don't understand it. It's like Margrace said, we are basically the same. I've always thought the U.S. and Canada had a unique and special relationship.

I think US started to slowly break down in Nov. 1963 when Kennedy was murdered. We all remember it and since then social and moral values have been changing and so have attitudes in both countries seems the US is always in wars of some kind and no one ever thought that GW would actually invaded another country, given the power Congress gave him. I hope that the new president can bring back the respectability it once had in the world. I have no ill feeling towards any nationality but when you have a leader like GW is not good for the country. In Canada , we'll have to see if Harper can maintain his government in the future election. A country is only as good as its leader and sometimes countries get duds!! Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Joyeux Noel!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

I think US started to slowly break down in Nov. 1963 when Kennedy was murdered. We all remember it and since then social and moral values have been changing and so have attitudes in both countries seems the US is always in wars of some kind and no one ever thought that GW would actually invaded another country, given the power Congress gave him.

Yet another example of selective history...JFK invaded Cuba and escalated the number of "advisors" in Vietnam for krissakes! US presidents "invade" countries when it is in the interest of the USA and/or allies.....that is what we pay them to do. Some people pretend that America B.B. (Before Bush) was some goddamn international fairy tale.

Edited December 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

I think US started to slowly break down in Nov. 1963 when Kennedy was murdered. We all remember it and since then social and moral values have been changing and so have attitudes in both countries....

Your sentence structure would work better with a split there. I believe that Kennedy enjoyed an extended post-election feel-good "honeymoon" for several reasons. The country felt good with WW II and Korea out of the way, and the post-Korean inflation and recession seemingly out of the way. Interstate Highways were opening everywhere, and Americans fed their love affair with muscle cars. This "era of good feelings" would have come to an end in some manner regardless. The assassination of Kennedy was a shocking, sudden and brutal cold shower. I doubt it changed the country's moral values; the newfound affluence, and the concomitant loss of parental authority over the "Leave it to Beaver" and "Ozzy and Harriet" set did that job.

Of course, in short order, young nuclear families that enjoyed newfound affluence quickly learned to squander their good fortune, both literally in credit addiction and through the soaring divorce rates and decline in influence of community structures such as organized religion. Additionally, college students, bored, on their own and with relatively unlimited allowances turned to social and recreational experimentation with unfettered sex, use of drugs, and ultimately violent campus protest. Though some of their "causes" had merit, much of it was pure nihilism. While Woodstock got adoring press coverage, the reality was four days of crowds beset by heat, mud and rain, punctuated by foul-word chants. The "perfect days" of Kennedy were simply the early stages of the spin into rebellion. The US, being a largely conservative country, quickly brought the party to a halt by electing Nixon. The tragedy of Kent State was not far behind, unfortunately.

... seems the US is always in wars of some kind and no one ever thought that GW would actually invaded another country, given the power Congress gave him. I hope that the new president can bring back the respectability it once had in the world. I have no ill feeling towards any nationality but when you have a leader like GW is not good for the country.

What should the US do? Allow unchecked barbarity to flow back to the US because the US has temerity to support freedom in countries that they see as intruding on the "ummah"?

In Canada , we'll have to see if Harper can maintain his government in the future election. A country is only as good as its leader and sometimes countries get duds!! Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Joyeux Noel!!!

You mean to say that King, Meaghan, Trudeau, Clark, Chretien, Campbell and Martin weren't "duds"?

[August1991]

I have found that anti-Americanism in English Canada compares to the anti-Englishism (term?) one finds in French Quebec. It's the resentment common among many members of a minority faced with a majority. We (the minority) know everything about them but they (the majority) know or care nothing about us. They are the white keys of the piano. In some ways, it is like the relations between men and women in traditional society.

At its heart, modern North American Leftism finds its root in this kind of resentment. Such Leftists defend the victim against the oppressor. The US is dominant and everyone else is a victim.

You'll note too that this resentment is found among Catholics faced with Protestants. (The US is 20% Catholic whereas Canada is 50% Catholic. Kennedy was the only Catholic president; all others have been Protestant. Since Pearson, all of our PMs have been Catholic except for Campbell and now Harper.)

Many Canadians, although they are loathe to admit it, view themselves as oppressed or victims. It's an easy excuse.

----

Anti-Americanism elsewhere in the world is different. IME, it is usually mixed up in local politics. For example, many Chileans hated the regime of Pinochet and so they hated the US as a result. In the 19980s and 1990s, it is true that individual Russians were well-received in Western Europe and individual Americans were well-received in Eastern Europe. Go figure.

Americans and American culture are known around the globe. Jazz, Charlie Chaplin, Mickey Mouse, Madonna, Ronald Reagan, Big Mac are words or names known even in small villages. The US invariably gets mixed up in local affairs.

A Canadian can travel around the world without this preceding baggage; an American has no such luck. We Canadians get all the benefits of American society without having to assume any of its responsibilities.

IME, Americans are loud people. They are not shy to speak loudly in public. Young, I recall chatting with an American woman in a small public library in Quebec City. I cringed when she bellowed in English about "our blacks in Watts" oblivious to her surroundings. Later, I realized that Americans are individualists and an American is not hesitant to take her or his place in this world.

Edited December 11, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

IME, Americans are loud people. They are not shy to speak loudly in public. Young, I recall chatting with an American woman in a small public library in Quebec City. I cringed when she bellowed in English about "our blacks in Watts" oblivious to her surroundings. Later, I realized that Americans are individualists and an American is not hesitant to take her or his place in this world.

Very good point, and one echoed in Lipset's Continental Divide, a book that explored the differences between English Canada and the US. He pointed out that Leftists and Rightists in the US agree on one thing; that they distrust and can't stand the government. In Canada Leftists and Rightists both agree on a big government, and disagree on what it should do.

The US is definitely a country of individualists. I'm not a Canadian so I can't say how Canada stands on individualism.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The US is definitely a country of individualists. I'm not a Canadian so I can't say how Canada stands on individualism.

....well we do know that they fled to Canada once we individually booted the King in the ass.

[capricorn]

The US is definitely a country of individualists. I'm not a Canadian so I can't say how Canada stands on individualism.

I admire a country such as the US that advances individualism as the underpinning of its governance. Individualism disappeared from Canada some time ago. Canada has grown into a nation that practices collectivism. What is collectivism?

"Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals."

In Canadian society, the individual really has no standing. Groups have standing. IMO multiculturalism has lead us to this transformation.

Collectivism is criticized as follows.

"There are two basic objections to collectivism, which come from the ideas of liberal individualism. One is that collectivism stifles individuality and diversity by insisting upon a common social identity, whether it's nationalism, racialism, feminism, or some other group focus. The other is that collectivism is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism#...of_collectivism

I prefer the American approach where the individual is still the determining factor in the functioning of government and yes I am envious. There are Canadians who can remember the days when the value of an individual was worth more than the nebulous and intangible concept of of an entity or group. Those Canadians are slowly dying off and collectivism will be further entrenched. Sadly, the pendulum has swung too far and cannot swing back regardless of the attempts of any well meaning political movement.

[August1991]

In Canadian society, the individual really has no standing. Groups have standing. IMO multiculturalism has lead us to this transformation.

On the contrary. Individuals must work together collectively to create a civilized society.

The question is: how collectively to organize ourselves? North American Leftists believe that victims must organize themselves collectively using unions and a democratic State against greedy corporate oppressors. In fact, as free individuals, we can usually organize ourselves well if we are left alone to contract through markets - but on occasion we seek coercive government action. By and large, the free market system works well as a way to organize society. Proof? America dominates the world, according to Leftists of all stripes.

The question is how to achieve the best collective result.

Leftists believe that the State should organize a collective. Rightists believe that a collective result is best achieved through individual action. America is proof that the best collective result is achieved through letting the individual freely seeking one's ends.

Adam Smith observed this principle over two hundred years ago. It still confounds people because it is counter-intuitive. Can individual greed lead to a common (collective) good? The answer is: yes.

Edited December 11, 2007 by August1991

[Brain Candy]

Individualism is an interesting in that is often goes hand in hand with crowdism. Say something like, I dislike people who do action A because it is destructive and immediately you are told that it is not your place to judge such things because you are not perfect and everyone is an individual. It seems many people hide behind this philosophy because it lets them do whatever disfunctional act they want and not think about the consequences and in turn not think about the consequences of others actions.

I tend to distinguish these people from the truely important individualists who totally went against the status quo yet ended up giving great gifts to world (see Nietzsche, Milton, Blake etc.).

[Guest American Woman]

Yet another example of selective history...JFK invaded Cuba and escalated the number of "advisors" in Vietnam for krissakes! US presidents "invade" countries when it is in the interest of the USA and/or allies.....that is what we pay them to do. Some people pretend that America B.B. (Before Bush) was some goddamn international fairy tale.

One can recognize what America has done in the past, be critical of Bush, and not think that "America B.B. (Before Bush) was some goddamn international fairy tale." Fact is, I don't know anyone who thinks such utter nonsense. Another fact. You, in your continued effort to make excuses for Bush, are in the minority in our country. I guess the difference between you and us is we can differentiate between what America did "B.B." and what Bush has done. Furthermore, we weren't in support of everything our nation did in the past. Bush and his administration, however, are in a league of their own. Try real hard to comprehend all that.

Edited December 11, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

IME, Americans are loud people. They are not shy to speak loudly in public. Young, I recall chatting with an American woman in a small public library in Quebec City. I cringed when she bellowed in English about "our blacks in Watts" oblivious to her surroundings. Later, I realized that Americans are individualists and an American is not hesitant to take her or his place in this world.

I don't think Americans are "loud" so much as they are high spirited and exuberant. We are a friendly, 'neighborly' bunch, and we extend that feeling to strangers. We talk to the stranger sitting next to us without hesitation. I like that about us. (I've actually found it to be true of Canadians, too. I really don't see a lot of differences between us).

Edited December 11, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

One can recognize what America has done in the past, be critical of Bush, and not think that "America B.B. (Before Bush) was some goddamn international fairy tale." Fact is, I don't know anyone who thinks such utter nonsense. Another fact. You, in your continued effort to make excuses for Bush, are in the minority in our country. I guess the difference between you and us is we can differentiate between what America did "B.B." and what Bush has done. Furthermore, we weren't in support of everything our nation did in the past. Bush and his administration, however, are in a league of their own. Try real hard to comprehend all that.

Why?....it is utter nonsense. The difference between you and me (like me, you don't speak for all Americans), is that I recognize the entirety of the American domestic and foreign policy continuum, while you believe in fairy tales.