America Envy/Anti-Americanism - Whence it Came

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I'm not speaking for all Americans, am I? I'm speaking for the majority of Americans who aren't making excuses for Bush. That was quite clear in my response. And yes. It is utter nonsense to say people who are critical of Bush think "America B.B. (Before Bush) was some goddamn international fairy tale." It's more than that. It's utter stupidity. Like I said, some people can differentiate between past actions and the actions of Bush et al. Evidently you are in the minority of those who can't.

[guyser]

Envy/Anti....can be one and the same. If one is envious but cannot obtain it manifests itself in anti. Perhaps not universal , but we all see it , especially if one has kids.

The US is the yardstick used to measure damn near everything on this planet. The good the bad and the ugly. It comes with being a superpower.

When the world witnessed Katrina, they caught a horror show. The pictures were horrifying to many outside, (and inside but lets leave that alone) and many wondered how can the richest nation on earth allow this to continue? But what they forget, or didnt know, is that the entrepeneurial spirit that made the nation what it is on the plus side, is also what made the nation on the negative side. Far too many, not all mind you, did not heed the words being spoken to them. So in that one day when the pics started going around the world, the people of other countries saw only the pics, and forgot the rest. New Orleans has always been a bit dishevelled and it would not be NO without it. Could it be glammed up and spotlessly clean, what attraction is there?

Individualism is the Americans greatest asset. That and the fact that many of them are motivated by the greenback. There isnt a problem on this earth that a Yank is not actively working on to improve. That they may not succeed is immaterial , fortunes one and lost trying is what makes them so rich, and the other peoples envious.And just how does one express envy ?, with negativity and that equates to anti-isms.

American people are what makes America a great place. That there govt can be accused of peeing on that sentiment vis a vis foreign policy,is immaterial, and largely wrong. I wouold bet that is where most of the vitriolic sentiment comes from.

Carolyn Parrish said dumb things against the US President because she believed that she had been neutered. Things did not go her way, she she shot her mouth off. But she is no different than the US Senator who said the blame for the massive blackout was Canada's fault. No different than the representatives who thought the 9-11 bombers came through Canada. In other words, all of them are singular people, govt agents I grant you, who have no standing as a lone person, but are trying to find a scapegoat outside their own neighbourhoods.

Canadians can be accused of looking in the neighbours yard whilst ignoring their own. We see that here on a daily basis. We have bc2004 to thank for pointing that out, prickily I might add, but generally spot on.

We hear people in this country lament the fat slobs of the US, but the last time I checked the stats for both countries were pretty much the same. Because they have ten times the people would generally translate in ten times the fat. But then they have ten times the healthier number of people too, but you never hear that one mentioned.

Envy is quite often jealousy. I am envious of many things the US has. Probably will always feel that way. So yes, I am jealous of many things.

Anti Americanism is the strange one. Why does one engage in it? Moral superiority? I sure hope not but suspect some have that angle covered. Foolish if they do. What could one be morally superior about?

-heathcare? I doubt it.We chose and they chose.... imagine what Canadas health would be if 5million people crqashed our shores (rough equivalent) and congregated in one small section or sections of this country. They have anywhere from 30-50million illegals living and working and taxing their own heath system.

-taxes? nope not that either. Some of them pay more, some less. Where less, they have a reason for it such as wealth accumulation from other sources (Las Vegas?)

-Doctors? I bring this up since someone else did today. We lose some , they gain some, we have a net positive return now. Seems the cost of E&O is prohibitively high and the net result is more money spent returning the Doc to his pay scale equivalent back in Canada.

-Culture? wouldnt agree. I like ours thanks and they like theirs. Besides, which of the subsets are we going to compare? The US south vs the Yankee vs the Californian vs the Midwest? We forget in this country we have the BC potheads vs the Albertans vs the Prairies vs Ontario vs Quebec vs the downeasterners.(j/k about the potheads)

-food? It is all good.

-Business?

-sports?

-leisure?

They is what they is.We could not ask for better neighbours.

They might party a bit too loud for some of us , but they are the first ones to show up when your house is burning down.And it is true in the reverse. When the ice storm hit, New England sent teams up here, same with the floods. When Hurricane Andrew hit, we went down.When Buffalo got hit, we went down.

[Black Dog]

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.

Yet despite these apparently divergent views on government, both countries' federal entities eat a similar percentage of the GDP. One of the above constructs is a myth.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Black Dog

[bush_cheney2004]

bump

Edited December 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

.. Like I said, some people can differentiate between past actions and the actions of Bush et al. Evidently you are in the minority of those who can't.

No, I am in the majority who passed American History.

[capricorn]

They is what they is.We could not ask for better neighbours.

They might party a bit too loud for some of us , but they are the first ones to show up when your house is burning down.And it is true in the reverse. When the ice storm hit, New England sent teams up here, same with the floods. When Hurricane Andrew hit, we went down.When Buffalo got hit, we went down.

That's exactly how I feel. Here's a thought regarding the land mass of the US which joins with Canada at our southern border. Can you imagine if each of the bordering states were sovereign and independent countries? What if some of them were unfriendly? Hooey, what a headache that would be for us especially for trade and the movement of people. Some things we simply take for granted.

[August1991]

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.

English Canadians are polite, and dishonest.

They prefer to say what they think you want to hear and then they'll add "eh", to elicit your opinon.

IME, to English Canadians, this is no joke - you may laugh at the refence to "eh", but in fact it's English Canada's non-committal. In French Canada, we've learned this polite English Canada duplicity. (I learned it in my family.)

----

AW, as an American, I hope that you are well received in Canada, both French and English. Please know that Canadians are not American and we don't care about "Liberals", Democrats and Republicans. Your multi-coloured flag is just a multi-coloured torchon to us. The wavering Stars and Stripes doesn't make us cry. It's just a piece of cloth.

Yet, I hope that other Canadians admire your American principles.

Edited December 13, 2007 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

I don't even cry over the stars and stripes, so I sure wouldn't expect Canadians to. I'm not so sure Canadians don't care about liberals, democrats, and republicans, though. Seems everyone I talked to cared about who I thought would win our last election. And I didn't bring it up. They did. As for saying what I want to hear, how would they know what I want to hear? They don't know me. But yes. I have been well received-- in English and in French.

[Shakeyhands]

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

You mean with your BFF France right?

[jazzer]

English Canadians are polite, and dishonest.

You must live in Quebec.

[jbg]

Please know that Canadians are not American and we don't care about "Liberals", Democrats and Republicans. Your multi-coloured flag is just a multi-coloured torchon to us. The wavering Stars and Stripes doesn't make us cry. It's just a piece of cloth.

But is the Maple Leaf more than a "multi-colored torchon" or "piece of cloth" to you and other Canadians. My flag (link) and my country (link) sure are to me.

I would think it would behoove you to have more respect for any democracies' flag.

[Guest American Woman]

But is the Maple Leaf more than a "multi-colored torchon" or "piece of cloth" to you and other Canadians. My flag (link) and my country (link) sure are to me.

I would think it would behoove you to have more respect for any democracies' flag.

And I think it would behoove you to concern yourself with things that actually matter.

[jbg]

But is the Maple Leaf more than a "multi-colored torchon" or "piece of cloth" to you and other Canadians. My flag (link) and my country (link) sure are to me.

I would think it would behoove you to have more respect for any democracies' flag.

And I think it would behoove you to concern yourself with things that actually matter.

I think that a countries' symbolism is very important. I don't think it's the least bit insignificant.

Patriotism took a beating during the late 1960's and early 1970's and the resulting breakdown in the social consensus holding the US together has had tragic results. Burglars funded by the Republican Party attacked Democratic Party headquarters, resulting ultimately in a constitutional crisis and the resignation of the President.

Immediately, we wound up with double-digit inflation and a deep recession. While some pride began to be restored with the Bicentennial Celebrations, the humiliations of the Iran Hostage crisis still lay ahead. It took the election of Ronald Reagan to reverse the US's implosion.

Canada's loss of national pride, in retrospect, started with the demise of the Red Ensign and progressed through official bilingualism, the destruction of the Royal armed services, and the de-Britishization of the country. What was once a crisp and excellent civil service became bogged down in the corruption and incompetence of the Mulroney and Chretien eras.

A country needs unifying traditions and a culture. The flag, and/or the Queen, is its ultimate symbol.

[jdobbin]

delete.

Edited December 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[jbg]

This post is cross posted here:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/topic4865.html

It's my material, and I can post it on any forum I like, or none at all.

[MontyBurns]

Anti-Americanism comes from the envy/jealousy that is so prevalent on the left. If the left is as tolerant as it says it is, then it should have no trouble tolerating the Americans you would think.

[Moxie]

Anti-Americanism comes from the envy/jealousy that is so prevalent on the left. If the left is as tolerant as it says it is, then it should have no trouble tolerating the Americans you would think.

Yep it's penal envy, Left leaning leaders look towards Eurabia for policies. They shun the US, it after all is successful global leader and Eurabia well it's a socialist hellhole. After 12 years of liberal rule, tadaaaaaaaa the majority of Canadians believe in Socialism.

[Higgly]

On the other hand, we have things like the softwood lumber business....

I do agree though that there is too much knee-jerkism towards the US here.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Higgly

[jbg]

Anti-Americanism comes from the envy/jealousy that is so prevalent on the left. If the left is as tolerant as it says it is, then it should have no trouble tolerating the Americans you would think.

Yep it's penal envy, Left leaning leaders look towards Eurabia for policies. They shun the US, it after all is successful global leader and Eurabia well it's a socialist hellhole. After 12 years of liberal rule, tadaaaaaaaa the majority of Canadians believe in Socialism.

The Left's problem with being elected in the US is similar lack of pragmatism. The fact is, responding to Moxie first, is that Europe has never worked. Their best, not their worst, people emigrated to the US and Canada when settlement opened.

As time went on, Europe has been in a state of continual persecutions and wars. The people who stay are people too settled in their ways, lacking the initiative and drive to move on to new, more promising frontiers. The ruling class was always hatching the next persecution of some religious or ethnic group, or war. The US and Canada were busy developing.

As Monty Burns points out, the Left envies what America has, and wants to hobble it. Examples are Kyoto and Bali.

[capricorn]

As Monty Burns points out, the Left envies what America has, and wants to hobble it. Examples are Kyoto and Bali.

I would add that the left has convinced itself that it has all the correct answers to all the woes of the world. Everyone else is simply wrong. In Canada this is looking more and more like the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

I would add that the left has convinced itself that it has all the correct answers to all the woes of the world. Everyone else is simply wrong.

Are you saying that the right isn't "convinced" it has all the correct answers? Of course it is. If those on the right didn't think their views were the correct views, they wouldn't have them; and as such, the right believes everyone else is simply wrong. At least to the same degree the left does.

[jbg]

Are you saying that the right isn't "convinced" it has all the correct answers? Of course it is. If those on the right didn't think their views were the correct views, they wouldn't have them; and as such, the right believes everyone else is simply wrong. At least to the same degree the left does.

AW, this is one of your better posts.

As someone in the middle, I think both have their share of solutions. That's what's great about freedom; let the best idea win regardless of where it came from.

[capricorn]

Are you saying that the right isn't "convinced" it has all the correct answers? Of course it is. If those on the right didn't think their views were the correct views, they wouldn't have them; and as such, the right believes everyone else is simply wrong. At least to the same degree the left does.

I sum up the difference between the left and the right as follows. The left operates largely on emotion and the right operates mostly by logic. When the left attempts to find solutions it looks to a central authority (government). When the right attempts to find solutions it looks away from the central authority. Therefore, the solutions open to the left are rather limited in scope whereas the right has more solutions at its disposal.

That is the basis for my point that the left thinks it is always right. It relies mainly on government to provide solutions to problems. On the other hand, the right explores solutions away from government so there are more solutions to choose from and a variety of them can be put in motion. If some of the right's solutions don't result in the desired outcome, they are discarded or modified. This is where the right basically acknowledges a wrong move and takes remedial action. You cannot explore these various solutions when government is pegged as the central vehicle for solutions.

The simple diagram in the following illustrates my thinking on the differences between the left and the right.

http://www.tysknews.com/TyskWorks/what_is_conservatism.htm

[Guest American Woman]

Sometimes the government has to provide the answers. It's the role of government to provide for the people. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people." Furthermore, the right definitely looks to government regarding their concerns too. Examples. They want the government to abolish abortion. They want the government to guarentee the right to bear arms. They want the government to prohibit gay marriage.

But according to your link, some of the solutions of the right are to turn to city and state. That's government too. It's a different level of government, but it's still government. But they do have other solutions. They want areas of high crime to turn to churches. That's ridiculous. First of all, we have separation of church and state, so depending on the church to solve social problems is not a "solution." Furthermore, since the right tends to think lack of religion and crime go together, one has to assume that a high crime area isn't a highly religious area, so how are these areas supposed to be able to turn to the church if religious people are supposidly lacking in these areas? So that solution is unrealistic even according to the right's line of thought. As for turning to city and state for education, we do that to a certain degree, but we need the federal government too or all of the poor cities and states will have inferior educational systems. Not only is that not fair, it hurts our country as a whole.

I think the left wants to 'find solutions' to the problems while the right wants to 'keep trying ideas' that obviously don't work; that time has proven don't work. And while the right would be content to go on endlessly trying different ideas, the left isn't. They want the government to implement solutions now.

Edited December 26, 2007 by American Woman

[capricorn]

AW, my comments here are based on the Canadian experience. I’m not knowledgeable enough about the US government mechanism to make that link.

Sometimes the government has to provide the answers.

Agreed. Yet, the right prefers to limit government involvement. The Conservative Party of Canada sums up its vision of the role of government.

“The Conservative Party believes that the role of government is to:

i) protect the lives and property of its citizens;

ii) ensure equality of opportunity;

iii) foster an environment where individuals and private initiative can prosper;

iv) ensure the security of our nation’s borders; and

v) provide services to Canadians that cannot be provided more efficiently and effectively by individuals or by the private sector. “

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41598

On the other hand, the Liberal Party of Canada does not place specific limits to the involvement of government in managing the country. It has articulated a very general framework consisting of three pillars – the economy, the environment and social justice. I could not find a specific pronouncement by the Liberals on the role of government.

http://www.liberal.ca/summary_e.aspx

It's the role of government to provide for the people.

This attitude by the left about the government having all the answers is what frustrates the right.

Furthermore, the right definitely looks to government regarding their concerns too. Examples. They want the government to abolish abortion. They want the government to guarentee the right to bear arms. They want the government to prohibit gay marriage.

Yes, some of them do although there are also left-wingers who would want these things. Just because they desire it doesn’t mean they’ll get it. Governments are also in the business of retaining power so they must weigh the consequences of their policy decisions than can inflame voters. They must also strive to represent the will of the majority.

But according to your link, some of the solutions of the right are to turn to city and state.

Of course. For example, in Canada some of these solutions are addressed through transfer payments to the provinces.

They want areas of high crime to turn to churches. That's ridiculous. First of all, we have separation of church and state, so depending on the church to solve social problems is not a "solution." Furthermore, since the right tends to think lack of religion and crime go together, one has to assume that a high crime area isn't a highly religious area, so how are these areas supposed to be able to turn to the church if religious people are supposidly lacking in these areas?

I don’t think turning to the church is a solution in this instance. I do not equate crime with religion.

I think the left wants to 'find solutions' to the problems while the right wants to 'keep trying ideas' that obviously don't work; that time has proven don't work.

The left will always find a solution. It is through dumping all problems at the feet of government to solve. Your bold comment that the right tries ideas that have been proven wrong in the past is tantamount to calling right-wingers stupid. After all, only stupid people would keep making the same mistakes over again.

And while the right would be content to go on endlessly trying different ideas, the left isn't. They want the government to implement solutions now.

The left does not endlessly try different ideas because the government does it for them. And as you so aptly put it, the left is impatient, expecting government to act overnight. It is this haste to act that has resulted in many unintended consequences.

In the end, there is a vast chasm between left-wingers and right-wingers. The views of both groups are polarized as to how government should interact with citizens. Thankfully, our respective democracies provide the best vehicle to find a balance for all our needs.